I thought I didn't care about terminology around the experience of same-sex attraction. But I suppose I do. This might qualify as me throwing a fit about something small. Usually I'm able to discard it, but I had feelings about this and I wonder if they're worth sharing.
I re-read a church news article that recounted at talk given at BYU in August 2018 by Eric Huntsman (linked here). I think when I first read the church news article about it, it didn't phase me or bother me, but upon reading it again, it fueled something I've been bothered about recently. Brother Huntsman was fine using the word "gay" in his talk in reference to me. Yet the Church news changed it to "experiences same-sex attraction" in their review (I can't find a link to that article, but it's not too relevant for this post).
Overall, I've noticed a slight adjustment in how terminology is used. For a little while, it seems like the Church was starting to use "LGBT" interchangeably with "same-sex attraction." Yet recently and from my corner of the world, it seems like the Church is fine using "LGB" when it's in reference to a specific set of beliefs and behaviors. I believe President Oaks said something like "LGBT teachings" in the October 2019 General Conference. Yet when it comes to members of the Church trying to be in full fellowship, those who believe in and strive to honor an orthodox sexual ethic, it's more often than not "experiencing same-sex attraction."
Don't get me wrong. I've used "experiencing same-sex attraction" in my own language before, but I appreciate it more when both of these terms are used synonymously with little to no distinction between the two. I get the rationale of the Church (or at least from what I understand). It's been rehearsed to me several times. We don't want sexuality to be our identity. I get that. Yet does it always have to be a "struggle" too? Am I doctrinally obligated to avoid the words "gay" or "queer?"
But (and that's a nice butt)...just because someone might use "gay" to describe various facets of their experience...it does not mean they are separating themselves from their identity in Christ!!! "Gay" doesn't have to be a limiting label, or even a label at all. It doesn't have to be an "identity." It doesn't have to refer to sexually acting out. It doesn't have to refer to anything other than the experience of same-sex attraction. Yet I feel like the Church wants to keep it as an identity. Even when people say "I identify as" it still doesn't mean they're taking it upon themselves as their entire identity. It could mean that they "identify with" or understand the experience of being gay. It's all deeper than words.
I guess this brings up the question "What is identity?" What do people mean when they say "I identify as...?" Is it always the same thing for every person (Hint: the answer is "No.")?
I don't really know how to describe "identity." Like I said, I'm not sure it can always be described with words. We say "Child of God" a lot, yet I wonder if the overuse of those words can sometimes hinder what that really means. I feel like those words can sometimes be dismissive of what I'm really trying to say or what I'm really experiencing. I prefer to think "I am..." and let the silence fill it in. If we are eternal beings capable of becoming just like becoming like our Father in Heaven, then "I am..." just like the scriptures say, "I am that I am," (Exodus 3:14).
Now back to language. Sometimes people see those in same-sex relationships as allowing their sexuality to become their identity. Then, if that's the case, we'd also have to say the same about opposite-sex relationships. Many people on the "straighter" side of the spectrum say, "I don't identify as a heterosexual Christian!" Yet they can "identify" with it in many circumstances without having to use words.
I submit that people who choose to act upon their feelings sexually may or may not see their sexuality as their identity. On a flip side, someone who adamantly rejects the word "gay" and same-sex sexual behavior can still subconsciously make their sexuality their identity. I suppose this can happen when they view it as a "constant battle" or a "struggle." If we're constantly fighting something, it definitely can be at the front of our minds a lot of the time. However, one can avoid the use of the word "gay" and yet still be in a state of acceptance of their attractions.
To draw an analogy: I can say "I identify as balding" or "I experience balding" or "I am balding," but neither of those phrases actually determines how much weight I'm putting on my baldness. Likewise, "gay" is a part of who I am. It's not meaningless. It's also not my entire identity. Nothing in this world is. Why can't "gay" be adopted as just another term or adjective?
I reject the notion that I'll be "made straight" in the next life (although I acknowledge that I'm not in charge). I choose to believe that even if I have an eternal family, it won't mean that I'm "not gay" or "straight." I certainly expect my relational abilities with men to be enhanced and perfected in the next life.
To get a little more personal, I think I needed to go through a period of accepting "I am gay" in order to move past that and see myself more wholly. If I kept telling myself "It's not my identity...it's not my identity," perhaps I would not have learned what I needed to learn. Perhaps I would have stayed in a state of white-knuckle resistance to this part of myself and it could have exploded later in even more unhealthy ways. I resonate with the way an acquaintance put it. He viewed "same-sex attraction" as a way to keep his sexuality at bay and not have to deal with it very closely. In essence, it was a test of resistance. Yet he viewed "gay" as a way to own it, to accept it and become in control of it.
Whether I like it or not, this aspect of myself has indeed shaped how I understand God, how I view the world, how I relate to myself and to others, and as I have said countless times...it has shaped how I've come to understand the Family Proclamation, even if it's an imperfect understanding.
Phew. This is a rant topic for me obviously. Ultimately, a shift that I'd like to see in church culture is from characterizing sexuality as a struggle or a defect, to more of a state of being. This could be true no matter where someone lies on the continuum of sexuality or no matter how fluid they are. I don't know if it would help others, but it's certainly helped me. On another note...wouldn't it be "bridge building" for the Church to refer to some of us in the Church, in full fellowship, serving in callings...as gay every now and then? I don't believe it changes doctrine even an inch. Even if people still hate us for our teachings on marriage and sexual behavior...at least we can be flexible with language.
I understand that there probably are reasons larger than myself the Church has for discussing this topic the way they do. I also know that there are new handbooks coming out and resources coming that we do not yet know about. I hope it's good! I have been blessed with some very compassionate church leaders and a supportive family. I am able to talk about these topics and get them out so they don't bottle up inside me. This blog is another venue for that as well. Anyway, I hope some of you can relate!
P.S. There are times when I really don't like the word "gay," and there are times when I really don't like "same-sex attraction." Other times I just want to throw my hands up and forget about language! But here we are with a complex set of feelings and circumstances, and sometimes language doesn't suffice.
No comments:
Post a Comment