A letter for people I love

This is an open letter to anti-LGBT+ family members—because there’s more than one of you, and because, even if you might not believe it when we disagree, I do love you. Please bear with me.

Because we share genetics and grew up doing holidays together, I know where you come from. I know the particular brand of theology you’re expressing is what you’d been raised with from day one. I know your parents only ever wanted what was best for you, and they are good people. And I know you don’t want to be hateful. It hurts and offends you when others think you’re being cruel for opposing same-sex marriage, when you feel you’re just standing up for “what God says.” You also believe you’re being persecuted for this opinion, and are immersed in a religious culture which tells you that is true. I can’t personally relate to this, as I was not raised within evangelical Christianity. I do understand where you’re coming from, though. It can’t be an easy place to be.

But, in love and in sincerity, I’m asking you to please consider something: That it would be incredibly painful to be a gay or bi or transgender person living within that environment. Even if nobody from your church or your specific religious community is openly “out,” there very likely are LGBT people within your community who know this truth about who they are and hate themselves for it. And, without any assumptions or accusations on my part, please let me ask you some rhetorical questions.

Are you helping them to feel loved, regardless of your beliefs about their identity, or are you encouraging self-hate?

Are you telling them God loves them, but only if they change a huge aspect of who they are and have always been? If so, how can it be called a “free gift” if there are so many strings attached? It can’t be a demonstration of parental love if it’s so conditional. (Not that all parents love unconditionally, but the general Christian understanding is that God loves in the way that an ideal and perfect parent would.)

What are you trying to accomplish by posting anti-LGBT quotes and memes? Are you directing them at LGBT people, or at peers within your religious community who agree with you? Are they directed at people outside your group who disagree—and if so, are you using those posts to try to persuade them?

If you are addressing those things to other Christians, what’s your reason for doing so? Maybe you’re trying to prove your place within their circle, to show that you belong. If that’s the case, why is it necessary? Would true friends litmus test you?

If you’re trying to reach LGBT people, please understand that telling us we’re going to hell and deserve to be murdered is not love. I am, and have always been, a bisexual person. This doesn’t mean I’m in multiple relationships or want to be. I also never chose this. It’s something I’ve known since first grade, since before I knew it was even possible to like both men and women or had any word to name it. If you have questions about this, I’m willing to talk about it. But if you're only interested in telling me how wrong I am for being bi, then the conversation won't lead us anywhere helpful.

If you say gay people are damned or unloved by what you believe to be the ultimate and all-powerful source of love, that does affect me personally. It’s extremely hurtful. In a similar way, you feel personally affected and hurt when others say the same things about your specific branch of Christianity. But please understand that nobody is telling you that your relationships should be illegal, and nobody is forcing you to perform or enter into same-sex marriages. Many people within evangelical Christian culture do seem to want to force LGBT people into heterosexual relationships, though, or force them into the religion via law. It’s not all Christians. But there are a disconcerting amount who want everyone in the US to be legally forced to follow biblical mandates and for our government to be a theocracy. If that were the case, it would completely negate free will. It would also allow even more massive leeway for government corruption; for a leader to do anything they pleased and be unquestioned if they claimed that “God told them to do it.” Nobody is telling you that you cannot be Christian—and there are different ways of being Christian, not just conservative/evangelical. In turn, please don’t tell people they cannot be anything but heterosexual and cisgender (non-trans).

One thing I understand about conservative Christianity is that conscience and a sense of obedience often pull in opposite directions. You may not want to harm LGBT people, but feel that your religion is telling you to. You may be caught in deep and painful conflict for that reason. If this is the case, please understand that any deity worthy of being called “love” would never, ever demand that you choose between duty and compassion. If you have compassion, it’s there for a reason. Please don’t stifle its voice. Also, hate is more than a feeling. It’s an action. A person can have all the caring and empathetic feelings in the world for someone else, but if their actions do the other person harm, it’s not love. Love is what we do, not just what we feel. The same is true for hatred.

If you’ve gotten this far and are still reading, thank you. I’m grateful for your time and consideration. Yes, we’re still family and we’re still friends. But before you repost another quote or video or meme about something you may not fully understand, I ask that you please take a moment to reflect on these thoughts. You’re under no obligation to answer my questions, but please don’t be afraid to ask them to yourself.

Thank you for hearing this out.

One Way to Confront “8 Ways to Confront Your Wife’s Sexual Refusal” (yes, I’m going meta)

An article entitled “8 Ways to Confront Your Wife’s Sexual Refusal” (http://www.donotlink.com/fc0m) has been making the rounds online, both by enthusiastic endorsers and by those criticizing it. It’s on a site called “Biblical Gender Roles” and is written, as can be gathered, from a stringently conservative Christian perspective. The article, in its entirety, is a striking example of everything that makes such a worldview abusive, vile, and emotionally toxic—both to the self and to others.

The author outlines a plan of escalating punishments that a “Christian” husband should inflict upon his wife if she regularly chooses not to respond to his advances (the author seems to assume that women are never the initiators, and that they should not be). He adds a quick qualifier to assure the reader that he’s not suggesting physical abuse, but his suggestions seem to stop just short of that. They still amount to abusive behavior, even if it’s not physically so. He recommends that the husband first “rebuke her privately.” This doesn’t mean trying to have an open discussion about why she seems to lack an interest in sex. It means castigating her for it and accusing her of sinning both against him and God (which makes it sound like his omnipotent father wants to be involved in their sex life).

The author prefaces, “This assumes you have already on several occasions tried speaking gently to her about this issue. You have tried time and time again to find out if there is anything you can help her with, and anything you can do different.” He is not recommending that, though. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he implies that the “rebuking” should only occur if the husband has already tried to work things out peacefully. But on the other, he also says, “What I am addressing here is the wife who consistently and routinely denies her husband sexually simply because she does not need sex as much or she thinks she should not have to do it except when she is in the mood or she thinks her husband should have to earn sex with her by “putting her in the mood” by doing various things she expects or likes…A wife cannot flatly refuse her husband, she may only ask for a delay (a raincheck) and then she needs to make good on that raincheck as soon as possible.” In another paragraph he states, “A husband ought not to feel guilty for having sex with his wife when she is not in the mood if she yields, even grudgingly.” (If he’s even capable of enjoying it when she’s clearly not, and if he deliberately fazes out her distress, then he’s selfish at best and abusive at worst. No wonder she doesn’t want him).

The author is saying that the hypothetical husband has no obligation to try to “put her in the mood,” but that his wife has an obligation to passively agree to unwanted sex. He doesn’t consider the painfully obvious fact that trying to please her will probably yield the results he hopes for, or at least make it a lot more likely. He does not see women as sexual beings, or even as people. He regards them purely as receptacles and encourages all husbands to take this same approach. And having sex with someone who clearly doesn’t want to amounts to rape. But since wives apparently exist to serve husbands, that’s nothing to feel any kind of remorse about.

The second step is to “rebuke her before witnesses,” such as a marriage counselor (although he specifies that it should only be a Christian one, presumably because they’re less likely to object to the “rebuking”). The third step is to bring her before the church; to have a pastor lecture her about her sexual obligations if she won’t concede to you. The author states here, “At any one of these points, your wife could have threatened to leave, or has already left. You may be separated or in divorce proceedings.” In that case, why would you still be trying to sleep with her?

Steps four, five, and six are as follows: “Stop taking her on dates or trips.” “No unnecessary household upgrades.” “Stop doing the little extra things” (such as housework, which the author firmly states is solely the wife’s responsibility, and giving her massages). In other words, emotionally freeze her out and stop being nice to her, because that will definitely win her over. Not that people in this situation should be looking at it from a purely self-interested perspective of “how do I get what I want?”, but the author clearly cannot think past that point and assumes no other man can, either.

The seventh step is, if possible, even more insidious: Remove her funding. “This step may only work if your wife does not have her own income. Change your bank account so her ATM card becomes worthless. Cancel your credit cards.” This brand of theology almost always demands that the wife be unemployed and completely financially dependent upon her husband, so doing this would be an even further act of isolation and abuse. If she’s so restricted that she can’t even spend any money without her husband’s permission, it’s no surprise that she might choose to reject him physically. That may be the only possible expression of autonomy she has.

The last resort he suggests is to divorce her for “sexual immorality.” He references this earlier by saying, “Sacrificing yourself for your wife, as Christ sacrificed himself for the church does not mean toleration of this kind of sin on the part of your wife. Many counselors throw out the “husbands you just need to sacrifice yourself for your wife like Christ did the church” but they don’t tell you WHY Christ sacrificed himself for the Church.” (Following this line of thinking, it sounds like he’d say, “Because the church wouldn’t have sex with him.”)

The author insists that this is “discipline”, rather than manipulation. He defines manipulation as something that an underling does to achieve a desired result from someone of a higher status. By this definition, he also classifies union protests as “manipulation” and compares it to children throwing temper tantrums. What a lovely way of infantilizing the poor and trivializing the need for workers’ rights. And, in this sense, he also compares husbands and wives to employee/employer, and to parent/child. If someone doesn’t see how deeply troubling it is to make those parallels, I don’t even know where to start. But I will point out that this teeters awfully close to the edge of pedophilia.

He then goes on to romanticize the ancient “biblical” days in which people barely knew each other before they wed, and when the husband bought the wife as property. (Yet he takes issue with the concept of paying for sex.) He even wrote a separate blog entry called, “You don’t have to buy the milk when you own the cow.” 

All of this may sound incredibly bizarre and extreme, and it might be hard to imagine anybody genuinely following this line of thinking. But in my life, I have known an alarming number of people who share those values. There were ones whom I tried to persuade differently, but eventually came to the painful realization that I cannot “free” anyone from those types of values. Many times, they don’t want to change.

The marital scenario outlined by that blogger seems to result from a great deal of problems that are directly created by conservative Christianity, rather than resolved by it. A couple who are forbidden to have sex before marriage are far more likely to wed before they’re ready and to make a commitment they don’t fully understand (especially with the way these communities idealize marriage and provide very little sex education). They won’t know if they’re emotionally, mentally, or sexually compatible until they’re already in a legal contract. It’s even worse when they’re prohibited from divorcing in almost any circumstance.

Furthermore, the restrictions inherent in religious fundamentalism contribute a great deal to sexual frustration. They’re only allowed to have the most white bread sex imaginable. No kink, no porn, no toys, no non-vaginal penetration. It's fine to not incorporate any of those things if they don't want to, but they are specifically told that they can't. In some religious communities, they’re not allowed to engage in any sex act that doesn’t directly result in pregnancy (which most often means nothing that can give the woman an orgasm). Many of them are banned from using birth control, which means sex is always laden with the possibility of pregnancy looming in their minds. If they want to try anything new, they’re advised to “pray on it”—which just sounds so spontaneous and fun. If one of them is not up for it, the other is not even allowed to take care of their own needs, so it’s no wonder that a lot of resentment builds up and both parties are left with the expectation of meeting all of their spouse’s urges all of the time. If one of them has a higher drive than the other, this can become an incredible burden for the one with the lower libido and a significant void for the one who has no other sexual outlet. And, within this framework, the man is the only one expected to have a libido. The woman is thought of as a “whore” if she likes or craves physical intimacy, so it’s no wonder that so many of them refuse.
               So, in summary, this is oppressive bullshit. A great deal of Christians vocally disagree with this author, which is very encouraging to see. Let’s keep the dissent going, no matter what religion you might observe (or not observe). Let people like that author know that he is not the spokesman for his faith, for marriage, or for any kind of morality at all.

The shallow end, or why religious fundamentalism crushes creativity

There’s an idiom I especially love: “Religion is like the public pool: Most of the noise comes from the shallow end.” In hearing the description of the shallow end, I immediately think of the Religious Right. By this, I don’t mean religious people who happen to also vote Republican. I mean a particular and highly recognizable subset of the pious crowd: Those who are aggressively anti-gay, anti-sex (except in very specific, procreative circumstances), and anti-science. Those who believe anyone with a different outlook, even within their own religion, is going to hell. Those who burn Harry Potter books and believe Halloween and rock music are genuine threats to society. Those who want to instill their beliefs through law as a theocracy. Not all Republicans have this perspective by any means, nor do all who identify with a religion. But those who adhere to this worldview almost always merge it with conservative politics.

This group insists that anyone who rejects religion does so out of a reluctance to be good. The truth is that many reject religion because this boisterous and seemingly all-pervading subset clings to such an arbitrary definition of “good.” They think you can’t be good if you enjoy secular entertainment. They say your goodness is defined by dressing conservatively, believing the “right” theological statements, trying to convert others to your religion, avoiding all manner of drugs and alcohol, never swearing or enjoying more ribald humor, and avoiding sex before marriage (especially if you’re a woman). To me, and to others who cannot relate to this mindset, these factors have nothing to do with your goodness or worth as a person.

I got into Christianity for a while in my early twenties and tried to fit into the evangelical mold, but I always felt like an unwelcome outlier. This was because I’m bisexual and don’t feel a need to apologize for it; because I do not believe in hell and see it as an abhorrent concept which is antithetical to any kind of a loving god; because I didn’t see anything wrong with living or sleeping with my husband before we were married, nor with getting drunk or smoking a bowl once in a while; and because I love fantasy and punk rock and just about any alternative scene. This left me as a misfit who was seen as “double minded” and hellbound. I think that any god that exists could not possibly be so petty, like a popular kid ousting someone from their lunch table. Those who argue with that reasoning say, “No, God accepts everyone as long as they meet his standards!” But the whole mentality of “I love you the way you are, now change!” makes no sense.

The conservative evangelical subculture is particularly oppressive for creative people. They seem inherently hostile to artists, whether our drive manifests in music, visual art, or writing. Sure, the Religious Right will utilize those skills when they can be used to promote their perspective, but any coloring outside those lines is looked at askance. They’re quick to interpret artistic works as “witchcraft.” They see co-creators as God’s competition, which is why they demand that you credit all your work to their god. They especially see secular fantasy and mythology as competition for their own lore. People of this group will tell you they’re “sheparding” (ie: micromanaging) you for your own good, but it’s really out of self-interest or a commitment to preserving the status quo. Many of them don’t realize these motives, even when they’re acting on them.
           They rule you with an iron fist hidden inside a plush glove.

Islamophobia and racism

Many will say that anti-Islamic sentiment is about objection to the religion, rather than about racism, because Islam is a religion and not a race. I used to say the same thing. But while Islam itself is not an ethnicity, it's closely associated with brown-skinned people and therefore Islamophobia involves a lot of racial profiling. Islamophobes tend to have a much bigger issue with race than with the actual beliefs of extremist, fundamentalist Islam. If they genuinely had a problem with the misogyny, homophobia, and justification for violence that exists in the fundamentalist sects of pretty much every religion, then they would have an equal objection to white fundamentalist Christians who hold those same attitudes. And yes, I know that not all Christian fundamentalists are white. Bigots usually excuse the white ones, though, or at least grant them far more leeway.

The contradiction of religious accountability

It always struck me as strange how, within conservative religious thought*, people are told they can be damned by their own actions but cannot be saved by them. That philosophy grants humans complete responsibility when it burdens them, while revoking it when it would afford them credit. It stems from the belief that people are inherently worthless and deserving of divinely sanctioned harm unless they embrace the religious structure. That outlook, when applied to oneself, will make someone incredibly neurotic. When applied to others, it makes them annoying at best and a moral monster at worst.

*By "conservative religious thought," I don't mean people who are politically conservative—although there certainly can be an overlap. I mean people who are religiously conservative. One can be religiously conservative but politically liberal, or the inverse.

The ideological virus

I think most people can understand the pain of losing a close friend or family member to drug addiction, but a less understood pain is the loss of someone to extremist, cultlike religion.

To be clear, I'm not saying one is "worse" than the other. Drug addiction is certainly more dangerous to physical health and is more likely to land people in legal trouble, but religious fundamentalism can also be deeply harmful. It erodes at individuality, curiosity, creativity, and compassion. It replaces a fully realized human being with a set of prepackaged values intent on conquering all other worldviews. Essentially, it's a virus that masquerades as a cure. I don't believe that religion itself is a virus. It can be practiced in a healthy way. But fundamentalism is never healthy, either to oneself or to others. It also seems to have more social support than narcotic addiction because it comes with the veneer of a moral high ground--not only a sense of superiority over those who are not religious, but also over those who are spiritual but not obsessive about it.

I have watched as unique, brilliant, funny, completely benevolent people have succumbed to drug addiction and religious extremism alike. It's heartbreaking in both situations. A cherished old friend of mine now believes I'm going to hell because I don't think you have to be Christian to be a good person, nor do I believe that non-Christians are damned, and because I am bi. It's so chilling to look at someone you used to know so well and see that they no longer recognize you, and vice versa. To know they sincerely believe you are destined for a place of neverending torment and that you will deserve every moment of it because you're not straight and you don't share their beliefs. Yet they tell you in the same breath that they "love" you. How can you love somebody if you believe that the ultimate judge of the highest good has already deemed them worthless? If you think they deserve to be tortured? I'm not only disturbed on my own behalf, but also on account of the way they're treating other people. The constant proselytizing, the vandalism of others' sacred spaces with fire and brimstone. The way they behave toward the LGBT community. I have always found the idea of anybody ever being designated to hell to be abhorrent, and reject it because it could not coexist with any kind of goodness in the world.

Hopefully they will come around eventually. Hopefully their emotional and intellectual immune system will fight off this virus and they'll be back to themselves someday. This is my most urgent wish right now. There are few things as painful as watching a beautiful person deliberately suffocate everything that makes them who they are.

People I cannot be friends with

There are two specific kinds of people whom I have tried to befriend and engage in constructive dialogue with, but it never seems to work. And those are social Darwinists and religious fundamentalists. When a person is invested in either of those mindsets, I can never be close friends with them. This is why:

Social Darwinism is, essentially, a sociopathic philosophy. It teaches that we as human beings have no moral responsibility to help others in need, and that those who are deemed "weaker" (due to disability, mental health issues, addiction, poverty, or physical ailments) should just be left to die off if they can't help themselves. I suspect that most who identify as social Darwinists are selective with whom they apply it to. It's doubtful that most of them would refuse to help family members or friends, and if anyone close to them were struggling, I don't think they'd want to let them suffer or die. Nonetheless, they hold a selfish and unsympathetic attitude in regard to most people. A social Darwinist who makes no exceptions, however, is a true sociopath.

Religious fundamentalism can easily become sociopathic as well. If you honestly believe that anyone who doesn't intellectually assent to a specific set of theological statements (even if they subscribe to your religion; just not your particular strand of it) will be punished with eternal torment, you will react in one of three ways. The first way is to be crushed with anxiety on behalf of everyone you care about who does not share your beliefs. You'll pray and worry about them constantly, expending all your efforts on trying to convert them, which will likely drive them away. If you don't respond with fear, there's a second option: you’ll get angry. You will resent anyone who has a different religious perspective and choose to cut them out of your life because keeping that distance shields you from the pain of believing they're going to hell. Getting angry rationalizes what you see as their fate; you decide they deserve it, so you don't have to feel sorry or scared for them. The third option is avoidance. You'll just push it to the back of your mind and try to ignore the cognitive dissonance. Friendships between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists rarely seem to work, because the closer you are, the more tense it becomes. If a fundamentalist can't convert you to their specific form of religious thought, they'll eventually cut you off—or you'll walk away because you're tired of being judged and preached at.

A religious fundamentalist believes you deserve unlimited suffering if you don't share their beliefs, and a social Darwinist believes you deserve unlimited suffering if you don't have the money or inner resources to dig yourself out.

I've tried to be friends with people of both of these philosophies, because I thought it would be hypocritical of me to expect others to accept my beliefs unless I also accepted theirs. But some beliefs truly kill compassion and connection, or justify a lack of compassion that the person already has. I won't say they're necessarily hopeless. I used to believe all kinds of destructive things, and if there was hope for me, there's hope for anyone. But that doesn't mean you're obligated to stick around and mutually try to change each other's minds.