Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: teh gay (page 3 of 4)

Well done, Argentina. Boo, LDS leaders.

Argentina votes for marriage equality.

It’s worth pointing out again that the leadership of the LDS Church, not content with interfering in the legislation of neighbouring US states, decided to broadcast its opposition in Argentina before the vote.

“The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is absolutely clear: Marriage is between one man and woman and is ordained of God,” said the July 6 letter from church President Thomas S. Monson.

A copy of the letter and its English translation began circulating over the weekend on websites for former Mormons.

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah on Monday confirmed the letter was sent to local leaders in Argentina, where the faith has more than 371,000 members, according to a 2010 church almanac. The country’s population is more than 41 million.

The letter falls short of calling for political activism by members in Argentina, but is an echo of a 2008 letter from Monson to Latter-day Saints in California. Monson had called for Mormons to give their time and money to help pass Proposition 8, a state ballot initiative to ban gay marriage.

So, another step in the wrong direction. I’ve said this before: Homo-hating might have been a winning strategy back in the day, but it’s only going to become less and less popular as time goes on. With such a long paper trail, the Mormon Church is really going to have a hard time walking this back eventually.

So will Catholics.

Mormon leaders, Catholic leaders — there’s less and less to distinguish them now. They are truly loathsome individuals.

Religion in the 2011 Australian Census

Australia’s having a census next year, and you know what that means: Statistical religion hijinx! Australia will no doubt continue its proud tradition of pumping up some joke religion to wreak havoc on the census statisticians. The exercise also serves to nurture a vain hope of forcing the government to elevate the ‘religion’ to official status.

So what’s the new Jedi? Possibly heavy metal, if this Facebook page is any indication. (Its UK counterpart is doing rather better.)

It’s all a bit of fun, and everyone loves to take the piss, but I’d like to encourage all atheists and agnostics to put down ‘atheist’ or ‘agnostic’ (whichever you are). That way, we’ll boost the ‘none’ category (we’re still not sure if ‘Jedi’ did), and there will be more specific evidence for the rise of a*ism, if anyone breaks the results down.

I’m kind of excited to see what comes out of this. We know that the ‘nones’ have been growing steadily for several decades (that’s the blue part in the chart at right), and it’ll be fun to see the pattern continue as the stats come in.

More encouraging is the announcement that people in same-sex relationships will be able to tick the ‘husband or wife’ box for their partner, and it will be counted the same as a hetero marriage.

Paul Lowe, Head of the ABS Population Census Branch, announced in an email to Australian Marriage Equality (AME) that “the count of people in same-sex relationships who tick the ‘husband or wife of person 1’ box at question 5 will be made available as a part of the standard output from the 2011 Census”.

Australian Marriage Equality (AME) national convener, Peter Furness, welcomed the decision, which will count the number of married same-sex couples living together even though such marriages are denied recognition under Australian law following amendments to the Marriage Act in 2004.

“As government agencies like the ABS begin to recognise the reality that some same-sex partners are married, the Rudd Government’s opposition to recognising same-sex marriage looks increasingly outdated”, said Mr Furness.

“The Rudd Government may choose to bury its head in the sand and pretend same-sex marriages don’t exist, but clearly the ABS will not.”

One more step to full acceptance for our gay and lesbian friends, and to equality for all.

The referendum that shouldn’t have been

Today, I’m proud of my state, which made a tentative step toward marriage equality, or should I say all-but-marriage equality. By passing R-71, Washington became the first state to allow something like gay marriage by a vote of the people.

I wish I could be as proud of Eastern Washington, which rejected R-71 county for county.
91cb4140-c918-11de-8255-000255111976 Blog_this_caption
That said, can someone explain to me why the hell we’re allowing issues of civil rights to be decided by vote at all? If it were up to a vote, African-Americans still wouldn’t have civil rights. The courts were able to enact immensely unpopular civil rights rulings against popular opinion in the 60’s, and they did so because it was the right thing to do.

You just don’t put people’s rights to a vote. Should we have a vote over whether Latinos can own houses? Should people of Middle-Eastern descent be able to get plane tickets? Should left-handed people be allowed to drive? True, none of those things are ‘rights’ enshrined in the US Constitution, but denying them by law involves unequal treatment under the law. And I’ll bet that churches and other political organisations could spend enough money to raise doubts and fears in a credulous populace, just as they have with recent anti-gay legislation.

Eventually the tide will turn. I just hope that the haters can one day feel ashamed for their actions and opinions. And in the meantime, these kinds of votes should not be happening.

Rudd won’t budge on gay marriage

Australia has a reputation for being irreverant, secular, and liberal. At times like these I’m not sure it’s deserved.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will move against a push at this week’s Labor Party conference to allow same-sex marriages.

The Labor Party’s Tasmanian state conference has called for the Federal Government to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry.

It will be an issue at this week’s National Labor Conference.

Mr Rudd says he will not change the policy he took to the last election.

“We went to the last election being very clear-cut about our position on marriage under the Marriage Act being between a man and a woman,” he said.

Now I’ve voted for two people who are against gay marriage, but I have to say, it’s getting tiresome. I think Mr Obama and Mr Rudd are smart leaders who are good at most things, but I find their view on this issue really disappointing.

I suspect that this is due in part to the openly religious leanings of these men. Being religious has a way of making cool people occasionally act in jerky ways (e.g. Rich Raddon). Otherwise, I just can’t see why Rudd would have to take this stand in a country where polls show the issue at 60 percent acceptance.

I’d like to see this change, and soon.

Mormons the most Republican religious group

In a piece of news that surprised precisely no one, the Pew Report has revealed that Mormons are the most conservative religious group in America.

More Mormons (60 percent) identify themselves as conservatives than any other religious group; they also lead every other group in GOP party identification (at 65 percent)–much higher than the general population in both categories.

Actually, I was a bit surprised. Only 65 percent Republican? Back in my Utah days, it felt like 95 percent. I’ll bet the Republican numbers are low because there’s a further 25 percent comprised of John-Birch-birther-Ron-Paul Independents who think the Republican party isn’t Constitutional enough.

Out of the remaining 10 percent, subtract the usual 8 percent Unaffiliated/Don’t Know, and you’ll have 2 percent left. That’s the elusive Liberal Mormon.

You’ll find more than a few liberal Mormons behind this effort to reconcile LDS Church leadership with gay people. As of today, it has — wow — all of 1,360 signatories. (For comparison, this is an order of magnitude less than this petition to consider Michael Jackson for a Nobel Peace Prize.)

We the undersigned, in the spirit of love and peace, earnestly seek to create a climate for reconciliation between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gays and lesbians who have been affected by the policies, practices and politics of the Church. We recognize that issues surrounding sexuality and gender orientation are complex; that understanding of these matters has evolved, especially over the past several decades, and are continuing to evolve as scientists, therapists, theologians and others continue to explore and ponder their meaning and significance; We believe that people of good will may have differing views about homosexuality, while maintaining amicable relationships.

Lovely sentiments, a noble goal, and a complete waste of time. Why would church leadership want to reconcile with gay people? Their fiercely conservative membership is convinced they speak for god, and when god’s on your side, negotiation is impossible. Enter a dialogue with gay people, seriously? Those people want to destroy society. Oh, sure, the church will have to walk back all that homophobia someday, but that’ll be a long time from now, and Mormons will claim it was never official church policy anyway.

You have to love Mormon liberals, but you have to feel sad for them. True, they haven’t completely off-loaded their conscience onto church leadership. But that only means that their post-Dark-Ages political leanings puts them at odds with other Mormons, including church leaders, who wonder why they’re not ‘following the prophet’. So they have an uneasy relationship with a church that distrusts them for their intellectual independence.

I want to see a better relationship between the LDS Church and gay people too, but it’s not going to happen by church members politely petitioning for it. It will happen when Mormons with a conscience refuse to support the church financially or numerically with their membership.

Civil disobedience of the nicest sort

A lovely bit of protest over in Salt Lake City. Two guys get charged with trespassing for a peck on the cheek in Temple Square. Next thing you know

About 100 people gathered near the Mormon church’s downtown temple to stage a “kiss-in” protesting the treatment of 2 gay men who were detained by security guards on a plaza owned by the church and later cited by police for trespassing.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported on its Web site that heterosexual and gay couples exchanged small kisses and pecks at the plaza’s south entrance, which faces downtown. Church security was present, but the Deseret News of Salt Lake City reported on its Web site that no altercations occurred.

This takes non-violent protest to a new level — it’s anti-violent.

It’s entirely fitting that this protest is happening in Salt Lake City. The search term “men kissing” is most googled in Utah, with SLC also showing a lot of curiosity. Now they get to see some for real.

Theologian and linguist of the week

I’ve done my best to ignore Not-Joe the Not-Plumber all these months because I’m hoping he’ll go away. Unfortunately, he keeps poking his head into the public discourse, and I’m going to comment this time because ignoring dangerous things can get you hurt somewhere along the line.

Joe’s used to speaking outside his expertise — he’s opined about politics and economics, badly — but now in his recent interview with Christianity Today, he takes a hatchet to gay people, and along the way, he makes a truly strange argument about language.

Interviewer: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

Joe: At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

If I understand his argument, he’s saying that being queer is “strange and unusual”…because the dictionary says so. And there’s only one dictionary. You know — the dictionary! That one.

People have all kinds of attitudes about language, but it takes an especially obtuse individual to insist that a dictionary definition is the true meaning of a word. Words have different senses, as with ‘queer’. It’s hard to make the argument that the dictionary definition for one sense of a word should determine the meaning of a completely different sense. It’s like going to the bank for some cash and being surprised not to find a river there because ‘the dictionary’ says that a bank is ‘sloping land by a river’.

There’s a lot more to the article: his “state’s rights” trope that was used to justify racism in the South. And his admission that he’s ‘had some friends’ who are gay. (Why do they always say that?) But of course he won’t let his friends near the kids. Feel the Christian love.

Backlash! The Freak-Outening

It’s been nothing but bad news for Christian bigots. First the ARIS poll shows that the percentage of self-identified Christians has dropped by 10% — oh my lack of god! from 86% to 76%! It can only mean one thing: the end of Christian America! Which is funny, because that’s the title of the Newsweek article.

Turning the report over in his mind, Mohler [president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary] posted a despairing online column on the eve of Holy Week lamenting the decline—and, by implication, the imminent fall—of an America shaped and suffused by Christianity. “A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us,” Mohler wrote. “The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture.”

I hope I’m around when they get down to 50.

But that’s not all. It’s been an amazing week for marriage equality in America. Iowa allowed gay marriage, then Vermont, and finally D.C. has decided to accept the marriages of same-sex couples from out of state. I think the religious haters are used to thinking of the world as a cesspool of evil, and they love to imagine that (like Abraham in Sodom) they’re the only reason god is forestalling judgment on the nations. But I don’t think they’re used to seeing setbacks like this.

And predictably, they’re freaking. Never mind the laughable NOM ad. There’s a lot more crazy out there. Try this article on for size:

‘Gay marriage’ in Iowa more damaging than a 500-year flood

Flood waters erode the soil. “Gay marriage” erodes the soul. A flood impacts for a decade. “Same-sex marriage” destroys generations. A flood draws a community together. “Homosexual marriage” tears the family apart. Communities recover from floods. The promotion of un-natural unions has an eternal consequence.

As always, vague on details. How does homosexual marriage tear anyone’s family apart? How does it destroy generations? Aren’t you worried of running out of scare quotes?

As a native Iowan and as a pastor, I cannot remain silent. In light of this, I would exhort the church in Iowa to do three things:

— First, we must honor biblical marriage in the church and in the home.

Hawt! Polygamy and concubines! Oh wait, that’s Old Testament. What about New Testament marriage? Hmm. Paul says don’t bother. Hmm. The bible doesn’t sound too traditional to me.

But the prize for delusional pattern matching goes to Morality in Media President Bob Peters in his essay ‘Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders’. He argues that mass murders are caused by things he’s afraid of: black people (and their rap music), sexual liberation, and gay people.

The underlying problem is that increasingly we live in a ‘post-Christian’ society, where Judeo-Christian faith and values have less and less influence. Among other things, Judaism and Christianity taught that murder was wrong and that included murder motivated by anger, hatred and revenge. Both religions also taught that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves and to forgive others.

People God kills in the Bible: 2.3 million plus.

“For many citizens, what has replaced Judeo-Christian faith and values is the secular value system that is reflected in films, rap/music lyrics, and videogames and on TV and now the Internet, where the taking of human life for just about any reason is commonplace and is often portrayed in an appealing manner and in realistic detail. Murder motivated by hatred and revenge is also justified.

Yeah, I was just getting ready to watch some murder on the Internet.

“This secular value system is also reflected in the ‘sexual revolution,’ which is the driving force behind the push for ‘gay marriage;’ and the Iowa Supreme Court decision is another indication that despite all the damage this revolution has caused to children, adults, family life and society (think abortion, divorce, pornography, rape, sexual abuse of children, sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking in women and children, unwed teen mothers and more), it continues to advance relentlessly.

Yep, an unbroken line straight from gay marriage to mass murder.

People see what they want to see, of course, but religious people are especially skilled at it. The defense of their illusory worldview depends on being able to see illusory patterns, and they must defend the worldview because without it nothing makes sense to them. And it’s even worse than usual because, like I say, the latest setbacks on gay marriage has hit these believers especially hard, leaving them without a feeling of control. There’s a pretty interesting psychological study on the effects of lack of control here. From the abstract:

Participants who lacked control were more likely to perceive a variety of illusory patterns, including seeing images in noise, forming illusory correlations in stock market information, perceiving conspiracies, and developing superstitions.

It’s making them even more delusional than even they would otherwise be.

I hope the next state to allow gay marriage does it within the next month or so. The bigots will be so rattled, you’ll be able to hear them coming down the street.

God, Milk

We’re a day late on the Oscars thing in Australia, so I’m only just getting to the videos.

I was moved by the acceptance speech of Lance Black, who won Best Screenplay for Milk. He grew up in the Mormon church.

Here’s a transcript of the relevant bit, for those of you who can’t do video.

“I heard the story of Harvey Milk and it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life openly as who I am, and that one day I could even fall in love and get married.

“I want to thank my mom, who has always loved me for who I am even when there was pressure not to.

“But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he would want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches or by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value, and that no matter what anyone tells you God does love you and that very soon I promise you, you will have equal rights federally across this great nation of ours.

Thank you and thank you God for giving us Harvey Milk.”

I grew up as a straight kid in the Mormon church, and they gave us heaps of guilt just over playing with ourselves. I simply can’t imagine what he must have gone through as a gay teenager.

Black’s comments are laudable. If they make some gay person feel like they’re all right despite the attempts of religious bigots to convince them otherwise, then well done. Suicide averted. But there’s a bigger problem here: Black is trying to mitigate the effects of religions without challenging their authority. By taking god as a given, Black unwittingly gives tacit legitimacy to religions as potential sources of moral guidance. In fact, they have no more moral authority than anyone else, and most likely less because of their immoral actions.

It comes down to the whole God thing. Black somehow knows that this mysterious being ‘god’ loves gay people. How does he know that? Is it possible that god really disapproves of them, or perhaps even hates them? How does he know that God ‘gave’ us Harvey Milk? If Satan exists, why didn’t he give us Harvey Milk as a way of deceiving us and making us into homos? Does Black have some magical conduit to heavenly knowledge? If it’s possible to get revelations from a god, how do we know Black has the right idea, and not those nice men in suits that we see in General Conference?

I was re-reading this article again, an interview with Carol Lynn Pearson. She’s a Mormon poet, playwright, and actor. With her one-woman show, Mother Wove the Morning, she’s worked to bring Mother-in-Heaven out of the periphery of LDS doctrine. She’s also an advocate for gay Mormons.

It’s the question Carol Lynn Pearson hears just about every time she appears in public. She heard it again last weekend, during an audience discussion that followed a packed-house performance of her play “Facing East” at Theatre Rhinoceros.

How, one woman asked, could Pearson justify her own membership and involvement in the Mormon church?

Pearson, a slim, forthright woman of 67 who wears her silvery white hair jauntily short, nodded along as the question was posed. “I love the Mormon community,” she responded, “and I have a unique opportunity to build bridges.” A number of her church ward leaders, Pearson noted, had attended the opening of “Facing East” the night before. “They’ve been nothing but supportive,” she said. “I believe the Mormon heart is a good heart. I feel comfortable with my role in the Mormon church.

That was before the LDS Church’s involvement in Proposition 8. I wonder if she still feels ‘comfortable’ being linked with a church that claims divine support for inequality and prejudice. Yes, she seems to do some good, but does she need to do this from inside the organisation? Is she not, in fact, attempting to help those who suffer, while providing a way for them to remain connected to the church that is dishing out the suffering?

There are two approaches you can take in this kind of conflict: reject religion, or attempt to transform religion into something less authoritarian.

The transformative approach is tempting, especially for religious liberals. You get to stay in The Bubble, where it’s comfortable (even though you take some knocks from the orthodox believers), and you get to imagine that someday… some beautiful day… your religion will change from conservative authoritarian to liberal democratic — perhaps even gay-friendly! And you can play a part in this magical process just by making occasional comments in Priesthood Meeting. And then the Millennium comes, and Jesus tells you that you were right all along, and everybody gets a pony.

Needless to say, I think the other approach — to reject religion — is the right one. We need to recognise that there probably isn’t a god, that religious organisations have no special authority to dictate the terms of morality, and that actions like Prop. 8 are signs of their all-too-human origins. This view has the benefit of being true.

I have this disturbing thought that keeps popping up: What if things had gone differently for me, my deconversion somehow hadn’t happened, and I was a believing Mormon in the middle of this Proposition 8 mess? Would it have been a deal-breaker for me? Would I have had the fortitude to recognise the signs of man-made prejudice? Would I have realised that it was time to get out? Or would I have kept making excuses for the Church, like some abused spouse? Would I have imagined things would change… eventually? (We let Blacks have the priesthood, after all! Well, black men.) Would I have fallen back on my old rationalisations: that the Lord is in control, but he allows his servants to make mistakes? Would I have privately disagreed with the Brethren, and fancied myself courageous for doing so?

I worry that, even confronted by an ugliness of this magnitude, I would have remained a liberal Mormon. Dependence on others for your opinion conditions you to be a coward, and I was very well-conditioned. And so I probably would have continued to give my time and my money to an organisation that was actively working against my values, and cared nothing for (in fact, actually disdained) the views of people like myself.

Now, outside the Church, I am free to speak out against injustice and duplicity without having to step carefully around ‘criticising the Brethren’. I get to live a moral, fulfilling life, without the moral conflict of trying to hold two opposing sets of opinions simultaneously.

The LDS Church will carry out actions like Prop. 8 whenever they wish, whether you are a member or not. But if they count you as a member, they do these things with your support. Something to think about.

Proposition 8: Un-American?

Did Tom Hanks say something wrong when he called Mormon Prop 8 supporters ‘un-American’? Hanks has released a statement apologising for the remark, and while at first I wished he hadn’t, I find myself agreeing with his reasoning.

“Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as ‘un-American,'” the actor said in a statement through his publicist. “I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination.”

“But everyone has a right to vote their conscience; nothing could be more American,” the statement continues. “To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are ‘un-American’ creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use ‘un-American’ lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have.”

Hanks strikes a nice balance in his remark. He reaffirms the wrongness of writing bigotry into law, but takes care to focus on the offending word. Prop 8 represents a form of bigotry which is indeed counter to values Americans like to claim, like equality, fair play, and so on. But leave the word ‘un-American’ back in the McCarthy days, where it belongs.

So I’ll say that Mormon supporters of Prop 8 are hateful, intolerant, unfair, mean-spirited, bigoted, and pathologically ignorant. Not un-American.

PS: Did anyone near you donate? It’s a matter of public record. Check it out on Prop 8 Maps. Name and shame, people.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑