Gay anarchy

Enigma suggested to me the other day the need for a For the Strength of Gay Youth pamphlet to help SSA people know what is okay and what is not in their unique situation. Yes, we both know that Affirmation already has taken that clever step, but I'm not such a big fan of Affirmation and I'd rather have it from someone I trust (and minimally agree with).

Considering the recent debates about cuddling, outing oneself, straight dating, etc... it makes sense that there ought to be some informed guidance for a guy or girl who wants to keep it all above board. Who do you tell? When? What situations should be avoided?

Of course, the issue is not one that applies merely to the youth. Enigma also mentioned in his comment on my last post that he's apprehensive about coming out because of potential consequences from the scouting organization or the ward. So... what do you do in a situation like that? Stand up and be a martyr so that you can educate the people around you regarding the issue? Or continue as you have before where you can serve the young men and touch those private lives in a way that might otherwise be impossible?

The automatic inclination among gays is going to be to assume that restricting callings based on orientation is just simply born of ignorance, but I don't think it's that simple. I suspect that the young women leaders are always women to keep any possibility for impropriety at bay (ditto the young men leaders being men). As my mom is fond of saying, "we should avoid even the appearance of evil." Considering the likelihood that there will be homosexually attracted youth in pretty much every sizable ward, there's an analogous possibility for the appearance of or actual impropriety in a scenario with a gay leader.

But it's not a perfect analogy, of course. Some suggest (and I believe) that coping with SSA is aided with non-sexual relationships with other men. This is particularly true of men whom one finds attractive, the idea being that a friendship reveals the real person and their appeal is normalized and largely mitigated. Some gay men may have painful memories of their youth and consequently idealize the outgoing, talented guys in the ward. So, in may be helpful to both the youth who need a good role model and the gay leader to have such a calling, despite the remote possibility of scandal.

Considering the homophobic culture that clings to some wards despite explicit doctrine of acceptance (of unchosen gay feelings), there hasn't been enough opportunity for those who have been in situations like this to really stand up and say whether it's been an overall positive or negative experience.

Regardless, the scouting organization, while on friendly terms with the church, may have a completely different approach. And, as Enigma pointed out, it's not likely to be particularly gay friendly, even with the distinction between unchosen feelings and behavior (and a straight-married gay). So, yeah. Major problem.

So, I hereby call to order an online policy making session in which people should discuss what the guidelines should be and why. If the brethren give us a set, I'll be delighted. In the mean time, how do you recommend bringing order to the gay anarchy? ;-)

Marginalized

Several months ago I submitted my personal blog address to several bloggernacle blogs to be linked. The blogs had a specific policy regarding which blogs they would link, and I thought my blog complied nicely. It's LDS themed (and sexuality themed, but LDS just as much, I think), and generally uplifting in its goal. I checked back several times afterward to see my link, but it never showed up. This was on more than one blog in the bloggernacle ring, mind you. I never got any kind of acknowledgment from the blog administrators as to why my blog was not suitable, so I was left to speculate all on my own why I had been excluded.

I can't help but imagine the worst. I don't want to believe that I was excluded just because I'm gay or they found my blog distasteful. But what else could it have been? I talk about sex on my blog on occasion, but I don't think I've ever been offensive or inappropriate. Perceptions can be very subjective though, I suppose. I didn't think a post about sexual attitudes was too salacious, but I saw a link afterward where I was criticized for having discussed my little boy running around naked (without context). So, maybe my writing is just too much for some. Maybe I just did it to myself.

I'm disappointed to say that I still suspect that my being excluded represents a homophobic undercurrent in the ostensibly open-minded and tolerant folks in the bloggernacle. Creating a new blog--one with multiple contributors and a very clear intent to help faithful members dealing with homosexual issues--seemed one possible way to break free of this marginalization. It should have been unnecessary to be treated with respect by the cerebral naclers; regardless, I still don't know if the new blog will merit a link either.

Now, imagine my disappointment when I realized that at least one good friend of mine felt marginalized in exactly the same way with the start of this new blog. In my impatience to get the blog up and running, we created a subset of the blogs discussing LDS and homosexual themes that we thought were written by people who would want to be included in the new "community." This ended up being very hurtful for people who were mistakenly left off. It was a mistake, sure enough, but that doesn't make it any less regrettable and unfortunate.

Yesterday I was explaining friends' hurt feelings to my wife, as well as the misconception that we don't want varied points of view to be discussed, and the horrible notion that I'm just up and leaving my existing blog and promoting some bipartisan break in the community. She said, "Why do you need another blog? I mean, if you're going to discuss the same sort of things you always have..." She knows that I consider many of the non-LDS commenters on my blog to be friends and that I really appreciate all their feedback and insights. What purpose could this new blog serve other than to be divisive? I told her some of the history I've just written here--of being excluded from the bloggernacle rolls and feeling misunderstood. This seemed like a way to add a level of comfort--perhaps even just a superficial one--for those who want to feel very reassured that exploring homosexual issues is not a "bad" thing to do. And by adding one more URL, we haven't taken away any. If it helps more people to feel comfortable getting into and out of their issues, I will feel like the new blog will have done some good.