A clarification of
terms is in order.
One of the most
significant problems facing anyone who engages in the conversation
surrounding homosexuality and gender issues is that the terms we use
have different meanings for everyone involved. I experienced this
confusion firsthand when I posted an article to the wall of a
Facebook discussion group entitled “Nobody is 'born gay.'” The
author was expounding his opinion, shared by many LGBT historians,
that the term “Gay” refers to a set of social expectations unique
to our culture (to use a slightly stereotypical example, if you're attracted to the same sex it means you're
gay: you come out of the closet, wear pink, talk really funny and find a romantic
partner (or two, or three or one a week or....you get the idea.)) I
find this social construction limiting, especially with my status as
a believing Mormon, and reject using it in most circumstances for
that reason. This was what I was attempting to express. However, in
the minds of several individuals on the forum, “gay” refers to
the experience of same-sex attraction itself, which (though
variations occur) is most likely built into a person's experience while still in the womb. In
addition, there have been many ill-informed religious individuals who
have used and continue to use the assertion “nobody is born gay”
to insinuate that LGBT people chose their orientation. Acting out of
this assumption, they have fallaciously pressured, even bullied LGBT
individuals into changing their orientation, something that has been
the cause of great difficulty and heartache for many in the LGBT
community. I had thought I was expressing a rejection of the “Gay”
label; the people in the forum thought I was expressing that a
homosexual orientation was chosen and that LGBT people should change
it.
This resulted in a
long, exhausting and confusing argument that could have been avoided
with a clarification of terms.
“So much of the
controversy happens around unexamined premises and conclusions drawn,
often simply accepted without any real critical thought at all,”
states Ty Mansfield in an address to Fairmormon. Ty, who himself
experiences a homosexual orientation, advocates for a more nuanced
understanding and use of the terms we employ. “When we categorize
people reductively as 'gay,' 'straight,' or 'bisexual,' or as simply
a point along the Kinsey Scale, it assumes that sexuality is
one-dimensional and that it exists upon a single linear continuum. It
is not and does not.” He suggests that, in order to build more
meaningful conversations on this issue, we recognize when the words
“gay” or “homosexual/ity,” are referring to one of the
following four things:
2) Orientation
3) Behavior, and
4) Identity2.
When I boldly declare “Homosexuality is not a sin,” what do I mean by “homosexuality?”
I am referring to points one, two and (mostly) four above. Attraction to members of the same sex is not a sin. When that attraction sets into a long-term pattern, called an orientation, it is not a sin. When that attraction is included as part of one's identity, it is not a sin. This is not just my self-assuring feel-goody idea, it is doctrinal. “The attraction itself is not a sin1,” the Church website http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ simply states in its section “Where the Church stands.” If you experience homosexuality as an attraction or orientation, and include it as part of your identity, according to the Church, you are not in sin.
Let me make another thing clear. I believe that homosexual acts ARE sin. Unequivocally do I believe they are sin. Mormon doctrine is crystal clear on this and will not change. I believe the Mormon doctrine of the family, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the marriage covenant is essential to exaltation. By saying all this, however, I don't advocate for “heternormativity,” I don't think gay people are all evil and condemned to hell, etc. I'm not completely black and white on this; there is much nuance in this issue and there are many gay and lesbian couples for whom the sexual act is as much an expression of love between them as it would be for a straight couple. I believe that there will be much more mercy than fire and brimstone for many LGBT couples. But, it is still sin; it is still an act that has an affect detrimental to the deepest parts of human nature. I have never had full-out sex with a man, but I've gone far enough to have experienced fairly serious spiritual consequences, and though I don't completely understand why, I do believe homosexual acts are sin.
You can rest assured now, that when I declare “Homosexuality is not a sin,” I am not expressing apostasy from Church doctrines. I refer to the broad experience itself, and not just the one narrow aspect of it that is homosexual behavior.
And yet, this uncovers yet another irritating problem of the language we use. One would assume that the word “homosexuality” SHOULD narrowly refer to the sexual response cycle, right? This seems to be implied by the construction of the word itself and would be its most logical use. However, there are two key problems I can see with defining “homosexuality” so narrowly.
Problem 1: the word is never used so narrowly in our discourse. Here's an example: How many male readers have held another man's hand in public? I would assume very few, especially if you're American. Why? Because it's “homo.” We don't want to be “homos” or “homosexuals.” Is holding another man's hand a sign of sexual intent? If you think so, you're weird! At least, in the terms of almost every other culture that exists. Go to any other period or place and you'll see that men do much more than that without meaning anything sexual by it. Somehow, however, our modern culture uses the appellation “homo” “homosexual” and “homosexuality” to refer to any feelings of affection and desire towards people of the same sex, and not just the sexual response.
Problem 2: “Sexuality,” referring to sexual attraction, sexual desire, the motivation towards sexual behaviors and experiences, etc. cannot be parsed from the context of the person who experiences it without a significant loss of meaning. It would be like sawing off a hoof and calling it a horse, or severing a branch and calling it a tree. Sexuality, while a functionally independent biological process separate from one's will, is still influenced by dozens, if not hundreds of factors, including a person's religious beliefs, economic status, cultural upbringing, social class, age, maturity level, emotional makeup and personality. Homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality, gay/straight etc. are oversimplifications, because they do not account for the complexity of these factors. Gender alone is not a good indicator of what one will necessarily find attractive. I am not attracted to all men; “straight” people aren't attracted to every single person of the opposite sex; “bisexual” people are not attracted to every last person that ever lived, etc. For instance, in my experience (it's a little embarrassing to admit this publicly, so please be gentle, especially if you are a friend of mine that fits this) my “type” are generally men at least 10-20 years older than me, loving and considerate, emotionally stable, mature spiritually, my height or taller, and at least 215-250 pounds. And yet, to add another layer of complexity, there are plenty of men that fit these categories that I have never been attracted to, and there are also plenty of men not in these categories that I HAVE been attracted to. For another layer of complexity, my sexuality is often triggered towards both women and men with whom I first experienced a significant emotional connection, a pattern I have heard called “demisexuality3.” The attraction occurred, not because of the gender of the person, but because of the relationship I had with them. Those attractions, by their very definitions, cannot be reduced to either “homosexual” nor “heterosexual” because they were not dependent on the gender of the person involved. As a last example, my sexuality more often than not accompanies a deep love for another person and a desire to give myself, my life and my whole soul in devotion to (usually) him, a desire which, at its root, is not sexual and again, not necessarily dependent on the sex of the person involved.
Does anybody know any words to describe my sexuality? Anyone? You would make my life a lot easier and my writing a lot more concise if you did. My sexuality is so complex...it's so multifaceted, much broader and deeper than the term “homosexuality” could ever give space for.
So why use it?
This word is the only one I have in my possession that fits my patterns of attraction more than 30% of the time. I choose to use it for that reason instead.
To conclude, homosexuality is not a sin. But, if it is true (as I believe) that homosexual acts in any circumstance ARE sin, then what's the point of “homosexuality?” Sounds like it's rather pointless, right?
While that may be true from the simplistic, one-dimensional perspective society often takes on this issue, and which can be a source of great pain for me at times, there is much more to it than that. Given the complexity of my sexuality and all that it stems from, I've found that homosexuality has served distinct and vital functions in my development as a being, and is a hugely valuable aspect of my life.
I ask myself this question: “If homosexuality is not a sin, then what is it?” And find a wealth of answers that are as consoling as they are beautiful.
More on this later. For now, I end with a quote:
“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
- Unattributed
References:
1) http://www.mormonsandgays.org/
2) http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay
3) http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Demisexual
No comments:
Post a Comment