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.

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 Know You're Out There, Somewhere Out There

Where are all the lesbians?

This past Pride Weekend was a big one in Chicago, where I grew up. Several of my old friends from high school spent the weekend celebrating, allowing me to discover that a lot of people I knew in high school are gay. I had no idea how many of them were in the closet just like me. It's kind of fun, because a lot of them are really surprising.

One of my favorites was our Prom Queen my senior year. She's this amazing Jew with dreadlocks, and she and I have chatted a few times since we came out to each other. Lot's of the gays that I know from high school are lesbians. The first person I came out to is a lesbian friend from high school (she wasn't in the closet). A girl I dated has come out to me as a lesbian. I am thinking of seven or eight lesbians right now that I knew in high school. I can only name three or four gay men (excluding Romulus and Remus).

When I look at my gay friends at BYU, however, the story is quite the opposite. I can name fifty gay men at BYU without even thinking. I'm sure I could list more if I enlisted the help of facebook. But I don't know a single lesbian at BYU. Not a single one.

So what's the deal? Where have all the lesbians gone? Do Mormons only breed gay men? Is it only socially possible for gay men to come out of the closet in Mormon culture? Is it harder for women? Why? Where are you lesbian friends?! I need more women in my life!

Somewhere, Over the Rainbow . . .

I meant to post this a week ago . . . On the way home from Washington, my friend and I saw the most vivid, beautiful rainbow arching over the freeway in Boise. As we drove, we realized that the Boise temple fell right in the center of the rainbow. I wish I had been fast enough to get better pictures, but this is all I got:I'm quite sure that its a sign, but of what I don't know. Ideas? I wonder if it's a promise from God that He will never again flood the Church with political activism against homosexuals. Or perhaps a prophecy that one day Mormons in gay relationships will be welcome in the temple? Seeing as the rainbow initially arched completely around the temple, maybe it's a subtle reminder to Mormons that the gay population is bigger than theirs? Or, as the temple spires reach heavenward, and the rainbow is already there and is so much higher, perhaps this is meant as a revelation that there are gay people in heaven! Or maybe the rainbow is there to remind Mormons that the storm that is gathering is a gay storm, and that it must be feared. What do you think?

Leave My Past Behind

Tomorrow is the National Day of Silence, to commemorate the silence that gay youth experience before they come out of the closet. I am very excited to participate by taking up a vow of silence tomorrow. I am well acquainted with the silence the day is supposed to raise awareness of, but I have not always felt the way I feel about the Day of Silence. In 2002, as a Sophomore in High School, I teamed up with some of my friends to make (and sell) t-shirts that said "Straight Pride" on them and had a picture of two men holding hands with a cross through it. We were going to wear them on the Day of Silence, but that day I decided it wasn't a good idea, and I put all of the t-shirts in my locker. The school found out and confiscated them.

In 2003 on the Day of Silence I wrote a satire about a Day of Silence held to honor pedophiles. Yes, I compared homosexuals to pedophiles, a comparison that now makes my hair stand on end. In 2004 I wrote a diatribe against gay marriage.

I am sure you see the irony of all this. Don't click the links if you have a soft stomach. I was really compensating. I think the Day of Silence at my high school scared me so much because I was angry that I felt forced into silence and didn't see a way out. I was keeping a heavy secret, and others around me seemed to be celebrating the fact that they didn't have to keep their secrets anymore. I was jealous, confused, and angry.

Not to mention I was paranoid that others would figure me out, and I had to throw them off. Vocalizing opposition to homosexuality, I'm sure, made them all certain that I couldn't possible be gay.

And so, tomorrow, I pay tribute to those who are still in silence while celebrating the fact that I don't have to be silent anymore (mostly). So here's to how far I've come!

Patience, Little Brother

I think you'll find this NY Daily News article interesting. Basically the author points out how the Vermont law legalizing gay marriage is better at protecting religious freedom because it went through the legislature than if it had simply gone through the State Supreme Court.

For me, this provides a new approach that we could take with those who oppose gay marriage because of concerns over loosing their religious freedoms (despite the fact that freedom of religion is pretty much irrevocably enshrined in the Constitution). We could approach those with those kinds of concerns by explaining that legalizing gay marriage through the legislature will actually help them.

I think it is evident that when State Supreme Courts legalize gay marriage, there is a lot of fear and backlash, and essentially no control over how gay marriage is implemented. I think the same would be true if DOMA was reversed and the Supreme Court permitted gay marriage because of the full faith and credit clause. I also think that it is evident that over time, the former, if not the latter, is almost inevitable at some point in the future.

If the religious right, then, wants control over when and how gay marriage is implemented in their state, then their best bet is to work across the aisle with gay marriage advocates to pass compromises in the legislature. For some states, this means Civil Union laws need to be passed. For others, it means that social conservatives could promise to back a gay marriage bill if that bill includes clauses addressing their concerns. It is possible for both sides to reach a solution, but it means we have to address fears and concerns instead of freaking out about them.

Now if only I could get people to listen to me.

All I Needed Was a Call that Never Came

On my way home from one of my classes today I was wondering what Joseph Smith would think about gay marriage. In jest, I thought to myself that he obviously didn't have a problem with alternate forms of marriage, seeing as he had as many as 33 wives and certainly asked others to practice polygamy. As I was laughing at the irony there, I suddenly realized that, at least according to information the Church presents, I was wrong. Joseph Smith did have a problem with non-Puritan forms of marriage. So much so that he reportedly accepted polygamy only at sword point.

“When that principle [of plural marriage] was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith … he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine” (President Joseph F. Smith, “Plural Marriage for the Righteous Only-Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting”, Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29).

Even Brigham Young said, "Some of these my brethern know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo;" (Qtd. in Brigham Young: American Moses by Leonard J. Arrington).

This made me wonder about how willing a Mormon prophet would be to change the definition (or allow for the evolution) of marriage. If these Mormon prophets had to be coerced by God to accept a form of marriage they found socially, emotionally, physically, and historically repulsive, then maybe the same would have to happen for a modern Church leader to accept gay marriage. I'm serious, bear with me here.

I feel like God Himself inspired me to accept gay marriage. It was hard at first, to reconcile that inspiration with what I had been taught, but I could do it because gay marriage was desirable to me intellectually and physically. But I could understand how someone who hated the thought of gay marriage so much and was so entrenched in the historical teachings of homosexuality that he wouldn't even be able to receive that inspiration I received. Maybe he just wouldn't be receptive to it, or maybe when it came it would be dismissed or fought against or even mistaken for Satanic influence. Maybe even the response could be "I'm not ready for this, God" or "We aren't ready for this."

The only thing, then, for me to wonder is why an Angel of God hasn't appeared before Thomas S. Monson with a sword to command him to endorse gay marriage yet. I mean, now would be the perfect time! (I think this summer might have been better, but I'll settle for now). I guess we all need to start praying that the sword bearing angel will come quickly and that Thomas S. Monson will heed his message.

Something to Believe

I saw Milk in Chicago the day it was released there. The film blew me away. I was so moved by it that I've seen it twice since. I was surprised, though, by what the movie gave me. The story of Harvey Milk gave me a history, a movement to belong to, and a myth to believe in.

The feelings I felt watching Milk were identical to the feelings I had on my mission in the LA Visitor's Center watching the Joseph Smith film that plays there. Identical. It shocked me. I felt like there was a connection between the assassination of Joseph Smith and the assassination of Harvey Milk. There was a connection in the persecution leading up to it. There was a connection in the mourning of these men. There was a connection in the way their ideas lived on past them. And it made me realize how important it is to be a part of something and to have history and myth. I found out after I saw the movie that the screenplay was written by now Oscar award winning Dustin Lance Black, a former Mormon. I wonder to what extend his Mormonism and the way the Joseph Smith story is presented affected this film.

It's amazing how important Church lore and history is to Mormonism. Every religion is completely dependent on its mythology. I don't use that term to mean fiction, I use it to refer to the supernatural history that is repeated from generation to generation to define a people. Mormon mythology is rich and beautiful. It shapes the Mormon people. It gives them a purpose-a mission. It gives them something in common with each other.

As I have been growing more and more distant from Mormonism, I have felt the absence of that mythology. I didn't miss the camaraderie and shared experience Mormons feel with each other because I had the moho community. My gay friends and I all shared common feelings of marginalization that compensated for the loss of a ward family. But until I saw Milk, I had nothing to replace LDS history. Learning about Harvey Milk and the people involved in this movement has given me that history. In a way it justifies us as a group.

I have been reading a book on gay spirituality and have learned that Harvey Milk certainly wasn't the founder of the gay movement, nor was he the only influential gay hero. People from Walt Whitman to Ellen Degeneres have shaped and defined us as a people. But watching Harvey Milk's story is what made me feel like I was a people. We are a people. Gays have a community, and we can be a part of it. Just as LDS converts adopt the pioneers, we can adopt Milk's history as newcomers to the great and diverse gay community. How exciting is that?!

Hate and Ugliness is All I See

Yesterday I was accosted on the street simply because I am gay. I was walking home with one of my gay friends after class. We weren't doing anything "gay." We were just walking. I guess something in my inflection or expressions as I talked, or maybe the way that I walked prompted two teenage kids to shout, "Hey, I think they're Homos. Their Faggots! Look at them they totally want to hold hands."

They taunted us with insults all the way to my apartment complex down the street.

For some reason this really bothered me. I mean more so than other things do. I can handle the prop 8 sign in the window across from my room. I can handle facebook friends joining prop 8 groups and even saying stupid things about gay marriage. I can handle anonymous emails blasting me for a newspaper article. But this- this felt hostile. This made me feel vulnerable. How did they know? What betrayed me?

I know that teenagers are prone to stupidity and are likely to say things that shouldn't be taken seriously, but this wasn't the product of ignorance. They were trained to hate. Their parents, their society, their legislators teach them to disapprove of gays and be vocal about it. When I see what Senator Buttars says, how can I be surprised at what these two kids say (not that these kids would even know who Buttars is).

The whole experience has just made me know that I have to get out of Utah. It's beyond saving. I am not safe here, and I am safe elsewhere. For God's sake, even North Dakota will allow it's gay citizens the right to keep their jobs and homes.

The Way That You See Me

In Biology the other day, we were talking about natural selection. Our Professor asked us to come up with analogies that could be used to describe natural selection. I came up with the analogy of shoe shopping. Shopping for shoes is like favoring traits in an organism. The ones that are awkward sizes or old trends or are just plain hideous are not selected. Gabriel, who sits next to me, also loved the idea.

After coming up with these analogies, the professor asked for the good ones. People started raising their hands and suggesting "Dodge ball" and other mediocre analogies. Clearly I had the best analogy, but as we talked amongst out little circle of friends, it was determined that neither I nor Gabriel could suggest the idea because we were men, and how would that look? Instead, Amy shared the idea. The Professor praised her for her ingeniousness and went off on what a great analogy this was.

I remarked to everyone that I was upset that I didn't get the credit for such an amazing idea, and that I should have had the guts to raise my hand and give the analogy. Amy's response was, "Um, no. People would think . . . [dramatic wrist flip] GAY!" Everyone laughed.

I wish I would have done it. I'm sick of gender stereotypes that conform us to acting a certain way. I break that mold when I'm with my friends, but its amazing how much I bend to it in class. What do I have to loose? What do I have to be afraid of? I'm not going to be kicked out of BYU for suggesting shoe shopping as an analogy for natural selection. Why should I be afraid of others suspecting the truth?

Contrast that to one of my print making classes in which one of the girls is dating another Moho. The other day we figured it out and started talking about everything Moho, and I was so dramatic. I acted like I wanted to. There was no restraint. I am proud of who I am and how I am, but I still feel this need to hide it in some settings. What is it that makes me want to stay hidden in a large 100 level Biology class, and feel open in a small 200 level Art class? Hmmmmmm.

Do you want to get married, or run away?

In the March 21 edition of the "YNEWS" here at BYU, Joseph Hadfield reports, "New research shows that happily married adults have lower blood pressure than singles with supportive social networks." This new study shows not only that being happily married is better for your health than being happily single, but "that unhappily married adults have higher blood pressure than both happily married and single adults." This demonstrates that just being married isn't good enough, nor is just having a good supportive social network. There is something uniquely beneficial about being happily married.

It's interesting that this is the kind of study that makes the cover story of YNEWS. Clearly BYU values marriage and wants to find and support things that glorify marriage. It's all we talk about in Elder's quorum and hometeaching visits. Marriage is everywhere. I'm not opposed to that. I grew up in this Mormon-American culture which believes that marriage is the best route to take. So here's the problem. For me, being happily married means marrying a man.

I don't understand why all of a sudden the research is reversed for me because I am gay. I am constantly bombarded with this message, "Marriage is better for man than being single, unless you are gay, and then it is better to be celibate." I don't know how much of this message is created by my own projections, but still, it is getting old. I'm tired of it. Either get off the "MARRIAGE! MARRIAGE! MARRIAGE!" soapbox, or let me marry the person that I want to marry. I feel like they are rubbing salt into my wounds.

Love Your Gay Mormon Self

In Tuesday's New York Times there was an article about the “Fatosphere"- a blogging community of fat people whose motto is "love your fat self." It made me think about the Mormon queerosphere we have going on. There certainly are a lot of similarities between the emerging "fat and proud" soap boxes and our moho blogs.

Being shunned and misunderstood by society, both of our groups cling to an online subculture for validation and for emotional support. We also share a variety of outlooks on our respective identities. Some of these fat people are trying to change their fatness, others are happy with their weight. Some of us as gay Latter-day Saints are trying to live celibate or mixed orientation lifestyles, others are happy in homosexual relationships. But we bond together. Like these fat people, who traditionally have low self-esteems, we have created a place where we can accept, embrace, and be proud of our mohoness. Why don't we, as a community embrace the slogan, "Love Your Gay Mormon Self?"

and I won't tell them your name.

I hate the term "Same Sex Attractions." "Same Gender Attractions" is even worse. Gayness is soooooo much more than attractions. I am much more than a person who is attracted to those of the same gender. And it is much more than my sex drive that craves men. The love that I feel towards men is emotional, social, mental, and physical. It is something that is deep and rounded, not something as shallow as so many assume and say.

Straight people never think of themselves as straight. They never think of their relationships as differently gendered. They simple are. They simply go on dates with people they like. They simply fall in love with the one who stands out. Why can't I do the same?

I don't think of myself as gay. I don't think of my relationships as same gendered. I just am. And I'm just dating.

How many of you have actually had sex with someone of the same gender? No, you haven't? But you're still gay? Well I'm sure that you walk around craving gay sex all day, right? No, you don't? Hmmmm. I just wish that I could help others to understand that homosexuality is not about sex. It's so much more. Maybe we can find a term that will show the depth of what is at play here- a term that doesn't imply some sort of sexual disorder. Better yet, maybe we can get to the point where we don't need a term. Where we can just be.

Beyond here and on to eternity

In my post yesterday, I mentioned the possibilities of using sealing power to seal two men together. At the time I was unaware of historical precedent for doing that. I now stand enlightened. Apparently (I would love confirmations on this) men have been sealed together by sealing authority in the Church under a principle called "The Law of Adoption." This is not the same as a homosexual union or marriage. Rather it was a way for two men (likely married to women) to enter into some sort of non-sexual, socially codependent relationship. Even still, the precedent opens up possibilities. It is possible to seal two men together with Priesthood authority.

Perhaps it would be different from exalted marriage, and therefore the eternal posterity would not come to those joined in this type of sealing. (solving the biggest doctrinal obstacle to the practice). I would imagine this fitting into our understanding of exaltation and the hereafter by resulting in two same gendered Celestial Angels sealed together. I'm ok being a Celestial Angel (still a God with divine power, but not a Heavenly Father). What I'm not ok with is being alone for eternity. Couldn't this reconcile that?

There is certainly historical precedence for men exercising creative powers together. Our world was created by Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, for example (and both Jehovah and Michael were single and disembodied). Thus, a same gendered Godly couple could go around creating worlds. Maybe I'll let my straight God friends populate them for me . . .

Wickedness thrust upon them?

I should be doing homework, but Abelard Enigma posted the most beautiful, realistic, appropriate, well-rounded, fair, qualified, informed, and educated descriptions of the three options that Latter-day Saints with SSA face. Please read them.

Option 1 Mixed Orientation Marriage
Option 2 Celibacy
Option 3 A Homosexual Relationship

Reading these options and the well developed pros and cons of each one sent me down a thought path I'd like to share. What do I expect from the Church, and is it a reasonable expectation?

Personally, I expect the Church to one day find a healthy option for same-gender-attracted Latter-day Saints. I don't believe that mixed orientation marriages or celibacy (or suicide) are healthy options. I believe that same gender relationships, even marriages, are healthy options. I won't say it's the only option, in case my imagination isn't good enough, but I will say it is a healthy option.

Is it reasonable (doctrinally and socially) to expect the Church to sanction same sex relationships? I vote yes. In fact, I believe the Church has several resources that put it in more of a position to accept same gender marriages than other religions. Here they are:

1. Revelation. We claim the divine right to learn new doctrines that haven't previously been revealed. We can make changes. We have a fluidity that other Churches don't allow. Generally speaking, the members of the Church follow these revelations when the Prophets receive them.

2. Three books of scripture written for our day that don't condemn or warn against homosexuality. Seriously, if homosexuality is such a big problem, why doesn't the Book of Mormon warn us against it when it was written with our day in vision? Unlike other Churches which rely solely on one book of ancient scripture, we have books of both modern and ancient scripture. And I don't see any incompatibility with any of those books, even the Bible. I think a same gender marriage would work with the standard works.

3. Sealing power. We have the power to seal people together beyond mortality. Why can't it be a man and a man? We use the sealing power to unite a child to parents who aren't biologically theirs. Why can't we use the power to unite a homosexual family? We don't need genes and blood to create families, we just need love, covenants, and Priesthood authority. Let's not forget we have a history of unorthodox marriages that were sealed with this power. Now, it is God's power, and we must use it the way He wants it used, but if he could sanction it for sealing a man to twenty seven women, or to children that aren't his, I have a hard time understanding why God wouldn't want to seal two same gendered people together.

See? It's not impossible for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to accept homosexuality. I think it would work quite well. I hope and pray that one day the Church will do it. I wish it would be more progressive about it, but historically speaking it's not a progressive Church. A black man and a black woman couldn't be sealed together in the Temple until 1979. That's disgusting. I hope that one day a man and a man can be sealed together. And I hope that my children will say, "That's disgusting" when they think that it couldn't happen until 2027.

Delusions of Grandeur

"Don't give up because you want to be heard. If silence keeps you I, I will break it for you. Everybody wants to be understood. Well I can hear you. Everybody wants to be loved. Don't give up" (Josh Groban).

---

Dating girls. I briefly mentioned that I wasn't going to date girls and referenced something that a former girlfriend said to justify it. I didn't expect it to start a small debate on the subject, but people have been talking about it. I have avoided the subject, but after Draco's post, I feel ready to revisit the topic.

The reason that I'm not dating girls right now is because of how unfulfilling it is for me. The last girl that I dated was great. She was cute and funny and liked musicals and good books. Every date, however, was like a homework assignment. I was constantly focused on what I needed to do and how to do it- like a series of chores. I just wasn't interested in her. I was only interested in having a wife and being "fixed." Nothing was natural, it was all deliberately accomplished in a failing effort to have something that I wanted but couldn't have.

So then deciding not to date left me wondering if I would ever learn how to love anyone. It left me wondering if I would always be alone. I couldn't stand the thought of that- a lifetime of celibacy is so much to ask of anyone. So what was I supposed to do? Start dating guys? Just hang out with friends constantly? Become a recluse? After deliberating and dabbling in new things, I think I have found my path.

---

"I'm so alive. I'm so enlightened. I can barely survive a night in my mind. I've got a plan. I'm gonna find out just how boring I am, and have a good time- Cause ever since I tried trying not to find every little meaning in my life it's been fine. I've been cool with my new golden rule . . .Stop trying to figure it out (you try to figure, you try to figure it out), it will only bring you down" (John Mayer).

Question

Here's a question for all of you more experienced LDS-SSA people.

I told my therapist how much I loved this new blog. I explained how much it meant to me to have these comments of support and to discover that there are other people in my age group going through exactly what I'm going through. It has really been helping me (my sanity, happiness levels, self esteem, security, functionability) to know about these people and feel support from them.

Well, my therapist told me about different options - support groups, Evergreen meetings, group therapy, etc- where I can meet these people and really feel like I have friends who actually know what its like- not ones that pretend they understand, but people who know. I think it would be great, but I told him that I wasn't ready because I was afraid. Like any therapist, he asked me what I was afraid of.

I am afraid that I might like someone that I meet. And I am even more afraid that he might like me.

Funny. I have an unquenchable desire to be liked by other guys, and yet I am completely unable and unwilling to allow another guy to like me. Anyway, my question is,

Is this a legitimate fear? What if it happens, what then? What kinds of things have you done to get past this fear? What is proper etiquette in these situations? If you have done any of these things, has it helped you?