Well, I’ve been thinking about that.

See, straight people like this don’t actually care if LGBTQ people march in parades. Here in Lethbridge, for example, our annual summer fair kicks off with a parade, and I bet there are a few LGBTQ people in that parade. And these straight people don’t care.

These straight people don’t actually care if LGBTQ folk march. It’s not the marching that’s the big deal.

These straight people don’t like knowing that LGBTQ people aren’t straight when they’re marching.

They want to assume everyone is straight. They want to assume everyone is like them. Because if everyone is the same, then it’s easier to justify their rhetoric of hate.

That’s why they don’t have a problem when other straight people shove their sexuality in their face with handholding, kissing, or hugging.

Because it’s not the public nature of the sexuality that’s the problem. It’s that the public sexuality isn’t the same as their sexuality.

And if everyone isn’t the same—if there are gay people, and bisexual people, and trans people, and intersex people, and asexual people, and all sorts of identities that aren’t straight and cisgender—that challenges their rhetoric of hate.

Actually, for that matter, when you hear people complain that there are too many letters in the LGBTTQQIAAP acronym or that there are too many sexual orientations and gender identities, it’s the same thing.

“There are too many initials” or “I can’t keep track of all these new identities” is just a coded way to say “I’m uncomfortable that you’re not like me and it delegitimizes what I was taught.”

But that’s good. It’s good these straight people are uncomfortable.

Imagine what it must be like to grow up in a society where you think everyone else isn’t like you, where you’re the only one like you. Where society is designed for everyone but you. “Discomfort” seems to be inadequate to describe that experience.

Maybe it’s time straight, cisgender people accept discomfort. Getting rid of prejudice and hate is impossible without discomfort.

I’ve been contemplating that position recently. I’m still doing this, trying to expose myself to different viewpoints and trying to not dismiss viewpoints contrary to my own.

However.

I recognize that my ability to do this is because of the immense privilege I enjoy. I can do this because differing opinions will only ever affect me as opinions. They will never be a threat to my existence.

Because I’m white and live in a predominantly white society, race-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m straight and live in a predominantly straight society, commentary regarding sexual orientation will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m cisgender and live in a predominantly cis society, gender-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m male and live in a society designed for males, sex-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m middle class in a society designed for the middle and upper classes, class-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m generally able-bodied in a society designed for able bodied people, commentary about disabilities will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m Christian in a predominantly Christian society, religious commentary will never be a threat to me.

And because none of this will threaten my existence, I can afford to not turn my Facebook feed into a silo.

Not everyone has that privilege. Commentary that affects me only as a disagreement can affect others as a direct threat to their existence. Where I might get frustrated with someone arguing with me, others might get anxious, worried, or scared.

So, while I can still keep my feed unrestricted, I realize not everyone can. And I need to not judge them for it.

If our child is born with a penis, for example, the doctor tells us it’s a boy. We believe that doctor and raise that child as a boy. We assign him gendered pronouns and give him a gendered name. We envision him growing into a man one day. We dream of him falling in love with a woman and providing us with grandchildren one day.

But we never imagine him being gay. Not until he comes out to us or his behaviour makes us think he’s not straight.

Likewise, we never imagine him as a girl. Not until he comes out to us or his behaviour make us think he’s not cis.

And it’s the same with our daughters. We assume they’re straight and cis.

The doctor never says, “You’re child is neither a boy nor a girl. They’re somewhere in between, or both at the same time.” So we don’t either.

We see queerness as the other. No matter how many rainbow pins we wear or pride parades we attend, we will always see queerness as the exception to—even an abomination of—the norm. If we truly see queerness as normal, then why do we assign cisgender and heterosexual identities to our children by default when they’re born?

It’s why we’re shocked when our children come out to us. Why we cry when they reveal their true selves. Why we question everything we’ve said or done that may have ignorantly worsened their mental health.

Anti queerness is not just a problem found only in churches. Our society, and even our own families, are built on a foundation of homophobia and transphobia.

Video

Mary and I were both virgins when we married. I don’t view this as having being restrictive. I view this as being one of the two foundational aspects of our sexual relationship.

Being both virgins levelled the playing field for us. Neither of us came into the relationship with preconceived notions. We certainly didn’t enter the relationship ignorant to sex practices and intimacy in general. I think this sexual inexperience allowed us to more easily explore our sexuality as our relationship blossomed and developed. We were inexperienced, and we were able to gain our experience together.

That being said, I know that two people being virgins isn’t all that is needed to nurture a mature sexual relationship. I know couples (many of them now former couples) in which both partners were both virgins, but the willingness to explore was missing (at least with one person). They had — for whatever reason — certain narrow boundaries on what qualified as acceptable sexual practices, which made it problematic to explore sexuality at all.

The other foundational aspect in our relationship has been openness. We have been open with each other regarding what we’re comfortable with, what we want to try, what is pleasurable. And we have been open to accommodating one another.

I guess my point is that I think there can be value in virginity, that we shouldn’t be quick to dismiss it outright. Certainly, our discussion around how we approach virginity has to change.

So if we argue that slavery is ordained by God, then it’s blasphemous to abolish it. If we argue that God ordained that women be stay at home mothers, then it’s blasphemous for them to have a career. If God ordained marriage between a man and woman only, then it’s blasphemous for anyone else to marry.

By couching Christian positions as God’s will, churches perpetuate inequality as divine. It allows them to overlook oppression by saying, “Oh, I don’t understand why God made it that way. I just trust he did it for the right reason. We will know in the end.” It absolves them of complicity. It makes them feel as if they’re being objective and balanced, as if they aren’t actually homophobic, racist, or sexist.

They fault God for their bigotry. And they don’t change.

First comes the age at which your brain wants sex and your body signals to others that you’re ready for it. Then comes the age of cognitive competence. Then comes the age of emotional competence. Each of these thresholds should affect our expectations, and the expectations should apply to the older party in a relationship as well as to the younger one. The older you get, the higher the standard to which you should be held responsible.

Can sex laws ever follow a formula that sticks to these milestones? Isn’t just easier to call the age of consent 14, and leave it at that?

Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

So what does he mean by “these things”? Well, modern Mormon interpretation of this means sexual sins; often in a general sense. But is that what it really means?

Specifically, Alma said, “Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom. . . . thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel” (vv. 2?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú3).

So it seems that the actions Alma was reproving were three fold: boasting of his own strength and wisdom, forsaking his ministry, and going after a harlot. I’m not sure why common interpretation leaves out the first two, but it is easy to see how one could make a connection between sexual sin and going after a harlot.

But does “going after a harlot” strictly refer to sexual sin? Did Corianton actually do anything sinful (read ?¢‚ǨÀúsexual?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢) with Isabel? Or did the sin lie in the fact that he left his mission to go after her. In other words, his personal desires were more important than the Lord’s; doing what he wanted was more important than doing what the Lord wanted.

On the surface, it even seems that the question remains unanswered because Alma didn’t go into any further detail regarding Corianton?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s sins. Yet, on the other hand, if Corianton?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s sin was simply going after Isabel (not really that simple)?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùand didn’t include any actual sexual activity?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùthen Alma went into all the detail necessary, and the account is accurate.

Somehow the list that Alma gave in verses 2 and 3, however, has evolved into including everything under the sexual sun so to speak. Odd.

A sexually-explicit guide written in a way that condemns traditional North American values and promotes homosexuality and abortion to young girls learning about sex is being considered for use in public schools, and leaders at a family-values think tank are horrified.

“We have to find a way to stop this from happening,” Joseph Ben-Ami, the executive director of the Institute for Canadian Values, told WND. “People don’t know this is happening.”

The project is called, “The Little Black Book ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú A Book on Healthy Sexuality Written by Grrrls (sic) for Grrrls” and was assembled by a group including the St. Stephen’s House community service organization.

The Toronto project, now online after earlier published versions, is, according to Ben-Ami, “a thinly veiled propaganda piece that undermines healthy parent-child relationships, substitutes voodoo myths for actual science, and provides advice that, if followed, will certainly result in real and serious harm to those who follow it.”

For example, the guide states that “only 10% of the population is heterosexual ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú the rest being ‘mixed’ or bi-sexual,” but mentions no evidence. It also promotes homosexuality and labels parents “homophobes.”

The publishers give this summary of the book.

“A super-important guide for girls?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùwritten by teens for teens. Check it out: not just a book about sex, but a look at girl culture by teenagers. No stuffy school textbook. No nosy adults. Just a diverse group of teen girls from a community youth project who had questions about sexuality. To find answers, they collected stories, poetry and artwork from other youth. They also interviewed frontline health experts to get solid facts about the personalities and pressures that young women have to deal with. It’s a great mix of real-life examples and life-saving info. Topics include: – Relationships – Periods – Sex – Birth control – Pregnancy – Sexually transmitted infections/AIDS – Sexual assault All the content has been vetted by doctors, and the book is endorsed by health professionals — so girls know they’re getting good info. There’s also a section at the back with places to contact to find out more. It’s all stuff that youth need to know, and it’s all decked out in a compact, easy-to-browse zine style. The Little Black Book for Girlz is an important, take-anywhere empowerment guide. Girls shouldn’t leave their teen years without it.”

THE INSTITUTE FOR CANADIAN VALUES HAS STARTED A PETITION TO GET THIS BOOK BANNED FROM OUR SCHOOLS, BUT WITH FUNDING FROM 3 LEVELS OF GOV?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢T THEIR CHANCES ARE SLIM.

This is some of their comment regarding this book:

“The Little Black Book” is being promoted across Canada as a guide to healthy sexuality for teenage girls. In reality, it is a dangerous, unscientific and offensive piece ideological propaganda.

Among the books more egregious assertions:

• “A lot of parents are homophobic, and so are their children – until they get minds of their own.”
• “If you need a figure to represent God The Holiness then for me she?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a fat, black dyke.”
• Only 10% of the population are heterosexual while 10% are homosexual, the remaining 80% are bi-sexual.

It gets worse.

What are your thoughts on this? Does this reflect a further intrusion on the sanctity of the family by those who only wanted ?¢‚ǨÀúequal rights?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ in marriage? When they say that this book has been vetted by health professionals and doctors, who are they, and what is their agenda?

Whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. (3 Ne 12:28)

Obviously this means more than simply looking at a woman, but what specifically does it mean? Is there more to this scripture than simply saying that adultery goes beyond simply as a married person having sex with someone other than his spouse? If so, what constitutes looking at a woman lustfully? Does looking at a woman and thinking she has nice legs constitute lust? Can a man look at a woman’s body on purpose without the thought of having sex with her and still be lusting after her?