Ron Schow, et al.

The Internet has again been conspiring to thwart me in posting. But hopefully, by the time you read this I will have conquered the great cyber-demons and you will be able to view the video below. It's sort of long, but an interesting bio of a gay Mormon. Apparently, several of these video clips are available on LDSresources.info. Prior to this video, all I knew of Schow was that he had responded to the Salt Lake trib article that featured yours truly, and had less than enthusiastic things to say about marriages like mine.

Then, several days ago, the video became the subject of discussion on a list serve I read and my curiosity was piqued. Looking through LDSresources.com, I was delighted to see a review of In Quiet Desperation that took Byrd to task for his, well, obnoxious review. By this, Schow was bumped up a few notches in my estimation. As I read more and more of the site, I saw nothing to support the opinions I had heard that Schow was on the very fringe of LDS faithfulness, claiming adherence and credibility, but actually seeking to contradict the brethren and advance homosexuality as acceptable in the church. What I have seen is a man with unusual compassion and insight into the difficult nature of the issue, as well as a strong advocate for LDS people to follow the prophet's directions to love and accept members of the church who are homosexual as they go forward in faithfulness. And I think we can always use more of those.

Indulging one's worst

But Joe was perhaps the first to feel the shame of glorifying, in the name of democracy and freedom, the vengeful brutality of a very strong man. For months he had been assuring himself, and listening to Sammy's assurances, that they were hastening, by their make-believe hammering at Haxoff or Hynkel or Hassler or Hitler, the intervention of the United States into the war in Europe. Now it occurred to Joe to wonder if all they had been doing, all along, was indulging their own worst impulses and assuring the creation of another generation of men who revered only strength and domination.

I wonder how often I indulge something despicable in myself in the name of virtue. I see examples all the time where someone starts off pursuing a good ideal and ends up strangely defying themselves. You've got your political leaders who are so absolutely certain of their moral position that they brazenly invade in the name of freedom, all while their opponents claim martyrdom over the "invasion of the infidels." It's all about perspective, I guess. And that's why I try to take in things from all perspectives. That's not a bad idea on the face of it. But, it can be quite crippling at times.

I've never developed a finely tuned barometer for appropriate indignation. I tend to come off soft in the hardest of circumstances. I suppose it's because I've been drilled to turn the other cheek throughout my life. Is that adequate when I'm being tromped on unprovoked? Is it adequate when my family is? Clearly not.

So, how and when do you draw the line? If you've been reading this blog for a few months, you'll remember my sudden embarrassment at having become crass and sarcastic. It seemed an inappropriate way to respond to the crass sarcasm of those who ridicule me. But since then, I've been overly soft at times too. Imagine, for example, a brazen pedophile who attacks a vulnerable person repeatedly--how do you respond to such a person? I found myself loathe to say anything insulting. I didn't want to label him or judge him or say anything bitter. That left just reasoning with an unreasonable fiend. And is that adequate when someone you love is being harassed? I went for using strong words... words which I'm still not certain were quite the right flavor. Words like evil and despise.

The point is, Joe and I aren't the only ones who have a hard time weighing things out. But I'd like to become aware of the issue to the point I can be as certain as possible that I haven't crossed a line in the opposite direction.

Feeling super

A surprising fact about the magician Bernard Kornblum, Joe remembered, was that he believed in magic. Not in the so-called magic of candles, pentagrams, and bat wings. Not in the kitchen enchantments of Slavic grandmothers with their herbiaries and parings from the little toe of a blind virgin tied up in a goatskin bag. Not in astrology, theosophy, chiromancy, dowsing rods, seances, weeping statues, werewolves, wonders, or miracles. All these Kornblum had regarded as fakery far different--far more destructive--than the brand of illusion he practiced, whose success, after all, increased in direct proportion to his audiences' constant, keen awareness that, in spite of all the vigilance they could bring to bear, they were being deceived. What bewitched Bernard Kornblum on the contrary, was the impersonal magic of life, when he read in a magazine about a fish that could disguise itself as any one of seven different varieties of sea bottom, or when he learned from a newsreel that scientists had discovered a dying star that emitted radiation on a wavelength whose value in megacycles approximated pi. In the realm of human affairs, this type of enchantment was often, though not always, a sadder business--sometimes beautiful, sometimes cruel. Here its stock-in-trade was ironies, coincidences, and the only true portents: those that revealed themselves, unmistakable and impossible to ignore, in retrospect.

You can't be a physician and not believe in Kornblum's type of magic. The human body is amazing stuff--no short of real magic. Further, human relationships are remarkable. And human stupidity is unfathomable (to put a little more cynical spin on it!).

In a parallel way, I believe in super heroes. Not in the web crawling mutations of a teen photographer, not in the x-ray vision of an alien orphan, but in the very personal super heroes of life--the poem writers for the upset, the activists for the oppressed, the courageous folks who walk away from mistakes, the ready friend to the struggling, the unwavering voice of faith, the (I could go on, but I'm too lazy--insert something here that describes you)... these folks are heroes of mine and accomplish in a slow and quiet way the super-human task of human life. They do what everyone does, but do it exceptionally.

I aspire to be super. But being super in life, much like Kornblum's magic, has many imitators and often remains unrecognized. Perhaps someday I can be as super as I want to be.

Heart failure

Little old ladies who are dying like to flirt with me. And how do you turn that down? "Oh, well, that's a fascinating story, but I have to scamper off and see the next patient if I don't want to be in this hospital for every waking moment of my life... I'm sure you'll have some actual family member along soon to comfort you. Bye now!"

One little old lady I currently take care of is dying of heart failure--an ironic malady for a woman so pleased with her young male physician. Heart failure is when the body fluids get backed up and end up filling up the tissues and lungs rather than staying put in the veins. You can't breath and/or you're swollen all over, and you're excessively thirsty despite the fact that you've been packing on more and more fluid. All that fluid can't do you any good because your heart isn't strong enough to pump it, and eventually you drown as you're dying of thirst.

As I chatted this morning with this sweet lady, feeling the pressure to move on to the next patient, I thought about my own heart failure

And in that day shall be heard of wars and rumors of wars, and the whole earth
shall be in commotion, and men’s hearts shall fail them, and they shall say that
Christ delayeth his coming until the end of the earth. (D&C 45:26)

Elections and wars and terrorism and really mean people make me tired. The other day I wandered through the circuit of anti-Mormon blogs and just found so much bitterness and hatred that it literally made me cry. Granted, being 4:00 AM in the middle of a frustrating call night might have had something to do with it! I get emotionally overwhelmed these days. I need to rely more on Christ, but I just don't do it. I'm like that patient who knows the lasix will alleviate the symptoms, but can't be bothered to fill the prescription and take it.

Well, I'm going to do it. I'm going to read the scriptures and feel better.

Biology

I don't have a lot of knowledge of the Levay experiment in which the structure of a hypothalamic nucleus was found to be morphologically distinct in straight men, women, and gays. I only know what I've read, and I have not read the primary sources. They are supposed to be significant for the impact the conclusion has on homosexuality being a choice. Because some believe this topic actually has some merit, I googled some responses, and they sound like a mix of legitimate and stupid concerns, but you can find those as easily as I can.

My impression is that nobody should be surprised if there are brain morphology differences between gays and straights and there should be no surprise if there are genetic contributors to personality and other aspects of human identity. Big fat hairy deal.

All this scientific effort will have shown that people are indeed not "created equal" but that we have to work within our unique set of personal circumstances. It's not fair, true, but a perceptive toddler could conclude as much about life. Hell, make that an UNperceptive toddler. You deal with it the best you can rather than expecting the world to somehow make it up to you by redoing expectations of behavior and morality.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of non-biological issues related to the morality and social circumstances of gays. But the biological arguments I've never found compelling in the least.

At the same time, the biological experiments wouldn't be as big a deal if it weren't for the monumentally stupid idea that sexual attractions are chosen. But, neither the far right nor the far left feel served by putting the issue in just such precise terms. It's better to discuss the idea that "being gay" is chosen so that both sides can indignantly battle for the broad political implications that follow from affirming or denying that statement, vague as it is.

Misinterpreting the science for a political agenda, most often inadvertently, is the standard practice. The gay rights movement (bless their little hearts) have bought in to the philosophical approach that the end justifies the means, a hair slow in noticing that strong advocacy for aims popular to some gays is harmful to other gays. Much (if not all) of the published scientific data is influenced by bias at some point in the scientific process (largely from advocates--sometimes the scientists themselves), despite all the best efforts to mitigate it (or disguise it).

There's a fair chance I just don't get why all this science has much meaning. But I sort of think the odds are in my favor that it's the scientists and political pundits who just don't get how much the biological science doesn't matter on this topic and other matters of morality.

The 11th hour

I sat down at the computer to e-mail my congressmen about the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment just one day prior to the vote. I knew it was the 11th hour and that my decision about what to write would reflect far more on myself than it would have any impact on what my legislators thought or voted. But church leaders had asked me to "express myself," and I've always been a sucker for the importance of participating in representative government.

I had come to the conclusion that gay marriage was a good thing based not only on what I know and believe about the social impact of gay marriage--that it would be an effective way to encourage gay folks to be committed and monogamous, to provide them the legal tools to properly participate in the domestic affairs of those with whom they had become domestic partners, to choose committed love as an ideal over adultery--but also because it just seemed right and fair in this diverse country to allow people to pursue the brand of happiness they find acceptable for themselves.

I had thought about it a fair amount. And all my reasoning (and the social data) seemed to indicate gay marriage would be a good thing, despite my acknowledgement others may easily come to a different conclusion.

I found loopholes and legalistic reasons why I thought my opposition to the amendment and support of gay marriage were not strictly inconsistent with the counsel of the church. But, some part of me knew that pharisaic approach wasn't going to work in the end.

I sat, thinking and uncomfortable. Fingers perched, ready to type some sense out of the confusion.

I remembered one of the many defining moments on my mission when I received a letter from my parents--both terrified that I was standing at the edge of apostasy's cliff, ready to jump. I had written them some snide comments about a few of our mission rules, and they had been horrified enough to immediately produce a long rebuke. It's one of the few times on my mission that both parents contributed substantially to a single letter.

I think the particular issue may have been my president requiring us to take daily herbal supplements--a position he crowed was backed by scientific evidence (and a position about which science has long since vindicated my skepticism). It didn't matter whether he was right or wrong, my parents said, it mattered that I trusted and obeyed. They weren't stupid. They knew how counter-intuitive that was, how cultish. But they also knew that there would be times in my life later when I would think I understood something better than my priesthood leaders and I would be wrong. Then, it might be on something that mattered. And ultimately, they knew the church was true and that while small injustices would come of trusting leaders (like choking back daily garlic pills), God wouldn't allow the prophet to lead the church astray. They believed, as I do now, that there is singular power in obeying every word of command with exactness. Curious power. And yes, when applied to false prophets, such trust is dangerous. You've got to be certain who you can trust, because ultimately you are responsible for your own decisions.

The final position I took with my congressmen was one of support for the amendment. I was true to myself in a strangely contradictory way. I know the church is true. I know prophets are real. So, when Elder Maxwell says,

"So it is that real, personal sacrifice never was placing an animal on the altar. Instead, it is a willingness to put the animal in us upon the altar and letting it be consumed! Such is the sacrifice unto the Lord of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, (D&C 59:8), a prerequisite to taking up the cross, while giving away all [our] sins in order to know God (Alma 22:18) for the denial of self precedes the full acceptance of Him."

I interpret that in one sense to apply to times like these. It's perhaps an application of a skill I've learned through my homosexuality--to believe that what feels right is not necessarily so. And that the balance due in confidence and affirmation for truly right decisions may come in unexpected ways.

At the same time I feel confused and sad. I feel a great desire to contact Scot and Chris and David and apologize. Sometimes having faith is hard, and not being ashamed of it is also hard.

Gay Mormon public relations

While not the poster boy for gay Mormons, nor the longest running blog on the topic, I've found myself getting a lot of attention in the wake of the SLT article on married gay Mormons. Since then I've received an invitation to be in a documentary on gay Mormons and today I got an e-mail from a TV show that wants to talk to me to "educate" them on the issues my wife and I face (as well as others in a similar situation).

I attended a conference once on speaking to the media (for a completely different context) and the main take home message I got from it is that you should never ever assume anyone from the media is your friend. It's all niceties and politeness until you see the soundbite they chose which misrepresents your position and casts you as an arrogant stupid person that viewers can only assume is responsible for everything that is wrong with this country.

I was reluctant to even speak with the SLT faith section journalist, but during the course of our interview I became more comfortable with the idea. She had reported on various aspects of gay issues in the past and seemed to be looking for one more interesting aspect without a pre-conceived idea of whether or not my situation was something to be respected or scorned. That seemed to turn out all right. I've appreciated the civil dialogue that came from that (even the skeptical), and so if I could only know ahead of time that that's the type of media show we're talking about, I wouldn't be so reluctant.

What would you do? (Or in the case of those who have probably received similar invitations, what WILL you do?)

Brokering gays

Here's some logic that's guiding the rules on gays these days.

• If homosexuality is a disease, it is not an intrinsic part of a personal identity and can't or shouldn't be the basis for civil rights discussions.
• If homosexuality can be changed (or "cured" depending on the political spin you choose), then similarly it can't be compared to racial or gender-based civil rights arguments since it is not an intrinsic part of an identity.
• If homosexuality is biologically determined (either genetically or environmentally), it might be comparable to race and gender for civil rights arguments even if it can subsequently be changed.

So, really, whether or not homosexuality is a disease has vast political consequences. And nobody is going to concede as long as a scientific opponent can be eviscerated, a religious group slandered, or a gay-rights activist lambasted for their "agenda". Everybody get those bumper-stickers that say "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention" and then cluster in groups to strategize how best to vilify your enemies and promote your respective love-motivated agendas. But most of all, don't forget to put your best efforts into amassing your arsenal of gays that exemplify your view.

I feel like a commodity. Here I am trying to live my life in a self-actualized sort of way, making choices that are consistent with my values, working to build a family based on love and commitment, and battling my unique set of personal demons, when along comes medical societies, special interests, and churches trying to define the issues and filter my access to information and resources. They want me and my case to be a piece of evidence that promotes their goals. They want me as one of the cards they can play to trump the other side. I sort of get the feeling that my happiness doesn't interest people as much as how I can be used.

I wish people would acknowledge that it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is a disease or not or whether it is biologically determined or not. What matters is that I, as an individual, would like to make informed decisions about how best to live my own life. But all the finger-pointing, moral superiority, and declarations of an objectively scientifically backed view all conspire to decay my confidence in any information I find. And without good information, it's hard to feel informed. I feel like I have to be a pioneer and figure out everything for myself if I don't hop on some particular ideological bandwagon.

But, I'm trying to stay off the bandwagon regardless. I'd rather not be reduced to a chunk on someone's side of the scale. I'll just walk by myself.

Hefting hate

Protean posted and Mark commented on a book about ex-gay ministries called Straight to Jesus. I read the review article in question and it really pissed me off. I think the book sounds quite interesting, but the Solon article was a biased piece of trash. Here are a few favorite parts:

Erzen wasn't interested in collecting fodder for political battles, though, and that's what makes "Straight to Jesus" so enlightening. As an ethnographer, she made every effort to listen to and understand everyone at New Hope Ministry, whether or not she agreed with their beliefs (and it's fairly clear that most of the time she didn't). That's practically unheard of in most popular discussions of charged issues like homosexuality -- and rare in scholarly discussions, too. Nowadays, everyone's convinced that they already know everything the other side has to say and that actually having to listen to it would constitute an insupportable demand on their own patience. Everyone thinks their side of the argument never gets any exposure, yet rabid, ranting opinion of all varieties howls at us everywhere we turn.

Hey crazy lady, have you looked at yourself? You are a loon who I doubt would know a politically neutral position if it bit you on the ass. As evidence:

In fact, scandals involving the sex lives of ex-gay movement leaders are so common (even one of the straight leaders, Kent Philpott, got busted for fooling around with his adopted daughter), that it's hard for anyone outside the evangelical right to take them seriously. Add that to several prominent cases of parents forcing their gay teenage children into scary camps like Love in Action's Refuge, an "intensive discipleship program" -- and the fact that no reputable professional psychological organization endorses the idea that homosexuality is a mental "disorder" that can be "cured" -- and the image of a pack of dangerous cultists is cemented.

I have heard this same ridiculous song and dance over and over in the discussion. Attack carefully selected ex-gays' credibility, then generalize that character attack to all and conclude none can possibly be honest, have anything relevant or cogent to say, or be motivated by something good, and you should fit right in with the howling you describe. Or, better yet, go with nuance: "a pack of dangerous cultists."

Because they could never reconcile these deeply rooted beliefs with their homosexual behavior and relationships, those behaviors and relationships could never be truly joyful or satisfying, and because they had never had joyful or satisfying homosexual experiences, they assume that gay life is inherently empty and destructive.
...
Still, whatever the benefits these men get from evangelical Christianity, their religion is no more a rational choice than their sexuality is. Even when opting not to believe seems the only and obvious healthy, life-affirming alternative, these men -- some of them educated and sophisticated -- can't manage it.

Yes, conclusions about gay life are all about irrational religious beliefs by those with no positive gay experiences. It has nothing to do with statistics about suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, life expectancy, etc. Clearly because they are religious they are irrational, and because they disagree with you, they are wrong.

I commented on Protean's post a bit about this, but I wanted to go into a little more detail. I don't mind the idea of the book--it sounds like a good read. I don't even mind the author's personal position on ex-gays and reparative therapy in general. What I do mind is the incessant character attacks on the religious, reparative therapy practitioners, and ex-gay ministry leaders. It's hateful, venomous, hypocritical, and I'm sick and tired of the unfettered hate hefted out there on the public like so much flying manure to fertilize the grassroots efforts of activists.

Science

Last night I attended a scientific presentation on GLBT psychology and biology. It was very interesting. I was quite nervous beforehand because I feel like there is such a huge fervor on anything gay related, I wondered if it would end up being a circus freak show of medicine. But it wasn't. It was real science, real medicine, presented by nice and caring people. And that made me glad.

However, ever the skeptic, I paid pretty close attention to what the experts were saying to see how much of it I believed. Turns out, even the experts have some real bias issues. I guess there's nothing surprising there. I just hope they realize it. I hope I'm not going to be the only one to challenge the information they've presented because it will appear to be a sensationalization of the topic--exactly what I feared would be imposed on me before attending!

For example, a brief history of early prejudicial paradigms on the subject showed that research results about gay populations were skewed because the only gays enrolled in the study were those in prison for violating anti-sodomy laws. Not exactly scientifically appropriate selection criteria for a study that seeks to say something externally valid (i.e., have generalizable results). Interesting stuff... scientifically appropriate... all good material presented so far.

And then they showed [fanfare music] the new improved methodology that compared non-clinical homosexuals and heterosexuals, controlled for confounding factors like age and religion and excluded individuals with a psychiatric history. The new results completely defied the old ones: rather than gays always having "global deficits" as was previously scientifically demonstrated, they were now shown to be potentially "as adjusted as heterosexuals". Yeah!

Except... doesn't excluding all the gays with psychiatric issues sort of beg the question? Psychiatric issues are much more prevalent among gays, and hand-picking the population of gays to demonstrate "adjustment" is just as inappropriate as using prison inmates! It's not generalizable. And yet, here was an expert in the field completely ignoring this fact.

Later in the presentation the question was posed: "What causes people to be gay?" The answers offered as representative views included:

• parents
• labeling
• poor peer relations
• biology
• choice
• lack of hetero experience
• same sex seduction

Through the magic of statistics and research, most of these possible causes were disproved in the subsequent discussion. Well... sort of, anyway. A statistically significant correlation to a cold father was discussed, but the magnitude of the relative risk was minimized by the lecturer (unbelievable--if you have a statistically significant result, it is by definition SIGNIFICANT). He asserted, "There is no ONE family situation that produces a gay sexual orientation." Ultimately, the lecturer declared that through "path analysis," an esoteric branch of statistics, tautology had been demonstrated to be the cause of sexual orientation. Tautology meaning that the relation between childhood same-sex feelings and adulthood same-sex feelings are that they are one and the same. People are gay because they're gay.

Thank you, science. For nothing.

There was one other particularly interesting point in this lecture. When "gender nonconformity" was measured, it was significantly related to orientation. So, if you don't do masculine stuff, you are more likely to be gay. Hmmm... now whose theories does that remind me of? A woman stood up during the Q&A and asked why that was the case. Lecturer: we don't know. But after the subsequent presentation when the Q&A was reopened for either presenter, he back-pedaled. Someone in the audience had apparently glared disapprovingly at his academically honest indication that the reason wasn't known. So, he wanted to clarify that his conjecture was that gay boys feel different as children because of society's straight projections, and gender nonconformity follows from that. The fact that reparative theory explains the situation much more plausibly was never even entertained.

The only part of the second lecture that I want to comment on right now was a question from the audience. After a presentation of a wide range of scientific data, the executive head of a special interest in San Francisco wanted to know which of all the studies presented was the most concise and compelling in demonstrating that orientation is immutable. The lecturer offered his opinion that a study of pheromones did the trick. The study showed that male scents stimulate the "smell" part of the brain in straight men and gay women, but stimulate the sexual part of the brain in gay men and straight women. There were analogous results for female scents. He concluded from this that sexuality is biologically based and is therefore immutable. I have no idea why showing that sexuality is physiological rather than merely psychological proves anything about mutability, but that's what he said.

And I suddenly feel more at peace with the science. I can appreciate the good science without being taken for a ride by some of the silliness. I'm a huge advocate of science informing public policy. Huge. But although science is good, I will keep looking for understanding in other places too.