Indignation and a "Disturbance In the Force"

Over this past weekend I felt an increase in my sense of indignation regarding what I consider to be fear mongering, perpetuation misinformation, and outright lying--to name a few--by individuals and organizations that fight against LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been among these, and I found myself particularly focusing on the arguments they made during the push for California's Proposition 8. All of this seemed to reach a near "disturbance in the Force" kind of level with my soul. I decided, Monday, to finally write a brief letter to my new bishop along with providing him copies of the disciplinary council decision from 2001 when I was officially disfellowshipped from the body of the church and a copy of the letter I sent to the last bishop I spoke with about my sexuality.

I was wondering why I felt this way; I was trying to figure out why I suddenly had these feelings and thoughts come on. At first I thought it may be a combination of my depression, continuing to work out my appropriate medication levels, following the updates from Facebook friends on the progress of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger court arguments, and having met with my Elders' Quorum President on Sunday for a standard quarterly PPI (personal priesthood interview). Perhaps it is part of all these. However, given what came out today in Perry v. Schwarzenegger I feel perhaps I somehow sensed this coming.

From PRIDE In Utah!:

Even after Pro-8 counsel fought furiously to keep them hidden, documents from within the LDS/Mormon hierarchy were ruled as valid by Judge Walker today. The first was an email detailing that the Prop 8 Campaign was “entirely under direction of the priesthood!” As the email was read it, detailed incredible details, such as the fact that the Mormon church had a “key-leader in every zip code in California,” organizing the efforts of pro-8. The document also describes plan for grassroots organizing based on church wards led by ward priests. Apparently, the LDS church had an average of 20,000 volunteers walking neighborhoods at any given time.

The 2nd document is a record of the minutes in a meeting of the LDS officials. It details that Mormons were “not to take the lead, but to work within the coalition” in order to minimize negative impact on the church. In otherwords, the documents make it clear that 2 way flow of info between the campaign and the church was regular, but church pretended to lay low. The LDS church pushed for the campaign to privde the talking points, but it would provide the volunteers.

I have been upset before about what has been revealed about the involvement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Proposition 8. Now, however, my indignation is just at its max. It's not anger; it's not hatred. Indignation is the only word I have for it. I am blown away by the level of hypocracy and lies this shows from the institutional levels of the organization that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am seriously ready to let loose on the next person to accuse the LGBT community of picking on, twisting words of, or smearing the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The organization seems all too ready to do that to itself, and every serious, rational accusation made has so far been confirmed--and then some. I also will have nothing to do with those who argue they are fighting not a civil policy but a moral issue. Those who choose to fight so unethically, and with such blatant hypocracy, have no right to even try standing on claims of morality.

"Gone But Not Forgotten": Sex, Intimacy, Affection

The other night I watched an Indie gay film titled Gone But Not Forgotten. Over the past few days and nights I have been thinking of the effect the movie had on me. (I will try to avoid plot spoilers.)

The story is basic enough: Drew Parker, a forest ranger, rescues mark, a man with amnesia who fell from the cliffs. Their friendship soon becomes more, but their romance is threatened as Mark's forgotten past comes back to claim him.

Other than Mark's amnesia, the plot uses very little, if any, complex or stilted plot devices. Also, being a low-budget Indie film, some quality is lacking at points and there are at least two scenes I feel the actors' deliveries were a little flat. However, I still found it all very touching and profound. I have not been able to stop thinking of how it made me feel and what I think about issues of sex, intimacy, and affection.

For starters, some of the things I found enjoyable about the film was what it lacked from most other gay cinema. There weren't any bars, dance clubs, back rooms, or "fabulously" outrageous drag queens that all too often dress the scenes. There weren't bitchy drama queens, mannish lesbians, or youth obsessed twinks filling out the cast. Other than some natural nods to the usual angst of being gay men and the final explanation of what sent Mark to the mountain, the story could easily be have been about a heterosexual couple.

What struck me the most was the development of the relationship between Drew and Mark. If it were not for knowing the film is gay cinema, the romantic connection between the two men doesn't begin to become apparent until nearly thirty minutes into the film. That the writer and director take the time to show the men developing a friendship into a romance is something I have rarely seen in gay cinema. My experience is most of the time the relationship seems to start with sex and everything else comes later. Even when the romance becomes known there is a delay and development before any sex actually occurs. There is a real sense of a meaningful relationship developing, not just a flurry of passion and romance.

When the characters do actually have sex it is probably the only such scene I have seen in gay cinema I really feel should be called a "love scene." Most other films seem to rely on the styles and modes used in porn. While I know some who would call this particular scene pornographic, there is a definite difference in how it is handled. The montage is slow, deliberate, caring, affectionate, and really portrays two people joining together in intimacy--not just getting off together.

This is the difficulty I have with much of the portrayal and discussion of sex in both gay culture and general society. The sense of intimacy, affection, and emotional impact often seem lost. Sex seems more like an itch to be scratched. Now, I'm not pure on this either. I've had more than my share of sexual partners over the past eleven years. The vast majority of them have been out of a desire to appease my libido, and it is because of these experiences that I strongly believe sex needs to be treated as something more than a biological urge.

I often hear the argument that men are better at separating sex from love. While I'm sure there is some supporting research surveys, this does not describe me. For me, physical touch is inextricably linked to affection and intimacy. I remember in my adolescence wishing I could hug my friends to show them how I cared about them, but I didn't as such displays are not considered appropriate, especially between boys/men. One of the things I actually liked about my mission was that the Elders would actually hug each other. Although I understood why, I didn't like it when my mission president said we shouldn't be doing it so often, especially in public. My desire and need for physical affection and intimacy are such that, although it would be difficult, I would rather go without sex for the rest of my life as long as I had someone to hold, and who would hold me back.

This is what watching Gone But Not Forgotten has evoked in me: seeing such a portrayal of affection and intimacy brings up such a powerful yearning for it myself that I feel physically ill when I think about it. It is not a matter of libido; although, it is not divorced from it either. It is not about sex; although that is a natural extension and expression of what I yearn for. As Drew puts it, "I just want somebody to come home to. Somebody that wants to come home to me too. That when they walk out that door, I know that they're gonna walk back in again."

Trying to Prove the Truth of My Existence

On my way up to visit family for Christmas, I was looking for a passage in Practice in Christianity by Søren Kierkegaard. (I didn't find what I was looking for; when I do I'm sure I'll blog about it.) I came across a passage about recognizing truth (or ignoring it) when it is before us:

Pilate asks Christ the question: What is truth? ... That it can occur to Pilate at that moment to question Christ in this way demonstrates precisely that he has no eye at all for truth. ... [F]or in questioning Christ in this way ... he makes the self-disclosure that Christ's life has not explained to him what truth is--but how then could Christ with words enlighten Pilate about this when that which is truth, Christ's life, has not opened Pilate's eyes to what truth is! ... The question is just as foolish ... as if someone were to ask a man with whom he was standing and talking, "May I put this question to you, do you exist?" ... And what should that man really reply? "If someone by standing and talking with me cannot be certain that I exist, then my assurances cannot be of any use, since, after all, my assurances are certainly something much inferior to my existence" (XII 187 - 188).

As I read this, a parallel struck me. It is a similar phenomenon with those who sit and argue against many things, refusing evidence and testimony against their beliefs. In particular I thought of those who deny the evidence and testimony of those who are homosexual. (I was thinking of this as I will be spending this Christmas in the company of a family member who holds to such views and opinions.) Often such people make the argument that homosexuality is a matter of psychological dysfunctions, childhood trauma, maladjustment to sexual maturation, etc. Such arguments are usually used to discredit the claims and testimony of those who are homosexual. As I remember one person putting it, "I am not considered a credible witness to my own experience."

I have looked at and experienced these kinds of judgments from communities often involved in making these kinds of arguments. From my own experience, and discussions with such people, they want to make homosexuality not exist (at least within their sphere of perceptible reality). As the infamous Utah Senator Chris Buttars said, "I don't mind gays, but I don't want them stuffing it in my throat all the time and especially in my kid's face." As I would translate it, "I say, 'I don't mind gays,' so as not to seem like a total bigot, but I don't want them to exist, let alone know of their existence." The Uganda bill to criminalize homosexuality as a capital offense goes even further. It is not just a fight to push away what they consider un-reality from their perception; it is an attempt to actively stamp it out through force. Even this fight is fueled by the argument that homosexuality is a choice, a dysfunction, a disease to be treated.

Rachel Maddow did a series of segments on her MSNBC show, The Rachel Maddow Show, about the influence of US change therapy advocates shaping the Uganda bill. As is shown, those who try to argue change therapy and the illness model of (and why I make a point of including it here) turn to--what I consider to be--charlatans, yes men, liars, and people otherwise unfit to be considered any kind of authority on the subject. As Rachel points out, these people are using "made up, fake, authoritative stuff that ... is being taken as science."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

To bring this to more of my personal life, this is why I have not been able to have any kind of meaningful contact or correspondence with the mentioned member of my family: to be so thoroughly dismissed, to have my life and existence thrown out as un-reality leaves me at a loss as to how I may be able to say anything more. In a profoundly frustrated and hurting way, I admit I most likely cannot say anything at all. I do not know how to express the pain when someone who has been so close to you in life suddenly says, "Do you exist?" Perhaps a better way to put it is they seem to say, "I know you do not exist."

In the end, and why I think the passage from Kierkegaard struck me when I read it, all we can do is exist. For such people who refuse to listen and acknowledge us as reality we cannot say anything. And perhaps this is why some of such people come around when they no longer know of homosexuality in the abstract but begin to know homosexuals in person. Like Christ (with no intention to be blasphemous with the comparison) we cannot respond with words and rhetoric. It is our lives as we live that shows them what reality is or is not.

And this brings me to the last point I will make in this entry. The fact that it is our lives, not our rhetoric, that shows reality is why I take issue with parts of gay culture (to use a broad term). We fight to show ourselves as meaningful, productive people, yet so many do not show it in how they live their lives. This is also part of why I believe in the importance of same-sex marriage rights: the gay community needs the opportunity to be held to rights and responsibilities to show themselves a worthwhile group. This is not to say it cannot be done without marriage rights. However, marriage is the institution where the issues of living in respect of love and sex--the issues of sexuality--are most directly given opportunity to be shown and proven.

It's Hard to Accept an Olive Branch When It Still Feels Like a Dagger Is In Your Back

Tuesday night, spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Michael Otterson, managing director of Church Public Affairs, gave official support from the church for the passage of a non-discrimination ordinance protecting LGBT people in a Salt Lake City council meeting. The vast majority of responses have been about how wonderful it is to see the LDS church giving (some) support to LGBT people and how historic a move it is. While I accept the support and agree it is a step in the right direction--no matter how small--for the church towards treating LGBT people better, I only accept it grudgingly and somewhat cynically.

As I've read over the official statement made by Otterson to the City Council, I am left feeling it is something like a backhanded complement. With what I have heard through my contacts and acquaintances with 8: The Mormon Proposition, the LDS church seemed all too ready to brag about this great thing it is doing in giving support saying, "Watch what we are about to do. You will be pleased." I am left feeling this endorsement is more about the LDS church trying to save some face in the PR department than actually trying to "follow what Jesus Christ taught." This ordinance, though important, is a small thing: it is only applicable to Salt Lake City, the endorsement comes only after the ordinance was modified to include explicit exemptions for religious organizations, and comes in the wake of tremendous criticism for the LDS church's support of Proposition 8 in California and other similar legislation. This was a very safe issue for the LDS church to give its support to. By their own words the rights the ordinance covers are "common-sense rights that should be available to everyone." I would consider a person who thinks LGBT people should be homeless and unemployed a terrible monster, and those monsters do exist. One person commented on the Deseret News coverage, "Anything that promotes homosexuality in our community is wrong, including this ordinance. I'm sorry to hear it passed and sorry the church didn't take a stronger stand on the issue."

Even with giving support for basic social rights for LGBT people, the LDS church got in a few digs saying they can give their support because the ordinance "does not do violence to the institution of marriage." Many (including myself) are taking issue with the use of the word violence and the emotional effect it carries. I have much more I could say in criticism of this endorsement and how I see some responding to it. I find myself having to bite my tongue at the claims of "treating others with respect even when we disagree--in fact, especially when we disagree" and "Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ" as I think back on the history of the LDS church's commentary on, general rhetoric about, and treatment of LGBT people.

In the end I'll accept this olive branch, however small it may be. However, I am not ready to embrace the LDS church in love and support yet. I've found a few too many daggers in my back in the past.

I Am Angry At and Conflicted With LDS and LGBT Socities

I find myself spending another sleepless night feeling conflicted. Over the past couple weeks, since LDS General Conference, I have been trying to write an entry about my feelings of alienation from both LDS and LGBT societies. My block: not being willing to fully face the deep issues I have with each side at the same time and trying to be too objective/unemotional in my writing. And so, my warning: I will be very blunt and honest about my feelings each way. Some offensive, adult language will be used.

On Monday, October 5, a Facebook friend wrote an open letter to Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in regards to Elder Oaks's talk during the Saturday evening session of the 179th Semiannual General Conference. Some excerpts from the letter:

... I was deeply offended by your speech during the LDS church’s General Conference this past weekend. In this speech you told parents of LGBT children that it is alright to withhold love from a child who wants to embrace their true selves as a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered person. ... What type of message is it when a man who people are taught is a prophet tells them they are undeserving of their parents love and acceptance just because of the way they were born? ...

I am a proud member of the LGBT community in Utah. ... Mr. Oaks we can only hope to undo the damage that you do to others by so casually saying things that have no bearing on you but effect the entire future of others’ lives.

Apparently not one to lose momentum with the LGBT community, Elder Oaks gave a talk at BYU-Idaho not twenty-four hours ago that has released another wave of vitriol. Some samples from Facebook friends:

• I assume that the nature of the talk was not so much to tackle the issue of the impingment [sic] of religious freedom, but more to justify and explain why the Church is being seen in a negative light. He had the audacity to compare the backlash against the members of the Church to the oppression of blacks in the Civil Rights Era. That's right, he's comparing the members to the oppressees, not the oppressors. The wolf is in the sheeps [sic] clothing and is bleating in alarm because it now has a bad image.



• You'd think the LDS Church would stop shooting itself in the foot. Go back to gospels teaching (sic), instead of whining at the pulpit. Good one Oaks!



• what a lying piece of shit. He is the playground bully and he has lied, hidden expenditures, hidden his agenda, financed it all ... and now claims the church is the victim??? I call BULLSHIT!!!

As I said, I am conflicted. As a gay man I want to fight for civil rights, protections, and responsibilities for LGBT people. I want to scream BULLSHIT!!! at Elder Oaks and any others who have the audacity to say they are completely in the right on the issues. I want to see everyone who joined and/or supported the religious coalition the LDS church joined to pass Prop 8 held accountable for the lies, misdirections, fear mongering, and all the other ways they ignored facts, reason, and logic to push their beliefs. I am so disgusted by the hypocrisy of those claiming the moral high ground and "authority" I am physically ill. (For the sake of some brevity I will not re-catalog the LDS church's sins of hypocrisy on these issues at this time.) If I believed it would help I would shout from the rooftops, violently beat people's faces into concrete, and even, as Mahatma Gandhi writes, "I would destroy that system today, if I had the power. I would use the most deadly weapons, if I believed that they would destroy it" ("Man and Machine"). But violence and destruction do not improve the situation; such actions would only make mine the greater sin.

And here I come to the issues I have with LGBT society and culture, or what I call the "media popular" versions there of. I am weary of the anger and vitriol that flows so freely. As a man of faith, and especially coming from an LDS faith tradition, I often feel at great odds with the LGBT community. I have constantly faced and endured criticism and hatred for just identifying as LDS, wearing a CTR ring, or finding any bit of an idea from LDS scripture or literature that I agree with.

Case in point, Elder Oaks's talk from the Saturday evening session of the 179th Semiannual General Conference. Taken by itself, I found the talk to be very appropriate and not containing what I have seen many accusing Elder Oaks of saying. (At the same time, given what he has said and done in other places Elder Oaks has come close to saying or somehow endorsing what people have accused him of.) At the basic root of the talk I found much to agree with Elder Oaks, particularly in regards to my issues with LGBT society and culture. It saddens me when I look around and see so many people going down a self-destructive path. It disturbs me even more when so many justify it to themselves and others by saying "God loves me." Every time I have gone to a church where LGBT people are welcome it feels hollow and more of an ego stroking session than sincere spirituality as the minister harps on and on about God loving gays. Yes, God loves us, but that doesn't mean He is handing out free rides to eternity. In my personal spiritual quest to reconcile my spirituality and sexuality one of the great messages I received from the Spirit was that while God accepts my sexuality and it is best for me to seek a male partner I don't have carte blanche on sexual behavior: I do not believe casual sexual hook ups are healthy, mentally or physically; I do not believe the way to find a boyfriend is to sleep around until I find a guy who wants to have sex with me more than once; I do not believe constant sexual innuendo is a healthy form of speaking about sex and sexuality--I believe it is the opposite extreme of treating sexual discussions as an absolute taboo. I am tired of trying to date, only to be required to wade through seas of men only looking for their next sexual escapade. I am tired of being expected to condone self-destructive behavior. I am tired of the bitchiness, the riotous lifestyles, and anger I am expected to immerse myself in.

I am tired.

So, I am left in a limbo, the space between worlds. I am both and neither, a complex entity. Occasionally, I hear a voice or a hand is extended for a moment. At the end of the day, however, it is only me and God in this place.

Response to Elder Bruce C. Hafen at Evergreen Conference Sep. 2009 (Part 2: Politics and Society)

I have struggled over how to respond to the political and social arguments Elder Hafen makes in his talk to Evergreen International. Perhaps it is because I do not accept the all too often simplistic arguments made from either side. Perhaps it is because my experience in trying to discuss these issues in the past has resulted in experiencing some of the most hurtful attitudes I have ever seen. So, perhaps the only way to go is just to jump in.

SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The 1973 decision by the American Psychological Association to remove homosexuality as an official disorder is a major point of contention in the discussion of the politics surrounding homosexuality. Elder Hafen, along with Evergreen International, NARTH, and other such organizations, takes the usual stance that this removal was inappropriate and only done in response to vigorous protests and demonstrations against the APA. Elder Hafen argues the change was done "not because of any change in actual medical findings." This argument is tricky because it rests in a certain level of technical wording. A proper understanding of events leading up to this decision requires the understanding of how homosexuality was categorized as a disorder to begin with and what it takes to have something officially categorized as a disorder.

Homosexuality was originally included by the APA as a mental disorder because the information about homosexuality was only obtained from one source: patients with mental disorders who were also homosexual. With such a biased source of information and being a rather small portion of the population, it is easy to understand how homosexuality would be considered a disorder. However, in the 1950's work began to understand human sexuality in the context of society at large, not just the mentally disordered. The two best known works in this area were done by Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker. Both realized the lack of scientific rigor that existed behind the views and responses to homosexuality. Their work was the start of a line of studies, spanning decades, that time and time again failed to prove the theories and assumptions made about human sexuality. By their own definitions and requirements the APA could not allow homosexuality to stand as a listed mental disorder. This is not to say there were not the demonstrations and protests by activist groups. But this was not a case of the APA caving to political pressure. The demonstrations and protest were fueled by the APA's own research and findings, or lack there of. So, yes, it was not a change based on medical findings. It was a necessary, ethical change due to the inability to produce any supporting findings. In 1975 the APA adopted a resolution supporting this action: "Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational responsibilities." I have yet to hear an argument about why homosexuality should be reinstated as a mental disorder based on the APA's requirements to consider something as a mental disorder.

THE FOUR "MISCONCEPTIONS" OF PRO-GAY ACTIVISTS

Pro-gay activism has been a bit of an ethical mine field for me over the years. While it is clear I am very much for gay rights, I am bothered by the how and why much of the pro-gay camp argues and fights for their side. Elder Hafen's "four misconceptions activists seek to establish as facts" are issues I agree are problematic. Most take a complex issue with no clear answer and try to make it simplistic.

"First is the misconception that same-gender attraction is an inborn and unalterable orientation." "A second misconception the activists promote is that therapy cannot treat, let alone change, same-gender attraction."

I wrote about these "misconceptions" in my previous post/response. I will reiterate that while there is no conclusive evidence to support these theories, there is also no conclusive evidence to support the theory that sexual orientation can be changed; I find it a bit absurd how Elder Hafen argues the complexity of sexual orientation somehow makes his simplistic theory of change valid; and his use of severely ethically questionable sources makes his argument dubious at best.

"The third misconception is that most Americans favor same-gender marriage, which means the [LDS] Church is outside the mainstream in opposing it."

This is a rather mixed issue, on both sides. There are a variety of issues in whether or not this is a misconception or something more of a reality. The numbers over the past few years have been in a great amount of flux. What does seem to be happening, overall, is there is a trend towards acceptance of the idea. Elder Hafen's own statistical "evidence" shows a rather even split in opinions on the matter. The vote on California's Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, was very close passing by only four percentage points, less than half a million total ballots. While it may not be quite possible to say most Americans support same-sex marriage, it is equally difficult to say most oppose it. If anything, we are currently at an equilibrium, a tipping point, between the opinions.

Elder Hafen does make a point about the aftermath of California's Proposition 8 campaign. He quotes a Time article calling it a "vicious backlash from gay-rights activists, some of whom accused Mormons of bigotry and blind religious obedience." I agree there was a vicious backlash. In some ways it is continuing. I remember the protests here in Salt Lake City right after Election Day. While I understood and felt the outrage and hurt, I chose not to participate. To me, those protests seemed too reactionary and seated in the anger of the moment. Gratefully, they remained relatively peaceful, only showing some brief moments of shouting between protesters and opponents of the protest. This did not diminish my unease, however. I still find myself all too often in a strange limbo area of argument where I share a common goal or desire with the pro-gay side, but I all too often see the purpose for it and the paths to go down seeming at odds with those who share my goals. Also, I still feel the need to defend the rights of the LDS Church, and other organizations.

It is also difficult to argue against many LDS voters blindly obeying their religious leaders. Blind obedience is a common trait among any religion, and bigotry is just as common. (Seriously, look up the actual definition of bigotry.) At the same time I know of many who did not blindly obey. In fact, there have been a large number of people leaving the LDS Church over how the Church handled the Proposition 8 campaign. I have been highly critical of the tactics used by the LDS Church over Proposition 8. (I will post some of the responses I wrote.) I will say here I found much of the arguments made by the LDS Church and its coalition members against same-sex marriage and the political goals of gay-rights activists very unethical. I was shocked at the level of misrepresentation of facts in legal cases cited to support their "rational" fear of losing rights as a religion. Ironically, the way they acted in the campaign is far more likely to affect their tax-exempt status and other rights than allowing states to license same-sex marriages.

"The fourth misconception is that there are no rational, non-religious reasons for opposing same-gender marriage."

To be completely honest, I find Elder Hafen's argument in this section of his talk very well done and, in general, I agree it is a valid argument. I agree that a major reason government got into the business of marriage is to support the raising of children. That is also the reason why caring for children provides many benefits in the tax code. I also wholly agree that American society has become too much of a divorce culture with people entering marriage without proper preparation and with unrealistic expectations. I also agree that families falling apart and children being raised by only a single parent contributes to damaged citizens and a damaged society. But, again, we must be careful not to become simplistic in dealing with issues as complex as marriage and family.

There is a consensus in the social science and psychological research that children, overall, do best when raised by both biological parents. I support giving the biological, or "natural," family priority as a general guideline. I do not however believe this requires it to be law. Family dynamics cover a very wide variation. All too often there are cases when the biological parents are not what is best for the children. This is why is Child and Family Services and foster care programs exist. I personally spent my early childhood with a schizophrenic mother. My parent's divorce and my father removing us from her direct influence was very necessary.

To say that because children generally do best being raised by their biological parents is a difficult argument against same-sex marriage. Every time I hear the argument made I cannot help thinking the argument somehow implies same-sex marriage will cause children to be removed from their biological parents. I don't see how that is going to happen. Children are already being removed from biological parents for reasons completely unrelated to same-sex marriage. If anything there is evidence that same-sex couples may be a very valuable resource in helping take in those children displaced due to what ever reason they are removed from their parents. Research of homosexual pairings of animals is showing these "mating pairs" can be a very valuable asset in raising young, helping diminished populations of some species flourish again. On the human side, the basic argument against allowing homosexual couples from raising children has revolved around the idea that children need a father and a mother to help them properly develop gender identity and appropriate gender roles. Arguments of sexist beliefs aside, these concerns are valid, but once again the evidence is not in support of the supposition. In 2006 the American Acadamy of Pediatrics published an analasys on findings of children being raised by same-sex parents. In the concluding comments:

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

Often, the LDS Church and other organizations cite studies that supposedly say children actually do need both a mother and a father, both sexes of parent. A look into those studies usually shows that the study actually says nothing about homosexual parents as none are studied. The studies used in these arguments are only in regard to the child being raised by both biological parents or by one single biological parent. Those studies do show that children do significantly better when both parents are raising the child, but as no homosexual parents are included in those studied nothing can actually be inferred as to the efficacy of children being raised by a same-sex couple. This misuse of these studies have even brought about the ire of the researchers. I distinctly remember a case where researchers were threatening to take legal action against the conservative group Focus on the Family for misrepresenting their research claiming it "proved" homosexuals were unfit parents when no homosexuals were involved in the study. (Aparantly, this was not an isolated incident.) In the end, if marriage is for the raising of children, I am for making that more reflective in statutes and policies regarding marriage. However, until the orphanages are empty and foster care services are no longer needed, I still cannot see an argument to keep same-sex couples from being able to be married and bring children to raise into their homes.

The flip side of the argument for saying marriage is about children is that although so many people like to use it as a point against same-sex marriage, they are very unwilling to make laws in a more affirmative way. Some people have even tried to propose bills and modify marriage laws to reflect a more child centered civil institution. In 2006 a group proposed a bill that would require couples to produce children to be allowed to stay married. Currently, a man in California is working to get a proposition on the ballot to make divorce illegal. Quite honestly, I find it a little--if not a lot--hypocritical that those who argue that marriage is falling apart because people aren't going into it to raise children or are too willing to get divorced do not support statutes to make bearing children requisite or bar divorce. Mostly, it just makes them seem all the more willing to say anything to keep the "queers" from going down the aisle.

In the end, all the scientific, sociological, or political argument and debate is not what will sway a person in Elder Hafen's position or an organization like Evergreen International. Perhaps it is this sense of futility that I struggled with. At the root of it all, down at the bottom of even their inclusion of secular arguments, lies one all encompassing conceit: because God said so.

Response to Elder Bruce C. Hafen at Evergreen Conference Sep. 2009 (Part 1: Science and Therapy)

The recent talk by LDS General Authority, Elder Bruce C. Hafen, at the Evergreen International conference has created a good amount of attention. Most only have read the articles in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. I took the extra step to read the entire talk, which is posted at the LDS Church's online newsroom. I could write a great deal in response to Elder Hafen's comments. I will try to keep myself to a few key points for this entry.

Elder Hafen begins with addressing ideas about the cause of homosexuality ("same-gender attraction" as he chooses to put it). Like many other talks and articles by LDS church leaders and therapists, Hafen does quite the job working towards trying to debunk the idea that sexual orientation--or more specifically homosexuality--is something innate to the individual. "Having same-gender attraction is NOT in your DNA," he says. This argument has been central to the constant position of the LDS church and Evergreen International that homosexuality can be "overcome," "changed," and otherwise altered to bring the person who "suffers" from it to "properly functioning" heterosexuality.

While it is true there is currently no direct proof or evidence of a "gay gene" or many of the other biological theories about the cause of homosexuality, this does not mean there is not compelling indirect evidence to it. I will not go into the variety of leads being pursued by the scientific community at this time. What is agreed on, by both scientist and Elder Hafen, is "So much individual variation exists with so many possible explanations that there is simply no scientific consensus about what causes homosexual tendencies," and "no universal expalation exits." As he quotes the American Psychological Association, "[N]o findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any factor or set of factors… [N]ature and nurture both play complex roles." The mistake Elder Hafen makes at this point is a classic issue, confusing the absence of proof for the proof of absence. This is why research continues based on the indirect evidence being found and theories being put out. What has failed far more consistantly is the very theory Elder Hafen, and many others I have researched, insist this somehow proves to be right: homosexuality can be changed to heterosexuality through therapy.

The "proof" behind the efficacy of "change" or "reparative" therapy is often the testimonies of those who claim to have changed from a homosexual to heterosexual orientation. This is a hotly debated issue that is all too often used as a political, social, relious, etc. football. Although Elder Hafen cites a number of sources to support the idea, all but one of them is steeped in a deep refusal to do any proper studies regarding their treatments that they cannot be treated as anything close to reliable. The only study he cites that I would consider likely to be reliable is the study by Dr. Spitzer. I have not read the study myself, and would very much like to. (If anyone can get me a copy or link to it, it would be greatly appreciated.) I have read, or at least tried to read, the other sources he cites. All of them, without exception, are so repulsive in how they go about their theories, argue their cases, treat their "supporting" evidence, and refusal to adhere to any professional process I feel physically ill whenever I read them. Some, like the work of Dean Byrd, Jason Park, and Joseph Nicolosi (not cited by Elder Hafen), are so bad I have never been able to bring myself to complete any of their works no matter how much I tried.

Now, this is not to say I completely dismiss the idea of some homosexuals being able to live a satisfying heterosexual style life. I know some men who have done it. It's not easy for them, but in as much as it is my place to say either way, I believe they are choosing to live their lives in ways that seem to be the best for them. What I have seen in all my personal experience and research is that what actually helps people develop and deal with their sexuality in a healthy and mature way is not what Evergreen International or even the LDS church all too often endorses and encourages. It is not good for these people to constantly feel like they are somehow "afflicted," "flawed," or otherwise must "suffer" their orientation. I am happy to see Elder Hafen actually saying it isn't something people should be feeling like they must suffer for or consider themselves flawed by having. He still categorizes it under the label of being an affliction. This is a subtle trend I have noticed in the general LDS rhetoric on the issue over the past few years that I find very encouraging to improving the lives of LDS homosexuals. What also needs to be handled carefully is the matter of guilt. Again, I am glad to see Elder Hafen working in a good direction with it. At the same time I cannot tell you how many people I have talked to who tried going to Evergreen International, or similar groups, only to be fed a steady diet of shame and guilt because they hadn't "changed" yet, and therefore must not be doing what they should. (This guilt based shaming and accusations of sin based on not achieving predetermined results is something I have personally experienced in the LDS culture even beyond the issues of sexuality.)

What I do see that needs to happen more is helping the people accept, at a basic level, that they are homosexual. I have never seen a homosexual person I would say is emotionally healthy who has not addressed their sexual orientation maturely and accepted it as an aspect of them-self, regardless of whether they live a homosexual or heterosexual life. And notice, I said "aspect" of them-self, not their entire make up. I found Elder Hafen's use of the parable of the dogs rather interesting. While I understand the point he is trying to make, it is a poor parable for what is being discussed. Aspects of one's self do very poorly when ignored. Starving a part of the psyche only makes it lash out, demanding attention, almost always in unhealthy ways. Each part of one's psyche needs to be addressed and nourished appropriately. What also needs to be faced by the individual, therapists, religions, and society in general is the very complexity of the issue of sexuality. As much as the discussion revolves around the dichotomy of heterosexual or homosexual, the reality is there is a great amount of variety in the way sexual orientation goes. The most basic step is to consider how much a person may be bisexual. Often I have seen people who are actually very evenly bisexual get too focused on the homosexual side of their attractions. This can even block the heterosexual aspects of their attraction.

Elder Hafen is right that the APA recently adopted a resolution stating that there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not sexual orientation can be changed. I currently am being treated by a therapist, A. Lee Beckstead, Ph.D., who was part of the task force to review the APA's stance on the appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation, including therapy to change sexual orientation. He also did one of what I consider one of the best studies regarding people who go through groups like Evergreen International. Again, the task force, through its research and interviews, found a number of things, some of which I have already covered.

People seeking to work with a therapist must make sure the therapist is ethical in how they treat the patient and how they go about the work. Some points that are very important, and issues I see Elder Hafen falling very short on in his talk, is to make sure the person is clear about goals, methods, and purpose of the therapy. For example, the therapist and client must be clear about what they mean by trying to "change" orientation. If it is simply working out how to live a heterosexual life, while still being attracted to the same sex, then the therapist may be able to tell the client that result is possible. However, if the client wants to completely change their orientation, no longer experiencing attraction to the same sex while experiencing strong attraction to the opposite sex, that result probably will not occur. I personally find Evergreen International and LDS approaches very unethical in that they are so predetermined in goals, methods, and purpose in the treatment they provide and information they share/dispense to those seeking help.

Another very important issue for the therapist to help the client with is views regarding what it means to be gay or lesbian. Many who seek change have a very skewed view about what it is to live as an out homosexual. Speaking from personal experience and people I know, the usual "media popular" version of being gay is not appealing or is downright disgusting to many. Most men I know don't have a desire to go around in assless chaps and have anonymous sex in public restrooms (as an example). The sad reality is many who seek reparative therapy and go to groups like Evergreen International think this is the only option they really have if they accept their sexual orientation. This is perhaps one of the greatest issues with Elder Hafen's talk and much that I hear coming from LDS church leaders and groups like Evergreen International. There is a subtlety to their rhetoric about "giving in or give up" and "succumbing" to the "gay lifestyle" (I am glad to see Elder Hafen at least put it in plural, "lifestyles"). Every time I hear it said there is a sense that there is only the option of giving in to a life of debauchery. This is not to say it isn't out there. I have seen the edge of it, but I hope as the great variety of gay men and lesbian women become more noticed in society people will realize that just because they are homosexual doesn't mean they must live their lives according to a stereotype.

The Birth of Joe d'Arc

Joe d'Arc isn't my name. It is a handle I use on the internet, for video games, and other such things. This handle came about from an unusual compliment I received from a former teacher in the spring of 2008.

I met up with the teacher when I went back to the community college I had graduated from the previous semester to get a haircut at the barbering school there. (I wear a simple hairstyle, and $2 is a very good price for my budget.) After my haircut I decided to drop in on some of the teachers, and others, I had developed a friendly relationship with. This particular teacher I had the pleasure of getting to know quite well, and we had had a number of long discussions about various topics in the past. When I ran into him, he was just about to go to lunch and invited me to eat with him.

Our discussion quickly went to him asking me about dealing with my sexuality and dealing with my spiritual/religious life having been raised LDS. He often talked to me about this as he found it very interesting how I had come to be very comfortable with my sexuality while still maintaining strong spiritual beliefs from my LDS upbringing. He is a person who takes a much more agnostic, or even anti-religious view. I told him how I had recently decided to stop attending LDS church meetings due to my Bishop confronting me about expressing my disagreement with the lesson material when homosexuality was brought up during the Elders' Quorum meeting. Although I had tried to be as tactful and respectful as possible, it had apparently offended some of the other men (I don't know who they were). The only part I wish I had handled differently was leaving my Bishop's office yelling at him as I felt he was bullying me, implying I was not welcome unless I was going to sit quietly and totally agree with whatever was said.

As I told the story to my former teacher he made the comment, "You are just like Joan of Arc." At first I wondered if he might mean he saw me tied to a stake to be burned in my future. All I really knew at the time about Joan of Arc was the basics about her claim of having been told by God to lead a crusade, doing so, and then being burned at the stake for heresy by the Catholic church. I quickly realized the comparison was meant as a compliment to my willingness to stand up to authority figures in the LDS church hierarchy and stand by my beliefs about what I have personally experienced spiritually that has brought me to embrace both my sexuality and my relationship with my Heavenly Father.

When I got back home, I decided to do a little research on Joan of Arc to see what about her I seemed to share. As I scanned the Wikipedia entry on her I became intrigued by what I learned. Despite her peasant status, being illiterate, and being a woman (which was a major part of the charges against her by the Catholic church) the records of her showed an incredibly intelligent woman of profound faith and strength. I have come to love how she responded to a question meant to trap her during her trial. When asked if she was in God's grace--something no one is supposed to be able to know either way--she responded, "If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me."

Impressed by my research and liking the fact the comparison came from someone else, whom I respect, I decided to embrace the comparison. And so, I came up with the name Joe d'Arc: a male modification of Joan of Arc (or Jeanne d'Arc in the original French variation).

Respect for Marriage Act Introduced

I am very happy to see the Respect for Marriage Act intriduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). The bill is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was passed back in 1996 before there were any states, or other countries, that legally recognized same-sex unions. I know there will be many who will see this bill as some kind of attack on existing marriage or somehow trying to force all of the United States, and religions therein, to accept, perform, and celebrate marriages by same-sex couples; but that is not the case with this bill.

DOMA, in short, defines the only marriages recognized by the federal government as between a man and a woman. In effect, this has caused many gay and lesbian couples to still be denied many of the rights, protections, and responsibilities granted by marriage and regulated by the federal government (upwards of 1,000 in all) even when they are fully, legally recognized as married by their state. This federal loophole has created a number of SNAFU situations with married gay and lesbian couples. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, the first state to license same-sex marriages, filing taxes is problematic. The Massachusetts state tax filing laws require a person to file in the state using the same status as they did for their federal return. Although a couple is legally recognized by the state, the federal government does not recognize their marriage, and therefore each person must file federally as single. In turn the state effectively requires them to also file as single. I have long felt this unequal recognition of marriages by the federal government, while it is up to the states to determine their own marriage laws, Constitutionally questionable.

The Respect of Marriage Act is only to repeal DOMA and return the federal government back to its previous method of marriage recognition: if the state legally recognizes the marriage the federal government legally recognizes the marriage. Period. There is nothing telling any person, religion, or state what marriages they may or may not recognize, license, or celebrate. The First Amendment clearly protects these rights of religions to choose their own qualifications for religious marriage. What the passing of the Respect for Marriage Act will do is allow those gay and lesbian couples who are licensed a marriage will be able to receive the rights, benefits, and responsibilities given to all married couples to help them strengthen and maintain their relationship, thereby strengthening the communities and societies they live in.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-wolfson/respect-for-marriage-act_b_288783.html

Once Upon a Time, I Had a Blog

Back in 2005-06 I had a MySpace account. With the account I kept a bit of a blog that was mainly a public journal about whatever was happening day-to-day in my life. I also put up a number of things on my profile where I was very open about my sexuality. Among them was a bumper sticker like picture I had made.

This prompted a message from a "woman" I had never met before.

Title: fag
Body: i just wanted to let you know how sick you make me...i went to davis high too and the alumni would be sickened by your sick choice in lifestyle....no mormon guy...or girl...of any religion for that matter would ever date you;...wake up and smell reality....you say you were born gay and i have to accept that...i say i was born hating gays and you have to accept that.

I was not pleased.

Later I received another, apparently unrelated message from a "man" whom I had even less connection with.

Title: (no subject)
Body: did ur dick fall off is that y u r gay?

I share this for a couple reasons. First, this is why I have been reluctant to get back to blogging. Having a blog open to the world, and being on the Internet in general, leaves one open to the crazy lashings of the unhinged out in the world. All one has to do for proof is go to a site like YouTube.com or other public place to see the senseless postings of hatred. Second, these incidents are why I have chosen to restrict comments on my blog to only those who are members of this blog with constant comment monitoring. I have it available to be found and read by anyone, but I do not care to put up with people who derive sick delight in hating others via the Internet.

LGBT Christian Groups and Not Feeling Welcome As a Mormon

I was recently invited to join an online community group for LGBT Christians called the Gay Christian Resource Center. Upon registering I noticed a thread existed titled "The Mormon Faith." In it I found the old veiled bash fest on the LDS faith as a non-Christian faith. Disapointed, I felt the need to respond to a couple of the posts.


Re: The Mormon Faith
Postby FantasyGaymer » July 22nd, 2009, 5:50 am

Sozo wrote: I'm not trying to play tit for tat, but they don't believe that any of us are going to Heaven unless we believe like they do. It doesn't matter what Christian denomination of world faith you are, you have to be Mormon, and they believe you'll be given that chance again, which indicates to me that it is a cult like religion.

I feel the need to make a response to this as it is an argument I hear so often to denounce Latter-day Saints (Mormons) as non-Christians. Asking whether or not Latter-day Saints are Christians is asking if they can obtain salvation through the following of and faith in the teachings of the religion. The point of Christian religion is not to have religion, per se, but to teach and lead people to salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Understandably, people will find it offensive when a different faith organization/religious institution claims to be the only way to receive salvation. However, to use this as a way to find fault with the religion and say it is false in its teachings leads to a logical catch twenty-two. My experience has been that people who use this argument do not realize they are doing the very thing they are denouncing. For one to say another religion is false (not Christian) is to claim one's own faith has the right teachings and directly implies one's religion is required over others for salvation, which is the very thing they are denouncing. Therefore, if we take the argument far enough, not only are they denouncing the other, they are denouncing themselves as Christian for claiming proprietary access to salvation. In the end every denomination, even within Christianity itself, has this underlying claim. If it were not for this why is there any distinction between denominations, even those who now socially claim solidarity? If you go back far enough in time (I know the nineteenth century is far enough) there was no such solidarity between the Protestant faiths. Each one condemned all the others to hell on a regular basis and claimed to have the only true faith by which to receive salvation.

With that said, I understand many of the other arguments being made. I can see how they can be legitimate bases to argue the validity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Christian church. At the same time, while it is clear many of you know some of the more "interesting" points of doctrine to the faith I must say it is apparent you missed the lead up to and purpose of those beliefs. I know much of it may seem quite strange to you looking in from the outside. I hope you all realize how strange any religion seems when you are only taking glaces from the outside, such as most of you seem to be doing.

Pastor Weekly wrote: It can walk like a duck... It can talk like a duck... But, if it doesn't believe like a duck, it ain't a duck. I don't believe Mormons are Christians, and I don't find any solidarity with their system of beliefs whatsoever. Satan himself is able to masquerade as an angel of light, so I'm unmoved by whatever virtues or positive qualities are resident within their system of beliefs and/or their adherents.

If you hadn't guessed by now, I was raised in the LDS faith. I attended and graduated from the Seminary program and served a full-time, proselytizing missing. My faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior and Redeemer is based on this background. Also, my belief that my Heavenly Father is accepting of my sexuality comes, ironically, from the spiritual practices and scriptural knowledge I gained from the decades I spent with the LDS faith. I am not currently active with the church as its strong anti-LGBT policies makes for a hostile feeling environment. Based on Pastor Weekly's statement--with all due respect to his position as Pastor and site administrator--this community does not appear to be a welcoming environment either.

With Love in Christ,
Ryan

An Open Letter To Family, Friends, Etc.

Dear Relatives and Friends,

I cannot properly express the amount of time I have spent in contemplation, heartache, and prayer so I may write this letter in accordance to the Holy Spirit and so you may also be open to what I write. I know some of you will not receive this as I intend it. However, I feel an overwhelming drive to at least try and give an opportunity for proper communication; my conscience will not allow me to do otherwise.

Nearly ten years ago I came out as a gay man. In the time since I have struggled to find my way through life in relationship to society in general, my LDS upbringing, and with you collectively and individually. I thank those of you who have been supportive and worked to actually hear me and understand what I have done in my life. For those who have been dismissive, I only hope one day you will open up to truly hearing me.

I have already written much in regard to my sexuality, especially in relation to the LDS Church and my personal relationship with the Savior. This latter relationship in particular has been a difficult point for many of you to understand. Many people have tried to gently call me to repentance by saying things like, “I just want you to remember your Primary days … you ARE a Child of God. I know that and I hope you will always remember that,” or telling me all I need to do is accept Jesus Christ as my Savior to be “cured” of my homosexuality. To those who tell me such things, or want to, I think you perhaps assume too much. I admit the first years of being “out” were spent away from God and the fundamentals I learned in Primary. However, the past few years that has not been the case. So many encourage me to turn to Christ, offering myself entirely to His will, as if I have not already done so.

What I went through was not a simple prayer one day, as some have assumed. I spent days, weeks, months in prayer and fasting. I did everything I could think of to make myself open to the Still Small Voice of the Holy Ghost and be able to hear it clearly. When I received an answer I checked it against everything I had ever learned from the Scriptures, church lessons, Seminary and Institute classes, General Conference talks, anything approved by the Church that was out there to know whether it was right or wrong. I even continued in prayer, fasting, church attendance, and Institute classes after receiving very powerful, direct answers to my prayers to make sure what I experienced was not just a defense mechanism telling me what I wanted to hear, or that it was the product of psychological dysfunction. I have dug deep into my psyche and soul and found layers of understanding most people never even consider. I continue to probe ever deeper and have no desire to stop.

Over the years my spirit has been touched in ways and my mind opened to things I consider too sacred to share here. What I will say is I know God accepts me embracing my homosexuality and even seeking a male partner—“husband”—to share my life with. This is not a carte blanche on my sexual behavior or a statement on how others have dealt with their issues of sexuality and marriage. Also, although my Spiritual experiences have been nearly entirely about what is best for me, part is also the need to discuss this issue with others--e.g., this letter--to open up more dialogue and understanding on both sides of the issue. This is not to say I know all the answers to the questions these answers from the Holy Ghost bring up. Much has yet to be revealed to me, and I doubt all of it will come in this lifetime. What I do know is I have received profound guidance for this life and I cannot turn away from it. As it says in Joseph Smith—History (1:25), “For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.”

Some have taken the struggles of my life over the past years as evidence of being wrong about my spiritual experiences. The struggles I go through are against those who would have me go against what God has reveled to me by insisting I must do as they think God wants me to do. I am at peace with Heavenly Father and the Savior, not with the world around me. I think it better to struggle against man for the space to do as God has told me is best for me than go against Him to appease those around me. I did it once before, believing those people knew what God wanted. I doubt many of you truly understand what my mission experience was like; I will only say here it nearly cost me my life and my relationship with the Savior.

My desire to write this letter comes from the great difficulty I have experienced over the past year. At the end of 2007 my last Bishop made it very clear I was not welcome in the ward if I was not going to agree with whatever was said at Church meetings. I have mourned the loss of community and Spiritual uplifting I gained from attending. However, I know what my Bishop insisted on would be more damaging to me spiritually than stepping away. Also, the turbulent debates and demonstrations caused by California’s Proposition 8 have left me feeling I live in a world gone mad. Both sides of the argument have overstepped lines and acted less than appropriately. In many ways I feel threatened physically, socially, and spiritually. In regards to the LDS Church, I have been particularly disappointed. Much of what the Church said and posted online officially over their involvement struck me as rather disingenuous and even unethical in their use of arguments and supporting documentation. Over Christmas I got into a very heated debate with an uncle over the issue. Like my uncle, many have tried to defend the Church in its involvement in Proposition 8, or other issues about homosexuality. It quickly becomes apparent they are completely unaware of what has actually been said or has happened over the issue. Some don’t even seem to understand what homosexuality actually is. I strongly ask all of you to take time to educate yourself on the issue*--if not for me then for those you will discuss it with in the future. As Cloy Jenkins writes, “Those who insist on speaking out on homosexuality should first know what they are talking about.”

Sincerely,
Ryan Hollist

* A good source, which covers many of the basic and key issues, is Prologue by Cloy Jenkins, et al.

My Promises and Expectations after Proposition 8

This political season has been difficult for many of us. We have seen one of the most intense presidential races in history. Stakes are high with issues regarding the economy and wars, not to mention historic milestones seen for both African Americans and women in our political arena. I feel an energy in the air with it all. Something is tipping; a corner in a cycle is being turned. We as Americans will become different through the coming events-–much like how we became different through the Industrial Revolution, Great Depression, and WWII, to name a few.

For me, emotions ran very high over the now over decade old issue of same-sex marriage. Many states carried the issue on their ballots this year. This ranged from trying to keep homosexual couples, and other unmarried couples, from being adoptive or foster parents (AK Initiative Act 1) to constitutional amendments to make marriage only between “a man and a woman” (AZ Proposition 102, CA Proposition 8, FL Amendment 2). Again, we saw some of the most intense politicking ever seen in the CA campaigning over Proposition 8, garnering attention to position it as mascot of the issue for the country. Debates were intense. Advertising and general claims often went past extreme into the absurd. Many baffled me as I tried to understand how the issues they brought up have any bearing on the issue. Perhaps the most disturbing were the highly sanctimonious reasoning behind most of the arguments and the intense financial backing by religions, especially the LDS Church. I lost more than a few nights of sleep as the world became a little more hostile to me trying to live peaceably in it.

With all that has been said, debated, and argued, I promise to do the following:

• I promise to allow you to educate your children as you see fit. I have my beliefs as to what should be included in sex-education, health, and social study courses. I think it is somewhat absurd and potentially damaging to ignore the existence of homosexuals in these issues, and I believe the curriculum must be carefully tailored to fit the maturity of the students. However, I completely acknowledge your rights as parent/guardian to teach the morality of these things to your children and should hold the right to remove your child from involvement should you deem it necessary.


• I promise to allow churches to marry whom they wish to marry and not marry whom they do not wish to marry.


• I promise to allow church based agencies providing services, such as adoption, to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. I promise to allow any other private company the right to the same, as long as they abide by the proper local laws to do so.


• I promise to allow private, sectarian school to run their housing and admissions according to their own policies.


• I promise to allow people, including ministers and other religious figures, to speak of homosexuality as sin without insisting they be censored on the claim of “hate speech.” Also, I do not consider phrases like “traditional marriage” or “family values” to be hate speech. However, this is no basis to allow incendiary rhetoric condoning harm to others.

In return, I ask for the following:

• Become educated about homosexual, bisexual, and transgender issues. Many out there are still severely ignorant, leading to fear and anger, about what these are and what is – and isn’t – involved.


• Become education about the points you argue. Many have gone to topics and expressed concerns about issues in no way connected or contested over the issue of same-sex marriage. Also, learn how to understand studies and statistics and know how to find the reliable ones. So many have abused and misused studies to make their point seem valid. (I openly admit many on both sides of the issue are guilty of this. All the more reason for you to know how to deal with it properly.)


• Those who argue the issue is not same-sex marriage but defending "traditional" marriage or the definition of marriage, work to actually define "traditional" marriage in the law. I admit, I ask this somewhat ironically. One of the great talking points is protecting marriage as it is defined. However, our civil law has done a poor job in reflecting the definition many give as to why same-sex couples should be barred from it. If the great debates and issues surrounding same-sex marriage have shown me anything it is that marriage, from the point of view of the law in our country, is poorly defined in what it is for and what purpose it is to serve. I expect to see the proposal of legislation at both state and federal levels to improve the structuring of marriage laws to reflect what it is to have and maintain "traditional" marriage (e.g., if "traditional" marriage is to be about bearing and raising children I wish to see fecundity requirements for marriage and tax benefits only when the couple is the primary caregiver of a minor). Otherwise, I shall consider this aspect of arguments merely meaningless talking points used to emotionally manipulate people.


• Those who say you have no objection to civil unions stand by your promise. Many have said they have no problem recognizing civil unions at both state and federal levels that allow ALL the same RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES as marriage. Although I feel this is playing a very unnecessary semantics game, I hope you will stay by your word. Should we seek to have such civil unions, either support us or stand aside. If you oppose us after all you have said I will consider you the most extreme of hypocrites.


• Acknowledge our existence. One of the most pervasive attitudes I saw in all the debate and argument was a feeling that people wanted homosexuals not to exist. I am not talking of an intent or desire to kill us or drive us from our homes. It was a subtle, almost unconscious “don’t ask, don’t tell” type of attitude. As much as you may wish us off the radar, we are here. To insist on ignoring our existence by not allowing your children – or even yourself – to hear of us, by not allowing us to share our lives with the one we choose, or even by not allowing us the basic needs to survive in society – as one man I spoke with actually wanted to do – is an attempt at a relativistic existence. With all the fearful rhetoric of homosexuals destroying society, I see trying to maintain such an existence as being far more destructive.

Where Arguments Over Prop 8 End Up

In debating over Proposition 8, I have been involved in a discussion--argument, fight--with one Scott Baxter (Orange County, CA). The line eventually lead to the issue of God. I feel parts of the recent thread are worth sharing and keeping here.

As for my relationship with God, I think you perhaps assume to much. You are right that there is something in reading this that reminds me to look to Him for support. You encourage turning to Him, offering myself entirely to His will and accepting Jesus and Lord as if I had not. I have Scott, years ago. It was not a simple general prayer one day. I spent months in prayer and fasting listening to the Holy Spirit to give me guidance in how God would have me deal with my sexuality. Even after receiving very powerful, direct answers I continued on to make sure it was not just a defense mechanism telling me what I wanted to hear. I have dug deep into my psyche and soul and found layers of understanding most people never even consider. I continue to probe ever deeper and have no desire to stop. Over the years my soul has been touched in ways and my mind opened to things I consider too sacred to speak of in detail in this kind of forum. What I will say is I know God is totally accepting of me embracing my homosexuality and seeking a male partner--"husband"--to share my life with. This is not a carte blanche on my sexual behavior or a statement on how others have dealt with their issues of sexuality and marriage. However, just because something can be misused does not negate the use of it for good, and I hope you can understand why I feel so passionately about the issue of same-sex marriage. As for the struggle you see, it is against those who would have me go against what God has revealed to me to fit what they think God wants. I would think it better to fight man for the space to do as God has told me is good for me to do than go against Him to appease those around me. I did it once before, believing those people knew what God wanted; it not only nearly cost me my life but my soul as well.

I do not wish you ill, Scott, but I will fight you if you insist on trying to make me go against God's will for my life.

Responses to Feelings Regarding Prop 8

Recently a cousin of mine wrote a Facebook note about her feelings regarding Proposition 8 in California. She quoted Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

ELDER DALLIN H OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle.

Believing that I, too, must make a stand on principle, I commented:

I want to say something here, but I don't know how to put it. I understand what Elder Oaks, and other General Authorities, are trying to do under this issue. In many ways I agree that many have pushed their activism too far. On the other hand, I feel the Church and many of the GA's are doing the same thing: trying to push their view on the rest of the world and blowing certain instances out of proportion to give support to their view.

As I expected, a number of people have responded to my comment with rhetoric such as “Is the Church true or not?”, “FOLLOW THE PROPHET,” and “The 12 Apostles and First presidency are not politicians…. They tell us what God wants the world to know.” These responses are all too evident of an inability I see in many members of the LDS church, and other faiths as well, to distinguish between their ecclesiastical leaders and God himself. However, that leads towards a discussion I will leave to another time.

My desire to respond to my cousin’s post was not to say that the LDS church had no business nor even the right to support Proposition 8 or carry the views and beliefs it does regarding same-sex marriage. I understand its position and believe there are legitimate concerns and issues over the matter that must be addressed. What does bother me is how the Church and its leaders have gone about trying to support their view. On October 16, 2008 the LDS church published an article “The Divine Institution of Marriage”. In this article the issue of encroachment on the rights of churches is brought up (see under the heading “Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom”). I believe this is a legitimate concern. However, I find the treatment and support of these concerns unethical. So as not to make this note unnecessarily long, please read Morris A. Thurston’s rebuttal of “Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails” on MormonsForMarriage.org. Thurston has also posted a commentary on the responses he has received regarding his rebuttal.

As for the quote my cousin posted from Elder Oaks, the case of a pastor being imprisoned for preaching the sinful nature of homosexuality is not cited leaving me only to theorize on the incident. On the one hand I can see it possible that the pastor was being denied his rights to faith and free speech. However, I have seen all too often those who hide behind claims of free speech to incite blatant hatred, even violence, against others. I have heard pastors condone refusing homosexuals health care and housing. Some have even openly proclaimed that God will justify and bless those who beat or even kill homosexuals. Take basically anything from GodHatesFags.com. One organization tried to buy the lot next to Matthew Shepherd’s grave so they could erect a monument saying “Matthew Shepeherd has burned in Hell since October 12, 1998.” I even had a discussion with an LDS “friend” from high school who openly admitted he wants to pointedly discriminate against homosexuals, i.e., deny them employment benefits.

In the end what I want everyone out there to consider is are you doing what you do only because an authority figure said so? or have you searched out information beyond just what they say and make the decision educated and aware of what the issue and situation actually are?

Arguments Over Equal Marriage

With Proposition 8 looming in California many are making their views known with posting groups, blogs, videos, etc. Some have legitimate concerns about infringement on personal and religious beliefs. Most of them, however, seem to stem from beliefs that allowing equal marriage will somehow result in an apocalyptic implosion of society and the human race.

I recently had a discussion with a "friend" on Facebook. He pointed me to a forum where he had debated the issue with a young man. This young man compiled a list of arguments he has heard and put together an intelligent list of rebuttals. I thought it worthy of reposing with all points integrated.


Gay Unions

The official position of me on the issue of gay unions is: They ought be allowed. His reasoning is as follows, along with other relevant statements:

1. There is no rational reason to bar gay unions.


1. Given that there is no pressing reason for the state to intervene in this matter, other considerations ought be given far more weight.


2. The predicted harms of gay marriage have not been observed in any society.


3. Very few people who make these arguments are willing to make them to a gay person – that is, they will not be willing to say that the specific gay person in question is not capable of parenting, or is not capable of being faithful, or any such: This inability exposes the non-categorical nature of the assertions in question, and indicates a large problem in statistical validity and intellectual integrity.


2. In the interest of the values of equality and liberty, gay unions ought to be allowed.


1. Allowing people to live in a manner that they see fit, when it does not harm the liberty of others, leads to prosperous societies. As well, the state should only assume the roles necessary to fulfill its obligations.


3. Gay marriage promotes tolerance and reduces hate within society.


4. The promotion of loving relationships is in the interests of society.


5. Opposition to gay unions tends to come from bigotry, rather than reasoned analysis.

This position makes many values assumptions, including (but not limited to): High emphasis on liberty and equality and tolerance, emphasis on privacy. Anti-values are placed on religion.

The following are common arguments that have been levied against this position. I respond accordingly:

1. “Gay unions results in the collapse of society.” - Harms

(1.1.) This has not been demonstrated. An analysis of societies today that allow for gay unions indicate that, at minimum, gay unions has a negligible impact. There does seem to be a strong correlation between gay unions and social prosperity, and this correlation would seem to destroy any attempt at demonstrating that gay unions results in collapse.

1.1.1. “But not enough time has passed.”

(1.1.1.1.) Gay unions have been legal in some jurisdictions now for nearly 18 years (as of 2007) and this would seem to be ample time to see some effect.

(1.1.1.2.) No mechanism has been provided for why there would be any sort of delay in seeing this.

2. “Gay unions will result in more people becoming gay, resulting in fewer children, and thus will result in the collapse of society.” - Harms

(2.1.) If sexuality cannot on balance be chosen, then people will quickly determine that (on average) they are heterosexual and thus will continue to procreate in the typical manner.

(2.2.) If sexuality can on balance be chosen, no rational person would choose to be gay: At worst, they would choose bisexuality for that enables them to maximize sexual pleasure. Otherwise, they would choose heterosexuality, for that allows them to integrate most easily with the rest of society. Furthermore, if sexuality can be chosen in such a manner, then people will simply choose to have a baby at such time that they wish to.

(2.3.) The human race at present is facing no threat of extinction due to low population. Indeed, the human race is at present suffering from massive overpopulation, and therefore this argument can be turned to support gay unions.

4. “Gays themselves are harmed by higher incidence of disease that accompany unions.” - Harms

(4.1.) The specific rate of disease cannot be determined due to problems in biased sample sizes.

(4.2.) Assuming the rate of disease is high, marriage has no impact on this: There is no mechanism by which marriage would increase risky behaviors within this group, since it is likely that such a group is partaking in those activities anyway. Rather, marriage would seem to decrease such risk, by reducing social pressures against gays and promoting monogamous values.

5. “Gays have a higher rate of disease or some other negative trait.”

(5.1.) A disease test has never been a qualification of marriage, nor should it be: As long as the two people consent, the government has no business telling them that their love does or does not have worth.

6. “Gay unions allow for polygamy.”

(6.1.) Unions are a legal contract between two people granting them certain benefits and responsibilities. These benefits only fit within the dynamic of a two person relationship and logically break when expanded beyond this (For instance, deciding succession of power of attorney).

6.1.1. “But shouldn’t the government be nondiscriminatory when it comes to love?”

(6.1.1.1.) Indeed, and if multiple people wish to enter into a relationship that bestows upon them such legal benefits, they ought be able to. At present, it seems that the legal relationship best approximating this is that of a corporation.

(6.2.) The slope is not particularly slippery: Given the resistance to even gay marriage, polygamy seems very far off.

(6.3.) It is entirely possible to draw the line somewhere.

(6.4.) This argument is an argument against marriage in general: If we allow any union between two people, then there is always the possibility that we will then allow a union between 3 people. Therefore, by this argument, all marriage ought be banned.

(6.5.) This argument ultimately relies on the assumption that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage itself per se, but rather that it might lead to something negative. Given 6.1.-6.4., this argument is thus negated entirely.

7. “The Bible says…”

(7.1.) The Bible is not a reliable source of truth, nor is it a particularly good source of moral adjudication.

8. “Gay sexual interaction is icky.”

(8.1.) The issue at hand is one of whether they ought be allowed to enter into a specific legal contract, not whether you ought to be forced to watch them have sex.

(8.2.) Your personal distaste for a specific form of conduct, so long as such conduct does not substantially harm you or anyone else, is not valid in any debate.

9. “Homosexuality is against nature.”

(9.1.) Homosexuality is observed very frequently in nature.

(9.2.) Appeals to nature lead to undesirable moral consequences: It is true that murder is a part of nature. Is it therefore good? Antibiotics are unnatural: Are they therefore bad?

10. “Might children be turned gay?”

(10.1.) There is no research to indicate this.

(10.2.) Please see 2.1. and 2.2.

(10.3.) This appears to be about as equally valid as the statement “Straight parents will raise only straight children”

11. “If gays get married, they will face discrimination.”

(11.1.) Gays ought be allowed whether to take that risk or not.

(11.2.) It seems highly likely that same-sex marriage will actually remove continued discrimination and stigmas against homosexuality.

12. “Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman.”

(12.1.) The logic of this argument relies on traditional things always being good. Racism has also been a traditional institution, but one that has been found incompatible with present day beliefs. By this logic, racism must be accepted since it has traditionally been so.

(12.2.) Marriage has traditionally been almost a property relationship with the man as owner and woman as object. For instance, in Colonial America it was legal for a man to beat his wife, since it was not generally seen that women had such rights to question their husbands. Since this is generally not accepted as moral, the argument from tradition must fail.

(12.3.) In many societies, same-sex relationships were normal prior to the introduction of Christianity.

13. “Voters have rejected this.”

(13.1.) Arguments from popularity are not a substitute for logical argumentation.

(13.2.) This objection speaks nothing to the morality of gay unions.

14. “Marriage is about procreation.”

(14.1.) It is generally not accepted that marriage must form in order to create children, and many couples often debate whether or not to have children: Such a debate would not take place if marriage was truly considered to be about procreation.

(14.2.) There is no, nor has there ever been, a child-bearing qualification to marriage.

(14.3.) The fundamental rationale for marriage, the stability it lends to society in the formation of stable relationships, is completely divorced from the issue of procreation.

(14.4.) Generally proposals to restrict marriage to only those who are capable of bearing children, to legislate that children must be born or the union dissolved, or to even define marriage strictly as between two parents have all generally enjoyed very little support, even among opponents of gay unions, thus indicating that this objection is not a sufficient motivator to action. Indeed, if that is the purpose of marriage, then marriage ought begin the second a baby is born, and end the second a woman is no longer capable of either raising biological children or bearing more.

14.4.1. “Because of practical/privacy limitations, we cannot investigate these straight marriages to see if they have children. However, a gay marriage by definition cannot provide biological children, and thus few resources are expended to meet this goal.”

(14.4.1.1.) It seems like it would be a trivial matter for a government agency to, after 5 years of the creation of a straight union, check if any children have been registered to the parents.

(14.4.1.2.) Defining marriage as occurring at the exact moment of birth between the parents avoids the problem of investigation entirely. The moment the child is born and given a birth certificate, the parents are also given a marriage certificate.

(14.4.1.3.) The lack of support for the above measures means the original point stands.

(14.4.1.4.) Defining an acceptable marriage as only one that has biological children ignores that non-biological children can also be raised. (Cross apply 14.5. here)

(14.4.1.5.) If, on balance, marriage is about procreation then privacy limitations ought not apply: The entire purpose of marriage is procreation, and therefore is the sanctity of marriage is to be upheld the government must investigate in accordance with 14.4.1.1 or 14.4.1.2.

(14.5.) Gays are capable of reproduction, and are more than capable of adoption, which is desperately needed in a world abundant with unwanted children. Basically the point seems to be that one has to define the moral imperative of marriage as raising only biological children, and it seems difficult to justify a differentiation between biological and non-biological children in this ethical mathematics.

15. “I love my mother – why shouldn’t I be able to marry her?”

(15.1.) I have no opposition to marriage between two consenting adults.

(15.2.) One can logically argue that the marriage between two lovers is the only type of union that contributes to the safety of society, whereas the love between a mother and child is qualitatively different and serves no function in recognition.

16. “Gender roles will be confused in children raised in such households. “

(16.1.) There is no evidence to indicate this.

(16.2.) Gender roles are generally negative anyway.

(16.3.) Teaching gender roles has never been a qualification for marriage.

17. Gays can get these rights using other means.

(17.1.) Gays ought not need to resort to other methods to secure the same rights, incurring additional costs for the same rights.

(17.2.) By attempting this argument, one automatically concedes that there is no material harm in allowing gay unions, since the end result of either using a lawyer to secure these rights individually or using unions to secure them collectively is the same: If it is harmful only in one situation but not another, one must demonstrate the substantive difference between the two.

(17.3.) Not all rights can be restored in this manner.

18. “Gays make bad parents.”

(18.1.) There is no evidence to indicate this.

(18.2.) Parenting skills have never been used as a qualification for marriage.

(18.3.) The Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers disagree.

19. “Judges are legislating from the bench.”

(19.1.) Judges are fulfilling their constitutional role to adjudicate the law.

(19.2.) Judges have traditionally ruled in favor of protecting minority rights, as it has always been known that the majority will likely vote to discriminate if given the chance. Indeed, fear of the tyranny of the majority if one reason why the judiciary is kept independent of the other two branches.

20. “Gays already have equal rights – they can marriage people of the opposite gender too.”

(20.1.) If an amendment were passed saying that the only valid marriages would be same-sex marriages, heterosexuals would justly feel persecuted.

(20.2.) This argument plays on semantics: Instead of going for equality in spirit, the argument attempts to go for equality in syntax.

21. “Gays are not capable of love for each other.”

(21.1.) There is no evidence to indicate this.

(21.2.) Proving ones love has never been a qualification for marriage.

22. “Gays do not represent a significant enough portion of the population to merit this.”

(22.1.) This does not speak to the morality of the issue in question.

(22.2.) To say that a minority is too small to be protected from discrimination is not morally correct.

(22.3.) Other minorities also exist that are small: Jews make up 5% of the US population, however it would be wildly improper to discriminate against them.

23 “Can’t they just have civil unions?”

(23.1.) This argument admits that marriage poses no threat.

(23.2.) Civil unions continue to remain discriminatory, creating a special class of marriage for “the gays” and the regular class for “the rest of us”. This would not be considered proper for any other group of people.

24. “Forcing me to accept gay marriage is against my religious beliefs.”

(24.1.) Allowing gay marriage only forces the state to recognize the legal contract – others, including churches, may or may not recognize this union depending upon their own personal preferences.

(24.2.) This argument is wildly subjective: If some religion considers heterosexual marriages to be immoral, should they then be dissolved?

(24.3.) Your right to practice your religion in private is not being infringed upon.

25. “People might marry into fraudulent weddings in order to gain legal benefits, such as health coverage.”

(25.1.) There is no evidence to suggest that heterosexuals will rush to have homosexual weddings for any reason.

(25.2.) Heterosexuals are not prevented from engaging in such sham-weddings right now with members of the opposite sex.

26. “Gay marriage undermines the health of the traditional family.”

(26.1.) The health of the traditional family seems to be self-destructing (in the United States) well on its own.

(26.2.) The “traditional family” is a very nebulous concept.

(26.3.) The “threat” is fairly vaguely defined – indeed, typically defined in such a way that it means nothing at all, and is simply a talking point.

(26.4.) In the United States, it has been found that divorce rates in the only state in the Union to legalize gay marriage were among the lowest in the nation, and continued their downward trend, whereas states that oppose gay marriage experienced an increase in divorce rates.

27 “Gay marriage advocates want to destroy the traditional family and/or society.”

(27.1.) This is an ad hominem attack.

(27.2.) This is a conspiracy theory.

(27.3.) There is no evidence for this.

28. “Gay marriage will lead to man-beast relationships.”

(28.1.) An animal is not able to consent, which is required under common law.

29. “Homosexuals molest children.”

(29.1.) There is no evidence to indicate this.

(29.2.) Profiling of this nature is not used in determining valid marriages.

30. “Homosexuals can be cured of their disease.”

(30.1.) The science increasingly is demonstrating this to be unlikely.

(30.2.) It is not relevant anyway: Absent another reason to bar gay unions, it comes down to liberty and equality, which necessarily lead to gay unions.

31. “The Founding Fathers never intended for this.”

(31.1.) The intent of the Founding Fathers is not a proper measure of the validity of a thing, for the Founding fathers lived in a time where such things as racism and sexism were commonplace. The Founding Fathers did not intend for the direct election of Senators, for instance, but it would seem undemocratic to do anything else now.

31.1.1. “This is a weak argument in favor of gay unions.”

(31.1.1.1.) It is not intended to be an argument in favor of same-sex unions. Rather, it is a response to an invalid argument against same sex unions.

(31.2.) The Founding Fathers did not particularly speak on the issue of marriage, since it wasn’t that large of an issue at the time.

(31.3.) The feelings of the Founding Fathers are not relevant to the morality of a thing.

32. “Gay unions could cause civil strife.”

(32.1.) There is no evidence for this.

(32.2.) Any problems related to civil strife would be the fault of those violating the law, not the fault of gay people.

(32.3.) Other controversial equality measures, such as interracial marriage, also posed the threat of causing civil strife. The interests of equality and liberty prevail over this.

33. “Gay unions legitimise homosexuality.”

(33.1.) This would not be a negative thing.

(33.2.) Gay unions only remove discrimination: They do not “promote” homosexuality.

34. “Marriage is not the domain of the state.”

(34.1.) As long as the state does sanction marriages, gay marriage leads to less government intervention in the lives of the people versus not having it, since the state no longer discriminates and presents obstacles to people living their own lives in the way that they see fit.

(34.2.) The formation of stable unions can be said to be in the interests of securing both the negative and positive liberty of the people.

35. “Gay unions would increase the spread of disease.”

(35.1.) There is no evidence for this.

(35.2.) The spread of disease has never been a factor in allowing straights to marry.

36. “Gay marriage will cost too much money.”

(36.1.) For gays, gay marriage would increase the amount of money they receive from such things as social security by $5,000, pensions, and other sources, thus increasing their economic power.

(36.2.) The cost on employers in areas that allow gay marriage has been extremely marginal, enough so to be insignificant.

(36.3.) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the government would take in $1 billion if all 50 states allowed gay marriage.

37. “Gay unions will lead to a decline in religious freedom.”

(37.1.) Gay unions, being a matter of the state, do not particularly affect religion in any way.

38. “It will become socially unacceptable to oppose gay unions if we allow them.”

(38.1.) This is a matter of democratic social convention and is thus not particularly relevant to the debate.

(38.2.) Reducing the amount of intolerance in society is a positive thing.

(38.3.) If your idea will become unpopular with the introduction of gay unions, perhaps it is your idea that needs to be reassessed.

39. “Most child molesters molest same-sex.”

(39.1.) This is not correct: Most victims are female, most perpetrators are male, and they tend to know each other.

(39.2.) Many same-sex molestations (indeed, many different-sex molestations) occur more as a desire for power or control rather than due to sexual attraction.

(39.3.) In order for this argument to carry weight, one needs to demonstrate that any significant portion of gay people will molest, which there is no evidence for.

39.3.1. “Gays have a higher chance of being child molesters than other sectors of the population.”

(39.3.1.1.) There is no evidence to indicate this.

(39.3.1.2.) A significant portion of the total gay population would be required to make this argument carry weight, not merely a deviation from average.

(39.3.1.3.) Please see 39.4.

(39.4.) Past criminal history is not a standard for marriage – straight marriages are not forbidden because of such.