Community

I have made a few giclée reproductions of Community-- I tentatively made 3, and the first 2 have already sold. So if you are interested, buy now! I will also make more reproductions if more people are interested.
Giclée Print on Stretched Canvas: (Ready to hang on the wall) $226
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=33068703 (SOLD OUT)
Giclée Print on Unstretched Canvas: (Needs to be framed or mounted) $200
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=33179343

Just Remember What's Right For Me, May Be Not Right For You

In April, I hardly noticed conference at all. It wasn't something that affected me at the time. This conference was different. Something happened a few weeks ago that gave the sudden realization that what these men say has a deep and profound impact on people that I love very much--like my parents. They are so influenced by these people that it is important for me to stay on top of it.

That's why I was devastated by Dallin Oaks' talk on how parents should treat their wayward children. I found the entire philosophy behind his approach offensive--it was manipulative, punitive, and divisive. His basic premise was that "The love of God does not supersede his laws and his commandments ... the same should be true of parental love and rules."

This includes parental interactions with their adult children, in fact the biggest example that Oaks used for "wayward" children was cohabitating adults, which by default includes those in lifelong same sex relationships according to those who don't recognize gay marriage. Needless to say, this has been a source of contention with my parents as I talk about my future already. I'm scared by how this conference talk might complicate future discussions.

Dallin Oaks talks about the gifts from God that are universal or unconditional, but then states that some gifts are conditioned to obedience. The same approach should be taken in parenting. Some things should always be given--like food to children still at home. Other things are conditioned on children doing what parents want, again, including adults.

"Following the example of an all-wise and loving Heavenly Father who has given laws and commandments for the benefit of his children, wise parents condition some parental gifts on obedience ... To pose an even more serious question, if an adult child is living in cohabitation, does the seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage require that this child feel the full weight of family disapproval by being excluded from any family contacts, or does parental love require that the fact of cohabitation be ignored? I have seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate."

Oaks goes on to say that parents should use personal revelation to determine where to draw the line in between those extremes. He counsels parents to apply the principles in the parable of the good shepherd who left the ninety and nine to go after the one who was lost. While at the surface this seems compassionate, it is very condescending to those adult children to have their parents going about making the decision on how to interact with them based on trying to manipulate them into believing and acting a certain way. While parents ought to be respected for their experiences, sacrifices, and insight, adults are not children who must be trained by their parents with rewards for "good" behavior and punishments for "bad" behavior.

Oaks goes on to say that parents who love their children should not support "self destructive" behavior, which he defines as behavior that violates the Mormon commandments. I found the bitter irony in the statement depressing. I have never been on a more self destructive path then when I was trying to fulfill the Mormon commandments. At various times I was on the brink of suicide or self defeating mental and emotional behavior. I was depressed. I couldn't deal with anxiety or stress of any kind. I was a mess. When I began to live a healthy life and started doing what was best for my mental health, I had to abandon many LDS ideals. According to Oaks, my parents should punish me for this by withholding something from me.

As if the rhetoric thus far wasn't divisive enough, Oaks concludes with these chilling words: "When family members are not united in striving to keep the commandments of God there will be divisions. We do all that we can to avoid impairing loving relationships, but sometimes it happens after all we can do. In the midst of such stress we must endure the reality that the straying of our loved ones will detract from our happiness, but it should not detract from our love for one another or our patient efforts to be united in understanding God's love and God's laws."

So my adult decision--no matter how mature they are--will detract from my parents happiness. Never mind the fact that doing what they want me to do (marry a woman) would inhibit my happiness and bring me back to self deprication. So my parents can't choose to be happy that I'm happy simply because I became happy in a way that was different than them? And all of this "stress" could cause our relationship to be impaired? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is responsible for destroying families across the Earth. They will be held accountable for that grave sin before God.

Think about the healing, instead of the rifts, that Oaks could have brought to families if he had closed his talk like this: When family members do not believe the same things or make the same decisions, there may be painful divisions and stress. But families can be united in their love for each other despite those differences. Parents can experience the joy and blessings that come from their choices regardless of the decisions their children make. In the end, the love that binds families together is stronger than the influences that would pull them apart.

Authentic and Grounded and Whole

September 27. The day passed quietly and without notice. It was one month after my birthday, but that's nothing to celebrate. It was the 270th day of the year, but who cares? It was a Sunday, so I slept in that morning, but that's not significant. Oh yeah. It was also the two year anniversary of my explosion out of the closet.

I've told the story so many times. I was sitting at home Wednesday night- the 26th- when I stumbled across the blogs of Romulus and Remus. It took me all of ten seconds to realize they were the twins that I had grown up with. Romulus gave it away really. I went crazy and couldn't sleep all night. I was so excited! I wanted to call them, to tell them, to finally have some one to talk to! I wasn't sure if they were okay with me knowing their "secret," so I wrote a blog post I thought would give it away. Romulus didn't take the bait, so I sent him a facebook message on Thursday, September 27, 2007. The rest is, as they say, history.

I won't lie and say that it all feels like it happened yesterday, because to be honest it feels like it was ages ago--much more than just two years. I feel like I've lived an entire life in the time since I came out. An entire life with ups and downs--but one that has been full of joy, fulfillment, peace, companionship, friendship, love, meaning, and success. There is no doubt in my mind that coming to terms with my sexuality and coming out of the closet has saved me from a deafening hell and given me a life I wouldn't trade for the world.

So where am I now? That's the question Abelard has posed this month. Where am I in my gay Mormon journey? For starters, I'm not on a Mormon journey anymore. It's not surprising given how I felt at Church two years ago, or even how I felt on my mission. (Yes, I blogged on my mission). Even back then you can catch small glimpses of large criticisms that I had for the Church. I didn't think their Sunday services were worshipful enough or Christ centered enough. I also didn't like the focus on works (ordinances) over grace. I was pretty vocal and critical about these things with other Mormons, but I put on a nice front for investigators and the general public.

Maybe I am premature in saying that I'm not on a Mormon journey anymore. The fact is I am still in Provo under the big brother arm of a Mormon school. I am still a member of the Church. I am still surrounded by the Church. And perhaps more importantly people that I love very much are still influenced immensely by the Church. So in that sense, I will never be able to truly loose sight of the Mormon journey.

But whatever you want to call the journey that I'm on, it is a good journey, and I'm doing well. I'm happy. I'm healthy. I'm loved. I love. What more could you want on life's path?

Like the Women I See on their 30th Anniversaries

Has anyone else ever noticed that those who oppose gay marriage in an effort to supposedly "defend" marriage usually end up demeaning and cheapening marriage? To prevent gay couples from marrying, they have to create a definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples and justify that exclusive definition. In the process, I've noticed a tendency to make marriage sound very shallow.

For example, how many times have you heard someone say that marriage is for procreation? They don't mean sex, because gay couples have sex, they mean birthing children. Really? So you two got married because you wanted to create offspring? That's the reason? Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very noble thing to have children, but if that is the only reason for marriage, then why don't we arrange marriages or treat them like business arrangements? Can you imagine? "Your a good looking person, let's get married and have children because I bet we'd have good children." In fact, why even have sex? Let's just use invitro technology. Since that's the purpose of marriage after all- it's just to get pregnant.

Here's another example. Marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what's good for society. Really? You two got married because you thought it would improve society. How selfless! (cough, and arrogant). Ok then, let's revert back to the time when that was correct. It will be good for society if these two political families are united. Let's make their kids marry each other. You know what? I want my posterity to inherit a lot of property. They'd do good things with it- they'd give generously to charity. I'll have my daughter marry a Huntsman.

I'm sorry, but when you're at a fancy dinner celebrating someone's 30th wedding anniversary, you're not talking about how good their marriage is for society or how wonderful it was that they were able to conceive lots of children. You don't talk about how great it was that they obeyed their mission president and got married to fulfil the commandments. Why? Because that's not what marriage really is. If that was marriage, then marriage is cheap, and frankly it ought to be destroyed.

What do you talk about at the anniversary? You talk about their love. You talk about their relationship. You talk about the vows they made to each other. You talk about how remarkable and admirable it is that they've been faithful to their vows. You talk about the children they've raised and the accomplishments of those children. You make a joke about what they can do now their children are out of the house. Wink wink. Because that's what marriage really is. That's the stuff of substance--of value. And because you know that you can't in good concious deny that to gay couples--because you know they are capable of having all that stuff of substance, you have to take it out of marriage to exclude them, and that is not defending marriage. It is demeaning it.

For the Mormons, the sin is twice as bad. They have two additional things of substance to add to the definition of marriage, and to take it away from their definition so they can exclude gay couples is shameful. For the Latter-day Saint, marriage is also about beautiful covenants and a supposedly infinite, awesome power to seal that has been given to man by God. There is no reason gay couples can't make the same covenants, nor is there a reason that the sealing power couldn't be extended to them. It's what makes families formed by adoption in the Church every bit as significant as those formed through sexual conception. In theory it really is beautiful. To say that two men can't be sealed by that power is to limit and to therefore demean that power. To say that marriage isn't about covenants and sealing power, for a Latter-day Saint, is really to not understand marriage, and that demeans it.

How much better off would the institution of marriage be if the evangelical were to proclaim, "Marriage is about companionship and family. I love my wife. She is the world to me, and I can't imagine a world without her. Likewise I love the children we've raised. They're good kids. I've learned more from them than they've learned from me. That's why I support gay marriage. I want everyone who can find it to experience this love, this commitment, this family, this marriage."? How much better off would the institution of marriage be if the Mormon were to declare, "I married my wife because I love her and because I want to be with her forever. We've taught our children to make covenants and be faithful to them because we know that the companionship, dedication, and love that we learn in families make us closer to and more like God. That's why we support gay marriage. We want everyone who can find someone to love to be able to become like God through the sacrifices and blessings of marriage and parenthood. We don't think that man was meant to be alone, and we believe that man should have joy. Marriage has brought us joy, and we believe it can bring them joy too."?

I hope the world where I can hear those proclamations is not too far away.

We are Driving this Float Down Main, in this Pride Parade

“When I first realized I was gay,” Austin interjected, “I just assumed I would hide it and be miserable for the rest of my life. But then I said, ‘O.K., wait, I don’t want to hide this and be miserable my whole life.’ ”

I asked him how old he was when he made that decision.

“Eleven,” he said.

Coming Out in Middle School, By BENOIT DENIZET-LEWIS; New York Times, September 23, 2009

This is a fascinating read. I remember when I came out to my sister when she was a sophomore in high school and I was in college. She told me about all her friends who were out of the closet--there were tons. And she knew who liked who and who was still closeted etc. It was no big deal to her. Gay teens were part of her world, and it shocked me.

My high school world was so different. We didn't have a GSA until my senior year. We had the day of silence, but all the gay friends I have from high school that are gay were in the closet until college with only two exceptions. That was just 5 or 6 years ago. And now we not only have teens coming out in high school, they're coming out in junior high. Even at BYU--the freshman "moho's" seem so much better off than I was. As a BYU freshman, I sought out Evergreen for help. I just met a new BYU freshman who was looking to meet other moho's. He had sought out the Utah Pride Center for help.

How different would my life be if I had been born 5 or 6 or 10 years later? I knew that I was gay when I was 11. Would I have been able to decide that I didn't want to keep it a secret if I had been 11 in 2009? Would I have had exposure to healthy same sex relationships and sexual behavior? Instead of hiding a huge burden and struggling to figure out my sexual identity in secret and without healthy input, would I have been able to date guys and get advice from my parents and go to dances with people I was attracted to? I did some horrible things as a child because I didn't know how to go about my sexuality in healthy ways. Would that have still happened if I had been born in 2000 and grew up seeing married gay couples?

As I look back on what eventually did help me come out of the closet, the Internet played the biggest role by far. Blogging introduced me to people who were like me and it revealed "Romulus" and "Remus" who were my childhood friends. They helped me come to terms with my sexuality and become healthy--but only because I found their blogs. There were other things that did help--those few in high school that were out, the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, and the issues I resolved on my mission. But more than anything, it was the blogs on the Internet.

And it's those same things that have created this new generation of gay teens. Social networking sites have shattered our walls of privacy and secrecy. Blogs have informed us. Youtube has empowered us. The Internet has created a new era in sexual identity.

I hope that this new generation of gays will not forget or take for granted those that went before. Because despite the enabling Internet, the fact is we couldn't be out and proud and safe today if it weren't for those who were out and proud when it wasn't safe. We owe a great deal to the heroes of Stonewall who fought back and stood up for themselves. We owe a great deal to heroes of hollywood who showed the world it's ok to be gay. We owe a great deal to the heroes of politics who fought, protested, lobbied, campaigned, and voted for equality. There was a time, when being gay meant being persecuted, and in so many parts of the world, that time is still going on. Let's not forget it as we celebrate the joys of this new generation of gay.

Black and White's Not Always as Simple as it Seems

"Here's the key principle. Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. And therefore the burden of proof has to be on the advocates of same-sex marriage to demonstrate that homosexual relationships benefit society. Not just benefit the individuals who participate but benefit society in the same way and to the same degree that heterosexual marriage does. And that's a burden that I don't think they can meet."
(Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council)

I believe that Same Sex Marriage will not only benefit society in the same way and to the same degree as Opposite Sex Marriage, but that Same Sex Marriage will offer something good to society that Opposite Sex Marriage cannot provide. Here are three benefits of gay marriage:

1. Gay couples provide an example for unity, equality, and compromise within marriage because they share tasks differently.
   
   Because it's impossible for two people of the same sex to rely on traditional gender roles within a marriage, gay couples are by nature more creative in how they divide up tasks. Their circumstances are likely to create a relationship in which both parters are equal. Society will benefit by learning how to foster equality within marriage.


2. Marriage makes people more productive. The more people are married, the more productive society becomes.
   
   Marriage is good for individuals, and what is good for individuals is good for society. If people are happier, more successful, and more stable in their personal lives, it will improve the quality of life for everyone in the community. Besides, married partners care for each other. If a gay person cannot care for himself, and his partner isn't allowed to care for him, then society is responsible for him. Equipping gay people with the ability to care for each other alleviates society of a burden it would otherwise have to shoulder.
   


3. Gay couples provide healthy, nurturing homes for orphaned, abandoned, or abused children.
   
   There are so many children who are born into or thrust into circumstances where they don't have a family to care for them. Heterosexuals cannot meet all of their needs. Foster care is an overburdened system. We need more families that can adopt children, and sanctioning gay marriage will do just that.
   

So I will gladly welcome the burden of proof for how gay marriage will benefit society, because I know that it will.

I Used to Think How I Had Them All so Figured Out

I am now home after 5 weeks in the Caribbean on a BYU study abroad. The trip was amazing in so many ways, and it has really shaped the way I look at life, spirituality, art, and most surprisingly, BYU. I came away from this trip with a changed opinion on the people of BYU.

I met the group of 18 students in a pre-trip class this past winter semester, and I treated them like I would any group of BYU students in any setting--with indifference. I didn't learn their names. I didn't talk to them. I didn't pay attention to them. I had learned through a few limited experiences that straight BYU students cannot be trusted with friendship or knowledge about me. Really, my circle of friends at BYU includes lots of gay guys, two straight girls (Moana, Kythe), and a few art friends that I am close to in the art studio but that I don't see outside of the studio. I just don't trust straight BYU students.

But on this study abroad, I was forced to become close to this group of students. It started with Kristina. I sat next to her during both long flights. She was a beautiful girl (and I could see that she was endowed), but as soon as she said she was from California, my mind said "Prop 8" and I shut down to her. It was awkward. She flipped through the sky mall magazine, trying to start conversation. "Oh that's horrible! That's every man's fantasy," she said, pointing to a lamp that was in the form of a woman, but had a lampshade instead of a head. "Not every man's fantasy," I said.

Over the next few days she drove me crazy, not because she was annoying, but because she was in every way the girl that I would have married if I had come home from my mission and not come to terms with my sexuality. So I stayed closed, despite her friendly attempts to reach out to me.

It was the same with several of the others. I stayed fairly aloof from the group. But then Taylor and Eliza broke my shell. They started to come over to my room to talk with me, and to hang out with me during group activities. I let them in because I knew I could trust them. Eliza had written a paper about the BYU gay community, and in high school she had been the president of their gay-straight alliance. The two of them were starting to get close to me, but they were also getting close to several of the other girls (and the one other guy). So slowly I started to spend more time with people in this group.

Spending more time with these girls meant spending time with Kristina, because she was close to them. I learned she was a feminist, and few other things that led me to trust her. Finally, I opened up to her, and she opened up to me. She explained how she had been married and divorced from a man who had not treated her right (and who was presumably gay). He had married her not out of love or sexual desire for her, but because marriage was what he was supposed to do and she made a good wife to show off to others. It was a sad story, but it had made her very open to and supportive of my sexuality.

By the end of the second week, every single student, and both professors, knew that I was gay, knew that I was leaving the Church, and knew that I would one day marry a man. And you know what? It didn't matter. It was something that we could talk about, if we wanted to. One of the professors talked to me about his two gay brothers, one who had taken his life a long time ago and one who was a bitter angry ex-Mormon who taught at UCLA. One of the girls told me about her Polynesian culture and how accepting they were of gays (She said every mother hopes for one gay son because she knows that he will take care of her in her old age). We talked about it a lot. But it was also ok to not talk about it. It wasn't something we had to address.

In the end, these people became my friends. Real friends. And I can't express how wonderful it is to have straight friends. It makes me feel so rounded, so balanced. And they are all caring and supportive and trustworthy. I didn't know BYU had such people. So for my last semester here, I'm going to be friendly to the people who sit next to me in class. There might be some douches there, but BYU does have students that I can be lifelong friends with. And for my last semester, I'm going to have dinner parties with straight couples (more than just CJ and Kythe). I'm going to party with my straight study abroad friends. I'm going to feel like I have a place here.