If you were here, I don't know what I'd say.
Oaks gave a talk yesterday. I didn't hear it, of course, I haven't listened to GC in years, but I heard about it through lovely facebook, and then Deseret News, and then the blogs. He came down on abortion, abuse, divorce, and adoption by gay parents. You know, all those things that "harm or disadvantage" children.
My parents were with my older brother's family doing who knows what in Texas on Saturday, so they didn't hear that. My mom and I were chatting this morning and she beamed about the Sunday sessions she'd listened to and dropped her customary hints that, "y'know, sometimes if you're feeling spiritual, you could always listen to GC."
I guess I just don't understand how something that sets off a million little bombs of anger and sorrow inside me—not Oaks' talk in particular, although that too—makes her so happy. Makes my sisters so happy, my childhood friends so happy. I don't understand how their balm of Gilead can be such [ ].
***
I talked with a dear dear friend yesterday about sex. She suggested I find someone experienced and very gentle to teach me about it. She said I'd know when I'm in love. She hinted strongly that the Mormon ideal I'd adopted—meet the love of your life, date, get married, then have sex with that person only forever—doesn't really work.
This is a problem because it seems to be working for my parents and 3/4 of my siblings, and many of my Mormon friends. But then, so does Mormonism. Something about me is apparently different.
***
From time to time gay friends have told me I just need to go out and sleep with a bunch of people and my views on sex will heal right up. I don't believe this. Maybe I won't only ever sleep with my true love, but I like the part of me that thinks of sex as special and important. And I guess I'm just afraid I'm a bit too much of a snob.
***
My dear dear friend also said that when I'm ready, I'll know. She said to trust myself.
Maybe what I resent so much about Mormonism is that in matters of sex and love it taught me to trust twelve old men instead of myself, and that early wiring is hard to redo.
I relate to so much of what you are saying, but I am probably 30 years or more older than you. I had a wonderful but short-term gay sexual relationship after my mixed orientation marriage failed, but then decided to stay in the closet, single, and celibate. I had a strong feeling 6 months ago that I should have a partner and my partner should be a man. I have come out, but have not found anyone yet to date. I get the same advice to just start having sex with any gay man who will have sex with me. I'm not ready for that. The sex I had with that one guy years ago was wonderful, but we established some relationship first. Unfortunately it was not strong enough to survive on sex alone.
ReplyDeleteRe conference, I have to ingore the fb comments from my Mormon friends. The only one I enjoyed was from a nephew who was texting with other guys in his stake during the priesthood session. I don't think they were feeling the same awe as most of the other people who have commented.
Best wishes to you.
I read your blog now and then, so I keep up with your story Dean. :) Good luck finding a guy.
DeleteMy facebook friends were actually almost entirely silent this weekend—which leads me to believe they've blocked me, unfortunately.
Maybe I missed the part of Oaks' talk that said that, but i'm pretty sure I listened to that part and he didn't say that. I do remember him talking about abortion, and how it was horrible that people are denying babies birth when there are so many couples out there yearning to adopt a child because they don't have any of their own. About marriage he said that the idea of marriage now is that it can be temporary, and children do better if it is a traditional marriage (referring to a study and his experience on the supreme court), but that there are cases where there is abuse where divorcing is going to be better, but it is more of an exception. About same sex partners he said that it was still a social experiment (meaning it's a new form of family that hasn't been common and around long enough yet) and that time would tell the statistics of it. That's what I got out of it at least. I know you are generally a person to form your own opinions so maybe you should find his talk and listen to/read it to see if you get the same, or if you get irate like others did. Of course a lot of what you glean from things in life, whether they are articles, talks, books, comments on your blog, etc really has to do with your experiences in life. As I am a mother, his talk made my heart ache for all the abused, poverty stricken children more than react to what he may or may not have said about same sex attraction and gay relationships with or without children. My two cents. You can email me a response if you have one.
ReplyDeleteI was able to find the talk on Youtube. What he said was "[Everything bad about divorced or single parent families]. We can assume all of that applies to same gender couples with children." It was about ten seconds of the talk.
DeleteI get your heartache reaction, and I had that too. Apart from those seconds it was the kind of thing Mormons should be proud to have leaders saying.
I think that makes those seconds even more dangerous. Because if you got a "time will tell" vibe from it that's great, but I bet you dollars to dimes a large portion of the audience interpreted it as "therefore it is dangerous to children and we should not let it take place," especially after the three or four references to voting and policy making that were sprinkled throughout the talk leading up to The Gay Part. Since it slipped in there so innocuously, most people won't even think to question it.
Maybe I'm too sensitive about this. Even if I am, though, it's with good reason. Four years isn't enough time to forget Prop 8.
P.S. I love getting comments from you.
I think when one is on the a*& end of a comment like that, one is entitled to be sensitive about it. That said, I have typically found Elder Oaks to be among the more thoughtful members of the twelve. Holland is my numero uno, but Oaks is right up there. The polar opposite of a certain mean spirited dinosaur who shall remain nameless, or rather whose name shall not be spoken.
ReplyDeleteAs for the sex thing, all I can really do is sigh. We share similar thoughts on the matter Matthew. I would very much like to enjoy that particular pleasure with another person at least once before I slip these surly bonds, and I don't think it necessarily needs to be accompanied by a lifelong commitment. But good lord, can't it be something more than just cheap and tawdry? Maybe not, but I'd like to think it an absolute choice between either pure monogamy or pure meaningless fun and games.
One thing I will say is that the teaching of the Church on this subject can be downright harmful, even if mostly well intentioned. And the concept of commitment and finding value and meaning in sex is excellent. But, if I could have only explored that part of me as a young man, oh how much harm and pain could have been avoided for myself and those around me. You know me better than most, so I think you understand.
After that book of a comment, I'd simply agree that you should trust yourself regarding when, with whom and how. Allow no one person or religion to decide for you.