“Disgusting”

I’ve been hanging on to this post for a while; it was something I thought I should let cool first. But the events of today brought it to mind (and I need a post to fill the space until I find more time to get back to the other argument :-)).

A video was produced a while back to familiarize students with the various family situations of their classmates. It has representation of children being raised in adoptive families, by their grandparents, and more, created hoping to make classroom life easier for such children. Of course, you guessed it, the families represented that have everyone upset are the families headed by same-sex couples.

You can view the actual clips of all of the family types here.

In Philadelphia this film was shown to third graders and outrage quickly followed. I think it best to watch the video before you read the articles, for context, but here are two articles on the tumult:

The First Public Hearing
The Second Public Hearing

Some quotes:
“It was the segment on same-sex couples that drew the most ire from parents, who lined up a dozen deep to speak at a microphone - when they weren't shouting out their comments.”

“One woman stood at her seat and yelled, ‘They're 8 years old. They don't need to see homosexual people in the classroom.’”

She “stood” and “yelled” that.

Just today--I just got back--I was invited to our kid’s school (half-day, half-week preschool). I brought our microscope with a monitor and a couple other pieces of lab equipment. I put on a big show for the kids, looking at everything from a flea to bone marrow to their turtle’s lettuce, and they loved it. They didn’t “need” to see me but I can’t imagine the harm I caused that this woman has in mind. And sure, they know I’m a homosexual in that they know R and I are their friend’s parents, just as this video shows, but I’m sure the word “homosexual” means nothing to them (I don’t know my kids have ever heard the word, or “gay” even; it just hasn’t come up). Recently we were there for Dad’s Visitor Day, and before that R went with my mom for Mother’s Visitor Day. It all was wonderful, no one bats an eye, and the school is great about it; in fact, it now never comes to mind when there that it could be a problem… Then I think of people like those in these articles.

Maybe our ease comes because we know all the parents and are involved. We go to all the birthday parties. We did soccer with them all last summer, and that built our relationships and trust (I should say “soccer”, considering the age :-)). We all get along great and not one problem has emerged by our family being so clear to their children, from the classroom to play dates. Maybe we’ve found a paradise of education for our children, but that’s not seemingly what’s out there.

I feel I need to know what damage was done in the minds of such folk, those who would like to keep our families out of the classroom. The harm is done just having our family seen, by just knowing their classmates have a different home? Some possible hints:

“Others called the video ‘adult material’ and said lessons about diversity and tolerance should be taught in the home.”

“Others were less charitable, calling the video ‘disgusting.’”

“‘There was absolutely no necessity to engage third graders in sexuality. That's what you're doing,’ said David Thompson of Medford Lakes. ‘You were wrong... . I firmly believe, that someone had an agenda here.’”

It seems they are imagining something sexual every time they see gay couples. Did they watch the video? I mean, they must have some odd imagination going on, if the mere sight of a gay couple constitutes “adult material” and “sexuality”, right? Don’t they realize some of us are far more prudish than they’ve ever been :-)?

Yeah, though, there is an "agenda" here. Our kids go to school together and they have to interact and learn together. We have to find a way to make that interaction civil, humane, and productive. And all that is important to a school’s central mission of education. We gratefully have that in our little corner of Utah, and such a video is a way to encourage a healthy school environment for those who don’t.

Anyway, on the plus side, I think I did convert some kids to a particular lifestyle today :-). When asked who wants to be a scientist after I was done, most all raised their hands.

One girl, though, kept her hand down. This same girl raised her hand to ask a question while I was talking, and when I acknowledged her she said, “Your miscrocope is wrealwy borwing”.

Whatever, little girl.

That’s not even a question. And at least I can say boring. ;-)

Kissing Cousins

I’ve not had time to prepare a new post but, as I’ll soon be posting on the argument that marriage is about children soon, I may as well put this old bit of info out there.

Even ignoring the fact that many gay couples are adopting and producing children with aid, there is not one law I can find that makes children, parenting ability, or the ability to have children a requisite for marriage (if you know of one, let me know). The laws handling children’s rights and parent’s obligations are handled separately and for good reason.

Even convicted and incarcerated pedophiles who’ve preyed on their own children have the right to marry (as long as it’s heterosexually) by law, and yet no one in their right mind would say their children “deserved” them as parents. In fact, in the laws of the US, the best I can find for a legal connection to the ability to have children is found in laws that forbid a couple from marriage if they are able produce children.

Illinois:
a marriage between first cousins is not prohibited if: both parties are 50 years of age or older; or (ii) either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, presents for filing with the county clerk of the county in which the marriage is to be solemnized, a certificate signed by a licensed physician stating that the party to the proposed marriage is permanently and irreversibly sterile;

Indiana:
two (2) individuals may marry each other if the individuals are:
(1) first cousins; and
(2) both at least sixty-five (65) years of age.

Arizona:
first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce.

Utah:
First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
(b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin:
that marriage may be contracted between first cousins where the female has attained the age of 55 years or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit signed by a physician stating that either party is permanently sterile.

There is no law I can find forbidding infertile couples from marriage, or women who are old enough to be past menopause, or the intersexed, or anything like that. But here the states (Utah among them, of course, for irony’s sake :-)) make a special exception for certain couples in order to give them marriage rights and obligation, only if they cannot produce children. They even make the couple (if they are young enough to be fertile) get a letter from a physician.

This notion that marriage is all about having children, is a relatively new political argument, used to keep gays from marriage (though you can find it in the more distant past, and a variant of such was used during the debate over interracial marriage). I know many sincerely believe it, and with good intentions. It's tough not to heed when someone yells the old "Think of the children!" But the benefits to the public for giving marriage rights to infertile and life-long childless couples have been clear for a long time (Many of them listed here, here, and here), and only recently has the goalpost moved into this emotion laden territory of deep and yet debasing concern for other's families. I watched the argument crafted over many months and tested, and it worked here, even though gays do have children, in far greater numbers than most understand.

I mean, how many know Utah is in the top 3 of states in the percentage of gay headed homes raising children? Clearly Utah’s laws don’t stop these children from being born or adopted. And yet, all through our amendment debate one side somehow convinced the public that to help our children they had to solidify their family’s invisible and second-class status in our constitution.

But I'm getting ahead of myself :-).

Marriage by State Numbers

I'VE PUT AN UPDATED AND MORE EXTENSIVE LOOK AT THESE STATS HERE.

Similar to the data on marriage I looked at involving various countries (here), I’ve split the US of A by states, on how they treat same sex unions (with DC and Puerto Rico included also). It's too soon to look at trends but we can look at the current status:

The bar graph shows marriage rates in blue and divorce rates in red, all per capita and all an average of the data I could find (2003 to 2005). The groups are: 1. The average of all states, 2. The average of those with laws and constitutional amendments against equal rights for gay couples, 3. Those with only anti-gay rights laws, no amendments, 4. Those offering civil unions, and 5. Those with full state marriage rights (lonely little Massachusetts). Note that some may define gay couples away from marriage, and yet still offer some civil union recognition, and some states have not acted in this area.

As can be seen, states that have legally acted against marriage for gays do have a slightly greater marriage rate than average. But those with some sort of civil union for gay couples have a significantly higher marriage rate.

While Massachusetts is at the low end of US marriage rates, again, it must be remembered that respect for the institution is not shown in marrying often and divorcing often. As far as having a low divorce rate goes, Massachusetts is #2 in the nation and has been for most of this decade. Utah, with all our politician's talk of family values, is #32 in the nation; most states have lower divorce rates than we do here.

In fact, if you subtract the divorce rate from the marriage rate (the distance from the red to the blue bar), Massachusetts has the same score as the average of all the states. But when all the states that have at least some sort of legal rights for gay unions are averaged together, they have the highest score by far, 32% higher than the anti-gay marriage states. They have more marriages and more marriages that succeed.

Again, what to make of such numbers? It’s too soon, but I’ve heard many claim great confidence in their theories of how rights for our families will mean ruin for marriage. They sometimes claim to have evidence, but, as discussed before, it often falls flat. Here I simply wanted to show their dire if-you-have-it-we’ll-not-want-it predictions and their governments-only-give-gays-marriage-if-the-people-don’t-respect-it theories are not seen in the US data. If anything, it’s the opposite.

Data from the US government’s fedstats.

South Park

For those who aren’t so willing to observe the crasser side of media, South Park took on conversion therapy last night. I’m not going to put the youtube video up here (it is offensive, dealing with suicide offensive). But you can go there and search for “Cartman sucks” if you like.

Butter’s speech at the end gives the moral of their story (as South Park tends to do). Butters is a straight kid who gets tricked in to seeming “bi-curious” and is thus sent by his dad to “Pray the Gay Out” at a camp, and the counselors keep telling him he’s confused. Mind you, he has no idea what bi-curious means. While Butters is trying to talk his “account-a-bill-i-buddy” down from a bridge, one of the counselors calls him “confused” again:

“All right, all right that does it!

I am sick and tired of everyone telling me I’m confused. I wasn’t confused until other people started telling me I was. You know what I think? I think maybe you’re the
ones who are confused. I’m not going to be confused anymore just because you say I should be.

My name is Butters, I’m eight years old, I’m blood type O, and I’m Bi-Curious. And even that’s okay, because if I’m bi-curious and I’m somehow made from God. Then I figure God must be a little bi-curious himself.”

At that, the gay kid on the bridge says “I think, I think I’d like to come down now.”

Again, it is offensive, but, if you want to see how popular culture is looking at this issue, there it is. South Park is pervasive.

And I still need help with Easter :-)

I Need Help

Each year, for about 10 years now, R and I have been in charge of Easter for my huge family. It’s become one of our largest family parties.

Over months, we all pack nearly 500 plastic eggs. But the best part is the gold, silver, and bronze egg. They are hidden so that no one could find them, unless they figure out my puzzles. While they have been described, in whiny tones, as “unfair” and “too hard”, the motivation is there; the gold egg means a trip with the grandparents to near anywhere.

Easter is coming fast and all I have is this year’s silver egg puzzle (and I’m not too happy with it). Any ideas?

Recently, I’ve used crossword puzzles, simple substitution cryptography, sudoku (the solution gave the combination to a lock on a cage holding an egg :-)), picture hunts, treasure map-like directions, word search, and I’m probably forgetting a bunch. Typically I use their names as part of the gold egg puzzle, and I’m not committed to it but I’d like to this year again. I can’t though think of anything new (there are 31 grandkids, and so, for example, they were the crossword solutions and then certain letters in the solved puzzle had to be unscrambled to reveal the egg location). The kids range in age from 4 to 30, and the older kids do try for the gold egg (we try to make it so the 13 or above crowd get it, but also so that all of them can do some of it), so it can made be kind of hard (I’ll endure the whining :-)).

Just for fun I’ll post an old one. See if you’re smarter than my nieces and nephews :-). They couldn’t finish this one without hints. Posted below is part of the silver egg puzzle from two years ago. It’s the old catchphrase game; each one represents a common word or phrase. The twenty-fifth is missing, as it had my name in it (and they didn’t get it) :-).

The letters of the phrases helped lead to the egg but I’ll leave that out.

(Looking at it again, I’m not proud of one of them, too vague, but oh well…)


Anyway, if you have any new ideas, they’d be appreciated. If you have a good one I’ll put it together the night before Easter if needs be and so feel free to comment them in long after I post above this (well, make that the Saturday before Easter; most our family wouldn’t come if it were on Sunday :-)).

Repetition

I started a post and realized I’ve typed it all before. Giving advice is often a hit and miss and miss and miss endeavor but I do feel strongly about this topic, and I’ll just give it anyway.

Gay, a User’s Manual.

And the short, flippant version, for such tastes:

On the Box in Which Your Gayness Arrived

For what it’s worth.

I don’t want to preach or suggest I’m this bastion of knowledge :-), but this is the advice I have and I do believe it can avoid a lot of heart ache, the sort I've seen too many times. So, seeming preachy and repetition be damned; I'll accept charges.

RIP, Whaley 2005-2007

B’s favorite toy for over a year has been a little soft rubber whale. His name was Whaley, and he recently passed on. I’d like to take a moment to eulogize this fine friend (:-) yes, a broken toy actually got us all emotionally down).

Through his a long battle with BTD (Beloved Toy Deterioration), Whaley remained stoic and upbeat. He lost his color and signs of wear appeared on his fins, yet he soldiered on. Whaley finally succumbed to the ravages of BTD, doing what he loved best, playing with his best friend and “Papa”, B. Though his struggle was long, the ultimate cause of death was fin loss. He was surrounded by loved ones, when the time came.

We watched Whaley grow from a baby, in need of constant attention. B took very good care of him. Last Christmas, when Whaley had the honor of being the only inanimate object in our family to receive presents from Santa, we were told Whaley had become an adult. At the time of his death, Whaley was 5, in rubber Whale years.

By all appearances, Whaley was a killer whale, but to assume as much would be unfair prejudice. Whaley, in fact and as B tells anyone who makes that mistake, would never kill anyone. He was, instead, a “friendly whale”. That he was.

Whaley was certainly no ordinary whale. Above being a great toy, he was reported to have super powers, among them the ability to “run really fast,” which, if you think about it, is truly amazing for a whale. He will be sorely missed among the pantheon of crime fighting superheroes.

Whaley is survived by his papa, his uncle, his grandfathers, and his canine aunt. In lieu of flowers, the family asks you donate to the Society for the Preservation of Rubber Fish (They cover marine mammal too).

Anyway, rest in peace, Whaley.

It’s funny, as soon as I saw that fin separated, a fate we all saw coming a mile away, my heart just sunk, right along with B’s… over a little rubber whale. Children have the power to make all sorts of things meaningful. Poor B.

The Guv and GSAs

Yesterday was a good day. I helped put on a nice bridge building community event (no, not a gay community thing; I do have other interests you know :-)). I got a well-framed letter from my Mayor, and, consequently, got to meet and talk a slight bit with the Governor…

It was a busy day, so busy that I didn’t have time to read the paper in the morning.

I got home to read the headline:

Guv OKs gay-club curbs

It’s odd; as I was reading I was downloading the photos from the day and there was my family with the man who just signed this bill, his arm around R. He was very friendly, and he has struck me as a good man. He still does. It’s just sad, to feel people of good conscience are on both sides of something like this. But I must also feel it as a source of hope.

It’s just much easier to just demonize the other side as cruel jerks ;-). You know, if they do shake your hand and show friendliness, it's just to hide their insults and plotting. But I know, for a good part, that's far from true. While there are some politicians I do think are malicious and for whom I don't feel so hopeful, our Governor isn't one of them, darn it :-).

Regardless, many kids, and not only the gay kids, would and do benefit by such support, and this bill will threaten that, but the beliefs and the politics are what they are. At least it seems, after the Utah taxpayer spends a good deal defending this bill when the next GSA is excluded, the clubs may stay regardless (though, I’m not sure how much I’d bet on it).

Marriage Numbers

In getting the site I’ve been working on ready (yes, for too long now :-)), I’ve been collecting numbers, arguments and such. My arguments for marriage rights for gay couples are at the top of the right column of this blog. But one argument I’ve seen a number of times against such rights contends that where gays achieved as much, marriage has crumbled. It’s not easy finding enough data on such a recent occurrence to be making bold statements, but that’s really the point isn’t it?

Nevertheless, I’ve collected the marriage and divorce stats from some of the Scandinavian countries that have had some sort of official union for gays, giving legal marriage rights for a significant amount of time.

The following shows the marriages per year per person in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, from 1850 to 2006. Vertical lines mark the implementation of rights for gay couples in each country.

As can be seen, as the countries modernized, making marriage less of a tool for getting along in life, marriage does decrease on a slight downward trend. But in every case, once gay unions are okayed, the number of marriages go up per year, not down (note also, gay unions are not counted in these numbers; these are heterosexual marriages only).

Of special interest is Sweden (red line). I remember a couple years ago reading an anti-gay marriage piece where Sweden was pointed out as an example of how gays threaten heterosexual marriage. The data they were using were from a couple years before rights were given to a couple years after, basically only that negative slope right where gay unions are officially implemented. Of course the author forgot to mention or show that Sweden, for a change in pension law, had a surge of marriages in 1989 in order to act before a 1990 deadline; you can see the peak. The author knew this; by his occupation, he had to, but he hid it to make a point. This surge should cause a drop in marriage rate in subsequent years, due to a drain of marriage eligible folks, and it does for a while. But, even after that, marriages begin going up again after gays get these rights.

The next graph shows divorces per year per person for the same countries in the same time.

Again, with modernity, divorces go up, as people, particularly women, need less and less to depend on their marriage for livelihood, and unhappy marriages can more easily split up. But that trend, which some like to blame on gay marriage, is there long before any rights are given. Not only that, but after the rights are given divorces, in all cases, go down or remain somewhat stable.

For comparison, the United States, a country that has a majority of states with laws disallowing gay unions, did have a higher rate of marriage, but it also had a higher rate of divorce than all three of those countries, by the most recent data, 2005. Respect for marriage isn’t, of course, shown in the rate of marriages if you’re dissolving them faster than anyone else, right? Marriage should go up and divorce shouldn't, and that's what's seen in these countries with rights for gay unions.

In fact, Spain, has one of the lowest rates of divorce in the industrialized world and it just voted in marriage for same-sex couples. It’s divorce rate is under half all those plotted and far under that of the United States.

At pointing out these positive trends, I’ve found that some then say that the trends don’t matter (of course :-)). They then say it’s the actual magnitude of the marriage rate that shows respect for marriage, and low respect leads to gay marriage (and yet they’ll still want to call their “symptom” a cause they hope to “cure”). While it’s true it’s mainly conservative countries that have the highest marriage rates, and true they most often don’t allow gays to marry, I don’t think, in general, their societies are those to aspire towards, (e.g. Iran).

Even still, look at the countries with the highest marriage rates, from here:

1 Antigua & Barbuda
2 Maldives
3 Barbados
4 Liechtenstein
5 Cyprus
6 Seychelles
7 South Africa
8 Jamaica
9 Ethiopia
10 Iran

What should stick out (because it's bold and red :-)) is that one of the most successful countries in that top ten list is the one that has full-fledged gay marriage.

Anyway, I’d not be so bold as to say official gay unions are shown here to strengthen the institution of marriage. But others do claim the opposite, using small segments of this same data, possibly thinking no one will look it up, and they should be called on it.

That’s not to say I can’t imagine it could, though ;-). I do think the discussions of why marriage is important to gay couples and their children probably do get some others thinking, and I think promoting the union as recognizably beneficial for families and governments regardless of the involved anatomies, can promote marriage in general. But, no, it’s not clear in these numbers, and I’ll stick with the arguments I’ve given in the past for a couple more years of data ;-).

All data taken from each country's government’s official web sites of statistics, unless otherwise stated.

Proud of You

In many stories of coming out, I’ve noticed a continuing thread: the fear of parent’s loss of pride. Coincidentally, L’s post today seems to be on a similar topic. It got me to thinking of an incident last summer with A.

My kids started soccer last year with their school friends. Unfortunately, we never got B on the field; fine, I want him to be a swimmer like his Pop anyway :-). My little A went up right away, though, but soon got chided by the coach for picking up the ball. He ran back, upset, and didn’t want to try again. I encouraged, and (maybe) pushed, along with R and the grandparents. “It’ll be fun,” “Look at all your friends out there”, “just try it again” and so on…

Eventually A got out there but wouldn’t chase the ball. The coach had me come out to encourage some more. Eventually the ball came near him and he kicked it hard. I was very happy he finally got past that barrier. But that emotion must have been on my face, and I fear it was too big of a change. He looked up and went to one of his biggest smiles, but I could see then his eyes had been welling up. He asked, first time ever, “Are you proud of me Papa?”

Those cloaking up muscles in the throat reacted immediately. Proud?! At 4, what does he know about proud, care about proud? Was he about to cry because he thought I was disappointed in him? I felt knocked down by his question and I picked him up, hugged him, and told him yes, I’m very proud of him, that he’s a wonderful little boy. He laughed and went on, happily playing the rest of the season from there.

At that moment I was keenly reminded again of the danger in being a parent. You always know it’s there; you know you have a lot of power, but when you let it spill out inadvertently it really hits you. I mean, was I making him cry over kicking a ball?

Kids seem to come disposed to caring deeply about what their parents think. It makes perfect sense, pragmatically; it’s a large part of how children survive to become the next generation. It’s useful.

But any person or group given such respect can too easily misuse it. You can cause everything from subtle neurosis to outright psychological abuse. Children easily become experts on what their parents think, and sometimes they hang on even vague interpretations of every odd twitch of their parent’s face, to a debilitating degree. I do hope that will not be our children; it’s something to fear.

It seems to be a tricky borderland between trying to raise happy, healthy, and moral children and abuse of the power you have to do so. But I do believe most all parents never mean to cross that line (sure, some miserable humans do). In the area of gay youth, I have seen this power cause many problems for kids, and I once would come down very angry at the parents. But I’m more inclined today to advocate for slack to be cut, and time to be given. As a first time parent of two, I know I’d hope for the same understanding to be given to me. Being a parent can tricky, and scary, along with wonderful beyond words, but I do believe near every parent means the absolute best for their children.

Ex Com

In chatting, the topic of our current official relation to the LDS church came up. I hadn’t really thought of the implications of what occurred in regards to that topic, but now, thinking on it, it’s an odd story and I have to wonder what it says about the changing LDS policy regarding gay members.

My religious history is spelled out, here and here. Though I’ve left many modes of belief behind at finding them unsupportable, official counting from the bureaucracy of each is a different matter. The LDS church counted me as a member for most of my life, starting from my baptism, and officially counted me in their statistics even when I was holding other faiths.

I didn’t give it much thought, until the marriage debate heated up, and the LDS church began instructing members to act politically against equal rights for our families. We began to feel uncomfortable being counted as members. I mean, to be counted as a member of a group now acting against your home feels wrong for all sorts of reasons, not to mention not believing in its most basic claims, and we simply couldn’t abide by it.

R first tried to do it himself. He sent in our letters, explaining why exactly we wanted to be removed, and nothing happened. He sent another set and got some sort of dismissive reply (I wish I could remember the wording, but alas...). After some runaround on the phone, we gave up.

If I remember correctly, from there we put ourselves out in the media, speaking out against legislation. Regardless, it was no secret before then that we were gay and living together to anyone, not to our families, our neighbors, or our ward. Our Bishop was, in fact, R’s mission companion’s father and he knew well of us there. Yet, no hint of concern was shown anywhere by the church, and seemingly no desire to excommunicate us at all, even once we went from privately gay to activist gay.

Eventually the leadership did it again, and called on members to vote against our families, and that was it for us. We couldn’t be counted as part of a political force aimed at us. This time we did some online research on how, exactly, to be removed as members and found that certain specific items had to be done. It was some Baptist group that had the instructions. They were oddly complicated, but R put the right letters together, with the right wording, and sent them to the right place… But that was not the end of it.

We were asked if the Bishops could come visit us, and we agreed; we kind of knew and liked the guy. So he came. Though such a meeting is actually unnecessary to be removed, we wanted to be cordial.

At the door he was visibly uncomfortable but very pleasant. He came in and small-talked for a while. Then he asked why, exactly, we wanted out. I assumed our reasons would be more than apparent, but we explained it anyway, plainly and respectfully. But at that, he tried to talk us out of leaving. We were two gay men who had been together for a decade, live together in his ward, and speak out for equal rights for our families, and he didn’t want to let us out. Unexpected.

In asking around, I’ve known gay men who’ve been excommunicated for far less of a "gay lifestyle", but many years ago. Although I do know some gay men around these blogs were recently disciplined for their same-sex sexual activities, the cases involved breaking vows, and so I'm left a bit unclear. But it seems something must have changed, and for the better, right?

It actually became a sort of haggle with the local Bishop. He eventually talked us down from excommunication and into something else, the name of which I can’t quite remember (removal? I’ll have to find the paper.). In short, the way he explained it, we’d not be counted as members anymore, but we’d not be excommunicated, meaning, as he pointedly stated, there’d be no disciplinary action if we ever wanted back in.

Anyway, it was a solution we could both live with, though the more aggressive side of me was admittedly let down (I kind of wanted my day in court! If for nothing other than curiosity :-)).

At that we were all happy and we went back to small talk. As he left he expressed his regret for the situation and told us to call him if any of our neighbors gave us any trouble (really, unthinkable as our neighbors were great, but we very much appreciated the gesture). Again, we do very much like the guy, for obvious reasons, and I too wish the circumstances were different, but they are what they are. I was left feeling sorry for the tough position he was in.

So I guess, officially, with regards to the LDS church we’re not really Ex Coms; we’re now just like most of the world, nonmembers and potential converts ;-).

In thinking back on it, I’m struck by the LDS church’s reluctance to excommunicate two open and vocal gay men, such as us, R even being a returned missionary. I wonder if our experience is typical or rare. How much of it was in the hands of local management? It took significant effort to simply not be counted in their statistics, and they really didn’t want to take any steps. Who knows? For us there’d still be the fact that we don’t believe many of the claims of that particular faith, but maybe in our lifetime some families headed by gay couples will be welcomed and accepted in the LDS church, as is, without splitting up. Maybe we’ll show up at the next sacrament meeting with kids in tow and a bag a cheerios to test the waters ;-).

I don’t know, but this seems to be a positive and perhaps recent change in the LDS reaction to gay members, doesn’t it?

Tapas

We’ve just returned from my sister-in-law’s wedding. Our boys were the ring bearers, and they were adorable in their little white tuxedos. This was their second tour of duty in a wedding procession. I enjoyed the opportunity to once again have the conversation about marriage: why people do it, what the promises mean, the symbolism of the rings they carry (well, those they “bear” are fake, just in case; they are only 4 and ill-equipped to handle anything that price). Sure, they don’t understand much of it, but they know enough to know it’s important in human lives, and, most significantly to them, it’s important to their home.

It is important, to make those public vows and to witness them. I’ve been honored to be a best man, twice now (but one groom was smart enough to not have a gay man through his bachelor party ;-)). I take that position with maybe more seriousness than my groom friends intend. You are putting yourself on the line, to stand beside your friend and vouch for him, in front of all that family, and I’m glad to say, for both those men, I did so with pride and confidence. And I’m happy our boys get to feel a bit of that gravity in, as they call it, their “very important job”.

I do feel everyone, in some way, accepting an invitation to a wedding has made themselves responsible to do what they can to support that union and, of course, to never attempt to undermine it in even the most subtle ways. Those promises are made in public for a reason, and people are meant to come for more than good cake and bad dancing.

Simply, even without the backing of law, I’m very happy we took that leap so many years ago, and I’m glad to just that much more familiarize our boys with the idea of marriage.

I don’t know where I was going with this post, just a bit for the chronology in this journal :-). But I do want to add one little anecdote from the wedding, one that I think typifies a great many and loving Mormon mothers.

This was my sister-in-law’s second wedding (yes, a fact I did not explain to the twins :-)). Her parents were leery of her choice to remarry a new guy and so soon, for a couple good reasons I’ll leave out. They were scheduled to meet this man for the first time at our house of all places, as my in-laws were staying with us while they recovered from a traffic accident. Suffice it to say, this guy was coming into a tense situation, but Utah Mormon tense (and I hope that’s not offensive as I do count it as my culture too, and it’s much more pleasant than regular tense, though more sneaky :-)).

But he’s a great guy, very charismatic, and he quickly won over the family. It came out that he’s a restaurant owner. As the conversation progressed he told us he was about to open a tapas Restaurant. You know: spain, small portions… Tapas.

The conversation went on and on, and smoothly. Later that day, when my in-laws were alone together, they were talking about the suitor. After a while my mother-in-law finally said “Well, he’s very nice and he seems very industrious… But I’ve never heard of topless restaurants. Do you think that will do well?” :-)

The whole time she, this very kind and proper LDS woman, had been thinking this prospective son-in-law was about to set up a half nude dining establishment, some extreme version of Hooters. I can’t imagine her distress; why couldn’t all the kids be like R :-)? She was completely befuddled, but waited until she could feel out her husband about it alone. After a good laugh, my father-in-law explained she’d heard wrong, to her relief, and let us all in on the confusion.

Anyway, tapas, topless, I do love R’s family very much, and have been glad to have them in our life and to be there with them through the these good times and the bad.

Incompetent Gay

Do you sometimes feel like, being gay, you just can’t live up to the expectations? People expect you to have certain abilities, knowledge, and social uses that you just can’t fulfill. I’ve never been blessed much with what some see as the associated skills of being gay, and when people assume I’ll meet such expectations, I rarely meet their mark. So, to be clear:

-I know nothing about and own no moisturizers, or scents. Don’t ask me about them. On trips, my toiletry bag includes deodorant, toothpaste, and a toothbrush… if I’m lucky.

-Same goes for hair care products. It takes, literally, 5 seconds to do my hair and it’s done while walking from the shower to the closet.

-I’m absolutely unskilled and inexperienced at “partying”. I like sitting around the diner table chatting with friends. I’ll enjoy a good board or card game, but, please, don’t expect too much in the way of what gays do on Queer As Folk. I’ll not be the wild, carefree life of the party, but, if you want a friendly designated driver, I’m your man. In fact, I’ve only been drunk enough to feel it the next day twice, ever, once after a dinner with my dad, and the other time after a night out with my brother. With the small amount I do imbibe, it takes very little to make me sick, and only those two bad influences in my rather large family seem to have enough sway on me ;-).

-No, I don’t know how to dance, except to make my kids laugh. I can show you how to do that.

-Don’t expect me to know much about the exciting gay nightlife in my city. I’ve no pointers towards fun clubs or anything like that. I know very little and what little I do know is from long ago. I’ve been in a bar fewer than once per year of my life, I’m sure.

The last time was a gay bar, though, about 6 years ago, in New Orleans on a trip with my extended family… R and I wondered through bead-greedy uninhibited women down Bourbon Street. The bar at the end of the street was a gay bar, and we did go in to see what it was like... and got out of there very quickly. It was very much like the rest of Bourbon Street... but, uh, gayer? Anyway, a stranger grabbed me (or part of me), and quite inappropriately, and within the first ten minuets! Sure, it gave us a good laugh, but I don’t think we’ll be going back to that town :-).

But, the time before that, I think, the bar was an erotic dance club, when I was in my early twenties. Does that sound scandalous? Like the seedy depths of the gay lifestyle?

:-) But, no. It was that hetero strip club on State Street. I think that should more than negate the gay bar in New Orleans. I went with a couple of buddies to cheer one of them up after a hard breakup; they got quite a kick out of my gay oil in their straight water. It was also an academic curiosity (probably the only time that excuse has been true). I left doubly gay, and sure I’d never go back there either... or look at paper currency the same way ever again, for that matter.

-I can’t stand shopping (unless it’s for electronics); don’t ask me to go; you’ll be sorry. I have, in fact, been told by numerous people that I somehow--perhaps supernaturally--sap the will to shop out of others by merely my proximity to them. Just save the frustration and don’t suggest I come with you; I might say yes. I don’t mean to have this superpower; it’s more of an ironic gay curse I have :-).

-I’ve no idea about fashion, designers, or models. Don’t ask me about it. I’ll steer you wrong, and maybe just for the amusement and to teach you a lesson about generalizing :-). I don’t think I’ve even bought an item of clothing for myself for years, save jeans to replace those worn through. I’ve only 4 pairs of shoes, in fact, half of them from Costco, and the other half taken from R. I guess I do live off of R’s purchases and judgment just fine (Wow, thinking on it, if I wasn’t gay, I’d be near naked :-)).

-I know little about stereotypical "gay" music. I can’t get into Madonna, Cher, techno, “Babs” or show tunes. I’m sorry; I tired. My musical tastes are elsewhere. In fact, I sat next to Liza Minelli once, and didn’t even notice until R told me.

-I’m pretty useless when it comes to literature and poetry as well. And don’t expect a compelling art critique when you ask my opinion of your painting. Sure, I like it, but I just don’t have the vocabulary to describe such skill exactly, and the jargon I do have, from my work, is wholly inappropriate for art ;-).

Okay, that’s all that comes to mind. Simply, I’m a limited gay. If anyone wants to engage me in the areas where my interests, such as my family and science, intersect gayety, I think I can do an okay job there. But otherwise, I’m a pretty incompetent gay. Don’t expect too much, and don't tell anyone in our elected leadership; I don't want my membership benefits revoked.

In other news: A blueberry, raspberry, and tulip later, and I'm refilled on images.

And I hope you all have a great weekend.

I can't believe it!

This just in:

Utah Lawmakers Vote to Halt Gay Pet Adoption

In the final hours of the session, Utah lawmakers have voted to put an end to gay pet adoptions, after heated debate.

...

“The gays adopt pets, see, because they can’t have pets on their own; they have to recruit” explained Senator Buttars in floor debate. “Once in their homes these puppies and kittens are soon indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle, and taught that homosexuality is normal.”

…

“This is the nose of the camel in the tent,” said Senator Bramble, “They will adopt our pets and, if we don’t act now, it won’t stop there. They’ll use these unfortunate pets as political props to promote their agenda and force homosexual clubs into our obedience schools. The destruction of marriage can’t be far behind.”

Representative Tilton took a similar tone “This is a slippery slope my fellow Utahns, and I hope you sustain this bill [wink wink]. Just as homosexual “marriage” leads to polygamy and human-animal marriages, homosexual pet adoption will soon lead to dogs adopting puppies, or worse, kittens.”

…

When asked for comment, Gayle Ruzicka, Utah Eagle Forum President , was elated. “It’s very simple, a vote against this bill would have been a vote against marriage and a vote for sodomy. I’m glad our legislators bravely stood up for the wellbeing of our puppies and kittens in the face of political correctness.”

A representative for Utah’s Humane Society could not be reached for comment.

You just wait. I predict, by year’s end, the animal shelters of Utah will be packed to the rafters with toy poodles and shit tzus.

Anyway, I’m outraged…

;-) and, bumps and bruises aside, very relieved the legislative session is, today, over :-). Now on to the serious matter of figuring out the consequences of their actual actions.

Atoll

Of the experiences I’ve had with anti gay bias, only a few have been with people I personally know. I described one in which I committed a physical assault ;-), here. But another actually came from my childhood dentist. He was a friend of the family, of sorts, and always expressed a great deal of respect for me and my accomplishments and so on. I liked him too; I though he was a very smart, friendly, and admirable man. When I was LDS, he was one of the main examples to me of what an LDS man should be.

About a year after I came out to my parents my mom was there getting a checkup. After it was over they started talking about the new sanitary measures he was using in his practice. The topic turned to AIDS. It then turned to gays, at which point my dentist told her that he thought gays should all be shipped off to an island or shot. This was just casual conversation. He had no idea I was gay, and my mom could only chide him without telling him I was, as, at the time, I’d made it very clear I wanted to decide how to come out.

When explaining why we should all change dentists, this is what came out in response to my questions. It had to, else I’d never have understood; I couldn’t remember this dentist not being my dentist and I liked him a great deal. I’d not have believed he’d have said such a thing, if not for the fact that it was my mother’s testimony. So we left, and found a great new dentist. Eventually my old dentist found out I was gay through family friends, figured out why he’d lost our family’s business, and called to apologize and try to get us back. While I appreciated the apology, we certainly couldn’t go back.

Now, just like the other instance I mentioned, I’ve come to find out the guy has been arrested for sexual assault (of the heterosexual sort again). While I know the allegations certainly may not be true or stand up in court (as they did with the other guy), and I know two anecdotes do not count as data, it’s just bizarre this has happened twice now. I’ve only known two people every arrested for sexual assault, and these two men are them. Nevertheless, it’s certainly a tragedy all around.

Mr. and Mr. __________

Having a sort of family makeup just emerging in this culture, a person has to reason out why they want everything from marriage to joint checking, more so than the average person. They have much less of the cultural, and traditional guidance of expectation (but, on the plus side, without the stain and error of such either, as I've written before).

Another such item that came to mind, though relatively minor, is the surname. I've just kind of come to taking it for granted, but many gay couples we know do debate on this to some lengths, and they come to different ends.

A lot of the choices we've made that could be seen as taking a traditional rout had many practical aspects for us, but strong emotional reasons as well. They make absolute sense, but last names didn’t strike us as important on either level for a long while. In fact, this was not a thought for about our first decade together. But once we knew we would be parents it suddenly became another one of those important issues. What last name would our children have? Would it be okay for them to not have one of our names? It really would be far best, at school, at the hospital, and so on, if we all had the same, to avoid hassle and make our situation clearer.

So we decided we had to do it, but how do two men decide who gives up their family name?

It wasn’t as difficult as it sounds, at least between us.

We first thought about hyphenating… and then thought of our great grandchildren ending up with hand cramps for their possible total of eight hyphenated last names :-). No, we narrowed it down to having one last name.

We then thought to merge our names into something new for us both. We came up with a reasonable mix, one that was already extant and didn’t sound too dorky, and we were set to go ahead with that, a new family name for us both.

After of day or so after that conclusion, and looking at what needed to be done to effect this change for us, R came to me. He decided to take my family name instead. I was surprised and tried to talk him back into the new name plan, but he insisted (and I know I didn’t try too hard or long to change his mind :-)). Such a decision really had to be his though.

And I do feel he graciously let me off easy, but, objectively, he was right for many reasons. To change my name meant far more of a bureaucratic struggle, from business documents to various other records he did not have. There were also other fears regarding the heated marriage debate at the time that made us all having my family name seem best. Still, I know it wasn’t an easy decision, and I love him for it every time he’s hassled at the airport for his name change; they just don’t anticipate such :-).

Fortunately, we’re pragmatic in such areas (though, sure, easy for me to say ;-)), and we were off to court. I expected a battle; again, this is Utah. It turns out anyone can change their name as long as it’s not for nefarious purposes, but, to that end, on the form it asked why we wanted to change his name and we, of course, were completely honest with the court. We explained the whole thing. The judge simply read, listened, gave a quick approval and that was it. No fight. Utah deserves my apology, in places :-).

If only that were the end of it, though. About a month later our exact words, our explanation for why we wanted a name change appeared in the paper, in an article about why people change their names. Oh yeah, that’s public record…

Eh,

Okay, I agree. A review of the research on finger length ratios' relation to orientation, that ultimately goes only to show how some popular research goes nowhere…

What was I thinking?! :-)

It’s for times like these that I keep something up my sleeve.

How about a pallet cleanser?



It’s a duck.

Or so I’m told. By A.

Anyway, hope you all have a good weekend. :-D

Lady Fingers, Empty Calories?

I’ve gone over one of the possible mechanisms in making men gay involving fetal hormone exposure or even maternal antibodies in discussing the Fraternal Birth Order Effect (here). Here I want to look at a possibly different, though equally well-publicized mechanism based on different observations; not the number of siblings but the dimensions of our bodies.

We certainly don’t experiment on humans in such a way, but it’s fairly well established that, in animal models, in utero manipulation of androgens (hormones with a masculizing effect) is capable of altering sexual behavior, orientation, and so on (1-3). In addition to behavioral differences, of course, exposure to such chemicals leave the associated physical form altered.

Humans have numerous such physical differences between the average male and female form (of course, else this whole topic would be pointless as no one would know if they were gay or not ;-)). In humans, as with other mammals, without the masculizing effects of our hormones, the genetic male would turn out somewhere in-between the two forms or even apparently female, even by behavior. One of these differences between men and women, though slight, is the ratio of the lengths of our 2nd to our 4th finger (index to ring finger).

Forget broad shoulder, cut and firm bodies… perhaps being gay is all about subtle attractions to finger length ratios?

Anyway, the lengths are measured sometimes by image analysis but one could less accurately measure themselves with a ruler. Simply take the distance between the tip of your finger to the basal crease (I gather that’s the line at the base of your finger where your skin bends when you bring the finger to the palm). To get this 2D:4D ratio, divide the length of the index by the ring finger. Not that it would tell you much more than palmistry would, by measuring a single person :-).

I’ve seen in the literature this 2D:4D ratio range among humans from between 0.8 and 1.3, and there is great overlap between men and women in their distributions. But women average at a ratio of about 1 (their index and ring finger are the same length), and men average at about 0.98 (Say your index finger were 7.5 cm long; the average man would have a ring finger 0.2 cm longer). Though a small difference, it is outside the error bars with significantly large samples.

The thinking goes that whatever makes men physically different, such as index fingers relatively shorter than ring fingers, should be the effect of these androgens, these hormones that make us male. And there is evidence to back that up here.

From a study by Manning et al., for example, it was found this ratio is established at least as early as the age of two and “is probably established in utero” (4). Furthermore, it was found that only in the right hand this ratio was negatively correlated with sperm production and testosterone concentrations. Curiously enough the ratio also positively correlates with propensity for depression in men; testosterone makes us happy… (5). I’ve also seen reference to effect on sports ability, disease susceptibility, and “attractiveness”. In short though, it’s thought that low 2D:4D ratios indicate high prenatal testosterone and low estrogen, and High 2D:4D ratios indicate low prenatal testosterone and high estrogen.

The genetics in play with this ratio are apparent. It was pretty much established that it ran in families, even in races and continents (6). But a recent twin study found that the cause behind this ratio was approximately 60% in the genes (7) (add that to my other twin facts). The correlation for Monozygotic twins was 0.66 and 0.71 for the right and left hand respectively and, for Dizygotic Twins, 0.35 and 0.37 respectively. It’s important to note this asymmetry of the body here. I have posted before, tongue in cheek, about handedness (Fraternal Birth Order Effect.

They also found the 2D:4D ratio negatively correlated with the number of older brothers only, not sisters. But, for gay men, they were unable to escape their error bars. On the other hand, lesbians, were found to have significantly masculinized right hands (with, again, the left hand measurement not escaping the likely error).

So, some hints, but, clearly, the samples were too small and not matched for age and race. More needed to be done and soon after Robinson and Manning (who did the study on sperm production and testosterone concentrations above), published their own study (9). But again with relatively small samples, and, this time, predominately in one racial category. Also problematically, the control group of “heterosexuals” was chosen “without regard to sexual orientation.”

They found no reliance of the ratio on birth order (though once again they did find the Fraternal Birth Order Effect for gay men; it’s pretty well established by now :-)). Oddly enough, and keeping in mind their sample size, they found their gay men were significantly more mascilinized than straight men… But they also found bisexual men were the most masculinized of all. So, some odd, suspicious results to be sure. Again though, it’s early in the game, still in 2000.

Next up we have a study by McFadden in 2002 (10). Again, this was a study with too small of samples (35 gays, 29 lesbians and about twice the number of heterosexuals). Quickly, they found gays were more feminized and lesbians more masculinized in the 2D:4D ratio, more along the lines of common sense, and similar to the Williams study (8)… But with the numerical significance and disagreement with Robinson, it’s not anything to hang your hat on.

Next we have a study by Brown et al. (11). They went about a gay pride festival and asked lesbians to rate themselves as "butch" of "femme". They found about 90 in each group, and measured their hands. The self-identified “femme” lesbians did not show a diminished 2D:4D ratio from heterosexuals, but “butch” lesbians did. Now, I do find this to be a bit of a humorous study for some reason, but they have a point. Women are, in general, more plastic and bisexual in their sexual orientation than men, and such segregation may be needed to find an effect…

Finally, Lippa, in 2003 (12), used a much larger sample: 351 heterosexual men, 461 gay men, 707 heterosexual women, and 472 lesbian women. He also used many races and corrected for race in his calculations (this 2D:4D ratio is a function of race). His findings confirmed McFadden’s results and bolstered, in part, Williams, though contradicted Robinson's again. He found gay men were more feminized in this ratio, and in the length of the ring finger alone. These results were found for all races, save for Asia (for which he had only a small number of participants, 19). But, he found no significant effect with lesbians, compared to straight women; they were still within the anticipated error (possibly because he didn’t correct for the Butch-Femme effect? :-)).

So what’s the point? I guess the point is to never follow the progress of research and expect to have a good narrative (or a good blog post :-)). There’s no smoking gun here; still merely hints and suggestions and uncertainty. And there may be nothing to find; what makes this subtle ratio different in men and women may have nothing to do with orientation. For now, we wait for more measurements, and ignore those in the media who claimed proof was in on this one, and got everyone to measure their fingers for hints of the attraction they experience ;-).

1. Baum, M.J., et al., Prenatal and Neonatal Testosterone Exposure Interact to Affect Differentiation of Sexual Behavior and Partner Preference in Female Ferrets. Behavioral Neuroscience, 1990. 104(1): p. 183-198.
2. McCarthy, M.M., E.H. Schlenker, and D.W. Pfaff, Enduring Consequences of Neonatal Treatment with Antisense Oligodeoxynucleotides to Estrogen Receptor Messenger Ribonucleic Acid on Sexual Differentiation of Rat Brain. Endocrinology, 1993. 133(2): p. 433-439.
3. Brand, T., et al., Adult partner preference and sexual behavior of male rats affected by perinatal endocrine manipulations. Hormones and Behavior, 1991. 25(3): p. 323-341.
4. Manning, J.T., et al., The ration of 2nd to 4th digit length: a predictor of sperm numbers and concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen. Human Reproduction, 1998. 13(11): p. 3000-3004.
. Woodson, J.C., B.W. Balleine, and R.A. Gorski, Sexual Experience Interacts with Steroid Exposure to Shape the Partner Preferences of Rats. Hormones and Behavior, 2002. 42: p. 148-157.
5. Bailey, A.A. and P.L. Hurd, Depression in men is associated with more feminine finger length ratios. Personality and Individual Differences, 2005. 39: p. 829-836.
6. Loehlin, J.C., et al., Population Differences in Finger-Length Ratios: Ethnicity or Latitude? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2006. 35(6): p. 739-742.
7. Paul, S.N., et al., Heritability of the Second to Fourth Digit Ratio (2d:4d): A Twin Study. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 2006. 9(2): p. 215-219.
8. Williams, T.J., C.L. Jordan, and S.M. Breedlove, Finger length patterns indicate an influence of fetal androgens on human sexual orientation. Nature, 2000. 404: p. 455-456.
9. Robinson, S.J. and J.T. Manning, The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length and male homosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2000. 21: p. 333-345.
10. McFadden, D. and E. Schubel, Relative lengths of fingers and toes in human males and females. Hormones and Behavior, 2002. 42(492-500).
11. Brown, W.M., et al., Differences in Finger Length Ratios Between Self-Identified Butch and Femme Lesbians. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2002. 31(1): p. 123-127.
12. Lippa, R.A., Are 2D:4D Finger-Length Ratios Related to Sexual Orientation? Yes for Men, No for Women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003. 85(1): p. 179-188.

First Home

The first home R and I ever bought together was in a “planned community” in California. We moved into an apartment and bought the home when it was just a slab of concrete among other slabs of concrete.

But, as a planned community under all sorts of draconian restrictions, we weren’t allowed to pick the house color; they had to go in a particular order down the street. Why? I don’t know. It just made someone happy.

Anyway, what did we care? We were in a beautiful place, minuets from both the ocean and our work. But once we finally decided to follow the sequence of colors by counting the empty lots in-between, well, it turns out our first home was pink. Pink. As pink as any stucco has ever been pink.

Yeah, real funny, chance.

Still, I miss that small pink home at times, or, more specifically, it’s location in friendlier jurisdiction and its proximity to the ocean (even more specifically, in February, with the legislature in session).

I’m Your Man. Really. I am.

I’m supposed say some words tonight. Relatively, this one will be a very short speech and a small, mostly friendly crowd. I don’t know how many times I’ve done such since all these politics got set off for us a couple years ago, but it hardly ever works out great by my measure.

I don’t mind public speaking in general, but I’m no great orator. On top of that, the thing I’m most often asked to speak about is my family. Why we had children? What does family mean to us? What does love mean? All that is dangerous territory; I have to watch where I tread to not find myself showing strong emotion, no matter the circumstances or required decorum. But, I’ll not apologize for that :-). Typically, if I must avoid feeling it too strongly and openly, I’ll prepare something, and say it over and over until it’s pat, but who wants that to be pat?

In a way, it’s all a bit and subtlety dehumanizing, to put yourself out there in politics, but, at the same time, I think it needs to be done. Someone in our position should do it, or else the other side gets to frame the whole thing, and we’ll find ourselves with a bigger problem. It can make a positive difference, I hope. I suspect it’s a way to protect our family and others like us. It’s a way to state our case, to try to get those who’d never know such a family to merely see us, and I’ve this notion that it’s more difficult to harm people you’ve seen and heard :-). But I really don’t know.

Of course, there’s much that I’m sure is not too productive, and a line has to be found. I promptly trashed the solicitation from Trading Spouses (or the similar show?) we got last year. Can you imagine? I know I don’t want a week trying to show a stranger, one no doubt picked to be hostile, that we’re also human, with R away, let alone with a camera crew living in our home, and I’m sure the kids wouldn’t appreciate it on many more levels :-).

The invitation for tonight was received long while ago, via an email sent out to many families. I told R, no, we’d not do it this time. It’s someone else’s turn. He didn’t argue a bit, as he doesn’t speak either way (He just stands by my side and looks handsome :-)). A month passed and then we got a call asking us personally to do this; no people (or not enough?) with our particular sort of home decided to reply to the email.

I absolutely can’t blame them. Some here don’t have their parental rights established legally; some work in the closet; some have families who’d disown them if they went from endurably gay to openly gay. But we are greatly free of such problems, and, as bad at it as I am, I am your man :-)… though, for a limited time (once the kids get old enough to understand why I’m up there speaking, I don’t think we’ll want to speak). Anyway, again at that realization, I said yes, of course. The thought of not having representation eats at me, and so here I am.

Funny, though, I’m supposed to speak about why I want to be there and speak. And I do want and appreciate the opportunity. And I’m glad to have it… if no one else or more eloquent will take it. But how to phrase that the right way ;-)?

(As with some of my current event posts, this was not posted on the same day it was written. It went okay, went as expected, but I was once again misquoted, and apparently said something off-putting I didn’t say in my alternate reality :-)… Maybe I’ve a memory problem.)

Lupercalia

The book I own that I most enjoy owning sits unused, in tight care. I’ve never read more than a paragraph, and have only opened it with my grubby hands a couple times.

It’s a 15th century copy of Plutarch's Lives. I’ll stick to my paperback version, thank you very much :-). Besides, it’s not easy to read; the way of printing back then has some of the s’s looking too similar to f’s, and it’s annoying.

Anyway, from Plutarch’s Lives I found this description of Valentine’s day’s competition (a Feb 15th pagan holiday). This seems to be what the Pope of the time tried to replace and he succeeded in doing so. I'll leave it to you to decide if it was a good move:

It was, namely, the festival of the Lupercalia, of which many write that it was anciently celebrated by shepherds, and has also some connection with the Arcadian Lycaea. At this time many of the noble youths and of the magistrates run up and down through the city naked, for sport and laughter striking those they meet with shaggy thongs. And many women of rank also purposely get in their way, and like children at school present their hands to be struck, believing that it procures an easy labor to those who are with child, and makes those conceive who are barren.

[Sigh] I needed the levity... "Shaggy thongs"...

Happy Valentine’s Day!

(or Merry Lupercalia, if you're into that)

Hero

Here

Earlier today, Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner confirmed that an off-duty police officer from Ogden killed the 18-year-old gunman who shot up the Trolley Square mall last night in Salt Lake City.

Greiner says the officer was at the mall with his wife celebrating Valentine's Day two days early. He didn't release the officer's name.

Brave man, brave wife.

When I first heard this had happened, we weren’t too far away. I, for some reason, jumped to thinking it was some drug related killing in the mall parking lot. Too much TV maybe, or maybe it’s just more comfortable to think of such that way, particularly with the children with us.

But no, it was a random act of evil and the people killed had no idea their night out would end that way. Most of them were actually in a card shop, the day before Valentines.

It’s odd. On the same day so many more lives were cut tragically short and by surprise, in, say traffic accidents. But when one human does it to another, and with a “smile on his face,” it feels uniquely tragic, and the community feels it more traumatically, clearly. Not to diminish the pain of those who lost loved ones by accident; it just feels worse from the outside when another human wants it to happen.

It’s stuff like this that makes the world seem precariously balanced; it can make for a lot of pessimism. But men like this Ogden officer, who left his wife on their valentine dinner, purposefully stood in a gunman’s path, and put an end to it, make it seem it will all work out, nevertheless.

I Heard There Was a Secret Chord…

We all know David, king David of the Old Testament. But what is less known are the theories surrounding his relationship with Jonathan, Saul’s son. Without debate, it was an intense, and passionate relationship, and from the start. But was it a gay relationship?

It’s a bit difficult to know which is the most favored back-story as there are a couple traditions, seemingly interweaved into the version we end up with in the Old Testament. But, trying to make the best of what’s we get (beginning in 1Sam 16):

Saul was plagued by "an evil spirit from God" and Saul’s advisors thought that a skilled harpist could relieve his torment. At that, David is first brought into Saul’s court by the recommendation of advisors. He comes highly recommended as “a man of valor, a man or war, prudent in speech and a man of good presence; and the Lord is with him.” (1Sam 16:18). At the sight of David, Saul is very impressed and makes David his personal armourbearer. And it works; David’s playing keeps the evil spirit away, and Saul “refreshed”.

In the next chapter of 1Sam (17) we’re on an Iliad-esk battlefield, with Goliath of Gath, the Philistine hero. Goliath is making the familiar challenge to end the battle with single combat, mano-a-mano. But no one in Saul’s camp is up to facing the near 10’ tall giant. At this point, David is described as more of a sheepherder than a man of war; he’s in fact chastised by his older brother for leaving his “few sheep” to come “see the battle.” David asks some soldiers about the prize Saul might offer for taking Goliath down; it’s his daughter, and with that comes royalty, a good motivation. Here, as we all know, Goliath is felled by a single stone, and David takes his head. The captain of Saul’s forces, Abner, finds out who David is for Saul, and brings David before the king, head-in-hand, as it were. Here’s where our story picks up, where Jonathan and David connect (1Sam 18 1-4):

“And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.”

From this meeting, after the death of Goliath, Jonathan and David’s souls are knitted together, and clothes are given. But things go bad, to say the least (1Sam 18:10-11):

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand. And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.”

If it were a gay relationship, I’m sure many a father has felt similarly :-). Fortunately, David avoids being shish kebabed, and twice even. But he still sticks around. Saul offers David his daughter in marriage and hopes to get him killed by the Philistine’s hand in battle. But David was victorious again, if not eccentric in his choice of Philistine trophies (you can read the text for that :-)). Saul then plots outright to kill David, but Jonathan warns his friend, as he “delighted much in David” (1Sam 19-1-2).

In more twists than a day time drama, Saul then is convinced to not kill David. But David does well on the field of battle again and again, while playing his harp, God sends the evil spirit, and David is almost impaled by Saul’s javelin, supposedly a third time. That must have been the straw that broke the camel’s back; David finally fled with the help of Saul’s daughter, Michal.

Jonathan and David eventually get together and discuss the problem. Jonathan resolves “Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.” (1Sam 20:4), and they plan an elaborate scheme, to find out if Saul is angry with David. Put simply, if Saul is angry at thinking David went to Bethlehem to give a sacrifice, David will know Saul is upset at him, but if he’s fine with it, then David knows it’s all right to come back… Yes, it seems David can’t take a hint even while dodging javelins, but we have to remember many of these stories are likely the stitched together works of many authors, but, personally, their worth in not in dry biographical facts.

So, their plan was set in motion (1Sam 20:27-29):

“And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David's place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day? And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem: And he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the king's table.”

Saul is strangely confused as to why his javelin target isn’t at the dinner table, but David’s answer is clear in Saul’s reaction to the news (1Sam 20:30-33):

“Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.”

Saul, always with the javelins… Saul’s insult is thought to be particularly telling. Haven’t many gays been in the same situation, with a father, who they’re not fooling one bit in their having chosen someone, by their own “confusion” ;-)? Insulting a person’s mother as perverse may not be all too surprising, but coupling Jonathan’s “confusion” with “the confusion of thy mother's nakedness” (‘ervah, which indicates exposition of the genitals in particular) does not point to just any disgrace; it’s thought to point to a sexual disgraces in his relationship with David. Compare that to Saul’s treatment of Michal, when he finds she has deceived him for David’s sake.

Next is the warning to Jonathan, that he’ll not have his kingdom with David alive. I gather this could be seen as an indication that the matrilineal line of inheritance is still in play at this time, and thus David is as much an heir through marriage as Jonathan. Alternatively, one could see Saul as saying the relationship between the two men is the barrier to being “established”. Personally, I favor the former but couldn’t say, being such a layman here. I’d love to better understand if anyone else has a thought on it.

After finally realizing Saul is upset and means to kill David, Jonathan goes to their secret meeting place. There a confusing signal sent to David with arrows and a lad running after them. But the lad is sent away, leaving David and Jonathan alone to talk anyway (1Sam20:41-42):

[quote]David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.[/quote]

Sure, the kissing and the weeping (and exceeding?) are kind of provocative, but making such an oath, in the name of the Jewish God, should make some skeptical of there being a gay relationship, with Leviticus in mind. Also, if we understand Saul’s insult to be regarding the sexual nature of their relationship, real or no, there’d at least be a social taboo against such, one that maybe only heroes could overstep but maybe not. Still, there is question as to whether or not the Leviticus laws were enforced, and to what extent, prior to the exile. You don’t really have the Bible while you’re living it ;-).

Finally, wrapping up this tale, we have the death of Saul and Jonathan. At the news of this David laments (2Sam 1:26):

“I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

To sum up, some will look at the story of Jonathan and David and begin fuming at any suggestion there was romantic love between the two men. David is a very important religious figure who could never have such feelings for another man. He is said to be a respected ancestor of Jesus, and so on. They’ll say it was merely the sort of love we’re to give all our neighbors, brotherly love, and the affection was merely a sign of different cultures and times. The men were just abnormally good friends, with wives at home (David had more than one). To them the suggestion alone is perverted and there’d be no convincing otherwise without a different view on the topic of such love altogether.

The other side will say, yeah, “good friends”; we’ve heard that before. Good friends with souls knitted together, who share clothes, cry together, kiss each other, and feel a love for each other that surpasses the love typically associated with loving women in particular, not just any human. “Good friends” who others see as having chosen each other to their own confusion, to the confusion of their mother’s nakedness. “Good fiends” who’ll do “whatever” the other’s soul desires. Sure, they had wives and kids, as did other people, undoubtedly gay or bisexual in history. It was a means to survive or a duty to the culture and, with that satisfied, they had their true loves elsewhere. No, they were as gay as the uncle on Bewitched.

But no one will settle this debate either way, and I certainly can’t tell who’s right. If I had to guess, though… To me, the stories surrounding Jonathan and David are a lot like the other stories of the region. Some of them did include versions with gay relationships among otherwise straight heroes, such as Achilles and Patroclus. I’d bet the stories in 1Sam are created similarly, with some fact, some fiction, and discordant voices, each adding their two cents. I think the narrative as given does show this melding of various traditions as well, and I’d not be surprised if one of them did have a gay tint to it. But, as to the relationship between an actual Jonathan and an actual David, that, barring some improbable findings of earlier editions of their tale, is lost to time.

Still, I’m glad to not be one who’d think their relationship wrong, if it were meant to be romantic. If it were, it’s certainly a very passionate, though tragic tale.

Minutia

I thought about posting on a couple things today: the gay NBA player (why couldn’t he have been a more valuable player? :-)), or Larry Miller’s regret for pulling Brokeback Mountain from his theaters, or Buttars' putting teath back into the GSA bill... But I’m a bit tired of such for some reason, and, besides, I’m getting low on images :-).

If it’s not clear, each post I try to put up some, often-enhanced image taken from my microscope. It’s a limited, modest model I bought for our home. I’ve used it for research a couple times, when I’ve wanted to work from home, but mainly it’s there for my amusement, and now as a teaching tool for the boys.

I like the symbolism, for one thing. You know, examining the minutia, focusing in… And also that my troubles and fights are all really small, in time and space, and relative to many more lives. I do have it very good from such perspective and I hope to keep that in mind when I’m bi*beep*ing :-).

There is an ego-numbing awe-inspiring beauty to be found at every scale it seems, and some of my favorites are found in the incredibly tiny. I used to use my lunch at one place to take SEM images of insects and pollen. I’d rather be hungry and have such a sight. Anyway, I hope others feel similarly, and forgive some naked posts until I find time to sit down with the microscope again (It ain’t that easy in the winter to find new things to image, once you’ve gone through the kitchen :-)).

For this post, though, I’ll include the smallest sculpture I’ve ever made:

It’s an AFM image of a polymer film I had deposited on glass; the scale of the images is about that of a red blood cell. Simplified, the AFM (atomic force microscope) uses a tiny tip on a tiny cantilever that bounces across a surface, like a needle on a record player. The angle at which this cantilever is deflected by the surface causes a laser to reflect off the top of the cantilever at different angles to strike a sensor, which results in a voltage that can be translated into a physical distance.

I was hoping to repeat another’s work and pull strands of polymer up like little threads to measure the forces involved (didn’t work out in the end). But we weren’t even sure at first if we were hitting the right surface. The force curve looked all-wrong, compared to the literature. But as I was using the tip to both image and poke the surface, I couldn’t see what I was doing while I was doing it, but every now and then, when scanning, I could see these little hills that I thought I may have made.

At that I decided to draw a little design, so that I could see if I was indeed making those hills despite the force curve being "wrong". It was, of course, a hexagon with a dot in the middle. I programmed the AFM, and it made its 7 blind stabs at the surface. I then scanned the sample and there was my little design; seems I was hitting the surface and forcing these tiny pits and mountains into the film, and the film was probably there… or it was just a coincidence ;-).

I don’t know why, such just strikes me as beautiful.

Three Weeks

Reports are still a bit sparse, but it seems the disgraced Reverend Ted Haggard is now a heterosexual, and not just any heterosexual but “completely heterosexual”… after merely three weeks of therapy. From here:

"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph [one of the men in charge of Rev. Haggard] said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting- out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing.

So if you’ve been trying for years to stop "acting out", what’s taking you so long? Seems simple enough.

I tried but I just can’t bear to put the “humor” tag on this story.

A, B Symbiosis

Once, during a lull in some function, I was talking to a friend. She was there as a representative for the black community, and the topic of an activist from another ethnic community came up. To say this other activist was vocal would be a huge understatement, and at this point in time he had upset and directly insulted many people, even many in his camp. He’d gone after me a couple times too. Nevertheless, he’s the sort of person it’s hard to not like one-on-one, very charismatic.

Anyway, she told me something that has stuck with me. She said every movement for social and political change has two sorts of people, Xs and MLKs. Not as though she was or I am comparing anyone to these men, here, but she was saying these two men represent two different and necessary philosophies of political movements. To avoid a mess of comparison (as I’m sure what follows doesn’t sum up either man) I’ll call them Type-A and Type-B.

She explained that the Type-As are in the face of power; they aren’t asking; they’re demanding. They’ll take what’s their right by force if necessary (or at least make those in control think they would) and they’re not out to build bridges. They’ll shout, accuse, threaten, and disobey. If they aren’t violent, they’ll try to look violent and play more on the masses’ discomfort than their commonality. They’re here and they’re [blank] and you handle it however you want, but there will be consequences.

Clearly she was talking about this guy. And I must admit I’ve not liked this sort of behavior in any group. I’ve not seen it as productive. In fact, when in my community, I’ve seen it as dangerous and often pushing away what’s important for both the majority and the minority. But she gave me pause, and what she went on to explain still does.

There’s the other type, the Type-Bs, and, while the Type-As and the Type-Bs may overlap in places, the Type-Bs are far more conciliatory. They want those bridges; they don’t want to get their right by force or fear; they’d rather it be given out of conscience. While they may disobey; they do it with peace; they show respect for the other side’s humanity, even when the other side is out to hurt them. Now these are the people I’ve most respected in any social movement.

The way she explained it, though, is that the Type-Bs wouldn’t get very far without the Type-As. The majority moves for both fear and conscience. The Type-As give the majority motivation to look for a cooler head, and to question themselves. They make the minority’s problems pressing, and make listening to the Type-B’s a good option, one without the losing of face that’d come with “negotiating with the terrorist tactics” of the Type-As. A sort of good cop, bad cop on a larger scale.

I’m not sure how much I believe this or how applicable it is to a perpetually small minority. Some days I’m pretty sure I don’t give it much weight outright. But other days… I’m just saying it makes me far less quick to judge the far more radical queers of the world.