Conversion Therapy? Or Just Other Ways of Being Gay?

…Or simply other ways of being?

I’ve had something on my mind, and I’ve recently read, viewed and listened to various perspectives on it.  Here are bits and pieces of my perspective.  Take it or leave it.  Add it to the zillions of other perspectives there are on it.  I’m no professional, and I don’t speak for the LGBT community.  They (whoever “they” are) don’t speak for me either.  Quite frankly, I often feel talked over.

It seems like we’ve struggled to define what sexuality really is, what gay means, what equality means, what homophobic means, what bigoted means etc.  It seems like a human habit of trying to squeeze everything into a nice little box and make logical sense out of it.  “Conversion therapy” is no exception.  I’m saying all this as one who does not like viewing my sexuality as something that is broken and needs to be fixed.  I have other broken parts of me, but it’s not this.  However, I still have something to say.

I’ve seen billboards and other correspondence from Equality Utah saying, “Conversion therapy is still happening,” depicting a heart-wrenching picture of a sad and confused young gay teen (I don’t say confused because he’s gay, but because it’s a very difficult position to be in).  I have concerns.  One of my worries is that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will see this and equate it with “the way” to be active and faithful in the Church.  I worry that they will see those in mixed-orientation marriages as having undergone “conversion therapy.”  I worry that they will see people like me, gay, single and willing to pursue relationships in a chaste manner as having undergone “conversion therapy.”  On the flip side, I worry that opponents of “conversion therapy” actually DO see all these things as “conversion therapy” and therefore seek to ban the resources we have to help us live according to our beliefs.

I think the struggle is…what the heck is “conversion therapy?”  This can also be called “reparative therapy.”

There seems to be several different definitions of it.  I see various debates and conversations about it, and I wonder, “Are we talking about the same thing?”  My interpretations can be thrown in with the rest of the confusion.  I view it as intentionally trying to change sexual orientation.  Hence why I believe this view of “conversion therapy” is not synonymous with living a life in the gospel.  However, I also am not a fan of trying to put my orientation and/or experiences in a nice little gay box and saying, “You must live this way, and if not, then you will live an isolated life of loneliness or go against your nature and marry a woman (like your church wants you to).”

I’m learning that the term “conversion therapy” could very well be a large umbrella term for a wide variety of ways people deal with same-sex attraction.  For some, “reparative” means “repairing” the shame one has accumulated around their sexual feelings.  It means accepting them and observing them.  It means moving away from them being such a controlling force in their lives and seeing themselves as a whole being.  To me, that doesn’t sound like fixing same-sex attraction.  Therefore, I wonder why it’s called “conversion” or “reparative” therapy.  It sounds like building upon one’s view of themselves and gaining a positive self-image, even if that includes a positive view of their sexuality.  They may still choose to act on them sexually, but having had a more healthy view of them. I know some people experience a shift in their attractions once they work through the shame and fear they had.  Many of the same things could be said for people who experience opposite-sex attraction.  I mean…have you seen how much value our society places on genital sexual expression???

Some people see “conversion therapy” as transitioning out of a hook-up habit or out of a homosexual-sexual lifestyle.  I personally don’t see that as “conversion therapy,” especially if the person still experiences same-sex attraction.  Yet others do.  Can you see why there is confusion?

Some see “conversion therapy” as anything that doesn’t affirm same-sex marriage and sexual relations as moral and approved by God.

I’ve talked about my explorations with masculinity, physical affection and meeting my needs for men in ways that do not involve sex.  Some people see that as “conversion therapy.”  I simply see it as me acting on my God-given attractions in ways that are healthy and in line with my beliefs.  Yes, it does reduce the intensity of my sexual attractions, but I just see it as moving beyond that attraction and being the son of God I am meant to be who loves and needs men.  It’s not a love that avoids the physical appeal of a person.  It’s a love that includes that and much more.

Can you see why I am confused?  Can you understand why conversations surrounding “reparative therapy” can be so sensitive, heated and unproductive?  I believe part of it may be that we’re not even talking about the same thing.  It’s like flippantly saying “I don’t agree with homosexuality,” without any explanation as to what that means!  I can’t draw any conclusions. I can’t say if I’m “for” or “against” anything.  I just know I don’t like viewing my same-sex attraction as something that needs to be fixed. I’m just pointing out how nuanced this whole topic is.

On a more personal note, I just finished reading A Bigger World Yet: Faith, Brotherhood, & Same-Sex Needs, by Tim Timmerman.  Yeah, he talks about how he believes same-sex attraction is a result of various unmet male needs as a child and how we’ve sexualized those needs.  He talks about masculinity, the feelings of not being “man” enough.  That is the premise of a lot of what is seen as “conversion therapy.”  

I certainly relate with most of what he wrote about.  I simply don’t believe I can connect everything in my childhood to my same-sex attraction.  For all I know, I was born with it. 

I can resonate with many of those concepts while simultaneously believing that many aspects of my same-sex attraction are part of my eternal identity.  In other words, it’s OK to believe I was “born this way” and still believe God expects me to use it in certain ways.  My go to statement is, “Even if I do have a wife and children in this life or the next, I still expect to have some very deep and intimate relationships with men.”  This is why I believe my same-sex attraction is something that came with me from Heaven.

Reading Tim’s book and other things like it hasn’t changed my sexuality.  It’s broadened my perspective of it.  In fact, I have a healthy level of irritation with our society as a whole, both in the Church and “the world.”  We’ve taken brotherly (or sisterly) connection and intimacy and turned them into a romantic/sexual thing.  I mean big big BIG time.  The reason many gay people want to get married (to a member of the same-sex) is because as a society, we’ve made marriage the crowning relationship as if no other relationship matters.  Sex is also blown out of proportion. I believe we’ve either vilified or celebrated the act of sex to a point where all roads supposedly lead to genital sexual expression in order to be a healthy human.  This isn’t to discount the amazing power of sexual feelings, but I think we’ve added undue focus on them.

We talk about Burt and Ernie being gay, Frodo and Sam, Abe Lincoln and Joshua Speed, sometimes even Jesus and John the Beloved get thrown in there, and assume those relationships were sexual in nature. Maybe they experienced attractions toward each other, but perhaps that was more accepted and normal in their day. I know there’s a line of thought that describes sexuality as being how we relate to everyone, but I mean romantically and sexually. 

I’ve lived under this fear that I shouldn’t be close to a man because I’ll eventually want to or have sex.  I’ve believed in a fear that once those sexual feelings start, there’s no controlling them.  Pants will fall off and sex will just happen!  Yet it’s that exact fear that has been detrimental to me.  It’s kept me isolated and afraid of being open with someone.
 Yeah, mistakes may happen.  It’s a risk.  Being vulnerable, or “emotionally naked,” with 
someone has its risks.  But I’d rather take risks to find connection than be isolated and miserable.  It’s just a matter of accepting that the risk of a “slip up” exists.  It de-mystifies the sexual aspect for some reason.

In short, men should be able to hug, hold each other, sleep with each other (like…share a bed, even affectionately) hold hands and even KISS each other without having any sexual connotations attached to it.  This is true of any man regardless of how they classify their sexuality.  Yet what does society think? SEX!!!  Granted, I don’t feel like I can just snuggle up to any old straight guy, partially because there’s this wall of homophobia (in 
this case...that means “afraid of looking gay”).  There has to be mutual connection and a desire to be close.  

Mr. Timmerman says, “During most of the 19th century it wasn’t necessary for any of the men to distinguish their motives because there were no fear or anxiety around the issue of sleeping with another man.  In a culture where there was almost no context for homosexuality, the assumption would have been, ‘Of course there is no chance of that being sexual.’  I don’t even think the question would have arisen.  Our assumption today of two men sleeping together is, ‘Of course that’s sexual.’ We are in a very different world indeed.”

AMEN!!!

He also writes, “In part, it seems fears around touch in the past 120 years or so, and the sexual revolution, has cost us dearly.  The great equalizer of connecting our groins with whomever we wish has not brought us closer to one another but has yet separated us further from true union and our hearts’ desires.  Historically and Biblically if we actually believed that genital activity and sex was created for the marriage bed of a man and a woman exclusively, the social stigmas about a man sleeping in the same bed as another(man) or friends of the same-sex being affectionate with each other would have nobearing.”

In a way, these concepts really blew my mind and challenged my constructs of intimacy, sexuality and connection all together. I’m still processing it all.  It’s rather freeing to know that I can be close with men…and not have to fit it all into some proscribed gay box!  Holding hands with a friend can be just that…holding hands with a friend and sharing an intimate moment.  Toward the end of the book, he mentions that we need a “resurgence of friendship.”  We need to bring back friendship as an important and recognized relationship in our society.  We need “sworn brothers” and “wedded friendships.”  He goes on to say, “Perhaps some sort of ritualistic element for friendship would be helpful for demonstrating that we take community and the building of a family in Christ seriously….Taking friendship seriously may sound very foreign to some, and yet I look back at our history in the church and see that friendship was seen as an elemental part of the structure of the church.  What I am suggesting simply was the norm.”

I anticipate that many will want to jump in and establish boundaries for people like me, but that’s not your right.  It’s mine.  Boundaries are important in any relationship, but I’m not sure we are the ones who ultimately get to define those for others.

This all may scream “conversion therapy” to some people.  So what? I don’t see it that way.  And even so, there are some aspects that can resonate all across the board.

Since I haven’t completely written off marrying a woman, and since I also am open to the idea of a relationships with men that do not involve sex, some might say, “Oh well then you’re bisexual…you must not really be gay.”  No.  That’s another attempt to throw me into another socially constructed box.  I think it’s unfair to assign someone a number on the Kinsey scale (even if they are married to a member of the opposite sex).  It’s still a very personal thing.  I acknowledge that my sexuality is somewhat fluid.  That’s always been the case.  I probably have what it takes to make a baby.  That said, another thing I’ve learned is that acknowledging this doesn’t automatically mean that I need to worry about getting married a woman.  I don’t need to pressure myself or worry about the same from others.  I could still marry a man if I really wanted to.  I could also pursue a celibate partnership with a man.  I could also be satisfied with multiple committed friends.  Either way, I do not want to be so exclusive as to not continue ministering to others like me.

I’ll probably still use the term “gay” here and there, but as I said, I don’t mean to throw myself into a box.  I like it especially when people say my church is “anti-gay.” I can pull out my inner black woman and say, “Excuse me, no you di-n’t!”  

My sexuality doesn’t define me, but the Church (and I mean the people) don’t get to say, “See? We knew it the whole time.”  There is a LOT in the Church that is based on sexual identity.  The simple fact that we see two guys holding hands and think they’re having sex is proof.  I include myself in that.  The constant worry and fear about sex is very telling as well.  While I truly believe in the divine order of marriage between a man and a woman and sexual relations being kept within those bounds, I believe many “identify” with their sexuality without really knowing it.

Anyway, there’s so much I don’t know about my own sexuality and my being as a whole.  How can I possibly define that for others?  But I’m excited to keep learning about myself and learning how I can thrive as a “gay” person in the gospel.