I have a negative reaction whenever I'm asked to respond to the question 'Who are you?'  As if all of who I am could be contained in an autobiography, much less a page!  On the other hand, I can cope if I consider it an introduction in a certain context in a particular timeframe.  So here's an introduction to me here now.

As part of my personality, I'm more drawn to the ideographic rather than the nomothetic.  That means I'm more interested in the individual than the group, in the case study rather than the general case.  I'm also more interested in the edges rather than the center, how people differ rather than how they are the same, how God speaks to each of us than how God speaks to all of us.  Perhaps, in part, because I grew up unpopular, I'm also intrigued by how a person decides who is 'us' and who is 'them,' and how 'we' should treat 'them.' 

I've also done a lot of research into personality typologies - Jungian, Big Five, Enneagram, and many others - and it seems to me there are two types of people:  people who put people into categories and people who don't.  (smiley face)  And that doesn't mean that I think categories don't exist; just the opposite.  In fact, cognitive psychology research indicates that our thinking is _fundamentally_ bound in categories; that is, when our brains process sight, they first recognize "a table" before they recognize "this particular table."  Thus, to give ourselves the freedom or the possibility to see things differently than we expect them to be, it's so vitally important to remember that a thing exists apart from and beyond the many categories we may assign it to.

I'm primarily on Side A in this Bridges Across arena.  That is, I believe that homosexual sexual behavior can be as moral, or as immoral, as heterosexual sexual behavior.  I am fully supportive of gay marriage, both civil and religious.  I believe that homosexuality is a difference from homosexuality, infinitely complex, but fundamentally simply a difference. 

I am a committed Christian.  I was always a seeker, praying Thomas' prayer - Lord, I believe; help my disbelief - until I was graced with a profound, ineffable conversion experience in 1989.  I was raised Roman Catholic by devout, charismatic, ecumenical parents and chose the Episcopal church as an adult, though I'm feeling drawn recently toward a more protestant denomination.

The 'issue' of homosexuality has been of interest to me since I first became aware of the topic at about age 10, perhaps because it seemed to me, a precocious intellectual reading extensively in the library, that there was no 'issue.'  To my mind, same-gender attraction appeared as natural as my brother's left-handedness.  It reminds me of the early Sesame Street song:

One of these things is not like the other.  One of these things doesn't belong.
Can you guess which thing is not like the other before we finish our song?

They were soon informed of the discriminatory implications of the song - that being different meant not belonging - and reworded it:

One of these things is not like the other.  One of these things isn't the same.
Can you guess which thing is not like the other so we can finish our game?

Since then, in my spiritual journey, I have struggled to keep my mind open to God's will on this (and other) issues, not presuming that my natural or acquired inclination on the subject was authoritative.  Although I see some Bible texts opposed to homosexual behavior, at least in certain contexts, I do not see them being as frequent nor as deeply proscriptive as against many other kinds of behavior that Christians today at least accept, like remarriage, and even admire, like female ministers.  I believe that faith is informed by tradition as well as by Scripture, (though I believe Scripture is primary, despite my Catholic origins), so I have been reading from teachings in the early centuries and the de facto attitude of the early church, which were primarily tolerant.  In addition to the original teachings of Augustine, Aelred, and others, I've been slogging my way through Boswell, footnotes and all. 

Oh, so you want some demographic bits?  I'm a woman in my forties, a fourth-generation Californian, and I've been married to wonderful man for twenty years. 

I've always been only attracted to guys, though I've been accused or suspected of being latently gay because of my interest in this issue (primarily by gays).  Being one who values constructive criticism, I've felt it respectful to consider this, um, suggestion at various times.  Let's see; who 'does it' for me?  Cindy Crawford?  zip   Ricky Martin?  whoo-hah!  My husband?  wacka-wacka!   My best woman-friend?  nada   My girl-scout camp counselor?  great pen-pal    My parish priest? oh my oh my oh my   Fantasies or sexual dreams about men?  yes, more please  Fantasies or sexual dreams about women?  one once, about high-school youth-group leader.  Okay, so maybe I'm not a perfect Kinsey 0, maybe a 0.001.  But I'm not surprised - I'm not perfect at anything else, either.

My interest extends to the broader area of gender studies - genetic gender, gender identity, gender roles, gender-related behaviors, gender attributes, gender attitudes, sexual orientation, and sexual expression - the range of variability in each and the complex interplay among them.  Though not gay, I've long dealt with being what John Irving called a 'sexual suspect.'  Though primarily feminine, I also have several traditionally 'masculine' ideas, attitudes, characteristics, beliefs, and behaviors.  I'm pleased and comfortable with all of my gender-related aspects and my sexuality.  (My weight? That's another issue.)

My volunteer work with persons with AIDS was similarly questioned, as if I had to justify simply caring for those who suffer, since I didn't know (at the time) of any gay relatives or close friends with AIDS (though that changed, too, sadly).  I firmly believe that true gay equality won't come to pass without their het allies coming out of the closet in support of their rights, not because their son is gay, not because their boss died of AIDS, not because their neighbor was a victim of a gay bashing, but simply because we believe it is the right thing to do. 

On the other hand, I'm not a blind proponent of all that proceeds from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force any more than I, as a feminist, espouse all that emerges from the National Organization for Women.  In fact, I often find political diatribe at least annoying, often insulting, occasionally revolting, especially those who dare to say, "If you don't believe the party line, you're not really one of us or really supportive of our cause."  I also believe that true change will happen through dialogue, such as Bridges Across supports, rather than through promoting ideology or quoting statistics, though these have their place.  I come to Bridges Across to learn and to hear as well as to speak.  I pray to be as open in fact as I plan to be.

What?  You want more demographic factoids?  Okay, sure.  I was a peer-counselor in college, where I majored in Political Science/International Relations, leading groups on study skills and human sexuality, among other things.  I've been working for two decades, mostly in the computer/networking industry as a market researcher, managing editor, product manager, technical trainer, event planner, networking guru, and technical writer.  I have recently resumed my interest in counseling and am now a Ph.D. candidate in psychology, with a primary interest in transpersonal psychology (the incorporation of spirituality in psychology) and gender studies. 

I have thus been intrigued by the views of the reparative therapists.  I've been studying, in depth, the writings of Bieber, Nicolosi, and Satinover, among others (and the studies reviewed at the New Direction - Canada web site - great job, Rob!), as well as reviewing the psychodynamic and object-relations theory that underlie their theories.  As appropriate, I'll comment in the Bridges Across forum in more detail on their work but, in summary, it seems the reparative therapy view is that, from infancy, homosexual development differs from heterosexual development.  This difference seems to them an error in the same way, I think, that differing female development was considered surprising, an error, and inferior to the early psychoanalysts until they finally came to view it as simply different.  Their theory also posits that gender identity is fundamentally tied to sexual orientation and that sexual attraction is fundamentally attraction to 'otherness,' which assumptions therefore imply that homosexuality is disordered. 

Finally, both Nicolosi and Satinover, though they believe all homosexuality is disordered, note that there are different types of homosexuality and that their therapy is only appropriate for a certain type of homosexuality.  On this point, I agree with them, though many proponents of reparative therapy don't seem to be aware of this important distinction. (Most gay activist organizations don't acknowledge, either, that there are a variety of homosexualities, because, I think, they believe it might distract from the main point of their struggle.  Seeing the truth as a distraction.  Hmm.)  Just as there are fifteen primary causes of deafness, and at least five different basic reasons for participating in reenactments of the American Civil War, which I enjoy as a hobby, I believe there are many kinds of homosexuality.  I recognize this as a major point of potential sensitivity, but I haven't seen it discussed in the forum, though it may have been discussed further back in the archives than I have delved. 

In one sense, of course, it doesn't matter - Jews, for example, should be treated with respect by Christians whether they were born Jews or converted to Judaism, whether they are observant or culturally Jewish.  In the same sense, _if_ a certain behavior is believed to be wrong, on religious grounds, its etiology (what caused it or the drive toward it) may not matter.  In another sense, I believe these differences may underlie many of the debates on this issue.  I'll explore this idea more in the forums. 

I was delighted to discover Bridges Across about a month before posting this, and I've spent that time reading through the site and the forums before writing and posting this introduction.  I hope to contribute to and learn from this valuable interaction.  My appreciation in advance to every participant here - my teachers, my fellow travelers, and soon, I hope, my friends.