A few recent thoughts

Since my blog has devolved into nothing more than an occasional rant whenever something inflames my sensibilities to the point of needing verbal expression, I figure I’ll economize and get a few topics out of the way at once.

The recent attention to “don’t ask don’t tell” is long overdue. The policy never particularly concerned me because I don’t see it as a horrible imposition to keep your personal life private when so many other accommodations and personal sacrifices are also required of our military. However, the policy was much broader than that and was outrageous because of it. That a person can’t discuss their sexuality with their physician out of fear is just reprehensible. Add to that the fact that physicians must ask direct sexual questions to appropriately care for patients, and it’s easy to see the injustice of requiring a soldier to either answer a direct important question honestly and risk losing his/her livelihood and dreams, or lie and receive inadequate or frankly inappropriate medical care. It’s just wrong and it’s long past due for correction.

Meanwhile hypocrisy is alive and well as self-righteous defenders of gay and lesbian interests go far past what is reasonable and try to one-up the hatred they believe is generalized among those with whom they disagree by out-hating and out-hurting with re-doubled efforts. I read an example recently:

Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of “don’t ask” would lead to gay demands for “special rights.” Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.

Let me set up for you, Mr Rich, a series of ideas, and then you explain to me how you can be so categorical in maligning those with whom you disagree.

• Marriage as a religious institution is irrelevant to marriage as a secular institution.
• Therefore, marriage as a secular institution is necessarily what society determines it to be.
• The United States of America has specifically defined marriage in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.
• Civil rights are those rights which expressly enumerated by the U.S. Constitution and are considered to be unquestionable; deserved by all people under all circumstances, especially without regard to race, creed, color, gender, and disabilities. (wiktionary)
• Marriage, as a civil right, is still regulated and withheld in particular circumstances; that is, it is not available to anyone at any time and in any form merely because it is considered to be a civil right. This is not questioned in many cases (as in minors, for example).
• Marriage, as defined by federal law, is currently available without regard to sexual orientation. My own situation as a gay man married to a woman exemplifies this fact. I have exercised my civil right to marry, and believing the federal definition of marriage to be accurate and appropriate in no way takes civil rights away from anyone.
• Therefore, one referring to changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions as extending a “special right” is a logical and consistent position. Lobbing insults at people in place of addressing their argument makes the disingenuousness seem a lot closer to the source.
• Society treats people unequally in many respects and this is often a good thing.
• People pay different taxes depending on their income. It would be considered ridiculous for the wealthy to refuse to pay taxes by appealing to equality under their civil rights; marriage as a social institution is much more concerned with money and legalities than it is with love and companionship, and may be comparable with tax rebates given to only a subset of citizens based on arbitrary criteria.
• People are treated differently because of their race and background in the academic and business world. This is often to deliberately favor non-white people, but this inequality is appropriate and well-considered.
• Those who oppose affirmative action often have legitimate points. They are not automatically racist.
• Therefore, defining marriage as society has defined it, including excluding certain couples from marrying, is neither violating civil rights nor necessarily inappropriate.
• What is fair and good is debatable. Unfortunately, an increasing number who come to the discussion refuse to discuss the issues occupying themselves instead with dogmatic assertions that echo the close-minded inflexibility they so criticize in their religious counterparts.

Now, Mr. Rich, you may disagree with many of the issues I’ve presented here, but can you really so confidently dismiss them as “preposterous and disingenuous”? Can you really continue to generalize that all those opposing same-sex marriage are merely masking their bigotry when they discuss these issues? Can you possibly fail to see the bigotry and hatred in yourself, then?

A while back my wife and I invited some friends over for a little book club. We discussed The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. One of my friends is an evolutionary biologist and another is a psychologist. Both vehemently support gay marriage while perfectly active members of the church. During our discussion of The God Delusion the conversation steered, almost unavoidably it seems, to gay marriage as a possible example of where religion harms people. I defended the religious view as internally consistent and not necessarily motivated by hatred or discrimination. The ensuing question was: if not hatred or discrimination, then what possible secular reason could a person site for opposing gay marriage when it has been shown to improve the quality of life of the gay couple and their children, decrease health disparities, etc. etc.?

My answer was that marriage can be seen as necessarily tied to heterosexual coupling because of the necessary tie of procreation to heterosexual coupling. This, not surprisingly, was unsatisfactory. We don’t need heterosexual coupling for procreation anymore. We’re way past that. And all the science shows that children of homosexual parent households have no psychological deficiencies.

I pointed out that there is a world of difference between showing that those children have no psychological deficiencies and failing to show that they do. Science can’t measure everything. The measures I often see in the literature that have been “validated” are laughably crude. Have I no right to watch my wife breastfeed our children and conclude that a mother is necessary for the best family situation? Is that such an unscientific assertion based on non-psychological criteria then? Does the mountain of medical literature that supports breast-feeding as best for babies have nothing to do with the discussion of gay marriage? Why ever not? The rules seem to be made up as we go along.

At this point in the conversation my friends were nearly apoplectic, bewildered that I could hold out by playing such a non-scientific card. It was a lively discussion, to be sure. Ultimately, they never did directly concede that a person could hold a non-bigoted, non-discriminatory, non-hateful position of secular opposition to gay marriage. I suspect this was because it is human nature to require some explanation as to why someone would disagree with one’s views when it seemingly couldn’t possibly be a misunderstanding on the part of one’s self.

I’ve settled into a pro-gay marriage stance over the last several months. I feel that I stayed agnostic for a period that was wholly appropriate as I continued to ponder the topic, despite that I’ve been called out more than once for doing so. I hasten to add that my opinion is subject to revision as it suits me. I believe, ultimately, that the question of whether or not society should recognize gay marriage has no right answer, and I’ve come down on the side of favoring it. The question of how the church views marriage does have a right answer, and I subscribe fully to it as well. There are lots of folks within the church who equivocate between secular and God-recognized marriage, and I think knowing that fact goes a long way to reaching peace on the topic.

Yep, that’s right, I’ve come down on the side of gay marriage, where I’ve pretty much been hovering for years. I do not believe that gay marriage is appropriate because it’s a civil right. I do not believe that society is obligated to recognize such marriages out of fairness any more than it is obligated to a flat tax. It may be a good idea, it may be fair, and it may really help a lot of people live happier and better lives. However, that doesn’t mean that those who oppose it are irrational, deserve to be vilified, or are any less entitled to an alternate opinion as well as vocal advocacy in the political process.

Loved this article

I just saw this little article on my google news page, and I loved it. The man is a voice of wisdom in a sea of pretention and politics.

Favorite parts:

Gays have children these days, of course they do, and not always to accessorise an outfit. Some gay couples adopt; others follow twisting paths to biological parenthood, often quite expensively, with the involvement of test tubes and cash changing hands. It is, really, a sort of snook to the system of nature. Shooting for the net without the chore of running with the ball. It’s just not for me.

...

Some will dismiss it as heresy. I have long argued that homosexuality is natural but abnormal, to a torrent of hostility from gay friends who refuse to acknowledge that what you are and what stake you hold in society are not the same.

Loving your own sex occurs in nature, without artificial triggers. But it is still not average behaviour. Homosexuality is an aberration; a natural aberration. Gays are a minority and minorities, though sometimes vocal, do not hold sway.

...

I wince when gays describe boyfriends as “husbands”, subverting a solemn institution created to provide stability for child-rearing. Besides, it seems highly perverse that gays should fight for freedom from the bonds of heterosexual morality and then set to copying their oppressors by creating similar contracts of their own.

...

Does this mean that I no longer like men? No, of course not, and I won’t pretend. But in the streets and avenues of this country there must be many husbands whose interests are divided but whose choices are determined not by sexuality but emotionality.

Would I be a good husband? I hope so. Would I keep faith? Well, I would try. The same siren voices to stray call to all men, all the time. I would be no different.

The APA's tast force statement on orientation change efforts

I read a few posts on Warren Throckmorton's blog recently, and I really enjoyed them. The commenters there seem very reasonable, and civil by conventional internet standards. I ended up reading bits of the Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation based on Dr. Throckmorton's suggestion (although he calls himself Warren, so I'm probably going to call him by his first name).

My take?

The overall position is conservative in the sense that it avoids any definitive statement of efficacy or harm, admitting the paucity of evidence. What disturbs is the pervasive bias in the way the data is discussed, regardless of the final, almost reluctant, conclusions. This bias bleeds out as imprecision and equivocation most frequently, but occasionally as blatant inconsistency in the standards to which the evidence is being measured (or even examined at all).

I don't have the time to trot out a lot of examples (or even read every word of the document), but here are a few passages with comments.

We see this multiculturally competent and affirmative approach as grounded in an acceptance of the following scientific facts:

• Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders.

What the task force here calls "scientific fact" is actually consensus opinion, and there's a big difference. Many studies have defeated the long-prevailing belief that homosexuality is or is associated with mental illness. That much I can swallow (but only on a provisional basis). But, as I've mentioned on this blog before, it's odd to me that a discussion of "human sexuality" can so thoroughly and emphatically ignore reproduction as a significant part of the equation. If one assumes, as the task force apparently does, that ejaculating and having viable sperm is all that is necessary to give the thumbs up on normal reproductive capability, then perhaps their consensus statement (which is not a fact) is defensible. However, I beg to differ.

Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects.

This is presented as another "scientific fact". What I think they meant to say was that these folks form said relationships at rates that are not statistically significantly different from heterosexual families in the essential respects that have been examined. This is not even close to the same thing. Maybe the studies satisfy non-inferiority criteria (that are subjectively assigned). Maybe there is statistical significance for the subjective answers to survey questions, but many "essential respects" are not so easily measured, and failing to show a difference is not the same as showing equivalence. They don't bother footnoting this statement, so there's probably some great quality data... but moving from great quality data to proclamations of unequivocal "fact" is a move I highly doubt I would support after reviewing the relevant literature.

...few studies on SOCE produced over the past 50 years of research rise to current scientific standards for demonstrating the efficacy of psychological interventions...

Few studies of anything produced more than a few years ago rise to current scientific standards. They still can inform, even if they can't prove. Because these studies weren't conducted as randomized controlled clinical trials, they can't show us what we'd like to know, but I don't think the task force is correct with: "there is little in the way of credible evidence that could clarify whether SOCE does or does not work in changing same-sex sexual attractions." The evidence that is presented is what it is. Just because it's not the kind of rigorous science that would demonstrate causality doesn't mean that it's not "credible"! If the researchers were found to have manipulated data there would be a credibility problem, but as the data is, it just gives us very limited evidence, albeit legitimate.

Interestingly, a footnote briefly mentions a Nicolosi study that was not included in the task force's consideration because it was published after the review period and "appeared" to be a reworking of an earlier study. I haven't read Nicolosi's 2008 study, but if it provided any new information that met "current standards" in a way that nothing else does, perhaps they could have gone ahead and extended the review period since the limited data is the whole point. And if it was a reworking of an earlier study, that's even more reason to suspect that it was specifically reworked to assuage criticisms of methodology or presentation. In other words, the task force laments having no "credible" data but can't be bothered to look at the most recent data, even when it was published a year in advance of this report.

White men continue to dominate recent study samples. Thus, the research findings from early and recent studies may have limited applicability to non-Whites, youth, or women.

This is certainly true. So is this: old people continue to dominate the cancer literature, so research findings may have limited applicability to young people. The trick is most people with cancer are old. Just like most people who seek out SOCE are white males. So it's okay to go ahead and accept that there's value in the data even if it's not completely generalizable. The population that has been studied happens to be the vast majority of those for whom this research will make any difference.

In general, the results from studies indicate that while some people who undergo SOCE do engage in other-sex sexual behavior afterward, the balance of the evidence suggests that SOCE is unlikely to increase other-sex sexual behavior.

Again, this is true. So is this: chemotherapy for breast cancer patients will not give any benefit to a majority of patients but will give toxicity to all of them. The trick is, I don't care what happens to the "majority," I want to know quantitatively whether there was a difference in the rate of other-sex behavior from the therapy (if not causally demonstrated, at least temporally). And it sounds like there was a quantitative difference, even a significant one. But I wouldn't know from this report as they just go ahead and stick with vague dismissals like the quote above.

Two participants reported experiencing severe depression, and 4 others experienced milder depression during treatment. No other experimental studies reported on iatrogenic effects.

Woah. Suddenly the fact that participants are experiencing things in association with treatment can be automatically causally linked. Well, hey, we moved on to harms, so the rules of scientific rigor have all changed. These cases of depression are "iatrogenic". Umm... how do you know? Although the task force does go on to admit that there is no causal attribution for harms or benefits, they go ahead and refer to "some evidence" of harm repeatedly through the report while adamantly holding that there is "no credible evidence" of benefit.

We recommend that APA take a leadership role in opposing the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organizations and in supporting the dissemination of accurate scientific and professional information about sexual orientation in order to counteract bias.

Ah. Here's something I totally agree with. I just wish they'd followed their own advice. I couldn't find it just now rescanning through, but there's a great gem in there where the task force refers to itself as an example of authoritative and reliable source of scientific information. Ha. Or... maybe individuals can actually go ahead and critically examine things for themselves since science isn't a religion and appeals to authority are both unnecessary and fallacious. A scientist ought to know that.

Way overdue.

This blog has been important in my life, but I think most of that has been in the past. I'm pretty well reconciled with all the topics I've blogged about, and for those areas where I still feel confusion and ambivalence... well, at least it's well defined confusion and ambivalence. :-)

My son and daughter continue to grow up before my very eyes. Yesterday they both disappeared for a while and I had my suspicions they were into some mischief. A few minutes later they both came barreling in to the room where my wife and I were sitting and shoved little containers of applesauce into our hands to be opened. They tried to sneak it but realized they couldn't open it without our help and reconsidered their tactics.

The fact that I'm as gay as ever (gayer?) and still living the all-American dream gives me conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I want to speak out against the nay-sayers who yell and scream that it's an illusion, that such a situation never happens, that it's impossible. I want to speak out and tell people that I've been in shoes very similar to every gay person I hear--doubting the church, questioning my self worth, feeling suicidal, being overcome with an overwhelming sense of unfairness and unending conflict. I want to speak out and say that the church is true and that there are miracles to be had, if we will only listen and obey.

On the other hand, I want to shut up and let it all play out on its own. I'm sort of sick of writing about tolerance, explaining misunderstandings, and promoting more thoughtful and considerate dialog. My efforts have been met with some really ornery people who don't care in the least about what I have to say, only that it appears on the surface to disagree with their own views, so the gloves come off and the punches start flying. These people are plentiful and insistent, and it's just not worth it to try to convince them of the reality I live in. There's a lot of joy to be had in the church, and no amount of insults and rancor can convince me that my wife and my two children are not worth every sacrifice I've made (and for that matter, many that I haven't). And no amount of gnashing teeth will convince me that someone who hasn't made those same sacrifices needs or deserves concessions from me in the form of some fatalistic assessment of what they need to be happy or fulfilled or what their "rights" have to be.

So I've just been a fence sitter. I try to avoid those who want to engage only to foist their bigoted selves onto a soap box. I walk away from that and build a castle with my son instead. But I do see many who are learning about this and looking for truth. So I keep blogging (although mostly at Northern Lights now).

For better or worse, that's my update. It's long overdue, I know.

But you can rest assured that as I learn new things I'll be writing about it.

A Legal Question

Just read this article and I have a question for the legal minds out there.

Why does stabbing someone to death, decapitating them and flashing the head around to other people, then eating the corpse's flesh qualify as SECOND degree murder?

Update

What's to tell? There are a million things that I could blog about in my life right now. How amazing my children are (the stories could be endless), the patience and incredible capacity of my wife, my job, my progress. But, unfortunately, time is always so short.

I get a few e-mails a month asking about myself, and I appreciate that gesture of friendship. I suppose it would be a better use of time to just blog more to keep people updated. For those who have written recently to ask me specifically about how I keep things together with my family, reparative therapy, or general gay topics, I'm sorry I haven't had a lot of time to respond. One trick is that I've written quite a bit about these things before and so there's quite a bit to read from the archive if you are interested.

Sorry for the boring post. But, you know. Gotta get to the ward party today and then... well there's plenty of other stuff I've been putting off until today too. :-) Best wishes to all.

Not just a margin

For better or for worse, I'm coming here to feel sorry for myself. I'm that guy. The one that has everything when you look in from the outside. We've got the little family of four, the cute little house and dog, the great career and graduate program between the two of us, and all our health.

But I feel tormented far more than I have any right to feel, I suppose. But does one have to earn their torment? Or does its existence serve as automatic legitimization?

Today I feel on the margin of a margin of a margin. I'm in a minority field of medicine, often unappreciated. I'm in minority situation in my department. I'm a minority within the church in my understanding of gay related issues. I'm definitely in a minority among gays in my empathy for the church. Couldn't I, for once in my life, be surrounded by crowds of people that get me? Get it? Get anything?

Basically, today I feel like there's nobody that understands. Perhaps my wife, and that's it. And that makes me feel all the better that I have her and that I'm not in a different circumstance right now. And that makes me sad that so many other people don't or won't believe such a thing can happen. But then, can it? Or am I just an anomaly--an outlier there too?

It's as if I've spent a lot of effort trying to bridge gaps and shed light where people have closed themselves off, but in the process I've put myself too far into the minds of others and made myself inaccessible to my self. I haven't pulled off the insight I need to peacefully be at one with the majorities in every part of my life. I guess I don't know how to do it. Or, I need to humble myself to try something new.