Disagree without being disagreeable

I hope to convince my church to adopt a Vision Statement that explicitly says we welcome all people (including gays). So far the response has been mostly yawns. However, I will soon start talking about specifics -- actually talking about gay people -- and I may have to disagree and I don't want to be disagreeable. Here's ideas on how to do that.

* People may think they are trying to help. Acknowledge the help then gently explain why it isn't helping.

* People may be oblivious to the damage they are causing. Gently point out why their actions aren't as benign as they think. Watch out for when people are acting from a position of privilege because they get defensive. Note the privilege only means benefiting from outside sources.

* Others goals may be opposition to mine. Acknowledge which goals remain in common.

* Only then consider the response as antagonistic. It usually isn't.

Be aware in ways the conversation can be misunderstood.

* What is said may not be what is meant.

* What is heard may not be what is said. This includes physical problems in speaking and hearing along with mismatch between words, tone of voice, and body language. It also includes the recipients mental state and how well attention is being paid.

* The conclusion reached may not be what is heard. The message may be incomplete and the listener fills in the gaps based on personal experience, including past experience with the same speaker.

* There is an emotional response to the conclusion, including whether the listener allows that emotion to be felt.

* All that, plus personal rules, guide possible responses.

Most of the time this process works just fine and happens almost instantly. But discussions get heated usually because a step in this chain breaks. Time to take a step back.

What is the speaker (including myself) trying to accomplish? Pass on information? Prove I'm right? Convince? Simply vent? If venting, let it get out of the way and do it in a manner appropriate.

If to convince, one needs to sell arguments in a way the other person can understand.

I've encountered the person who thinks that if I don't agree with them it means that if they keep at it they might convince me. Sometimes it means I don't agree with them. That point should be acknowledged if each side can accurately summarize the other's arguments. Further discussion is only annoying.

If you are convinced, acknowledge it.

A possible way out of a disagreement is to reframe the issue, to state it from another perspective.

Know your audience. It may be more than the person sitting in front of you.

Answer calmly and with facts. Never respond to an insult with another one. Respect your opponent. They may be a good person trying to do what's right. And if they aren't, responding with utmost politeness (but not condescension) can be a lot of fun.

Don't confuse civility with weakness.

Don't project your experiences on the other person. Let them talk about their own experiences.

I don't want to be like that

The Southern Baptist Convention has been the driving force of much of the attempted Fundie takeover of American government over the last couple decades. Yet, this second largest Christian denomination (16 million, behind Catholics) is worried about decline. They could lose half their membership by 2050. Along with that they would lose (are losing) their strong influence on Southern politics and culture. This probably also means a decline in the GOP. The SBC is known for well run youth programs, yet the big reason for the decline is that the kids are not staying.

The reason seems obvious to me. Say nasty, illogical, and downright wrong things about people (especially gays) and the people you want to attract will say, "I don't want to be like that."

There are reasons why I'm not a politician

The Senate has passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill! I think it has already passed the House. On to Obama for an expected signature and a return of our "fierce advocate!" Um …

It isn't that Obama doesn't want to sign it. He does.

It's that the vote to approve it was a vote to attach it to a defense spending bill. And that defense bill has a big pile of money for more F-22 military planes. So what, you might say. Well, the Pentagon doesn't want those planes and neither does the Prez. They were designed for dogfights with Soviet planes and are quite inappropriate for the wars we now face as well as expensive. Yet, the maker of the plane has cannily worked it out so its supplier base is in 44 states -- cancel the plane and 88 senators are upset about job losses in their state, not to mention leaving our nation undefended at a critical time (see above about inappropriate). To force the issue, Obama has said if the bill contains F-22 funding he will veto it. And the hate crimes bill too.

It ain't over yet. A lot can happen with the bill before Congress approves the final package. The F-22 funding could be taken out. The hate crimes amendment could be taken out. Or both. Or neither. Confused yet?

However, it has left a lot of gay groups wondering why Senate Dems insisted the only way to get hate crimes protection passed was to attach it to the defense bill. There was that vote to attach it as an amendment which passed by 62 votes. Isn't that an indication that it would pass on its own? But what do I know about politics? Or timidity?

The Fundie furor over the Matthew Shepard law is still going strong and is still as absurd as before. Top of the list of false claims is that the law trumps the 1st Amendment and will silence pastors preaching against gays. As one loudmouth put it:

Those who publically [sic] express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as “homophobic bigots” to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

I'm pleased to see the larger society has pretty much ignored the KKK and neo-Nazis lately (though that may change if these groups turn violent). However, has either group been silenced by law enforcement or the courts? Um … no. White Supremacist groups have conducted over 100 rallies and demonstrations across the country so far this year. So you were saying?

Until they get tired of their own bigotry

Organizations for gays of color in Calif. say don't rush to put the marriage issue back on the ballot in 2010. The margin of victory will be too small. Here are some of the issues they raise:

* The entire gay-and-ally community needs to be onboard, and many color allies (and non-English speakers) aren't there yet. Work must be done to make gays of color feel it is their fight too.
* Public support hasn't changed much since the days after the election. Don't proceed with another vote until you're sure of a win. Note that polls can overstate support.
* It will be tougher to raise the money in a recession (and it will be expensive).
* Changing the minds of voters will take a while and that action needs to begin now.
* We don't yet have the robust infrastructure for a get-out-the-vote campaign. We were caught off guard last time.
* More time is necessary to forge relationships with labor and religious allies.

Commenters add a few more reasons.

* If it fails it will be harder to raise money for a third attempt.
* There's already an immigration bill set for 2010, which will draw out the Fundies.
* 2012 means two more years of old people dying off and young people becoming eligible to vote.

Put it in numerical terms this way: One estimate says that it takes 350 volunteer-hours to change 50 votes (basis for the claim is not given). That means to insure victory 2.1 million volunteer-hours are needed. What is the plan to make that happen in the mere 475 days until the 2010 election? What is the plan to raise the needed money?

However, not everyone agrees with the need for a two year delay. The Courage Campaign, which has been working since the last election didn't go our way, asked its members when the repeat campaign should be held. Over 80% chose 2010 over 2012. It has already been hard at work training volunteers and building campaign infrastructure.

Besides, 2012 is a presidential year and that will suck a lot of volunteers away from the marriage efforts. If we don't aim for 2010 are people going to contribute the necessary money for all that groundwork? It won't be front-page news and donors may not give if "nothing" is happening. Better to harness the existing anger and frustration. Our current debate over date is being hailed by the Fundies as a fatal split which will allow them to avoid financing another vote.

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin says the major groups that issued the plea to wait have ulterior motives. Some of them are:

* One is an organization that combats HIV (more prevalent in gays of color) and they fear donations to a campaign mean smaller donations to them.
* One is the group that ran the last campaign (badly) and they don't want to be blamed for a second loss.

Meaning, they are working from fear. We should instead fear that our enemies will define the battleground.

So far when we've lost the marriage battle in a state, we've given up that state. We should have been gathering signatures to put the question back on the ballot every year even if we don't spend much time and money for passage in our favor. Voters need to face the question repeatedly until they get tired of their own bigotry. Don't worry about spending $40 million each time the question comes up in Calif. Run a grass-roots campaign (without the wimpy scripts) until it passes, no matter how many times it takes. Put it on the Calif. ballot in 2010? Yes. And get it on the ballot in Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, and the rest of the 30 states with a ban in their constitution. And do it again in 2012, 2014, and 2016 or until all of the bans are gone.

As for Calif. it will be on the ballot in 2010. Enough people are committed to gather signatures to make it happen. Once it is on the ballot, are you going to help or not?

Inclusion in the face of exclusion

I commented a couple days ago that the Episcopal Church, in their national convention, chose to allow gays to be bishops. That means they chose inclusion of gays at the risk of their exclusion from the Anglican Communion. The House of Bishops have taken the next step in asking for the collection and development of liturgies for blessing same-sex couples.

I'm not the only one who has concluded various denominations are losing members primarily because of their stance on gay issues (and many who are gay friendly get tarred by the same brush wielded against our loudest opponents). Opposing gays is not a survival trait. That means it's just as well the Episcopalians allow the ties to be severed while the Anglicans die away. Who wants a church leader who believes in the right thing yet won't do it for political expediency?

How do I distort thee? Let me count the ways

The Fundie's distortion of gays has been going on so long it is possible to list such things as Top 6 Distortion Techniques and Top 17 Lies. The distortion techniques are:

* Use old studies (from when being gay was classified as an illness), studies that weren't meant to generalize, or drawing homosexual conclusions from studies that didn't include gays (children need Mom and Dad, so gays can't adopt). There are long lists of researchers saying their work is misused.

* Repetition. In spite of complaints of distortion, the citations are not removed.

* Conspiracy Theory. That dratted Homosexual Agenda.

* Dire Consequences (always without proof). We'll be the downfall of Western Civilization.

* Phony Experts. Making claims in an area in which they have no expertise.

* Dehumanizing Semantics. All that indoctrinating of innocent kids.

Many of the lies have been spouted so often we know most of them by heart, so I won't list them all. A selection:

* The homosexual lifestyle is more harmful than cigarette smoking.

* Gays want to silence Christians.

* All gays are pedophiles.

* A judge who rules in our favor is an "activist."

* Homosexuals can change their orientation.

Such distortions are, of course, institutionalized. Since the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly supports gays, Fundie groups have created the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) to trumpet their distorted research. This posting explores the first distortion technique in more detail. One of the commenters adds a supporting detail: get the "research" published in a journal and claim it has been properly peer-reviewed (but only by people who are also anti-gay, not necessarily with proper expertise).

Here is a list of articles and books in which the authors complain that their work has been distorted by Fundies. A responder notes they distort the bible, why do we expect something different with science?

Use sunscreen anyway

I post this article because my mother has had to deal with skin cancer (that was 20-30 years ago and she's still alive). Because of her experience I am much more likely to use sunscreen. In an article in the Nature Genetics journal says that sunshine does not contribute to the deadliest form of skin cancer, known as melanoma, unless a person also has a large number of moles. With these people it is possible for the moles to become cancerous. But other people don't have such risk.

However, that does not mean one should stop using sunscreen, because the sun can cause several other problems, including sunburn, other kinds of skin cancers (which aren't as deadly), and wrinkles. Sunlight is bad, it just isn't likely to kill you. Balance that with a person's need for vitamin D, which a body makes from sunshine. Just keep in mind that one doesn't need a whole lot of sun to get enough vitamin D (which also comes in tablet form).

The trial balloon succeeded

The Episcopal Church has ended its moratorium on more gay bishops by passing a resolution allowing each diocese (district) to decide for itself whether to consider gay candidates. The head of the worldwide Anglican Church is (naturally) disappointed.


A gay mayor is asked to officiate at a straight friend's wedding. The mayor's husband (they were married in Calif. a year ago) ponders the situation in which the mayor can officiate at weddings, even out of state, but his own marriage is not recognized in the state where he now lives.


Gay marriages performed elsewhere are now recognized in DC. The time in which Congress could overrule the district has passed. Apparently, this was a trial balloon for allowing gay marriages to be performed in DC. Since so few in Congress made a stink (and no effort to repeal) next up on the city council's agenda is the real thing.

Pursuing happiness in the wrong places

What makes for happiness? The New Economic Foundation says it isn't economic growth. "Once our basic material needs are met, more consumption tends to make little difference in our well-being." The downside of growth is that more consumption is hard on the planet.

That, of course, can be turned into graphical and map terms. On one side is a combination of life expectancy and life satisfaction. On the other is the ecological footprint, a measure of resources needed to support a lifestyle. Maps in this posting show these two separate values in addition to the combination. If I interpret the color key correctly, if the whole world consumed like we do it would take more than 4 earths to provide enough resources. For the consumption rate of most countries it would take 2-3 earths.

That results in countries, mostly in Africa, with low scores in both life expectancy/satisfaction and in ecological footprint. They're not happy because of their need. Most of the Western countries have high scores in both categories. We're spending a great deal of the world's resources in pursuit of happiness and looking in the wrong places.

And then there are many countries, most in Latin America, in which they manage to have a high life expectancy/satisfaction and a low ecological footprint. They've found the balance (though still using more than 1 planetfull of resources).