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.

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.

Getting Back to When Things Were Good

The past couple weeks have seemed notably difficult for me. My depression seems to be worse than usual, perhaps because of the changing season shortening the day. I have also seen a great amount of hateful reaction to the release of the trailer for 8: The Mormon Proposition. At first I thought I might catalog what I've seen, and argued with, from people. I've had some very strong reactions to what people have posted. Just a week ago I became enraged at what one man wrote in an argument we had on Facebook over the trailer for 8:TMP. My anger was white hot and took over (almost) all of my ability to reason. I wanted to physically beat up someone--anyone, even children. Luckily I only spent a few minute sobbing and slammed a couple doors.

I have decided to cut myself off from much of the media I have been exposing myself to over the past couple years. I have hidden and ignored a large number of Facebook friends who tend to post political/religious links and comments. I no longer watch Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann. I leave the room when my roommate turns on NPR. I am avoiding almost all media outlets. Even The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, which I have allowed myself to still watch, may eventually be cut. My constitution is just not made to handle the stresses of staying informed in our culture of negative media.

What I do need to do is get back to where I was when things were good. The last time I really felt like my life was on the right track was back in 2005. I was seriously working on maintaining my spirituality and felt closely connected with God. It has been a growing realization, but today seemed particularly poignant in realizing how much I have let my spirituality slip and how I no longer feel very connected with the Savior in my life. As I have merely thought about plans to work on getting back somewhat to where I was, a calm has returned to part of me I realize has been missing now for some time. Part of me even considered trying to attend LDS church meetings, but perhaps with the social/political climate that exists in the aftermath of Proposition 8 would be too much. I hope that bridge hasn't been completely burned.

I truly fear sometimes I may become like the people I run into all too often who carry so much hatred for the LDS church and faith. I have my criticisms of how the church has behaved as an institution, and I even openly question and challenge some of what the General Authorities say and teach. However, that doesn't negate what I have gained from being a member of the church. It doubt it will ever cease to amaze me how following what I learned in church--having faith, prayer, listening to the Holy Ghost--is what has enabled me to be comfortable in my sexuality. The anger and hatred are so toxic to me and destroy the peace and comfort I found.

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

Proposed Op-ed Letter Re: Gayle Ruzicka & Common Ground Bills

January 27, 2009, the first of a group of bills known as the “Common Ground” bills was heard, debated, and defeated in committee. I am disappointed this Wrongful Death bill was put down so quickly. However, I am more deeply disturbed by the tone and rhetoric some took in the debate over the issue.

At the committee hearing Gayle Ruzicka testified against the entire “Common Ground” bills, not just this first bill. Her rhetoric, as usual, was intensely conservative and inflammatory. “It is the same liberal people who support gay rights that also support the killing of unborn children,” she said. Are we truly to believe that any extension of civil rights to the LGBT people is also to remove any and all restraint on abortion? I, for one, do not fit this simplistic definition of one who supports gay rights.

Ms. Ruzicka’s rhetoric, lumping pro-abortion and pro-gay rights into one, reminds me of a similar comment. In 2006 a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy spoke at my LDS Stake Conference. During his talk he mentioned a time when he was asked why the LDS church opposed abortion and homosexuality. His response, “We oppose same-sex marriage and abortion because if everyone practiced them the entire human race would be destroyed in a single generation.” Although technically true, the “if” of this argument is so grossly absurd I would laugh were it not for the fact many have taken it to be very likely, even to the point of being a prophetic warning. I made sure to face and question the Elder in person on using the argument directly after the meeting.

And so I must ask Gayle Ruzicka, Sen. Chris Buttars (who headed the committee), and any others who hatefully and fearfully oppose anything with even the whiff of gay rights: is this what you fear? Do you truly believe in some apocalyptic implosion of human society should any of these rights be extended? I do not ask rhetorically either. I want to know directly from them. I want to hear from you, and I do not want the scripted talking points in response. I do not want the absurd, broad stroked simplicity that has dominated the public discourse on this issue. I want to hear it truthfully and sincerely. I want you to look deep inside and tell me what it is that causes you such fear that festers into so much anger.

I am very tired of dealing with people like Gayle Ruzicka and Sen. Chris Buttars. I am tired of their use of absurd logic, twisted arguments, and outright lies to influence civil policy. I am tired of those who accept such distorted discourse as truth. Mostly, I am tired of all the fighting that must be done so decent, productive people may live in this world without fear of abuse and harm. I can no longer hold a clear conscience without calling people like these out on their fallacious ideas and destructive philosophies. I and too many others have been harmed too much for too long to allow it to continue.

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.

Thank You Rational Friends

Every political season is highly stressful for me. Debates over candidates and issues rage across society. Claims are made, accusations fly, and we are left to sort the pieces back into whatever the truth of the matter is.

This political season has been particularly stressful for me. Perhaps it is due to following the issues and competing views more closely than I have ever done before. Perhaps it is the state of our society at this time, standing on the edge of collapse, has put us on such intense alert we dare not allow the wrong plan be followed.

The most stressful for me has been the debates, argument, and even downright fights over the issue of same-sex marriage and California's Proposition 8. I have seen such intensity of anger, fear, and hatred from both sides of the issue to feel overwhelmed. Even I admit to becoming emotional with some over the issues. I truly feel there are some out there who want to do me harm over the issue of sexuality, and if they were given power would perpetuate the harms we have seen in the past. As Dr. M. Scott Peck points out in People of the Lie, "politics is a prime forum to observe and interact with the psychology of evil."

I want to thank all of you who have been respectful, considerate, and rational in dealing with the issues we are facing in these days. I would rather have a friend who can respectfully disagree after considering my position than someone intolerant and irrational on my side of the issue.

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.