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.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
8: The Mormon Proposition Gets Online
Reed Cowan's documentary, 8: The Mormon Propositon, has launched its official website and released its first trailer.
Cowan has submitted the film to the Sundance Film Festival, and others. I, and many others, are very excited and hopeful to see this film get out.
I wrote about my feelings just before the launch of the website for Cowan to share:
Cowan has submitted the film to the Sundance Film Festival, and others. I, and many others, are very excited and hopeful to see this film get out.
I wrote about my feelings just before the launch of the website for Cowan to share:
This past February I took the opportunity to interview with Reed Cowan for his documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition. As production has progressed and the release of the film draws closer I am very happy to be part of this work. I am excited to see my voice have an opportunity to spread out to the world, even if only a couple lines, and hopefully have an impact on shaping the lives and discussion of those trying to find reconciliation between their spirituality and sexuality.
I am also nervous about the backlash I know will happen. I am a sensitive soul, and it is difficult for me to face the anger and hatred of those who will invariably attack this work and my involvement in it. But I am willing to deal with the pain. I find strength to do what I believe is right in the message the Lord gave Joseph Smith, Jr., in Liberty Jail:
"And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good. (D&C 122:7)"
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
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:
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:
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Open Letter In Thanks to Keith Olbermann for His Special Comment on Health Care
Dear Keith Olbermann,
I feel deeply impressed to write to you and let you know how grateful I am for your program long special comment on health care. I have cried all evening thinking of your personal experiences of dealing with your father's illness and the pain of those left to suffer because of the failings of the current medical system. Being one of the latter, I am particularly moved by the passion of your care and concern for others and your willingness to put your resources to affecting real reform for the better.
I have lived my entire life with chronic clinical depression. Although I have been able to receive good care with medications and counseling I often am still left in a debilitated condition by it as neither my family or myself have been able to afford the time and money to monitor and treat my condition to the extent it sometimes requires. It has even been difficult when I was able to have medical coverage from my employer. The past two years have been especially difficult as my depression was severely exacerbated by the development of a hypothyroid condition. I was rendered so unable to function I had to withdraw from school, have been unable to work, and even ended up in the Emergency Room due to suicidal feelings. To add another mark against the current system, I waited in the ER for over four hours to speak to a Crisis Worker only to be turned away with no assistance as I was not yet actively engaged in harming myself or others and still being billed over five hundred dollars. Despite the severity of my condition I tried, unsuccessfully and with what felt like Herculean effort, to find work so I could take care of my needs. Having gone from full-time student to simply unemployed has left me only financially able to barely cover the most basic needs of my condition--or I should say left me dependent on the meager financial assistance my family has been able to provide me. Even the hypothyroid condition went undetected for over a year and a half. I have been lucky, somewhat, to receive assistance from some charitable and community programs. I am trying to receive Medicaid, but being a man with no dependents leaves me in a difficult position where I have spent nearly three months of paperwork trying to prove my condition is serious enough to warrant receiving any care.
Over the past months I have watch the coverage of the protests by "deathers" and other people who have abandoned reason and moral sensibility over the issue of health care reform. I have been dismayed at the lengths and levels the insurance industry lobbyists have gone over this issue. I am disturbed by the way many members of Congress have gone about opposing reform holding capitalism and corporate profits over the well being of American citizens. It may go without saying, the levels of deception, hysteria, and incivility in recent political rhetoric has left me despairing that I will have an opportunity for full proper care of my condition and realize my full potential as a contributing member of society, instead of just settling for basic treatment that only leaves me just on this side of the divide between sanity and self-destruction.
Again, thank you, Keith, for your work. Although what you often report on your show upsets me, your passion to see the world a better place for everyone, publicly call out the charlatans influencing our social systems, and speak truth to insanity gives me hope for the future.
Sincerely,
Ryan Hollist
I feel deeply impressed to write to you and let you know how grateful I am for your program long special comment on health care. I have cried all evening thinking of your personal experiences of dealing with your father's illness and the pain of those left to suffer because of the failings of the current medical system. Being one of the latter, I am particularly moved by the passion of your care and concern for others and your willingness to put your resources to affecting real reform for the better.
I have lived my entire life with chronic clinical depression. Although I have been able to receive good care with medications and counseling I often am still left in a debilitated condition by it as neither my family or myself have been able to afford the time and money to monitor and treat my condition to the extent it sometimes requires. It has even been difficult when I was able to have medical coverage from my employer. The past two years have been especially difficult as my depression was severely exacerbated by the development of a hypothyroid condition. I was rendered so unable to function I had to withdraw from school, have been unable to work, and even ended up in the Emergency Room due to suicidal feelings. To add another mark against the current system, I waited in the ER for over four hours to speak to a Crisis Worker only to be turned away with no assistance as I was not yet actively engaged in harming myself or others and still being billed over five hundred dollars. Despite the severity of my condition I tried, unsuccessfully and with what felt like Herculean effort, to find work so I could take care of my needs. Having gone from full-time student to simply unemployed has left me only financially able to barely cover the most basic needs of my condition--or I should say left me dependent on the meager financial assistance my family has been able to provide me. Even the hypothyroid condition went undetected for over a year and a half. I have been lucky, somewhat, to receive assistance from some charitable and community programs. I am trying to receive Medicaid, but being a man with no dependents leaves me in a difficult position where I have spent nearly three months of paperwork trying to prove my condition is serious enough to warrant receiving any care.
Over the past months I have watch the coverage of the protests by "deathers" and other people who have abandoned reason and moral sensibility over the issue of health care reform. I have been dismayed at the lengths and levels the insurance industry lobbyists have gone over this issue. I am disturbed by the way many members of Congress have gone about opposing reform holding capitalism and corporate profits over the well being of American citizens. It may go without saying, the levels of deception, hysteria, and incivility in recent political rhetoric has left me despairing that I will have an opportunity for full proper care of my condition and realize my full potential as a contributing member of society, instead of just settling for basic treatment that only leaves me just on this side of the divide between sanity and self-destruction.
Again, thank you, Keith, for your work. Although what you often report on your show upsets me, your passion to see the world a better place for everyone, publicly call out the charlatans influencing our social systems, and speak truth to insanity gives me hope for the future.
Sincerely,
Ryan Hollist
Friday, October 2, 2009
Worst Sporsmanship Ever Over 2016 Olympic Bid
Tonight on the Rachel Maddow Show conservative reactions to the news of Chicago loosing the bid for the 2016 games were covered.
Whether or not people think having the Olympic games is a benefit for the host city and nation, I think this kind of reaction is very, very bad sportsmanship. Were it possible to separate this from political partisanship, I would consider this very bad patriotism as well. But this is obviously a reaction of partisanship and the broken nature of these conservative groups. This cheering over the failure of Chicago to be picked as the 2016 host city is not about Chicago, or the Olympic games. This is a spin on the "failure" of President Obama to win the Olympics. Again, the merits and facts of the situation, the inevitable randomness and lack of control on events that is life will be used by these groups to say Obama is an unfit President and a failure as a leader. This entire week has been a constant bash against the President for even deciding to go to Copenhagen, even if for only less than a day. I have heard nothing but constant snarky comments about how the Olympics are a problem for the host countries, and therefore it is bad for President Obama to try to get the Olympics. Of course now that Chicago didn't get it, Obama is a bad President for failing to convince the Olympic committee to vote for us.
I honestly find the conservative attitude and method these days appalling. It is like trying to debate with conspiracy theorists: Fact A and Fact not-A both confirm their theory, no matter how absurd. I also find it disturbing that the side who constantly preach about "patriotism" and treat those who disagree as "un-American," "terrorists," and/or "traitors" have taken the tactic, as one commenter put it, "They would rather see the country fail than admit defeat."
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I honestly find the conservative attitude and method these days appalling. It is like trying to debate with conspiracy theorists: Fact A and Fact not-A both confirm their theory, no matter how absurd. I also find it disturbing that the side who constantly preach about "patriotism" and treat those who disagree as "un-American," "terrorists," and/or "traitors" have taken the tactic, as one commenter put it, "They would rather see the country fail than admit defeat."
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
My Personal Articles of Faith
With the last two posts I made criticizing Elder Hafen's talk to Evergreen International, I feel I should do something more spiritually positive. This evening at my weekly group therapy session, we talked about issues with attending church meetings and the mixed feelings we have. While the tone was often of frustration and feeling hurt, it was also an atmosphere of sharing deep spiritual beliefs and experiences. I thought about the experience and decided to write my own Articles of Faith, modeled after the LDS Articles of Faith.
- I believe in God, my Eternal Father, and in my personal Savior, Jesus Christ, and in the Comforter, the Holy Ghost. I have experienced their power and influence in my life and cherish my personal relationship with them.
- I believe people will be, and must be, accountable for their own choices, thoughts, and actions. Although we are to teach, admonish, and help our brothers and sisters, neither myself nor God can force a person to make a certain decision, to act a certain way, or to travel a certain destiny.
- I believe that through the Atonement of Christ I may be saved, by developing a personal relationship with the Savior and obedience to direction he gives me for my life through the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, scriptural study, revelation given through others, and--most importantly--the personal guidance and revelation He gives me.
- I believe the the guiding principles of the Gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance and a complete willingness to do whatever the Lord may ask of me; third, seeking and maintaining a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost; fourth, living by the council and guidance I receive.
- I believe men are called of God, by prophecy, and set apart by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. I believe many are called of God, by prophecy, to administer in many other ways for the preaching of the Gospel and progression of the Kingdom of God. I believe being called of God does not make a person infallible, immune to valid criticism, or otherwise deify that person in any way.
- I believe in the organization of the Church of Christ and in the offices there in, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
- I believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth as I have experienced their manifestation and power in my own life.
- I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Each contains much that is not fully understood and is left to personal interpretation.
- I believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and I believe He has yet to reveal many great and important things. I do not believe in those who may say, "All is understood. All is revealed. No more is needed."
- I believe in the gathering of Israel, both literal descendants and "adopted" members; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.
- I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and believe all men must have the same privilege.
- I believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, in so far as they are just. I believe religion and government must stand separate as long as both are administered by imperfect men and women.
- I believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. I follow the admonition of Paul--I continuously ponder on things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and whatever is good and virtuous.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)