Lost and confused!

By Madame Curie

I've been having a really sad time as of late. Days of just feeling like the world as I know it is ending. Most of the time, I can't really put a finger on why. But last night, I tied the pieces together and it makes much more sense.

I feel like there are two lovers inside me. Part of me loves my husband so much, that I just want him to be happy no matter what. If that meant leaving me for a man he loves, then I would support that. I want him to be happy as I am happy, to have a full and meaningful marriage with another as I do. The other half of me clings to him. I don't want him to go. I want him to find me "enough" for his happiness, to find happiness in me as I have in him. Its a selfish love, but I don't think its illogical.

I knew who I was entering our marriage. I was under no false impressions of my own sexuality. Yes, I was still closeted in terms of being an "out" lesbian - but I was and am sincerely attracted to my husband, in every bit as full and complete of a way as I was attracted to my high school girlfriend. The disgust that I felt towards men did not apply to him. He was (and is) my perfect exception.

However, Mister C didn't know who he was. He was gay, and didn't accept it. He's only accepting it now. What does it mean that we entered the marriage on unequal footing? I knew and was confident in who I was and am... but he didn't know himself. While I encourage him to figure himself out, at the same time I war within myself at what he will find. I've felt revulsion towards men before. I don't want him to feel that towards me.

How do I deal?

Suggestions Sought: Coming Out to Family

By Mister Curie

I have had several positive and affirming coming out experiences, including to my brother. I am now beginning to contemplate the best way to come out to my family so that it can be as positive an experience as possible. I would love some suggestions.

Here is the situation. We live far from the majority of my family and only visit once a year for 10-14 days, during which time we stay nearly exclusively at my parent's house. This trip typically occurs during the summer. Coming out is complicated by having two different issues to come out about: church disaffection and homosexuality.

Here are the pros and cons I have thought of so far for some of these parameters:

Coming out about both vs. only one issue

Pros for coming out about both:
complete honesty
get it over at one time
live authentically
overall response may be less protracted

Cons for coming out about both:
may confuse the two issues together
supports stereotype that homosexuality is sinful
might fail in making parents more understanding of homosexuals in general
minimizes my other issues with the church (which were not initially related to homosexuality and were sufficient to destroy my testimony without homosexuality being an issue)
response is likely to be stronger (if ultimately less protracted)

If choosing an issue: Church vs. Homosexuality

Pros for coming out about Church:
Follows time-line of my journey (this was the issue first)
Intellect and facts are on my side
If parents reject me over this issue, I can channel my frustration at the church

Pros for coming out about Homosexuality:
I think my parents would be more accepting of my homosexuality than disaffection
Disaffection may be more understandable coming from the perspective that I'm gay
Homosexuality can be seen as an innate quality, rather than a choice (such as drinking tea)
Wife and son would probably get sympathy and support

Cons for coming out about Church:
May make parents later think that homosexuality stemmed from Satan and sin
I think the response would be less favorable than for homosexuality
May estrange wife and son from my family
Blame may be placed on my wife

Cons for coming out about Homosexuality:
If rejected over homosexuality, I will feel like it is more of a personal rejection

Coming Out before visit vs. during visit

Pros for before visit:
If rejected, can save money by not purchasing plane tickets until we know response
less time hiding and more time feeling authentic
written letter will allow me to fully express thoughts without getting lost in emotional responses
things won't be as awkward if parents have time to process before we visit

Pros for during visit:
Will immediately have time in person to show I am the same person and rebuild relationship
More personal and intimate

If during visit: at beginning vs end of visit

Pros for beginning:
More time to show I am same person and to rebuild relationship
more time being authentic and less time hiding

Pros for end:
If bad response, won't be stuck with no place to stay
Less time for things to be awkward

What do you think? What considerations am I neglecting?

Hatred under the Guise of Loving God

By Mister Curie

I'd like to thank John Gustav-Wrathall for raising awareness of the current legislation being considered in Uganda. This legislation would make life imprisonment the minimum penalty for gay sex, with some instances necessitating the death penalty. Members of the public who fail to report homosexual activity would face three years in prison, and those who stand up in defense for homosexuals (such as family members) would face seven years in prison. Just as appalling, is that a group of American politicians and Evangelicals are supporting this measures in Uganda, as reported in the New York Times. While reading another article that John provided, one phrase in particular hit me:

promot[ing] hatred under the guise of loving Jesus

I received an email several months ago from a friend who was concerned about my family's public support for gay marriage, "in opposition to sustaining the Prophet." I frequently feel that the LDS church places itself as a mortal proxy for the eternal command to love God. This is reflected in the doctrine that only allows entrance to Celestial Glory for those who have experienced temple ordinances (where admittance to the temple for such "saving" ordinances is dependent on doctrinal orthodoxy, payment of tithing to the church organization, and "following the prophet"). This friend then laid out the by-now-familiar Mormon case against homosexuality, which I will not re-hash here. Essentially, however was the case that I must "follow the Prophet" to show my love for God. Somewhere in these arguments, I found the pernicious promotion of hatred under the guise of loving God.

I responded as a faithful Latter-day Saint, while attempting a rebuttal to the argument that obedience to the Prophet is the highest form of loving God:

I understand why you would be concerned that we are picking and choosing from the prophet's counsel. We have encountered all of your arguments previously and struggled for some time with our decision. We certainly have no desire to go against the Prophet of God or to put ourselves outside of God's guidance. We have made the matter a concern of deep spiritual reflection, pondering, and of course, prayer. We are counseled to obey the prophet, and some have gone so far as to say that "when the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done and the debate is over." On the other hand, we have been taught that God does not want us to be blindly obedient and that we should take all things to the Lord and ask Him for guidance and confirmation. As it says in Moroni, "he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things" (Moroni 10:4-5). I regularly taught the investigators on my mission that they should pray about the Book of Mormon and that they should pray about all the counsel they receive at church.

This matter has been particularly troublesome for us because, as I said, we have close personal friends who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual, most of whom have never been members of the LDS church. We see their pure love for members of the same sex and their sincere desires to share in a marriage relationship. We also know gay members of the church who have felt broken, hated by God, and full of self-loathing due to the stance of the church toward gays. In all cases, their sincerity has convinced us that their "homosexual tendencies" are not a desire to sin or receive a greater "sexual high," but rather they experience attraction not of their own choosing, but which in all respects appears to be the same as the God-given affection shared between a man and a wife. So life is messy and things are not always easily divided into good and evil, or good works and sin. We have made and continue to make this a matter of prayer. We try to keep ourselves open to the influence of the Holy Spirit so that we will not be led astray, recognizing the potentially hazardous ground we may be treading. In all respects, we have felt the influence of the Spirit and have been filled with the love of God toward our gay friends. We feel that we maintain our good standing before God and that he has approved of our actions, both toward our gay friends and toward the legislation that so personally affects them.

We do not feel that we have received Prophetic counsel that we must personally vote against legislature allowing gay marriage or that we must personally condemn the lifestyle of our gay friends. Our gay friends, both inside and outside of the church, do not need our condemnation, they need our love. I am sure that Christ is full of love toward gays and that, if he were here, he would as likely be found loving and forgiving and ministering among the gays as he was found among the "unworthy" classes of people in his own time, the sinners, the poor, and the lowly of heart. We do not feel that our own love, compassion, support of, and attempts at understanding the plights of our gay friends is condemned by the Lord in any way.

You quoted President Hinkley who said, "If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are." You then ask "why shouldn’t the Church today put its foot down when certain wickedness is prevailing in the world?" when the "the Church [is] a Gospel for all the world." As far as church discipline, the church itself has agreed that it only has authority up to being able to excommunicate a member. It can only punish its own members. The Church does not have authority beyond removing non-abiding members and does not have jurisdiction over those outside of its membership. Thus, we feel that as soon as the church attempts to directly influence those who are not members, it has stepped beyond its spiritual authority and has entered the realm of politics. Within the church, we believe the church can issue any statements or proclamations that it feels are necessary, those proclamations and statements can even be directed to the entire world. But we believe it is beyond the authority of the church to attempt to directly influence the lives of those who do not grant the church such authority over their lives through church membership. We do not feel that the proclamations and statements so far given by the church grant us the right nor the responsibility to punish or condemn anyone else, gay or straight, inside or outside the church.

Christ invites all people to come unto Him. We feel that Christ's church should do the same. We feel that God does not want us to be judgmental or unkind toward any of his children. We are convinced that God desires all of us to love one another, to serve one another, and to be kind to everyone. No one can understand the difficulties or temptations of another, and we are convinced that the judgment of God will be far more merciful and just than any in this life can imagine. If God does not feel the need to punish or strike down someone in this life, we do not feel it is in our authority to usurp his judgment or power. If you, like some, feel that God is striking down the gays (some have suggested through AIDS), then we are comfortable leaving that judgment in the hands of God while doing everything in our power to succor them in their infirmities and to lighten their burdens (I am training to be a physician after all and have pledged my life to caring for the sick). We are convinced that our support of gay marriage fulfills the injunction of Christ (and our church leaders) to lighten another's burdens, comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to love all men.

While a response to Evangelicals would need to be couched differently than this response to the Prophet-following Latter-day Saints, I think emulation of Christ's example of love and service would be much more pleasing to God than intolerance and legislating the death penalty.

Possible Change in Blog Boundaries

We're considering splitting this blog into two: Third-wave Mormon, which would return to be primarily Mme. Curie's domain and involve interfaith-related and feminist-related discourse; and a second blog, primarily run by Mr. Curie, exploring being homosexual and Mormon (although Mme. Curie would also post there her sexuality-related posts).

There are various pros and cons to this approach, but at the moment we are seeking our readers' input. Please respond to the poll on the right and/or leave a comment with your thoughts.

Thanks!!

Mme. and Mr. Curie

Putting the Puzzle Together: Madame Curie's Turn

By Madame Curie

A few days ago, my husband and I were discussing the Kinsey scale. I have traditionally placed myself as a 4, since I have been attracted to two people in my life - him and my high-school girlfriend - and am generally physically more attracted to female than to male anatomy. However, Mr. C pushed me on this, causing me to recall a number of other things that I had not previously considered. As such, I think it is probably only fair to him that I go through the same analysis that he has. In so doing, I will note at the onset that I am going to be far less explicit in my writing than Mister C was. I am also not going to do a "Pieces of the Past" series, because it would violate the privacy of far too many people.

As a refresher, the Kinsey scale is as follows:

0 Exclusively heterosexual 0
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual 1
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual 2
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual 3
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual 4
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual 5
6 Exclusively homosexual 6

As my husband did, I will also employ the Klein grid to characterize my sexuality in various aspects of my life.

(1) Sexual Attraction: To whom are you sexually attracted?

I am going to assume that they mean "physically" here, which is a difficult distinction to be made since, for me, sexual feelings are fairly intimately tied with emotional connectiveness. Without question, I am physically 'sexually attracted' only to women, and (aside from Mister C) have actually been physically repulsed and nauseated by any and every man I have kissed or been intimate with. So, I am giving this one a 6, with the very, very notable exception of my husband.

(2) Sexual Behavior: With whom have you actually had sex?

I am going to rephrase this as "With whom have you actually had intimate physical activity with where you enjoyed said physical activity?" I give myself a 3 for this one - equal men and women.

(3) Sexual Fantasies: About whom are your sexual fantasies?

I don't much think about physical anatomy of the person I am with in my fantasies - I generally only think about the emotions at play, and those drive the sexual feelings. However, the one notable exception is in my sexually-related dreams, where I exclusively dream physically about women. Always. Additionally, the thought of male anatomy in a sexual fantasy for me has the effect of cooling my libido faster than a -80 C freezer. So, this is probably going to have to be a 6 as well.

(4) Emotional preference: Who do you feel more drawn to or close to emotionally?

Women and gay men. I've almost never felt emotionally drawn to a straight man. Or a traditionally "masculine" men. Those guys just are off-putting to me. Part of me has to wonder whether my emotional attraction to gay men has been a sort of subconscious defense mechanism to avoid becoming physically involved. I do know that the times that I thought I was physically attracted to a straight guy, when he acted on it I quickly figured out that I wasn't really attracted to him.

I count the "gay men" in this group as making me "incidentally heterosexual". Thus, this one codes as a 5.

(5) Social preference: Which gender do you socialize with?

Women and my husband: 5.

(6) Lifestyle preference: In which community do you like to spend your time? In which do you feel most comfortable?

I'm comfortable in both heterosexual and homosexual communities. So this is a 3.

(7) Self-identification: How do you label or identify yourself?

The short answer to this one is that I don't tend to label or identify myself. But, if I am being honest with myself (which is hard on this topic), I would have to say that I more identify with being gay than straight. Well, much more, actually. Its not so much my husband's masculine nature or body that I am attracted to as his emotional and intellectual connection with me. But I can't deny that physically and emotionally speaking, I have tended to hang out with gay guys and hope that nothing physical happens, or hang out with girls and not mind if anything happens. So, this again is probably a 6.

In terms of physical attraction, I would say that I am a 6 - exclusively homosexual. Luckily, I am not repulsed by my husband. I have felt repulsion towards men many times in the past, and it is not something that I would ever, ever, ever want to associate with him. However, I do recognize that a large part of that attraction is the emotional and intellectual bond that we share, which fuels the physical attraction. There are also... other things that come into play that would not come into play for anyone else. In terms of emotional attraction, I am probably a 5 - predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual.

Given that I am emotionally and physically attracted to my husband, the number matters much less than the actual truth that our marriage is outstanding. Until, of course, he starts residency and I don't see him for days on end. Or until he falls in love with another man. Although I recognize that there may come a day in the future when we are unhappy, or when either of us is no longer the other's "exception," the best I can do is enjoy today, hope for tomorrow, and do my best to stay emotionally attached to my husband in the future.

I don't want to trade today's happiness, just to "protect" myself from a potential future heartache.

Out Update III

By Mister Curie

In my last update, I wrote:

I received an email from one of the directors of my school program
saying she wanted to set up a routine meeting to discuss my progress in the
program. I have known she is lesbian for some time and did a quick LGBTQ search
on the university webpage to confirm that she is listed as a "safe" person to
discuss LGBT issues with. I sent her an email today outing myself and setting up
an interview for this coming Friday.

It is now that Friday.

The program director and I had a great discussion for nearly an hour today. It was such an affirming experience! It felt great to be able to discuss both my homosexuality and my disaffection with the church. She was very supportive and knew all the right things to say. I am so glad all of my out experiences have been positive so far!

Friday Movie: Eyes Wide Shut

By Mister Curie

Not a gay movie this week. "Eyes Wide Shut" is (from IMDb) about:

A New York City doctor, who is married to an art curator, pushes himself on a harrowing and dangerous night-long odyssey of sexual and moral discovery after his wife admits that she once almost cheated on him.

Certainly lots of eye candy for the lesbians and heterosexual males, but what really interested me about this movie was its moral themes. After narrowly (and not entirely willingly) avoiding an enticing encounter with a prostitute, and then being kicked out of a high society sex orgy that he snuck into, the main character learns that the prostitute had recently contracted AIDS and that "Powers That Be" in the city are now out to get him. The theme "Lucky To Be Alive" permeates the second half of the movie. This movie made me think about the often unseen and unintended consequences of our actions (particularly those that are impulsively made). Certainly within the promiscuous aspects of a sexual relationship there is the potential danger from AIDS and other STDs. There is also potential danger to committed partners (not just through contraction of STDs), but through broken trust and emotional damage. This theme applies to both heterosexuals (as portrayed in the movie) and to homosexuals. I think it is important to try and imagine the consequences of our actions and to minimize those that would impact negatively on our lives and the lives of those we love.