I was on work travel from the northwest to the east coast last week and returned home on a hideously early flight. A 6 AM flight departure meant a rise before 4 AM, and that was east coast time. I set the alarm clock for 3:40 or so, but a sharp crack of lightening that sounded like a bomb explosion near my hotel got me up just before the alarm clock anyway. My initial flight from Georgia to Chicago was on a small plane with only three columns of seats: one column on the left side of the plane and two on the right. I wondered how the plane stayed balanced. I was assigned to the middle column and sat next to a guy of about my own medium-sized stature dressed in military fatigues. Often I am shy and don't readily open up with strangers, but this time I started up a conversation.
The army guy was friendly and told me about his 7-8 years in the military, his two tours of duty in Afghanistan and his education at West Point. In his late 20s, he was a captain already, in charge of some 100 soldiers. He was trained to fly Blackhawk helicopters and he could fly smaller helicopters too, but not planes. He showed me a schematic of the Blackhawk design from a digital “owners manual” he had on his iPad. I wondered if I needed security clearance to see it. I didn’t ask.
The Captain’s duty that day was a sad one, a trip to North Dakota to attend the funeral of a soldier who had died overseas in a Blackhawk crash. It was not someone that he knew personally, but he was to be a part of the support system for that grieving family.
Towards the end of the flight, I worked up the courage to ask him about the repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military. I didn’t come out to him, but that could be an unusual question for someone to ask without some personal interest in the matter. He said that the change in the policy was really no big deal. There were some guys who came out after the repeal, but he said that their sexual orientation was suspect anyway. As an officer with oversight and administrative responsibilities in the army, his biggest worry was that some guys would be uncomfortable with their now-openly gay comrades and would ask for re-accommodation. That concern did not materialize. The gay thing was a non-thing, it turned out. Our conversation moved on from there.
For decades as a society, we have worried about homosexuality. The worries have spilled all over, a mess we are only now beginning to clean up: gays will recruit impressionable teens to their immoral “lifestyle”, gay marriage will undermine the foundations of a “traditional” family, homosexuality is incompatible with the masculine culture of the military. Perhaps these stereotypes were built originally on small kernels of truth. But common sense, empirical data, and getting to know a real live gay person usually quickly dispels these stereotypes.
Perhaps the origin of many of society’s misconceptions about homosexuality lies in fear. Homosexuality is something many people don't understand, probably because it is so foreign to their own emotions and thoughts. But fears aren’t usually rational emotions, so the conclusions we derive from them generally should be suspect. Fear tends to discourage us from seeking out rational answers to our concerns or questions. Fear tends to shut doors to other people. Fear provides a quick and easy answer, but it may very well be the wrong one.
One of the manifestations of society’s fears about homosexuality is when those opposed to or uncertain about gay rights decry “social experiments” such as gay marriage or allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Even during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments this week about California’s Prop 8 case, Justices Kennedy and Alito hinted at the sentiment that gay marriage was a “social experiment” by saying, “We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more”, and “Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new…So there isn’t a lot of data about its effect”. (1)
I find that labeling progressive changes in society like gay marriage as “experiments” can come across as pejorative. That sort of language focuses on the novelty (the gender part) and ignores the commonality shared across the human experience. In the light of shared experience, openness in the military about one’s identity is not a social experiment. It is a reaffirmation of principles – honesty, integrity and pride – that are integral to military culture. Likewise, gay marriage is not a social experiment. It is about love and commitment and family, cherished values that virtually all of us seek. What is so experimental about that?
But if we ditch the condescension, and still insist on calling these societal changes experiments, I can get on board with that. After all, I am a scientist and I recognize that experiments are fundamentally one of our most valuable tools as human beings to learn and make progressive changes in society. By conducting such experiments, we will likely confirm what common sense already suggests to us: gay marriage will not unravel the fabric of western society; talking openly about LGBT experiences with young people will help them be more inclusive and compassionate, but it isn’t going to “convert” a generation of teens to homosexuality. In fact, we can look to the most recent experiment – the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” – to learn that it hasn’t undermined the nation’s armed forces. It was really just, no big deal…
27 March 2013
26 February 2013
Let's talk about the data
I’d be one of the first to admit that I enjoy reading the stories of LGBT people. When I first came out over two years ago, I devoured information on-line. Videos, blogs, essays – it was all so fascinating because I was finally seriously exploring a part of me that I had ignored and been ashamed of for so long. I read materials from across the spectrum of the gay Mormon experience, from those who intended to live a life consistent with conservative religious beliefs to those in open same-sex relationships who had left Mormonism behind. And although I now have a much better sense of where I fall personally on that spectrum, I still read a diversity of viewpoints. My personal friendships and acquaintances with gay people span this entire range too.
I appreciate these stories for their authenticity and their insight into how others think about and respond to some very challenging situations. I’ve learned a lot and seen different perspectives as I have tried to solidify my own feelings about my sexuality. In my encounters with these diverse stories, I can only give each writer or storyteller the benefit of the doubt. The gay Mormon dilemma is a very tough one – in a single individual there is a unique juxtaposition of two complex ways of interpreting human purpose and experience. Homosexuality and Mormonism often deeply clash. There are few easy synergies between how these two worldviews interpret experiences or prioritize values. I personally have been on two very different sides of the divide and I can empathize.
Stories have power. They have a profound ability to link us to others. We empathize with experiences similar to our own and we identify with the shared emotions. In my own quest to understand my sexuality, certain writings, though in the voice of others, tell parts of my story too. For instance, I’ve connected with Carol Lynn Pearson’s tender and heartbreaking accounts of the dissolution of her marriage to a gay husband. I’ve been reminded of my own past struggles when I read accounts by other gay Mormons who long believed that if they could just be righteous enough, God would free them from their attractions. Sorrow, confusion, loneliness, the liberation of self-acceptance – yes, I have felt that too!
Despite its great value, anecdote only takes us so far in the quest to understand the LGBT experience. As a scientist, I find that a very important issue is seldom addressed in discussions of homosexuality, especially in conversations that emerge from Mormonism. That missing piece is the guiding hand of science and empirical research. Many of the questions that society asks about homosexuality have, or can be, addressed by science. These include the origins of homosexuality, the sociological implications of same-sex relationships, and questions about the physical and psychological health of gay people.
Thankfully, some data are out there. Like any scientific endeavor, the answers are not yet complete. However, enough research is available to steer us in the right direction if we are open to incorporating it into our worldviews. That information can help us seriously re-evaluate prejudices and misunderstandings of the past. As examples, I’d like to very briefly tackle two questions.
One idea that is promulgated by some is that homosexuality is changeable or curable. This concept could arise, for example, from the belief that sexuality is a mental choice or that heterosexuality is the only “real” form of sexual expression. Often anecdotal accounts of individuals who have purportedly changed their sexuality are used in support of this notion. What has the research uncovered about this question?
A useful place to begin is a statement by the American Psychological Association in 2008 that noted, “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality…several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. … To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective”.
Recent studies do suggest that some LGB people can have fluid sexual identities. For example, in an investigation of long-term adult sexuality, Moch and Eibach (2011) found that for females, homosexuality and bisexuality appeared to be quite fluid. However, they also found that male homosexuality was nearly as stable as male heterosexuality. While some individuals may have changeable identities, this may not mean that the underlying attractions have diminished or disappeared. Additionally, while there are some published studies that claim to show evidence for a change in sexuality, the most celebrated of these – by Spitzer in 2003 – had serious methodological flaws and was retracted by its author recently. For a lot of people, being LGB is a permanent part of being human.
A second example is illustrated by a statement made in the Ensign magazine in 1974 by a Latter-day Saint doctor (not a general authority of the Church) in a Q&A feature: “Homosexuals and lesbians seldom are happy people. Theirs is a relationship that is unnatural, one not bound by fidelity, trust, or loyalty, and one totally lacking in the meaningful family relationships that marriage offers.”
Many assertions were packed into those two sentences. Some of them are testable with research. First, on whether homosexuality is “natural”, the APA statement referenced above concludes that it is a normal expression of human sexuality. Neill (2009) provided an extensive list of many animal species in which myriad same-sex behaviors have been documented. In other animal species, those behaviors include sexual play, diverse sexual acts and pair bonding. Same-sex behavior in animals may have several adaptive functions including the formation and maintenance of social groups, dissipation of group tension, practice for heterosexual activities later in life, and protection of partners in pair bonds (Bailey and Zuk 2009, Neill 2009).
On the stability of human homosexual relationships, Peplau et al. as far back as 1996 reported that “many lesbians and gay men establish lifelong partnerships”. They showed data from another study that looked at the success of gay versus heterosexual relationships. For couples that had been together for 10 or more years, separation rates (over an 18 month period) were equivalent for married couples (4%) versus gay and lesbian couples (4% and 6% respectively). For couples that had been together 2 years or less, separation rates were higher for gay and lesbian couples (16% and 22% respectively) than for married couples (4%), but about the same as for non-married heterosexual couples (17%). These latter statistics suggest that nothing is inherently worse about same-sex relationships, but rather they lend support to the notion that institutional sanction of relationships (marriage) is important for relationship stability. What an interesting finding as society currently discusses the merits of gay marriage!
How about happiness for LGBT individuals? It is well-known that gay and lesbian youth have much higher rates of suicide than their heterosexual counterparts. Is this because their sexuality is inherently flawed or is it due to homophobia or lack of acceptance? In a study of gay youth, Detrie and Lease (2007) discuss how social connections and perceived support are key for self esteem. Perceived support is also important for relationship success in gay adults, just as it is for heterosexual couples (Blair and Holmberg 2008). Perhaps rates of suicide in gay youth will decrease dramatically if they have markedly greater support from family, friends and society generally.
These are two broad examples of how research can inform our discussions of homosexuality. In applying science to the complexity of human experience, it is critical to remember just that – that individuals are complex and that collectively, human populations are variable and diverse. Therefore, means and medians do not always apply to every individual. You and I might find ourselves on the tail of a statistical distribution.
However, this variation does not undermine the value of science. First, empirical research is valuable because it helps reveal dominant trends in the human experience. For instance, if unbiased data show that a majority of mixed orientation marriages soon end in divorce after a gay spouse comes out, that is key information that can guide public policy and inform religious discourse about homosexuality. A young gay Mormon contemplating heterosexual marriage will be in a much better position to make informed choices if he or she knows something about the success rates of these marriages and the factors and compromises that tend to make them more likely to succeed.
In the formation of public policies that involve homosexuality, I believe that empirical research and protection of individual rights should always take precedence. On questions of gay adoption of children, same-sex marriage and non-discrimination ordinances, arguments backed by solid data should be given the most weight. Anecdote, belief and faith have their place in discourse, but I believe they should be subservient to science in the public sphere.
What about questions for which little or no data are available? How about highly inconclusive information? Questions about the root causes of homosexuality are one such matter where scientific consensus has not been reached. Some data suggests that genetics could play a role in the formation of sexual orientation (e.g., the incidence of dual homosexuality is statistically higher in gay identical twins; Kendler et al. 2000). There is likewise other evidence for a prenatal effect on homosexual development in men, possibly due to changes in maternal immune responses during later pregnancies (Bogaert 2006). But the jury is still out.
In cases like these, the path forward is clear – we need additional data and additional research. However, falling back on old assumptions or substituting unsubstantiated belief structures for empirical evidence isn’t usually productive. Anecdotes, even if numerous or compelling, are not a substitute for careful research.
One of the beauties of science is that it is both a collection of facts and a method of inquiry. As a method, it has a self correcting, almost revelatory nature. As new facts are uncovered, new techniques for discovery or analysis become available, and new hypotheses advanced, human understanding can move forward. Science has much to offer our discussions about homosexuality. As in other fields, findings are subject to the scrutiny of skepticism and the democracy of scientific discussion.
I have been motivated to help (in my own tiny way) bring science into discussions about homosexuality. Towards this end, on my personal blog, I have started a collection of links and citations that will help point interested readers to some sources of research about topics pertinent to homosexuality. In the coming months, I hope to expand content. I encourage all who have questions about homosexuality to visit those links and other quality sources of information. For my part, I plan to keep learning as I go. Our personal stories of what it is like to be gay, or have a gay relative, spouse or friend, touch our hearts. Empirical research more often speaks to our minds. Moving forward in conversations about homosexuality, I believe that we must embrace both. I am confident that in doing so, individuals, churches and communities will increasingly move in the direction of compassion, celebration and full equality for all LGBT people.
References
- Bailey and Zuk. 2009. Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:439-46.
- Blair and Holmberg 2008. Perceived social network support and well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social Personal Relationships 25:769-91.
- Bogaert. 2006. Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103:10771-4.
- Detrie and Lease 2007. The relation of social support, connectedness, and collective self-esteem to the psychological well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Homosexuality 53:173-99.
- Kendler et al. 2000. Sexual orientation in a US National Sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry 157:1843-6.
- Mock and Eibach. 2011. Stability and change in sexual orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 41:641-8.
- Neill. 2009. The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relationships in Human Societies. McFarland & Co, Inc. 470 pp.
- Peplau et al. 1996. Gay and lesbian relationships. Reprinted in Kimmel and Plante 2004. Sexualities.
- Spitzer. 2003. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior 32:403-17.
I appreciate these stories for their authenticity and their insight into how others think about and respond to some very challenging situations. I’ve learned a lot and seen different perspectives as I have tried to solidify my own feelings about my sexuality. In my encounters with these diverse stories, I can only give each writer or storyteller the benefit of the doubt. The gay Mormon dilemma is a very tough one – in a single individual there is a unique juxtaposition of two complex ways of interpreting human purpose and experience. Homosexuality and Mormonism often deeply clash. There are few easy synergies between how these two worldviews interpret experiences or prioritize values. I personally have been on two very different sides of the divide and I can empathize.
Stories have power. They have a profound ability to link us to others. We empathize with experiences similar to our own and we identify with the shared emotions. In my own quest to understand my sexuality, certain writings, though in the voice of others, tell parts of my story too. For instance, I’ve connected with Carol Lynn Pearson’s tender and heartbreaking accounts of the dissolution of her marriage to a gay husband. I’ve been reminded of my own past struggles when I read accounts by other gay Mormons who long believed that if they could just be righteous enough, God would free them from their attractions. Sorrow, confusion, loneliness, the liberation of self-acceptance – yes, I have felt that too!
Despite its great value, anecdote only takes us so far in the quest to understand the LGBT experience. As a scientist, I find that a very important issue is seldom addressed in discussions of homosexuality, especially in conversations that emerge from Mormonism. That missing piece is the guiding hand of science and empirical research. Many of the questions that society asks about homosexuality have, or can be, addressed by science. These include the origins of homosexuality, the sociological implications of same-sex relationships, and questions about the physical and psychological health of gay people.
Thankfully, some data are out there. Like any scientific endeavor, the answers are not yet complete. However, enough research is available to steer us in the right direction if we are open to incorporating it into our worldviews. That information can help us seriously re-evaluate prejudices and misunderstandings of the past. As examples, I’d like to very briefly tackle two questions.One idea that is promulgated by some is that homosexuality is changeable or curable. This concept could arise, for example, from the belief that sexuality is a mental choice or that heterosexuality is the only “real” form of sexual expression. Often anecdotal accounts of individuals who have purportedly changed their sexuality are used in support of this notion. What has the research uncovered about this question?
A useful place to begin is a statement by the American Psychological Association in 2008 that noted, “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality…several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. … To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective”.
Recent studies do suggest that some LGB people can have fluid sexual identities. For example, in an investigation of long-term adult sexuality, Moch and Eibach (2011) found that for females, homosexuality and bisexuality appeared to be quite fluid. However, they also found that male homosexuality was nearly as stable as male heterosexuality. While some individuals may have changeable identities, this may not mean that the underlying attractions have diminished or disappeared. Additionally, while there are some published studies that claim to show evidence for a change in sexuality, the most celebrated of these – by Spitzer in 2003 – had serious methodological flaws and was retracted by its author recently. For a lot of people, being LGB is a permanent part of being human.
A second example is illustrated by a statement made in the Ensign magazine in 1974 by a Latter-day Saint doctor (not a general authority of the Church) in a Q&A feature: “Homosexuals and lesbians seldom are happy people. Theirs is a relationship that is unnatural, one not bound by fidelity, trust, or loyalty, and one totally lacking in the meaningful family relationships that marriage offers.”
Many assertions were packed into those two sentences. Some of them are testable with research. First, on whether homosexuality is “natural”, the APA statement referenced above concludes that it is a normal expression of human sexuality. Neill (2009) provided an extensive list of many animal species in which myriad same-sex behaviors have been documented. In other animal species, those behaviors include sexual play, diverse sexual acts and pair bonding. Same-sex behavior in animals may have several adaptive functions including the formation and maintenance of social groups, dissipation of group tension, practice for heterosexual activities later in life, and protection of partners in pair bonds (Bailey and Zuk 2009, Neill 2009).
On the stability of human homosexual relationships, Peplau et al. as far back as 1996 reported that “many lesbians and gay men establish lifelong partnerships”. They showed data from another study that looked at the success of gay versus heterosexual relationships. For couples that had been together for 10 or more years, separation rates (over an 18 month period) were equivalent for married couples (4%) versus gay and lesbian couples (4% and 6% respectively). For couples that had been together 2 years or less, separation rates were higher for gay and lesbian couples (16% and 22% respectively) than for married couples (4%), but about the same as for non-married heterosexual couples (17%). These latter statistics suggest that nothing is inherently worse about same-sex relationships, but rather they lend support to the notion that institutional sanction of relationships (marriage) is important for relationship stability. What an interesting finding as society currently discusses the merits of gay marriage!
How about happiness for LGBT individuals? It is well-known that gay and lesbian youth have much higher rates of suicide than their heterosexual counterparts. Is this because their sexuality is inherently flawed or is it due to homophobia or lack of acceptance? In a study of gay youth, Detrie and Lease (2007) discuss how social connections and perceived support are key for self esteem. Perceived support is also important for relationship success in gay adults, just as it is for heterosexual couples (Blair and Holmberg 2008). Perhaps rates of suicide in gay youth will decrease dramatically if they have markedly greater support from family, friends and society generally.
These are two broad examples of how research can inform our discussions of homosexuality. In applying science to the complexity of human experience, it is critical to remember just that – that individuals are complex and that collectively, human populations are variable and diverse. Therefore, means and medians do not always apply to every individual. You and I might find ourselves on the tail of a statistical distribution.
However, this variation does not undermine the value of science. First, empirical research is valuable because it helps reveal dominant trends in the human experience. For instance, if unbiased data show that a majority of mixed orientation marriages soon end in divorce after a gay spouse comes out, that is key information that can guide public policy and inform religious discourse about homosexuality. A young gay Mormon contemplating heterosexual marriage will be in a much better position to make informed choices if he or she knows something about the success rates of these marriages and the factors and compromises that tend to make them more likely to succeed.
In the formation of public policies that involve homosexuality, I believe that empirical research and protection of individual rights should always take precedence. On questions of gay adoption of children, same-sex marriage and non-discrimination ordinances, arguments backed by solid data should be given the most weight. Anecdote, belief and faith have their place in discourse, but I believe they should be subservient to science in the public sphere.
What about questions for which little or no data are available? How about highly inconclusive information? Questions about the root causes of homosexuality are one such matter where scientific consensus has not been reached. Some data suggests that genetics could play a role in the formation of sexual orientation (e.g., the incidence of dual homosexuality is statistically higher in gay identical twins; Kendler et al. 2000). There is likewise other evidence for a prenatal effect on homosexual development in men, possibly due to changes in maternal immune responses during later pregnancies (Bogaert 2006). But the jury is still out.
In cases like these, the path forward is clear – we need additional data and additional research. However, falling back on old assumptions or substituting unsubstantiated belief structures for empirical evidence isn’t usually productive. Anecdotes, even if numerous or compelling, are not a substitute for careful research.
One of the beauties of science is that it is both a collection of facts and a method of inquiry. As a method, it has a self correcting, almost revelatory nature. As new facts are uncovered, new techniques for discovery or analysis become available, and new hypotheses advanced, human understanding can move forward. Science has much to offer our discussions about homosexuality. As in other fields, findings are subject to the scrutiny of skepticism and the democracy of scientific discussion.
I have been motivated to help (in my own tiny way) bring science into discussions about homosexuality. Towards this end, on my personal blog, I have started a collection of links and citations that will help point interested readers to some sources of research about topics pertinent to homosexuality. In the coming months, I hope to expand content. I encourage all who have questions about homosexuality to visit those links and other quality sources of information. For my part, I plan to keep learning as I go. Our personal stories of what it is like to be gay, or have a gay relative, spouse or friend, touch our hearts. Empirical research more often speaks to our minds. Moving forward in conversations about homosexuality, I believe that we must embrace both. I am confident that in doing so, individuals, churches and communities will increasingly move in the direction of compassion, celebration and full equality for all LGBT people.
References
- Bailey and Zuk. 2009. Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:439-46.
- Blair and Holmberg 2008. Perceived social network support and well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social Personal Relationships 25:769-91.
- Bogaert. 2006. Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103:10771-4.
- Detrie and Lease 2007. The relation of social support, connectedness, and collective self-esteem to the psychological well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Homosexuality 53:173-99.
- Kendler et al. 2000. Sexual orientation in a US National Sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry 157:1843-6.
- Mock and Eibach. 2011. Stability and change in sexual orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 41:641-8.
- Neill. 2009. The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relationships in Human Societies. McFarland & Co, Inc. 470 pp.
- Peplau et al. 1996. Gay and lesbian relationships. Reprinted in Kimmel and Plante 2004. Sexualities.
- Spitzer. 2003. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior 32:403-17.
09 February 2013
Hummm... relationships
I've been thinking a lot about relationships lately. Some of my thoughts have centered on a few lists. By no means do I intend to reduce the complexity, rewards and challenges of relationships to a few lists, but for me, focusing on a few concepts is a valuable way to organize some of the new and confusing thoughts and feelings that I have had about relationships over the last two years.
The first list contains attributes that I look for in another person. When one forms such a list, it tends to be in terms of finding a romantic partner. However, it could also be generalized in some way to include friendships or even business and work partnerships. For me, some of the critical things on this list include compassion, honesty, hard work, attraction, intelligence, creativity and a love for learning and discovery. I cannot, for instance, imagine developing a close relationship with someone where trust was a significant problem.
My second list is the inverse of the first. It comprises the attributes that I potentially offer to others. This is a challenging list. Even though I can enumerate some positive attributes that I think I offer to others, I know that in each of these areas I fall at least somewhat short. In self-evaluation, there is also an important balance to be achieved. On the one hand, self-confidence is attractive to others and is healthy. On the other hand, taken too far, that confidence can become arrogance which is very unattractive to others and is unhealthy. I probably struggle with both lack of self-confidence and some arrogrance from time to time (like everyone else??), but self-confidence tends to be my more frequent challenge. The other challenge with the self list is that the contents of this list may vary from person to person. My wife might value a certain set of attributes about me, but a close friend may see other things. While we may have a lot of control over the personality and behavioral attributes we work hard to cultivate in ourselves, we have no control over what others see or value in us.
Mutual attraction forms from some compatible combination of the first two lists. When we first meet someone, maybe we pick up on a few of the more outstanding attributes we see in someone else. As a relationship begins to form, we are learning a lot about the other person and (consciously or not) thinking about whether they meet some of the other attributes we look for in others. Obviously there is never any perfect match between two people since no one person can offer a complete suite of physical, personality and behavioral attributes that meets every need of another person. Even in the rare cases where two people feel that they are a near perfect match for each other, there is always the possibility that needs, attractions and personalities diverge over time.
The final list pertains to relationships themselves, not the individual involved. Once a romantic parter or friend has been found, the challenging matter of forming a mutually beneficial relationship begins (in the context of friendship I am talking about close, long-term friendships not the shorter-term, more numerous friendships and acquaintances that may come and go with life). For me, the list that describes a successful close relationship has a few critical points. First, mutual attraction needs to be present. This includes physical, sexual, emotional, social and intellectual attraction (minus the sexual and perhaps much of the physical for friendships). Romantic relationships that miss some of these elements may not work in the long-term; friendships that lack social, emotional and intellectual attraction may not really develop far in the first place. Second, close relationships require committment and trust. Third on the list is communication. We all have different styles of communicating love, discomfort and needs. But in the maturation of the relationship, the two individuals need to develop ways of communicating that are honest, respectful of each other, and that can actually lead to the resolution of challenges. My final item is symmetry. By symmetry, I think that the healthiest relationships need to be balanced. In other words, each partner should be putting in roughly equal effort and committment into the relationship. If one partner puts in much more energy, he or she may feel disappointed or unappreciated and the other partner may feel pressured or uncomfortable. Friendships often adjust fairly smoothly to a mutually-acceptable level of effort. Achieving a balance may be difficult in more intense or romantic relationships, and may be the reason many of them do not succeed.
I have been immensely blessed with a few very close relationships in my life. They continue to this day. I cherish them because of the joy they bring to me and the growth that has ensued. These relationships have taken a lot of work. If there is one thing I tend to do well in close relationships, it is to invest heavily in others and to commit to do my very best. There are many other things that I tend to not do so well, and for the forgiveness and patience of others I am grateful.
None of us is a relationship expert. But what have you learned about close relationships in life? What are the critical elements that make close friendships, family relationships and romances flourish?
The first list contains attributes that I look for in another person. When one forms such a list, it tends to be in terms of finding a romantic partner. However, it could also be generalized in some way to include friendships or even business and work partnerships. For me, some of the critical things on this list include compassion, honesty, hard work, attraction, intelligence, creativity and a love for learning and discovery. I cannot, for instance, imagine developing a close relationship with someone where trust was a significant problem.
My second list is the inverse of the first. It comprises the attributes that I potentially offer to others. This is a challenging list. Even though I can enumerate some positive attributes that I think I offer to others, I know that in each of these areas I fall at least somewhat short. In self-evaluation, there is also an important balance to be achieved. On the one hand, self-confidence is attractive to others and is healthy. On the other hand, taken too far, that confidence can become arrogance which is very unattractive to others and is unhealthy. I probably struggle with both lack of self-confidence and some arrogrance from time to time (like everyone else??), but self-confidence tends to be my more frequent challenge. The other challenge with the self list is that the contents of this list may vary from person to person. My wife might value a certain set of attributes about me, but a close friend may see other things. While we may have a lot of control over the personality and behavioral attributes we work hard to cultivate in ourselves, we have no control over what others see or value in us.
Mutual attraction forms from some compatible combination of the first two lists. When we first meet someone, maybe we pick up on a few of the more outstanding attributes we see in someone else. As a relationship begins to form, we are learning a lot about the other person and (consciously or not) thinking about whether they meet some of the other attributes we look for in others. Obviously there is never any perfect match between two people since no one person can offer a complete suite of physical, personality and behavioral attributes that meets every need of another person. Even in the rare cases where two people feel that they are a near perfect match for each other, there is always the possibility that needs, attractions and personalities diverge over time.
The final list pertains to relationships themselves, not the individual involved. Once a romantic parter or friend has been found, the challenging matter of forming a mutually beneficial relationship begins (in the context of friendship I am talking about close, long-term friendships not the shorter-term, more numerous friendships and acquaintances that may come and go with life). For me, the list that describes a successful close relationship has a few critical points. First, mutual attraction needs to be present. This includes physical, sexual, emotional, social and intellectual attraction (minus the sexual and perhaps much of the physical for friendships). Romantic relationships that miss some of these elements may not work in the long-term; friendships that lack social, emotional and intellectual attraction may not really develop far in the first place. Second, close relationships require committment and trust. Third on the list is communication. We all have different styles of communicating love, discomfort and needs. But in the maturation of the relationship, the two individuals need to develop ways of communicating that are honest, respectful of each other, and that can actually lead to the resolution of challenges. My final item is symmetry. By symmetry, I think that the healthiest relationships need to be balanced. In other words, each partner should be putting in roughly equal effort and committment into the relationship. If one partner puts in much more energy, he or she may feel disappointed or unappreciated and the other partner may feel pressured or uncomfortable. Friendships often adjust fairly smoothly to a mutually-acceptable level of effort. Achieving a balance may be difficult in more intense or romantic relationships, and may be the reason many of them do not succeed.
I have been immensely blessed with a few very close relationships in my life. They continue to this day. I cherish them because of the joy they bring to me and the growth that has ensued. These relationships have taken a lot of work. If there is one thing I tend to do well in close relationships, it is to invest heavily in others and to commit to do my very best. There are many other things that I tend to not do so well, and for the forgiveness and patience of others I am grateful.
None of us is a relationship expert. But what have you learned about close relationships in life? What are the critical elements that make close friendships, family relationships and romances flourish?
04 February 2013
The eternal dance
Everything ends; no one escapes this coldness
Every melody. Every memory.
Yet this dance of love is eternal
And we get swept into it briefly
Only to be tossed out, left as observers
The dance is incomprehensible, irresistable, surely too quick
New dancers stumble in
Taking our place, they too smile and then are gone.
With luck we dance another time or two
The same dance, the same love
Shared by us all.
It never ends
Be happy for the dancers
They keep the songs going until your time comes.
Every melody. Every memory.
Yet this dance of love is eternal
And we get swept into it briefly
Only to be tossed out, left as observers
The dance is incomprehensible, irresistable, surely too quick
New dancers stumble in
Taking our place, they too smile and then are gone.
With luck we dance another time or two
The same dance, the same love
Shared by us all.
It never ends
Be happy for the dancers
They keep the songs going until your time comes.
16 January 2013
The end of religion?
A provocatively-titled article came across a social media site today and caught my eye. In "Religion may not survive the Internet", Valerie Tarico lists several reasons why conservative religions are threatened by information flow. That - the free exchange of ideas and instant communication - not the internet per se, is more accurately the threat, if any, to the survival of certain belief systems.
Religion has been with humankind for at least some 20-30 thousand years, if interpretations of cave art in southern Europe are correct. Given its long history and the high percentage of people that still identify with some religious tradition in the 21st century, I do not think it is going anywhere anytime soon. Thus, Tarico's title is hyperbole. However, she does raise some interesting points in the article:
(1) The mechanisms (overt, covert, intentional or otherwise) that some religious traditions have relied on to maintain homogeneity of belief may not be as effective in an age when information can flow much more freely than ever before. Insularity may be one such mechanism. When people form cohesive groups that more or less cut off discourse with the outside world, it may be easier to maintain certain religious beliefs. It is hard to know how much this really goes on today. It would seem that in our information age virtually everyone would be exposed to just about any set of ideas. However, even in a sea of information, are some people so selective in what they read or hear that they very rarely encounter perspectives that contradict their own beliefs?
I think that Tarico's misstep is to equate this free-flow of information with the internet. Yes, the internet has accelerated the pace of information exchange, but information exchange has been possible for a long time by a number of different vehicles. The data on evolution, for example, have been out there for some time. It just required more work to find it in the past. She also seems to indict religion generally, but some of her arguments probably only apply broadly to more fundamentalist religions traditions. I see the free flow of information as a threat mostly to religious systems that are adament about doctrinal orthodoxy.
One potential causalty of information exposure is religious literalism. Specific narratives like Noah's Flood have no credibility scientifically. A young curious mind raised on stories of Noah (and mind you, curiosity is a key variable in the equation!), isn't going to find much support for such traditional religious ideas in information from the outside world. At risk too, are antiquated social constructs that are an important part of a specific religious tradition but which cannot withstand the scrutiny of empirical evidence or informed discussion. Being a gay blog, I'll mention homosexuality here as an example. When, by the freer flow of information, people find out that gay people are often law-abiding, charitable and accomplished citizens, or that practically to a person gay people relate that they never "chose" their sexual orientation, an archaic belief that homosexuality is a Satan-inspired threat to humanity becomes very hard to sustain.
The solution for religious systems in an age of information overload is simply to adapt. My guess is that many mainstream religions are doing so - they learn to embrace science, evolution, rational inquiry, and increasing social equality. Religions, like languages and genes, must evolve to survive.
(2) Tarico points out that science represents a threat to religion, and not just because it might directly contradict certain religious claims. She writes:
"Religion evokes some of our most deeply satisfying emotions: joy, for example, and transcendence, and wonder....Fortunately, science can provide all of the above...[thus] it should be no surprise that so many fundamentalists are determined to take down the whole scientific endeavor. They see in science not only a critic of their outdated theories but a competitor for their very best product, a sense of transcendent exuberance." (1)
I think that these thoughts are the highlight of the article. Religion's most powerful claim to its continued value for humanity is it's ability to provide a transcendent experience for individual believers. If that transcendence can be achieved elsewhere - in a classroom, in nature, through a microscope - then one of the most important functions of religion is lost.
In my own experience this makes a lot of sense. As a scientist I find such fascination in the natural world that there seems no need to call upon the supernatural. Whether ecology, geology, or the diversity of life, I find such an unending wealth of questions and discoveries that I can connect with the broader world around me in profound ways. Steeped in science, I am left to feel miniscule - much like I would by believing in an all-powerful God who watches over me. Yes, I am still swayed by the need for love and purpose - intangibles that science may have little to say about - but I've also found that specific religious systems are not necessary to appreciate and seek after such things.
Religion seems to be here to stay. Yet I do hope that it will continue to evolve to be a more rational and loving human enterprise. Maybe the internet will be part of accelerating that process. Thoughts?
Religion has been with humankind for at least some 20-30 thousand years, if interpretations of cave art in southern Europe are correct. Given its long history and the high percentage of people that still identify with some religious tradition in the 21st century, I do not think it is going anywhere anytime soon. Thus, Tarico's title is hyperbole. However, she does raise some interesting points in the article:
(1) The mechanisms (overt, covert, intentional or otherwise) that some religious traditions have relied on to maintain homogeneity of belief may not be as effective in an age when information can flow much more freely than ever before. Insularity may be one such mechanism. When people form cohesive groups that more or less cut off discourse with the outside world, it may be easier to maintain certain religious beliefs. It is hard to know how much this really goes on today. It would seem that in our information age virtually everyone would be exposed to just about any set of ideas. However, even in a sea of information, are some people so selective in what they read or hear that they very rarely encounter perspectives that contradict their own beliefs?
I think that Tarico's misstep is to equate this free-flow of information with the internet. Yes, the internet has accelerated the pace of information exchange, but information exchange has been possible for a long time by a number of different vehicles. The data on evolution, for example, have been out there for some time. It just required more work to find it in the past. She also seems to indict religion generally, but some of her arguments probably only apply broadly to more fundamentalist religions traditions. I see the free flow of information as a threat mostly to religious systems that are adament about doctrinal orthodoxy.
One potential causalty of information exposure is religious literalism. Specific narratives like Noah's Flood have no credibility scientifically. A young curious mind raised on stories of Noah (and mind you, curiosity is a key variable in the equation!), isn't going to find much support for such traditional religious ideas in information from the outside world. At risk too, are antiquated social constructs that are an important part of a specific religious tradition but which cannot withstand the scrutiny of empirical evidence or informed discussion. Being a gay blog, I'll mention homosexuality here as an example. When, by the freer flow of information, people find out that gay people are often law-abiding, charitable and accomplished citizens, or that practically to a person gay people relate that they never "chose" their sexual orientation, an archaic belief that homosexuality is a Satan-inspired threat to humanity becomes very hard to sustain.
The solution for religious systems in an age of information overload is simply to adapt. My guess is that many mainstream religions are doing so - they learn to embrace science, evolution, rational inquiry, and increasing social equality. Religions, like languages and genes, must evolve to survive.
(2) Tarico points out that science represents a threat to religion, and not just because it might directly contradict certain religious claims. She writes:
"Religion evokes some of our most deeply satisfying emotions: joy, for example, and transcendence, and wonder....Fortunately, science can provide all of the above...[thus] it should be no surprise that so many fundamentalists are determined to take down the whole scientific endeavor. They see in science not only a critic of their outdated theories but a competitor for their very best product, a sense of transcendent exuberance." (1)
I think that these thoughts are the highlight of the article. Religion's most powerful claim to its continued value for humanity is it's ability to provide a transcendent experience for individual believers. If that transcendence can be achieved elsewhere - in a classroom, in nature, through a microscope - then one of the most important functions of religion is lost.
In my own experience this makes a lot of sense. As a scientist I find such fascination in the natural world that there seems no need to call upon the supernatural. Whether ecology, geology, or the diversity of life, I find such an unending wealth of questions and discoveries that I can connect with the broader world around me in profound ways. Steeped in science, I am left to feel miniscule - much like I would by believing in an all-powerful God who watches over me. Yes, I am still swayed by the need for love and purpose - intangibles that science may have little to say about - but I've also found that specific religious systems are not necessary to appreciate and seek after such things.
Religion seems to be here to stay. Yet I do hope that it will continue to evolve to be a more rational and loving human enterprise. Maybe the internet will be part of accelerating that process. Thoughts?
10 January 2013
Good-bye, I love you
Carol Lynn Pearson is the godmother of gay Mormons. I’ve never met her, though interestingly enough, I do have a round-about connection. Many years ago, she briefly stayed at my wife’s family’s house in northern California. My mother-in-law, who was then stake Relief Society president, had invited her up to speak to the women in the area.
“Good-bye, I love you” is the story of Carol Lynn and her gay husband, Gerald. They met at BYU, married, and started a family. Though Gerald had had some degree of same-sex experiences prior to marriage, he developed strong feelings for Carol Lynn and wanted to be married. Both Carol Lynn and Gerald were performers. Carol Lynn was also an aspiring poet. Her poems would go on to win awards and she has published many books over the years.
Despite the tenderness of his feelings for Carol, over time, restlessness stirred in Gerald. He grew distant from the Church and had several affairs with men. Carol learned of his unfaithfulness from a friend while Gerald was away. She was devastated. For some time, Gerald had been dropping hints about new ways of thinking about his sexuality and about relationships, but Carol had long believed that Gerald’s experimentation with homosexuality was a thing of the past. Being raised in the ignorance and vilification of gays that was more common 1-2 generations ago, she could just not believe that her husband was of those gays.
The couple tried their best to make their relationship work. They moved to the Bay Area in California from their home in Utah, but there continued to be strains on their marriage. They eventually decided, after about a dozen years of marriage, to divorce. The final pages of Carol Lynn’s poignant book relates their separation and the lives that Carol Lynn and Gerald led over the next several years before his death – independent lives, yet lives intimately intertwined because of their children and their strong abiding friendship.
I’ve known about the Pearson story for awhile, but it was last weekend that I finally read the book. Well written, powerful, honest and with a compelling narrative, it took me less than 2 days to finish. By the end, I was in tears and choked with emotion.
The story of the Pearsons touched me deeply. There are superficial similarities – their dozen years of marriage to my 11; their 4 children to my three; Gerald’s increasing distance from the Church like mine. But there are also other ways that I connected to the story. I can relate deeply to Gerald’s persistent restlessness, for instance, and his insatiable need to capture more from life. I understand the need to search for meaningful male intimacy and the sense that one cannot put that off indefinitely. I also note the strong similarities between Carol Lynn and my wife. Both of these remarkable women seem to have an almost infinitely deep well from which to draw love and compassion for others. Both have dug deep emotionally to make the best out of challenging situations.
Of course my story continues; it is unknown where it will lead. But regardless of romantic matters, if my wife and I can keep love and friendship between us as the Pearsons managed to exemplify, I think we will have done at least one thing well.
“Good-bye, I love you” is the story of Carol Lynn and her gay husband, Gerald. They met at BYU, married, and started a family. Though Gerald had had some degree of same-sex experiences prior to marriage, he developed strong feelings for Carol Lynn and wanted to be married. Both Carol Lynn and Gerald were performers. Carol Lynn was also an aspiring poet. Her poems would go on to win awards and she has published many books over the years.
Despite the tenderness of his feelings for Carol, over time, restlessness stirred in Gerald. He grew distant from the Church and had several affairs with men. Carol learned of his unfaithfulness from a friend while Gerald was away. She was devastated. For some time, Gerald had been dropping hints about new ways of thinking about his sexuality and about relationships, but Carol had long believed that Gerald’s experimentation with homosexuality was a thing of the past. Being raised in the ignorance and vilification of gays that was more common 1-2 generations ago, she could just not believe that her husband was of those gays.
The couple tried their best to make their relationship work. They moved to the Bay Area in California from their home in Utah, but there continued to be strains on their marriage. They eventually decided, after about a dozen years of marriage, to divorce. The final pages of Carol Lynn’s poignant book relates their separation and the lives that Carol Lynn and Gerald led over the next several years before his death – independent lives, yet lives intimately intertwined because of their children and their strong abiding friendship.
I’ve known about the Pearson story for awhile, but it was last weekend that I finally read the book. Well written, powerful, honest and with a compelling narrative, it took me less than 2 days to finish. By the end, I was in tears and choked with emotion.
The story of the Pearsons touched me deeply. There are superficial similarities – their dozen years of marriage to my 11; their 4 children to my three; Gerald’s increasing distance from the Church like mine. But there are also other ways that I connected to the story. I can relate deeply to Gerald’s persistent restlessness, for instance, and his insatiable need to capture more from life. I understand the need to search for meaningful male intimacy and the sense that one cannot put that off indefinitely. I also note the strong similarities between Carol Lynn and my wife. Both of these remarkable women seem to have an almost infinitely deep well from which to draw love and compassion for others. Both have dug deep emotionally to make the best out of challenging situations.
Of course my story continues; it is unknown where it will lead. But regardless of romantic matters, if my wife and I can keep love and friendship between us as the Pearsons managed to exemplify, I think we will have done at least one thing well.
17 December 2012
Pants and pink boxers
Mormon civil wars are not common, but there are some rumblings from time to time over history or doctrine that can enflame passions. The events of the last week – centered on pants – have generated a little more than the usual excitement. What happened? About a week ago, several LDS women organized a Facebook event inviting women to wear pants to Sunday services as a statement about gender inequalities in LDS culture. Supportive men were invited to participate by wearing purple shirts or ties to church.
By about midweek, roughly 1500 people had joined the event – a sizeable number, but clearly one that represents only a very small percentage of church membership. Within short order, it appeared, opposition and disapproval bombarded the original Facebook site. Comments included statements that the event was silly or juvenile, or that women didn’t need to try to be like men, or that the type of clothing a sister wore to church didn’t matter in the eyes of Jesus. Some of these comments had received thousands of “likes”. In fact, I recall seeing the “like” count tick up quite rapidly as the page was automatically updated every few seconds. Clearly, a backlash was in the making.
Valid debate aside, things also got stranger and uglier. In a spirit of shocking vulgarity, one of the comments left by an antagonist on the original page advocated lethal violence against all “minority activists”. Then, about mid week, the original Facebook page that advertised the event disappeared. Some speculate that the page was bombarded with so many complaints that it was taken down. If so, this was an ironic outcome since the pants advocacy was really fundamentally about having a greater voice in Mormonism. Later, I learned from an on-line discussion (though this would be impossible for someone like me to verify) that a bishopric in Colorado held an emergency meeting in which it was determined that a list of women wearing pants should be assembled so that “worthiness interviews” could be conducted. Such a tactic, if true, sounds closer to totalitarian intimidation than anything Christian leadership should be involved in. Apparently pants had become a real pain in the ass for some in conservative Mormonism.
Now briefly on the matter of pants, the LDS Church currently has no set rules on what women can and cannot wear to church, except that members should make an effort to be respectful and reverent. Those are the official rules. Sometimes however, because of strong social expectations that tend to permeate Mormonism, something as innocuous as pants versus dresses can become a big issue for some Latter-day Saints. The doctrine and the culture can get mixed up in the minds of members such that things like taking the sacrament (communion) with the proper hand (righties only), and the color of men’s shirts when they officiate in priesthood functions (white is respectful), and the kinds of language approved for prayer ('thee' and 'thine' are in; 'your' and 'yours' are out) take on a life of their own. Those cultural practices become quasi-doctrine and if a member strays from them, they might get a visual or vocal pat-down from someone in their local congregation.
With these details behind us, why the orthodox backlash? I can only speculate, but at least I can use history and collective personal experiences to guide those speculations. First, Latter-day Saint culture is very uncomfortable with dissent and criticism. This derives from some key doctrine: Mormons are taught that the Church is perfect and that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth. There is also a belief that the LDS Prophet, though human, teaches infallible doctrine, at least in settings like general conference. The cultural manifestation of this belief is that a fair amount of adulation goes on. Ordinary church members praise local leaders such as bishops and stake presidents, and local leaders revere the Apostles, and the Apostles bear public testimony of the Prophet and so forth. The corollary to this bottom-up reverence is that Mormon authority flows downward. Apostles are called by the Prophet, so they should be respected; stake presidents are appointed by general authorities, so they should be followed; other local leaders are called under the inspiration received by stake presidents, so they should be sustained; and so forth. This is all well and good if all of these men are really God’s servants and really teach nothing but truth.
Criticism doesn’t sit well with any of this. To criticize Church leadership at any level is to directly challenge their authority to act or speak in the name of God. More subtly, to fail to conform to specific Mormon practices (some rooted in official doctrine, others rooted more in culture as we’ve discussed above), shows a lack of faith in the divine calling of Church leaders or a lazy or disrespectful attitude. Constructive criticism or dissent has little role in this more orthodox version of Mormonism because God’s church is already reflective of God’s will and if changes were to be needed, they would happen through revelation through appointed leadership channels.
A second reason for the conservative backlash of the last week may stem from the very rigid views that orthodox Mormonism has about gender roles. This gets beyond pants and more to the heart of why some women organized the Sunday event in the first place. Gender is a really big topic in Mormonism touching everything from polygamy to working versus stay-at-home moms to homosexuality. In the case of pants, some of the backlash may have been a rejection of the notion that women do not already have all of the rights, privileges, and opportunities that they could ever need within Mormonism. True, I suspect that many women are perfectly happy in the roles and opportunities that are currently provided for them in the culture and doctrine of the church. But some are not. Some women may want greater leadership opportunities (currently women can only lead other women or children, never men). Some women may want greater validation if they choose to have a career and be a mother. Some women may want priesthood authority, just as the men have. A very enlightening perspective on some of the inequalities that women can face in Mormonism was put together on this website. Among the listed items are the lack of examples of women in scripture, the paucity of voices of women in church leadership meetings and general conference, and the vulnerable position that women in settings like confession and church discipline that are presided over only by men.
The final reason I’ll venture for this orthodox backlash against pants (again, very speculative on my part) may be due to Mitt Romney. Huh? Here is the line of reasoning: Mormons have historically been a very misunderstood and persecuted group of people. The early Saints were driven from settlements in Illinois, Missouri and Ohio and eventually settled in the barren Salt Lake Valley where they had the benefit of physical distance from hostile citizens. Shortly after settling in Utah however, the persecution ramped up again. This time antagonism came from the government, but now in connection with polygamy. A more peaceful balance between Mormonism and the rest of the world really wasn’t achieved until the 20th century, but even today Mormon doctrine is still regarded as strange by many people and many still know little about the church. So in part Mormon identity has become connected to the concept of being besieged and persecuted because of the long tradition of hostility directed towards the faith. Then arrives Mitt Romney recently in American politics, and Latter-day Saints finally have an unprecedented opportunity for acceptance. But, dashing the hopes of many Latter-day Saints, he is defeated in the presidential election. So putting these loose pieces together, the hypothesis is something like this: revolutionary doctrine -> historical persecution -> defensiveness -> a strong ethos of inter-group loyalty -> sour grapes about Mitt Romney + (dissent = bad) -> not happy with women in pants.
Given that I have a little bit of a rebellious streak, it was natural that I wanted to participate in pants-to-Church Sunday, even though I have not really attended Church very much since coming out as gay. I wasn’t brave enough nor warm blooded enough to go without pants, nor did I have a purple tie or shirt, so a blue shirt and pink tie had to suffice.
Well, it turned out that the whole event was a non-event in the sacrament meeting that I visited yesterday. Without staring down the congregation too much, I could discern only one sister in pants, and perhaps a single purple tie out of the corner of my eye. In my moderately-sized fairly sleepy town with several Mormon congregations, there was no revolution in the making. Some of the most noteworthy things during the meeting were the return missionary giving a talk while seated (he started feeling light-headed early on) and the billowing cumulous cloud of curly hair atop the young man that came by to offer me the sacrament. Oh, and there were my pink boxers, hidden evidence that I’m not quite the Mormon I used to be.
There is a degree of solidarity among the different groups that seek a greater voice and flexibility in Mormonism, whether they are academics, feminists, or gays. And because they share concerns about Mormon rigidity over gender roles, discontented women in the Church and disaffected LGBT Mormons share a common bond. Both groups tend to suffer from the insensitivity that bleeds into LDS culture from time to time, whether that is done in outright antagonism or because of the less insidious, but no less problematic, matter of ignorance. Some LDS women and gays are discontent because they feel that Mormonism is antagonistic towards their individuality. They do not exactly fit into the ideal family or pre-approved gender expectations.
Yet the dynamics of struggle in the church also differ for disaffected women and gays. For women, biological sex and gender are something that cannot be hidden, so a woman can constantly be a potential victim of scrutiny by others. If her degree of femininity is “lacking”, or if her life choices are somewhat different from the expected norm, she may be immediately open to criticism, even (? especially) from other women. However, the roles of women as mothers and wives are revered in LDS doctrine and culture, so at least her fundamental value as a human being is reaffirmed throughout Mormonism. For some women who tend to gravitate towards less “traditional” paths, the price of that affirmation may seem to be conformity to other’s expectations.
Human sexuality on the other hand is generally a very private matter and is often not discernable in a public setting. While the invisibility of sexual orientation can be a refuge for LGBT people determined to stay in the closet, it has also meant that gay issues have long been neglected in the Church. Issues that are neglected tend to only progress very slowly. Insensitive or even hateful comments may come from fellow Saints who have no idea that their words are being heard by LGBT people right next to them. The silence of sexuality tends to turn inward into cancerous emotions that suggest things such as: God does not love you; you are unworthy because you cannot change these attractions; you need to hide who you are so that no one ever knows this vile secret you carry. When Church members associate homosexuality with words like ‘unnatural’ or ‘perverse’, even the sense of worth of a gay person’s life can be questioned.
I will never know the struggles that women have faced or continue to face in a world that doesn’t always recognize their equality. As a man I can choose a career or fatherhood or both with little criticism from broader society. But as a gay person, I did not choose the sexuality that I have. It comes with its own set of challenges and limitations. A woman’s sex is constantly visible, like her pants at Church, subject to discussion and debate or maybe a smile from another person that sees beyond notions of set roles and responsibilities. My sexuality is largely invisible, like my pink boxers, but it is as close to my true self as all my other core attributes. Women in pants and men in pink boxers. Can’t the Church celebrate all of us?
By about midweek, roughly 1500 people had joined the event – a sizeable number, but clearly one that represents only a very small percentage of church membership. Within short order, it appeared, opposition and disapproval bombarded the original Facebook site. Comments included statements that the event was silly or juvenile, or that women didn’t need to try to be like men, or that the type of clothing a sister wore to church didn’t matter in the eyes of Jesus. Some of these comments had received thousands of “likes”. In fact, I recall seeing the “like” count tick up quite rapidly as the page was automatically updated every few seconds. Clearly, a backlash was in the making.
Valid debate aside, things also got stranger and uglier. In a spirit of shocking vulgarity, one of the comments left by an antagonist on the original page advocated lethal violence against all “minority activists”. Then, about mid week, the original Facebook page that advertised the event disappeared. Some speculate that the page was bombarded with so many complaints that it was taken down. If so, this was an ironic outcome since the pants advocacy was really fundamentally about having a greater voice in Mormonism. Later, I learned from an on-line discussion (though this would be impossible for someone like me to verify) that a bishopric in Colorado held an emergency meeting in which it was determined that a list of women wearing pants should be assembled so that “worthiness interviews” could be conducted. Such a tactic, if true, sounds closer to totalitarian intimidation than anything Christian leadership should be involved in. Apparently pants had become a real pain in the ass for some in conservative Mormonism.
Now briefly on the matter of pants, the LDS Church currently has no set rules on what women can and cannot wear to church, except that members should make an effort to be respectful and reverent. Those are the official rules. Sometimes however, because of strong social expectations that tend to permeate Mormonism, something as innocuous as pants versus dresses can become a big issue for some Latter-day Saints. The doctrine and the culture can get mixed up in the minds of members such that things like taking the sacrament (communion) with the proper hand (righties only), and the color of men’s shirts when they officiate in priesthood functions (white is respectful), and the kinds of language approved for prayer ('thee' and 'thine' are in; 'your' and 'yours' are out) take on a life of their own. Those cultural practices become quasi-doctrine and if a member strays from them, they might get a visual or vocal pat-down from someone in their local congregation.
With these details behind us, why the orthodox backlash? I can only speculate, but at least I can use history and collective personal experiences to guide those speculations. First, Latter-day Saint culture is very uncomfortable with dissent and criticism. This derives from some key doctrine: Mormons are taught that the Church is perfect and that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth. There is also a belief that the LDS Prophet, though human, teaches infallible doctrine, at least in settings like general conference. The cultural manifestation of this belief is that a fair amount of adulation goes on. Ordinary church members praise local leaders such as bishops and stake presidents, and local leaders revere the Apostles, and the Apostles bear public testimony of the Prophet and so forth. The corollary to this bottom-up reverence is that Mormon authority flows downward. Apostles are called by the Prophet, so they should be respected; stake presidents are appointed by general authorities, so they should be followed; other local leaders are called under the inspiration received by stake presidents, so they should be sustained; and so forth. This is all well and good if all of these men are really God’s servants and really teach nothing but truth.
Criticism doesn’t sit well with any of this. To criticize Church leadership at any level is to directly challenge their authority to act or speak in the name of God. More subtly, to fail to conform to specific Mormon practices (some rooted in official doctrine, others rooted more in culture as we’ve discussed above), shows a lack of faith in the divine calling of Church leaders or a lazy or disrespectful attitude. Constructive criticism or dissent has little role in this more orthodox version of Mormonism because God’s church is already reflective of God’s will and if changes were to be needed, they would happen through revelation through appointed leadership channels.
A second reason for the conservative backlash of the last week may stem from the very rigid views that orthodox Mormonism has about gender roles. This gets beyond pants and more to the heart of why some women organized the Sunday event in the first place. Gender is a really big topic in Mormonism touching everything from polygamy to working versus stay-at-home moms to homosexuality. In the case of pants, some of the backlash may have been a rejection of the notion that women do not already have all of the rights, privileges, and opportunities that they could ever need within Mormonism. True, I suspect that many women are perfectly happy in the roles and opportunities that are currently provided for them in the culture and doctrine of the church. But some are not. Some women may want greater leadership opportunities (currently women can only lead other women or children, never men). Some women may want greater validation if they choose to have a career and be a mother. Some women may want priesthood authority, just as the men have. A very enlightening perspective on some of the inequalities that women can face in Mormonism was put together on this website. Among the listed items are the lack of examples of women in scripture, the paucity of voices of women in church leadership meetings and general conference, and the vulnerable position that women in settings like confession and church discipline that are presided over only by men.
The final reason I’ll venture for this orthodox backlash against pants (again, very speculative on my part) may be due to Mitt Romney. Huh? Here is the line of reasoning: Mormons have historically been a very misunderstood and persecuted group of people. The early Saints were driven from settlements in Illinois, Missouri and Ohio and eventually settled in the barren Salt Lake Valley where they had the benefit of physical distance from hostile citizens. Shortly after settling in Utah however, the persecution ramped up again. This time antagonism came from the government, but now in connection with polygamy. A more peaceful balance between Mormonism and the rest of the world really wasn’t achieved until the 20th century, but even today Mormon doctrine is still regarded as strange by many people and many still know little about the church. So in part Mormon identity has become connected to the concept of being besieged and persecuted because of the long tradition of hostility directed towards the faith. Then arrives Mitt Romney recently in American politics, and Latter-day Saints finally have an unprecedented opportunity for acceptance. But, dashing the hopes of many Latter-day Saints, he is defeated in the presidential election. So putting these loose pieces together, the hypothesis is something like this: revolutionary doctrine -> historical persecution -> defensiveness -> a strong ethos of inter-group loyalty -> sour grapes about Mitt Romney + (dissent = bad) -> not happy with women in pants.
…
Given that I have a little bit of a rebellious streak, it was natural that I wanted to participate in pants-to-Church Sunday, even though I have not really attended Church very much since coming out as gay. I wasn’t brave enough nor warm blooded enough to go without pants, nor did I have a purple tie or shirt, so a blue shirt and pink tie had to suffice.
Well, it turned out that the whole event was a non-event in the sacrament meeting that I visited yesterday. Without staring down the congregation too much, I could discern only one sister in pants, and perhaps a single purple tie out of the corner of my eye. In my moderately-sized fairly sleepy town with several Mormon congregations, there was no revolution in the making. Some of the most noteworthy things during the meeting were the return missionary giving a talk while seated (he started feeling light-headed early on) and the billowing cumulous cloud of curly hair atop the young man that came by to offer me the sacrament. Oh, and there were my pink boxers, hidden evidence that I’m not quite the Mormon I used to be.
There is a degree of solidarity among the different groups that seek a greater voice and flexibility in Mormonism, whether they are academics, feminists, or gays. And because they share concerns about Mormon rigidity over gender roles, discontented women in the Church and disaffected LGBT Mormons share a common bond. Both groups tend to suffer from the insensitivity that bleeds into LDS culture from time to time, whether that is done in outright antagonism or because of the less insidious, but no less problematic, matter of ignorance. Some LDS women and gays are discontent because they feel that Mormonism is antagonistic towards their individuality. They do not exactly fit into the ideal family or pre-approved gender expectations.
Yet the dynamics of struggle in the church also differ for disaffected women and gays. For women, biological sex and gender are something that cannot be hidden, so a woman can constantly be a potential victim of scrutiny by others. If her degree of femininity is “lacking”, or if her life choices are somewhat different from the expected norm, she may be immediately open to criticism, even (? especially) from other women. However, the roles of women as mothers and wives are revered in LDS doctrine and culture, so at least her fundamental value as a human being is reaffirmed throughout Mormonism. For some women who tend to gravitate towards less “traditional” paths, the price of that affirmation may seem to be conformity to other’s expectations.
Human sexuality on the other hand is generally a very private matter and is often not discernable in a public setting. While the invisibility of sexual orientation can be a refuge for LGBT people determined to stay in the closet, it has also meant that gay issues have long been neglected in the Church. Issues that are neglected tend to only progress very slowly. Insensitive or even hateful comments may come from fellow Saints who have no idea that their words are being heard by LGBT people right next to them. The silence of sexuality tends to turn inward into cancerous emotions that suggest things such as: God does not love you; you are unworthy because you cannot change these attractions; you need to hide who you are so that no one ever knows this vile secret you carry. When Church members associate homosexuality with words like ‘unnatural’ or ‘perverse’, even the sense of worth of a gay person’s life can be questioned.
I will never know the struggles that women have faced or continue to face in a world that doesn’t always recognize their equality. As a man I can choose a career or fatherhood or both with little criticism from broader society. But as a gay person, I did not choose the sexuality that I have. It comes with its own set of challenges and limitations. A woman’s sex is constantly visible, like her pants at Church, subject to discussion and debate or maybe a smile from another person that sees beyond notions of set roles and responsibilities. My sexuality is largely invisible, like my pink boxers, but it is as close to my true self as all my other core attributes. Women in pants and men in pink boxers. Can’t the Church celebrate all of us?
03 December 2012
Decisions Decisions
Decision making isn’t my specialty. And unfortunately, I am in a season of life where there are some pretty important decisions to be made – the future of my marriage, employment, and where I will live. There is a lot that is out of my hands too. For instance, on the career front I can choose where I will apply, but the available positions and the eventual offers or rejections are beyond my control.
This is definitely a season of uncertainty for me. I have mixed feelings about uncertainty. On the one hand, uncertainty enables possibility. And possibility is the foundation for optimism about the future and a desire to work hard to achieve goals in life. Also, pleasant surprises come because of possibility. On the other hand, I am a scientist. I like data, and the more information the better. Maybe I have this deep seated (if naïve) notion that if I have enough information, I’ll know what to do. But scientists never have enough data…
Uncertainty is built into life. But, my discomfort now is that virtually everything about my future is uncertain – my next job, my wife’s job, the duration of my marriage, where I will live, where my wife and kids will live, and if I divorce, whether I will find a gay relationship that is mutually edifying for me and my partner. It has been sort of overwhelming lately. Big decisions like these tend to put us on certain trajectories in life. While sometimes those trajectories are reversible (finding a new home for instance), others like having children are essentially permanent. I’d like to make good decisions on these important issues.
I’m not sure how much I rely on spiritual mechanisms to help me make important decisions. Is intuition, prayer or consultation of holy texts helpful? I tend to be very skeptical of religious mechanisms now, though less so about broader concepts of spirituality. I also know that no amount of data can produce a roadmap for my life. I think my best foundation currently is simple principles like love, hard work, cooperation and optimism.
I’ve had a good life. My path so far has been unexpected, but it has been one of learning and opportunity, success and failure. The second half of my life may be quite different from the first half. But I hope there will be some common themes: learning, love, and pleasant surprises. Someone very close to me has encouraged me twice recently with the words, “things will work out”. I hope that is true.
This is definitely a season of uncertainty for me. I have mixed feelings about uncertainty. On the one hand, uncertainty enables possibility. And possibility is the foundation for optimism about the future and a desire to work hard to achieve goals in life. Also, pleasant surprises come because of possibility. On the other hand, I am a scientist. I like data, and the more information the better. Maybe I have this deep seated (if naïve) notion that if I have enough information, I’ll know what to do. But scientists never have enough data…
Uncertainty is built into life. But, my discomfort now is that virtually everything about my future is uncertain – my next job, my wife’s job, the duration of my marriage, where I will live, where my wife and kids will live, and if I divorce, whether I will find a gay relationship that is mutually edifying for me and my partner. It has been sort of overwhelming lately. Big decisions like these tend to put us on certain trajectories in life. While sometimes those trajectories are reversible (finding a new home for instance), others like having children are essentially permanent. I’d like to make good decisions on these important issues.
I’m not sure how much I rely on spiritual mechanisms to help me make important decisions. Is intuition, prayer or consultation of holy texts helpful? I tend to be very skeptical of religious mechanisms now, though less so about broader concepts of spirituality. I also know that no amount of data can produce a roadmap for my life. I think my best foundation currently is simple principles like love, hard work, cooperation and optimism.
I’ve had a good life. My path so far has been unexpected, but it has been one of learning and opportunity, success and failure. The second half of my life may be quite different from the first half. But I hope there will be some common themes: learning, love, and pleasant surprises. Someone very close to me has encouraged me twice recently with the words, “things will work out”. I hope that is true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)