Enough IS Enough
My heart is sad today. A few days ago, a man named Chris Beers took his own life. He was gay. He was my age, and grew up in a Utah town similar to the one I grew up in. He was a friend and mission companion to someone I went to high school with, who is also gay. His story has been circulating Facebook and blogs. You can read one version of the story here: Gay Mormon Man From Utah Commits Suicide.
In April’s issue of the New Era, an LDS publication written for the “youth” of the church, there is an article discussing homosexuality. It’s not particularly nice, or loving, or kind. As I read it, cringing at the harsh tone, I wondered how many young people in the church will read this article and hate themselves just a little bit more, and be pushed just a little closer to their own suicidal edge.
In all fairness it’s not just Mormons “fighting the good fight” against those sinful homosexuals. No, Christian denominations put aside their doctrinal differences and unite in this unworthy cause. Recently a Mormon blogger who calls herself “A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman” (Ha! I guess I’m a badly behaved Mormon woman), featured a post defending Kirk Cameron’s public stand against gay marriage. If you’re interested in what he says, you can find the blog and interview here: Kirk Cameron Out of Step on Gay Marriage - Says Who? .
I see arguments like this one all the time on Facebook and blog comments against gay marriage. And I’m noticing a trend. There are some nasty words being thrown around by good Christian folk. Words like enemy, threat, unnatural, abomination, blah blah blah.
One particularly popular argument is that gay marriage is somehow a threat to the the family and to traditional marriage. Really? How exactly? I’ve been married for almost 12 years. I cannot think of a single moment when homosexuality has threatened my marriage. Wait, there was that one time...nope, nothing. Not once. Other things could threaten my marriage and my little family, things like selfishness, financial stress, infidelity, or my own bad choices. If my friend were to marry his monogamous partner of almost a decade, would that somehow invalidate my marriage? Nope, I don’t see how it would. So I guess I can stop being scared of losing my marriage to the gays. Phew, that’s a relief.
There is something that scares me to my very core, and that is the frightening trend I see among many otherwise kind people that justifies meanness and exclusiveness. It’s the thoughtless words and actions against the LGBT community, in the name of morality. It’s the off-handed, uneducated comments someone might make at church without realizing that the person sitting next to them is gay. It’s words from someone in an authoritative position that can make a gay youth, or gay adult feel like they’re not good enough, that they’re somehow unnatural or an abomination. That scares the crap out of me, because no one should be made to feel that way. No one. Ever. That is wrong.
There have been several posts on this blog about suicide, and not feeling like “enough.” I am growing very attached to all of you amazing people and I do not want to see any of you hurt by hateful words or attitudes expressed by ANYONE. I don’t care who they are or what position they hold in a church. No one has the right to make you feel like you’re unworthy of your own life. You have every right to live your truth, to pursue your dreams, and to like yourself, damn it. Please, please, please...don’t listen to the haters. Be okay with who you are and know that you are absolutely fine, just as you are. In the words of Stuart Smalley (an old SNL skit that most of you are far too young to remember, “You’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and doggone it, people like you.” Most of all, YOU ARE ENOUGH.
Stuart Smalley - Daily Affirmations
And at the risk of including far too many links on this post, I love this song. It reaffirms my faith that being ourselves, being different, is very much okay.
Linda Eder - What's Never Been Done Before
Thanks for this post. My heart has been breaking for Chris Beers. I'm a lesbian, I'm his age, I grew up in Utah. And I've been in that dark place where it just feels like you can't go on. It was people like you--LDS, heterosexual members who supported me and loved me who helped me out of that dark place. So thank you.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for writing that. I'm happy that you found people who supported and loved you - we all need people who love us the way we are. Every day I find more people who feel the way I do - there are a lot of us LDS allies out there. Maybe we just need to make more noise and drown out the negative voices :).
DeleteI have been dwelling A LOT on Chris' death. I didn't know him personally but I know his struggles. I can empathize with him on many levels, you know that. Thank you for this beautiful message that is truly heart-felt and sincere. You are wonderful.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words, MJ. That means more to me than I can say.
DeleteI love having your voice on this blog. You add a unique and much needed perspective. I appreciate your words, support and love. Thank you thank you.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Jo! It's nice to have a place to put some of my rather strong feelings...and especially when everyone here is very kind and supportive.
ReplyDeleteHey Tiffany, I was online trying to find a link to the article you're talking about in the New Era. Somehow I missed it. Could you post a link down here, if possible? Thanks. I also posted a lengthy comment on the "Well Behaved Woman's" web site. Hopefully she'll approve it. I did try to be articulate and polite. Thanks for your great post!
ReplyDeletehere's the article link: http://www.lds.org/new-era/2012/04/how-to-survive-in-enemy-territory?lang=eng
Delete(might have to copy & paste into your browser...)
When I saw this article in The New Era, I did a face palm, rolled my eyes, sighed, and then wrote this blog post: http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2012/03/24-mcs-we-know-that/.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great article Tiffany :) Just a few thoughts as I read over the New Era article. The church always throws around the saying, paraphrased by me obviously, "Oh we don't discriminate against gays. We hold them to the same standards we do straights. They are all expected to live the Law of Chastity". That's a lovely thought and I'm sure many believe it true, but I see the real truth in it. My sister and her husband were married in a courthouse, I've had several friends married in a courthouse or outside any type of church. In our church's eyes, their intimacy is perfectly acceptable once the marriage is legal, it doesn't even have to be a covenant marriage, just a legal one. However, I have a gay couple friend who is legally married, and yet if they wanted to become members of the church they would not be permitted. This is what bothered me the most about the New Era article, " But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.” Does the church really believe that every single straight couple in a legal marriage is treating their marriage as serious and sacred and God-sanctioned, absolutely not. I would even wage that a minority are. I also personally got offended to see the "very purpose of marriage is rearing of families". Homosexual couples can rear children just as well as my husband and I are rearing our daughters. Some will say, "if they were meant to have children, they would be able to physically". Of course I would say back, they can with the help of science. Growing up one of my good friends had lesbian moms. Through IVF both mothers were able to participate in the creation of the child, with the egg coming from one mother and then carried in the other mother. Adoption is always an option for all couples. Also, there are married couples that can't physically have children or just choose not to have children, are their marriages seen as inferior in the eyes of God, I think not. If anything same sex marriage is going to create families, maybe not traditional families, everyone might not agree, but we saw the same reaction with polygamy and the church embarrassed that lifestyle with open arms ;-) If the church wants to not recognize legal marriages just because they aren't covenant marriages, they need to not recognize all non-covenant marriages, not just those who are same-sex. My God-centered, temple "covenanted" marriage has never been threatened by those in a same sex relationship.
ReplyDeleteWOW. What a great response! I completely agree with everything you're saying. This is something I faced quite a lot as a BYU student. I felt jilted in some ways just because it would be considered wrong if I were to hold hands with another girl, but it was fine for girls and boys to kiss each other and hold hands everywhere they went. Some people tried to tell me that everyone is held to the same chastity standards, but they're not. My holding hands or simply kissing another woman would be considered on the same level (perhaps even worse than) a heterosexaul couple having intercourse outside of marriage.
DeleteMaybe I would feel better about it if the church could at least be honest about things. Don't try to soften it by saying everyone is held to the same standard--because they're not. Straight men and women are encouraged to date and to hold hands and kiss and to develop romantic relationships all of course leading to marriage. Gay and lesbian mean and women are told to live not just a celibate life, but one void of any kinds of intimate physical contact (hand holding, kissing, romantic hugging) and void of the joy that comes from love and partnership.
Go ahead and say it's evil, but don't claim it's equal.
I would hardly consider myself the pinnacle of Mormon orthodoxy (jut ask any of my BYU religion professors who would tell me twice a semester that I needed a haircut), but I would like to ask a question, for which I will probably be attacked for on this blog. Is the criticism of this piece due to the content, or the way in which the content is delivered? In other words, if you were to accept, hypothetically, that what he believes is correct (i.e. that God in fact does have a preference as to the manner in which we employ our reproductive organs), would he still be in the wrong for the way in which he stated it, or does one have to disagree with his premise to take offense at his statement?
ReplyDeleteIf your answer the former, my next question would be, how would you re-phrase what he said to include the same content but with a different delivery?
If you answer is the latter, I would ask why your article didn't center on an analysis of why he is wrong (i.e. a convincing proof that God does not, in fact, have a preference)? Obviously, if Elder Packer is trying to persuade the unconvinced, the burden of proof lies with him. But the moment you postulate that he is incorrect, the burden shifts to you.
Sam, I have to admit that is a great question. I wanted to think about this more, but I decided I'll just be honest, and others can speak for themselves. For me, if I were to criticize this article, my criticism stems from a disbelief for the church as a whole--including the existence of an all-powerful, male god, as well as large portions of its history, scripture, and "doctrine"--, a general disagreement with the man who spoke these words, and a wish for religions to reach out with love--as they pretend to preach--rather than with judgement and a call to repentance. I've never been one for the phrase "love the sinner, but hate the sin" because I feel like it puts emphasis on both the sin and the sinner aspect of a person rather than seeing them as human beings. It seems that this is essentially what Packer is saying by quoting Hinckley. Love the gays and the lesbians, but don't forget they're wishing to have loving relationships and to build families is wrong, evil, and needs to be repented of.
DeleteWere I to take a position parallel with the beliefs of Packer and other members of the church, my problem would not be with his claim that homosexuality should not be acted on, but rather in his word choice. He says things like "troubling feelings" suggesting that one who feels same-gender attraction out to also feel "troubled." I don't think that this is in line with the Church's teachings or Christ's teachings of love--the love of God, self, and neighbor. It seems to only suggest to the youth that if they feel attractions they must suppress them, repress them, and repent of them--rather than acknowledging them, understanding them, and accepting them. Every straight person must acknowledge at some point that they feel attractions for the opposite gender. They must come to some kind of understanding and then some form of acceptance for those feelings--even if they are going to "bridle" them. As a Mormon woman who feels attractions for other women, I must admit that interacting with the church during the time in which I had to come to terms with my sexual being--and more than that with the fact that my personal sexual and romantic feelings are different from the "norm"--was extremely difficult and very destructive. I think it had a lot to do with the way homosexuality (and perhaps sexuality in general) is treated by members--particularly GA--of the church.
In light of youth suicides within the church, I think it would be wise of the GA and even the regular old members to be more cautious in addressing matters they don't understand. I think it would be wise to put into practice the basis (or so is claimed) of their religion--that being LOVE--rather than pushing people away because of "unrighteousness".
I'd like to say I'm fine with people having their own beliefs and practicing their religions, but I don't know that I'm okay with it when the words coming from religious "believers" has such grave effects on its members and, particularly, its youth.
Overall, and still attempting to take the side of a parallel belief system with the Church, I would say that the stance that everything, everyone, and everywhere is either an enemy or enemy territory is disgusting on its own because that does not harbor feelings of love (what I thought to be the basis of the church)--but more importantly, the topic of homosexuality does not need to be addressed in this article.
That's definitely an interesting question, and I know I can't respond as eloquently as Tiffany just did. I personally have a problem with these being published in the New Era, just as I did with the article last month about defending the family. I feel like it's propagandistic to market this to teenagers and kids as young as twelve, telling them exactly what they need to think and that they need to parrot this viewpoint to those around them, which can cause incredible harm, without even talking about ALL the kids reading it who are gay themselves, which is A LOT OF MORMON KIDS. If he were going to talk about this issue, I wish he would have addressed it to a different audience, for a start, and secondly, like Tiffany said in her earlier response, at least being honest with the fact that homosexual members aren't at all held to the same standard as straight members--an entire physical and emotional connection that the rest of the members are told their lives revolve around is automatically denied to them. I personally have a huge problem with that and don't think it's true at all, but since he does think it's true, I wish he would at least acknowledge it. It's nice to say that your religion preaches that it loves everyone, but the way he's talking about that refutes the fact: by putting gays in their own class and denying them certain rights, they will ALWAYS be second-class within Mormonism, which automatically rules out the fact that they could in any way be equal and perceive an equal love from leaders. I don't know if this has responded to your question at all! so I'm sorry about that. But I don't think her article has to respond to proving that Packer is wrong, because you can't really disprove someone who believes that God has told them that being gay is wrong. How do you argue with that except for with the idea that a loving God who apparently CREATED everyone, including their innate sexuality (which is something you can prove, I guess-he keeps arguing that sexuality is a choice, which it might be in some cases, gay or straight or anything in between, but for the VAST majority of cases, I would argue-and science would back me up-that it most definitely is NOT a choice) couldn't logically deny those children the right to have loving, fulfilling relationships? Otherwise, I think the right thing to focus on is the effect this kind of teaching is having on the community, and it's pretty obvious that the result is incredibly damaging. That, I think, is enough on its own to demonstrate that this kind of damaging teaching that results in suicide and self-harm and terrible, terrible pain HAS TO STOP.
DeleteAlso, Sam, I've been thinking about how brave you were to post your comment on here. I've also been wondering why I think that's brave. I really hope that people can leave comments and ask questions without being attacked. Everyone on this blog (writers and readers) has very different opinions, and I hope that this can be a place where we can ask questions and engage in respectful discussion. I hope that you can feel safe leaving your comments here--even if they challenge what has been written or present new ideas. Our goal with the blog is to generate understanding, and to break the silence. Please feel free to comment as often as you like (as long as it remains respectful, of course), and I hope that others will respond in kind. Thanks for reading and for joining the discussion!
Delete