Recently in Gay Issues Category

Generally speaking, I do not "officially" come out at work.  It's not that I deny or hide the fact that I'm a gay man, and I suspect that most people who see me at work at least suspect or even assume that I'm gay, given the number of stereotypical characteristics I happen to exhibit.  But after becoming the "office curisiosity" at my first job, I otherwise tend to not discuss my sexuality or my love life on any job.

But like I said, I don't hide who I am either.  In fact, I don't even think about what it would take to hide who I am, as my experience yesterday so aptly proved.  For various reasons, I decided to bring my iPad in to work with me.  As much of my desk is covered with computers and equipment for my job, I placed my beloved device on the safest space still left clear on my desk:  The corner that's right next to the walkway through my work area.  I then started taking care of my work and didn't think of my iPad again until around 2pm (five hours later).

That's when it occurred to me that I had, as is my custom, laid my iPad so that the screen was face down and the cover was facing upward, visible to anyone who walked by and happened to glance down at my desk.  That cover happens to look like this (except it has a few stains on it now):



Well, if people at work didn't suspect, they surely do now!

Personally, beyond being somewhat embarrassing and a sign of how little I think about these things these days, this really isn't a big deal for me.  I'm very fortunate -- even privileged -- by the fact that I work in a field (software engineering) that (in my experience at least) tends to be fairly tolerant of those who fall outside of many societal norms in exchange for the work done by such people.  Plus, I'm privileged enough to live in a state that includes non-discrimination protections based on sexual orienation.  (We're still working on getting non-discrimination protections based on gender identity and gender expression, though.)  As such, I can rest comfortably in the knowledge that, unlike someone who works in a less skilled job and/or has the disadvantage of working in a state that permits hostility toward and workplace discrimination against non-heterosexual people, the worst thing that will happen to me is a bit of embarrassment.

While I'm grateful for that, I also want to take this time to advocate for those who are not as privileged, who might face much more severe consequences if it became known in their workplace that they were part of the QUILTBAG community.  If you live in a place that doesn't offer non-discrimination protections for QUILTBAG people, please advocate for such protections.  Here in New York State, the Empire State Pride Agenda is still pushing for the passage of GENDA, and I'm sure other states have organizations pushing for such policies.  Please consider supporting them with your voice and possibly your money.

And don't forget the national organizations that help with these fights not only on a federal level, but with assistance on state levels as well.

Right Wing Watch reports that the Florida Family Association is expressing disdain over the fact that Office Depot is donating money to Lady Gaga's Born This Way Foundation.  In the pre-created message that FFA generated for its supporters to voice their disapproval to the office supply store, they cite as an argument that there is "no scientific evidence that anyone is born this way (gay.)"  To bolster their claim, they even cite the American Psychiatric Association:

The American Psychiatric Association wrote the following information in a May 2002 article titled "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Fact Sheet," published on its website Psych.org:     "No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality.'  http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=1335

Unfortunately, the FFA fails to include the full American Psychiatric Association quote from their linked source (emphasis added by me):

"No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."

There is an importance difference between saying that "no one has identified the specific biological factors involved" and "there is no evidence that biology is involved at all."  The American Psychiatric Association said the former in 2002, while the FFA is pretending that they said the latter.

Of course, the FFA's linked source has an even more recent quote (from 2009) from the American Psychological Assocation (emphasis added by me):

"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."

This statement is in complete contradiction to the FFA's claims and their attempt to use the American Psychiatric Association's 2002 statement to support their erroneous and quite possibly dishonest claims.  This is the kind of cherry picking that the anti-gay activists are notorious for.  When they're not relying on their own faux-experts, they are cherry-picking partial quotes from real experts and misrepresenting them.  What's strange about this instance is that they provide a link to a site that actually contradicts their cherry-picked soundbite.

One can only assume that honesty is no longer a family value in these people's minds.

Recently, there's been a bit of a brouhaha between Exodus International's Alan Chambers and others in the ex-gay industry due to Chambers's rejection and criticisms of reparative therapy.  Recently, NARTH president Joseph Nicolosi chimed in, correcting some of Chambers's statements and criticizing the Exodus International president.

I want to focus on the last paragraph of Nicolosi's email:

If homosexual acts truly constitute sin, as you say you believe, then people deserve to be able to avail themselves of all reasonable therapeutic tools to diminish unwanted SSA and explore their OSA potential. You are discouraging them from having such tools, and also as a Christian, you are reassuring them that they are OK whether they "fall" or not, which gives people very little reason to struggle against a condition which has very deeply negative implications for both themselves and for our culture.

It's unclear to me what Nicolosi means when he suggests that Alan Chambers is "telling them [gay people] that they are OK whether they 'fall' or not."  Some, such as Dave Rattigan, have interpretted "OK" to mean "Will go to heaven."  I can certainly see where one might interpret the statement that way, though I'm not convinced it's the only explanation.  Nicolosi could also, for example, be suggesting that he still champions the belief that even being attracted to members of the same sex is sinful and problematic, a belief that has been discarded by most.  Or he could simply be suggesting that Chambers should be encouraging gay people to feel miserable about themselves and are full of self-loathing.  Quite frankly, I don't find either of my alternate interpretations any less detestable than Rattigan's, but I think it's important to include them.

I think what's more interesting is Nicolosi's suggestion that gay people need some sort of external impetus -- be it the threat of hellfire or people encouraging them to view themselves with self-loathing, to change.  And while Nicolosi thinks that without such impetus, people won't be motivated to change and avoid the "very deeply negative implications for bot themselves and for our culture."  To me, that begs a qustion though:  why aren't those "deeply negative implications" motivation enough?

If the condition of being gay negatively impacts people, then that should be sufficient reason for them to seek change.  And yet, they're not.  Nicolosi is himself admitting that they're not and won't.  I can only assume that Nicolosi simply doesn't think people are adults and lack the maturity to do the things in what's their best interests or that Nicolosi is being dishonest -- with others and possibly even himself -- about these supposedly "deeply negative implications" he mentions.

A commenter over at Ex-Gay Watch drew my attention to Jeff Buchanan's article, "The New Sexual Identity Crisis."  Buchanan is the executive vice president of Exodus International, and his article offers reason why he -- and possibly Exodus, as the organization has often held a similar position -- discourages Christians from identifying as gay, even if they find themselves (exclusively) attracted to members of their own sex.  (Which, you know, is the definition of being gay.)

He starts out his argument by pointing out that our culture seems to be addicted to identity labels in general, though it quickly becomes clear that his real issue is specifically with identity labels that refer to sexual orientation and/or gender identity.  After all, he doesn't seem to mind using the identify labels of "executive vice president" or "pastor" in his mini-bio at the end of his article....

Of the particular identity labels that bother him, he offers the following introductory comment:

One can look at the gay community and see the level of identity fragmentation represented in the use of acronyms such as LGBTQIA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex, Ally). The sexual identity label has become a method of reducing individuals to a micro narrative of sexual orientation.

First, we need to note that three (and arguably a fourth) of his labels are not about sexual orientation at all.  Being transgender or intersex is about one's gender identity[1], which is distinct from sexual orientation.  Being an ally is about supporting and promoting the welfare of LGBTQI people rather than the actual sexual orientation or gender identity of the ally.  The fact that Buchanan is oversimplifying the issues surrounding the labels he's describing to the point of misrepresentation, I would suggest that going on to discuss the "politics" involved in such identity labels puts him on shaky ground.

Secondly, where Buchanan sees "fragmentation," I see only an attempt to describe the complex spectrum of sexuality and gender through limited language.  Given the diverse possibilities of sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression of both gender and sexuality in general, it seems that a large vocabulary of descriptive labels is both good and necessary.

Thirdly, I would note that describing someone as gay, lesbian, trans, intersex, or any other such label in no way reduces them "to a micro narrative of sexual orientation" or gender identity.  Identifying myself as gay -- or allowing others to do so -- does not negate the fact that I am also a software engineer, a brother, a son, a writer, a blogger, a reader, a psychic, a witch, or any of the other myriad things that make up my identity.

Indeed, I will note that the people most likely to push such a narrative are people like Buchanan and the homophobic people who use the ex-gay narrative to demonize and marginalize LGBTQI people.  It is the conservative, anti-gay churches who choose to focus on youn gay people's gayness and treat them differently.  It is the anti-gay crowd that has historically and incessantly pushed the idea that all the need to know about gay people is that they're gay and after that, nothing matters.  (And hey, I've explained before how that mentality can contribute to some gay people focusing so much on their sexual orientation, themselves.)

In short, if people like Buchanan is concerned that adopting a "gay identity" shouldn't be such a big deal, then they should quit making a big deal about it.

Buchanan then goes on to give six "points to consider" as his reasons why he doesn't feel the "gay identity" is "compatible with an identity in Christ."  The first reason he offers is that taking on other "identity labels" is that it dilutes one's "identity in Christ":

With every additional label--whether it is occupation, gifts, interests, or sexual orientation---we detract from the complete work of Christ in our lives and splinter our identity into fragments.

But again, note that he uses other labels in his own mini-bio, labels which refers to his occupation.  I also doubt that he would counsel a woman to quit identifying as a "mother" or a man to quit identifying as an "executive."  The only labels he seems to worry about are ones like "gay."  As such, I would argue that this inconsistently applied argument is little more than padding for the list.

I find myself having the same issues with his argument about "sexual segregation."

An identity based upon same-sex attractions can potentially create a segregated church community. Those dealing with same-sex attraction can be tempted to obsessive introspection and self-pity. The sexual identity label can create an "I'm Special" category that encourages narcissism. But everyone in the church struggles with various challenges and problems. No one's struggle is unique. We must not let such differences isolate us from the strength found in a sharing community.

The same can be said of any label.  If you talk to many mothers, they will go on at length about their own personal struggles that non-mothers don't experience.  (As someone who has a sister who is a devout Christian and a stay-at-home-mom of four wonderful children, I can attest to this.)  Married couples often speak of problems they have that single people don't and vice versa.

But again, I doubt Buchanan is unlikely to apply this "desegregation logic" to those situations and encourage spouses, parents, and singles to quit identifying as such.  This suggests to me that Buchanan wishes to downplay and even invisibilize LGBT people's struggles in the church rather than avoid "segregation."

Next, Buchanan touches on what I suspect is the most honest reason in his list, the "anchoring" issue:

While some who suffer receive immediate explanations from God, others are challenged to wait. In the midst of waiting, we must always have hope. An identity rooted in same-sex attractions serves as an anchor that keeps us docked in our present circumstance. We have accepted our lot in life, and experience now becomes our identity. Should a person ever develop a desire to explore a heterosexual relationship, he or she will find it difficult to overcome the label that can deter interested parties.

Despite Alan Chambers's recent admissions, Buchanan is really still holding out the "change" carrot.  "Don't say you're gay, because it closes the possibility that you could fall in love with someone of the appropriate sex!" he says.  I suspect that Buchanan's real concern is that if people fully accept that they are gay and quit "hoping" for that change -- that his own boss admits is highly unlikely to come -- they might start considering other options.  And at the heart, I think that's what "don't identify as gay" is really trying to avoid.

The thing is, his argument doesn't hold water.  Identifying as gay will not prevent one from experiencing it if one happens to be one of the statistical miracles that really does fall in love with someone of a different sex.[2]  If that statistical anomaly happens, then it happens.

As for how any particular woman feels about it, I would imagine that if a gay guy falls for her and it's God's will, won't God lead her to feel the same way, no matter what he's called himself prior to then?

And if this does happen, here's the beautiful thing about labels:  They are not carved into stone.  A man who falls in love with a woman may requalify himself as "mostly gay, except that I love this woman I fell in love with." Or he may relabel himself as "bisexual" or "straight."  (Though I'd personally raise an eyebrow at that last one in some cases.)  If a person's feelings and attractions authentically change, the labels zie and others use to describe zirself can change as well.

And just to show the complete absurdity of this idea, consider telling a diabetic zie should not identify as diabetic.  After all, for all the diabetic knows, God could decide to heal zem of zir diabetes.  So doesn't identifying as diabetic anchor zem to that identity and close their eyes to the hope of healing?

Next, Buchanan tackles the topic of authenticity.

Many in this younger generation with same-sex attraction feel they must adopt the "gay" label in order to be authentic. Considering the word authentic means "not false" or "conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features," one must consider if taking on this label is defining a person by identity or by experience. Many mistake disclosure for authenticity. They are trapped by a cultural philosophy of "I feel therefore I am." True authenticity can only be achieved by conforming to the image of Christ rather than idol of our desires.

The distinction between "identity" and "experience" strikes me as weird, arbitrary, and highly synthesized.  It seems to have this idea that what you feel and what you experience cannot be trusted (which I find a rather surprisingly postmodern concept for someone like Buchanan to express.)  Who one is attracted to is about personal experience, yes, but it is a fact.  To say that one is not gay while being attracted to members of one's own sex strikes me much like denying that one is a Justin Beiber fan despite feeling an overwhelming desire to squeal with pleasure every time one of his songs comes up on a radio

I'll also note that his last statement demonstrates exactly why many of us find the desire to avoid the word "gay" so inauthentic.  They wish to claim an "identity" based on what they believe God tells them they should be, but have not achieved and admittedly may never achieve.  How is that authentic?

His fifth reason, "Power of a Name" struck me as much rhetoric without a point.  To be honest, it sounds a lot like certain forms of magick.  I will also note that the verse Buchanan quotes makes no mention of names.  Indeed, I find its use in this context as strange as Buchanan's fifth point itself.

His final argument against using the term gay is that the term is too confusing:

While it is true that definitions are subject to change, this reasoning doesn't translate in the realm of gay sexual identity. The term "gay" can have vast socio-political and cultural connotations, and it raises such question as whether the person holds to a traditional orthodoxy on the issue of homosexuality.

First I will note that to gay people, gay means "attracted to members of the same sex."  Any connotations added to the word are not universal.  Indeed, I'll note that many of the connotations that Buchanan is hinting at -- non-monogamy, a preference for casual sex, and substance abuse -- are connotations that have been peddled by ex-gay groups like Exodus for years.  And while I certainly do not deny that each of those things can readily be found among some LGBT people, they are by no means universal.  There are LGBT people who are monogamous, prefer romance, and/or do not touch drugs and even alcohol.  Again, it is organizations like the one Buchanan helps lead that have pushed to keep those connotations inextricably linked to being gay.  In reality, the LGBT community is much more diverse.

Furthermore, I will note that by discouraging gay people to eschew the label of "gay," Buchanan is effectively ensuring that people continue to see "gay" people only in light of those connotations.  If Buchanan were truly concerned about how gay people are perceived, its seems to me that he would encourage people to identify as gay to visibly broaden the many diverse ways in which a gay person can think, feel, and experience their lives as a gay person.  Instead, he chooses to invisibilize those gay people who would counter his own organizations long-standing narrative about gay people -- or more specifically, encourage those gay people to invisibilize themselves.

But to truly show how ridiculous this argument is, let's apply the same argument to the "Christian" label.  After all, the term "Christian" comes with connotations of crusades, heresy hunts, parents kicking their gay dependent children out or forcing them into horrible forms of therapy, picketing funerals with messages of hate, and many other atrocities.  So will Buchanan now call for all Christians to eschew the Christian label?  After all, given all the connotations that the term might bring to mind, it could lead to confusion.

I suspect instead, Buchanan would simply point out that further conversation and clarification of what a particular Christian believes and does would resolve the confusion.  It's a shame he seems that the term "gay" is somehow impervious to similar clarifying conversations.

Notes:
[1]  Actually, I'm not sure I'm entirely accurate in equating the state of being intersex with gender identity, though it is certainly related to sex and gender.  Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the issue will offer a more accurate statement.

[2]  And seriously, what is Buchanan saying about his belief in regards to God's omnipotence?  Can God's master plan to introduce a gay man to the one woman he will inevitably fall in love with really be waylayed simply by that man referring to himself as "gay"?

The other day, I was reading a blog post about one of Linda Harvey's recent anti-gay screeds.  As I read through the comments, I found this doozy:

Man, she must be a dud in the sack.

Given the commenter's name (Ted), I'm going to assume he's a man.  Given the comment was left on a blog that focuses on LGBT issues, I'm going to assume that it's highly likely that Ted is a gay man.  This leads me to several thoughts, in fairly random order:
What does her ability in bed have to do with her awful and erroneous statements about gay people?
Why does a (presumably) gay guy care how she is in bed?
Why is a (presumably) gay guy placing a woman's value on how good she is in bed?

I do not care for Linda Harvey.  I have major issues -- and I'd argue rightfully so -- with the horrible things she has said about gay people and how she constantly fuels the anti-gay fires in our society.  I do not, however, feel that this gives me any right to speculate about her sex life, how satisfying she finds it, or how satisfying her partner or partners may find sex with her.  It's none of my business, and it would be downright rude of me to speculate.

Furthermore, it would be downright misogynistic of me to suggest that her ability in bed in any way reflects on her value as a woman.  And that's exactly what the above comment is intended to do, as far as I'm concerned.  It's a sexist way of dismissing the (admittedly awful) things that she says on nothing more than a personal attack framed in "women are only good for one thing" mentality.[1]

This thing is, this is not a one-time thing.  Over the years, I've seen a lot of gay men make personal attacks against anti-gay women.  I've sen many call Maggie Gallagher ugly, fat, and similar things.  Again, Maggie Gallagher says plenty of ugly things about gay people, and I don't like that.  But I do not take that as an invitation to fall into the sexist mentality that because she's a woman, I can simply dismiss her because she doesn't fit some standard of beauty.

Please, my fellow gay men.  These anti-gay women give us plenty of ammo with their words and deeds to discount, discredit, and shame them.  Please stick to that and don't fall into the pettiness of name-calling and misogyny.

[1]  And again, I cannot stress enough that I find this particularly bizarre and disgusting coming from a (presumably) gay man, because on the whole, gay men aren't interested in getting that "one thing" from women!  I have plenty of reasons to value the women in my life, and their sexual prowess does not make that list.  Ted's comment makes me wonder if he has any female friends and if so, what exactly he values about them.

Here are some words that are familiar to most Americans:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

They are the most commonly quoted words from that famous document signed on July 4, 1776 which marked the beginning of the North American colonies' fight for Independence from the British crown.  I suspect that those words will be remembered and even invoked by many today, 236 years later as those of us in the United States celebrate our Independence Day.

What occurs to me as I think on those words, however, is that while they are sweeping and have far-reaching implications (despite the fact that they are gender exclusive), they were penned, signed onto, and embraced by men who applied them in a much more limited fashion.  After all, many of our nation's great founders and lovers of liberty owned slaves, denying those slaves their own liberty.  In fact, it would be almost a full century after the Declaration of Independence was signed that its principle of the God-given, inalienable right to liberty would be recognized for slaves.

I don't say this to demonize our founding fathers.  I say this to point out that, as great as they were, they were men, perfectly imperfect and equally capable of not seeing how their principles need to be applied to all people.  I say this to remind us on this holiday that we should not merely celebrate our independence -- or freedom, as it is more often (at least to my mind) called.  We should continue to make liberty for all a greater reality, because that great work started by those great men over two centuries ago has not been accomplished in full.

So today, I offer a small list of the many liberties that I see as lacking and in need of greater support and defense:

• Young black men still need the liberty to walk through certain neighborhoods without immediately being treated with suspicion.
• Women still need the liberty to pick out their clothing without worrying about how others -- particularly -- men will view and treat them based on their attire.
• Same sex couples still need the liberty to walk in public arm-in-arm or holding hands without the fear of being harassed or assaulted.
• Workers need (to keep) the liberty to form unions so that they can better bargain and fight for their needs in the face of the corporate interests of their employers.

This is just a small list.  There are many different people in this great country that values freedom who still struggle to maintain and gain some basic freedoms, both constitutional and otherwise.  I would encourage others to add to my list in the comments.  I would also say that while we celebrate our freedom today, let us keep in mind that freedom is a much more perfect and comprehensive prospect than we -- much like our founding fathers -- fully realize.  And let us continue to work to see that perfect and comprehensive prospect fully explored and fully realized.

Originally, I had planned to spend this evening reading the next chapter of Alissa Harris's book, "Raised Right:  How I Untangled my Faith From Politics" and resume my series of posts discussing that book.  Those plans changed when Alvin McEwen mentioned that Anderson Cooper officially came out to the world today.

I ran over and read Cooper's email to Andrew Sullivan in which he admits to Andrew (who I believe already knew),  Andrew's readers, and the rest of the world that he is gay.  It's a wonderfully worded letter and I highly recommend reading it.  Right now, I would like to focus on a part of Cooper's email in which he explains his rationale for not coming out until now:

I've always believed that who a reporter votes for, what religion they are, who they love, should not be something they have to discuss publicly. As long as a journalist shows fairness and honesty in his or her work, their private life shouldn't matter. I've stuck to those principles for my entire professional career, even when I've been directly asked "the gay question," which happens occasionally.

On the surface, Cooper's statement makes perfect sense.  When he is acting in his capacity as a journalist, his religion, sexual orientation, marital status, race, and any other personal characteristic should be irrelevant.  And I salute Cooper for wishing to make sure his sexual orientation doesn't effect how people perceive how he does his job.

The problem is, we don't live in a world made up of what should be.  We live in reality.  And the reality is that being gay, being a member of a minority religion, and several other personal characteristics or private matters do become an issue if they come out in the open.  There are those who will approach Cooper's reporting with (more) suspicion now that it's known that he's gay.  (Peter LaBarbera has already suggested that Cooper should refrain from covering any LGBT stories.)

The thing is, this mentality unfairly targets LGBT people and minority groups.  No one would question the journalistic integrity of Barbara Walters if she officially announced she was a heterosexual.  No one would have questioned the journalistic integrity of Walter Kronkite or suggest he shouldn't cover certain stories after mentioning in passing that he had a wife.

The system we currently have does not make sexual orientation irrelevant.  The system we have punishes sexual minorities by treating them with suspicion.  Keeping one's sexual minority status out of the picture encourages the latter, not the former.  It's simply giving tacit acceptance and approval of a system that says that people who do not fit the characteristics that society has determined makes a person a default human must either hide their differences or face the penalties.

If everyone plays that game, then the system will never change.  And I'd like to think that this is what Cooper finally realized.  Because the only way the system will change is if people challenge that system.

Because Angela and Christopher Yuan's book, "Out of a Far Country," is an autobiography, it engages a narrative voice, just like a work of fiction.  This is particularly helpful in this case, because both Angela and Christopher are describing a transformative journey, a journey that involved transformations of their thoughts and behavior patterns.  As such, the process of narrating their story and telling what was going through their minds at the time enhances and furthers their story and the overall goal of the book.

However, neither author is always clear on whether they are totally narrating from the perspective of their earlier selves -- the person who lived through the experience currently being described -- or their current selves or both.  As such, it's not always clear if a given point of view is still valid in their current way of thinking.

The first time this becomes troubling is in the very first chapter, where Angela describes briefly an incident from Christopher's teen years:

I immediately thought back to when Christopher was sixteen years old and I found out from his brother that he had a sexual relationship with a thirty-year-old man.  Christopher had contacted the man, who then invited him over.  Sure, Christopher may have sought the man out, but no matter how you look at it, this man had used and soiled my son.

Note that Angela does not indicate whether she is speaking as her current self who blames this man for "soiling her son" or her 1993 self, who (as her narrative demonstrates) had a tendency to try and control Christopher and even make excuses for his own choices.  That potential difference makes the difference between Angela telling about her own personal growth and Angela perpetuating the myth that gay men are predators who recruit younger men and boys.

Christopher presents a similar problem when he describes his thoughts when meeting with a retired marine who "'knew a lot' about homosexuality."  Chris writes about part of the exchange as follows:

"Well, for one thing, gay men have a shorter life expectancy than straight men."  He looked at my mom.  "This has been proven by reputable scientists."

Reputable!  You've got to be kidding.  Was this what you'd call knowing a lot about homosexuality?  Using skewed statistics to "prove" that gay men die sooner than other men?  How could any researcher gather an unbiased, representative sample of gay men, when many don't want their sexuality to be known and others are still denying even to themselves that they are gay?  Most of those studies only gathered data rom gay men who died as a result of AIDS.  What about all teh other normal gay men?

He continued.  "Did you know that a survey of gay men shows that most have had sex with someone under the age of eighteen?"

Seriously?  Give me a break!  None of my friends slept with teenagers.  Did the survey clarify when it was that they slept with someone under-age?  Most likely they were teens themselves.  And by way of comparison, what were the stats for straight men?

Christopher's analysis of the shorter lifespan claim is 100% accurate.  Most claims about gay men living shorter lifespan is based on the discredited research of Paul Cameron.  There are plenty of resources explaining how Cameron both distorted his own work to get the results he wanted and distorted the findings of others in service of his claims.  In fact, many of the researchers whose works Cameron has distorted have made very public statements condemning him for it.

I have no hard data on sex between underage boys and men over the age of eighteen, however I will note that this is a standard accusation of the anti-gay movement.  Also, they are quick to link pedophilia with gay men -- either explicitly or implicitly -- in general despite all the research pointing out that sexual orientation has no bearing on a pedophiles choice of victims.  So Christopher's dismissal of this man's arguments is not only reasonable, but based on sound and documented criticisms of such anti-gay rhetoric.

But again, Christopher doesn't make it clear if present-day Christopher still feels the way that Christopher of 1993 felt.  Given the fact that this earlier version of Christopher is being painted as making poor choices (and many of his choices are undeniably poor) and being generally rebellious, it would be easy for readers to assume that this is another one of those areas where younger Christopher "got it wrong."  This is especially true considering that present-day Christopher has given some indication that at least his theology, if not his politics and methods, aligns with those who continue to spout such discredited propaganda against gay men and LGBT people in general.  The fact that he does not clarify whether he believes that this is one of those places where his younger self "got it right" in this particular instance is troubling.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Christopher and Angela and their book exist in a certain context, and their book serves the potential to serve the purposes of that context in ways that are potentially less-than-honest.  Assuming that they did not want their book used in such ways, it would have been nice if they made more effort to make it clear where their current-day selves disagree with their younger selves and where they still agree.

I decided to take a break from writing up my thoughts on "Out of a Far Country" by Angela and Christopher and Yuan.  While I find elements of the book problematic, especially in light of the culture in which the book was written and that it is presumably supporting, I feel much more strongly compelled to offer my comments on the arguments Janet Mefferd offered against homosexuality in general.

Mefferd attempts to draw parallels between the quest for LGBT rights and the quest to uphold  women's reproductive rights, obviously intending to show how horrible both positions are.  However, in order to do so, she engages in some extreme rhetoric -- making her accusations that those who support LGBT rights and a woman's right to choose of engaging in rhetoric ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.

As such, I would like to explore some of the arguments she uses to demean those of us who support LGBT rights.  (While I fully support a woman's right to choose, I would rather leave debunking Mefferd's caricatures of that issue to someone far more capable of doing so.)  Mefford's statements will appear in bold, while my responses and thoughts will appear in normal text.

1. Both agendas operate as anti-child cultures of death. Abortion kills children. Homosexual behavior can't create them.

In three sentences, Mefferd has managed to conflate not wanting to have biological children (or not wanting to do so) with being anti-child and conflates being anti-child with operating as "a culture of death," a term that I find practically meaningless beyond being used as a tool to instill fear and hatred of others.

This argument immediately ignores the fact that one does not need to biologically conceive or give birth to children in order to have children in one's life.  One can adopt.  One can become a teacher.  One can become a mentor, a big brother/big sister, a scout leader, a den mother, a Sunday school teacher, a youth center volunteer, or many other things.  Mefferd is once again engaging in the fetishization of biological parenthood and the invisibilization of every other form of adult-child relationship in order to denigrate LGBT people.

Furthermore, by claiming that not wanting or not being able to have children (and there are those adults who are not interested in having children as a significant part of their life in any form) is to be part of "a culture of death," Mefferd is arguing that the sole purpose of life is to reproduce.  Personally, I find this an unthinkably depressing and pointless understanding of life and culture.  If the only purpose in living is to produce children, who will in turn only exist in order to produce more children, who will in turn only exist in order to produce more children, who will....well, seriously, what's the point.  This turns life into nothing more than the biological equivalent of a pyramid scheme or other marketing structure.

Mefferd's failure to appreciate that people -- LGBT and others -- can remain childless and yet make great contributions to society in the form of art, science, philosophy, entrepreneurship, and hundreds of other worthy and beneficial pursuits shows how little she values these things.
 
2. Both agendas falsely play on people's unnecessary fear and guilt by focusing on the micro personal story, rather than the macro moral issue.

Mefford and many like her seem to think that morality can be divorced from the personal.  I disagree, and would argue that it's the interaction with other individuals that not only defines morality, but makes it necessary.  A person living on a mountaintop alone need not worry about morality.  Moral concerns are for those of us attempting to live with others.

The phrase "macro moral issue" draws to mind an attempt to reduce morality to nothing more than a checklist of behaviors that are either right or wrong, but without the context of personal interaction, such a checklist is meaningless.

Truth be told, pro-choice people and LGBT rights advocates make it personal because these issues are personal. These things are not abstract concepts, but very powerful and influential realities in flesh and blood humans.  I suspect that Mefferd simply wishes to ignore that reality in order to face those tough moral questions about why she should get to dictate how others should live their lives in ways that affect them greatly and herself not at all.

And to be honest, Mefferd and company aren't nearly as opposed to making the issue personal.  After all, they like bringing up Carrie Preejan, Marjorie Chrisoffersen, David Parker, and the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association and paint them as martyrs.  They like to talk (dishonestly, no less) about how individuals' "religous conscience" could be at stake.

And, of course, if your answer focuses on deeper questions about the effect on society of embracing abortion on demand or so-called homosexual marriage, rather than personal love for your own flesh and blood, then you look like a jerk.

The thing is, people like Mefferd have been pushing these "deeper questions about the effect on society" of various issues and making dire predictions for years.  And yet, they can provide no evidence to support those predictions, nor can they offer a convincing argument as to why we should take their convictions seriously.  At some point, someone needs to tell Chicken Little that the sky is still as high as it ever was and they need to quit fearmongering.

3. Both agendas rely heavily on Orwellian Newspeak. For the abortion activists, the terminology is "a woman's right to choose," "reproductive health decision" or "termination of pregnancy." No mention of babies. For the LGBT activists, the terminology is "equality," "civil rights" and "love." No mention of sodomy.

While it's certainly true that LGBT advocates (and pro-choice advocates) choose words carefully to frame the issue to focus on what they feel is most important to focus on, Mefferd is being disingenuous by implying that she and those like her don't do likewise.  Her use of the word "sodomy" is a prime example of this, in fact.  Mefferd wants to talk about sodomy, but here's the thing, LGBT rights are not about sodomy.  LGBT rights are about people.  Sexual acts cannot push for rights.  They have no need for rights.  People, on the other hand do.  Whether I'm celibate, actively engaging in anal sex, or just prefer oral sex (okay, technically oral sex is sodomy too, but most people who use that term are talking about the buttsex), I am a human being deserving of the same respect, protection, and rights as everyone else.  In fact, I'd argue that the whole reason Mefferd would rather talk about anal sex is that it allows her to avoid facing me as a human being.

I'm complete skipping her fourth point.

5. Both agendas have succeeded by obfuscating the physical death, pain or injury that comes from embracing their agenda....Similarly, why don't we ever see a major news analysis on the health risks of homosexuality, as reported on the website of the Centers for Disease Control? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

And just as Mefferd and others like her are obsessed with anal sex (but only if two men engage in it!), she and those like her are also obsessed with the "health risks of being gay."

Except that she (and they) ignore the fact that the health risks she's talking about have nothing to do with "being gay."  Truth be told, the health risks she mentions are also health risks for heterosexual people.  The problem isn't being gay, the problem is engaging in risky sexual practices.  And while it's true that HIV (the health risk most often cited) is of particular concern among gay men, Mefferd will not discuss the multiple reasons why that is.  She certainly won't quote this part of the CDC page she referenced:

Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination put MSM at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether MSM seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services. Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts, and bullying and violence. These dynamics make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health.

That reality makes her next statement particularly interesting.

I guess we are all to believe that the moment America's First Gay President repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," all the health risks of homosexuality magically went away. Not relevant, homophobe. End of debate.

First, as I covered above, the health risks are not so much about homosexuality but risky behavior, some of which is encouraged by homophobia and other stigma.  And no, no one seriously expected such health concerns to magically disappear.  This is why HIV educators are still hard at work, why researchers are still working to develop an effective vaccine against HIV.  And it's why many of us are still combating homophobia in the hopes that one day it will cease to contribute to some LGBT people's poor health.  It's why various organizations are pushing LGBT people to practice safe sex and to get tested -- not only for HIV, but other STI's as well -- on a regular basis so that if the worst does happen, they can get the treatment they need to stay healthy and prevent further infections.

With the above statement Mefferd demonstrates that she doesn't know the first thing about the health concerns of LGBT people.  Her lack of understanding demonstrates that she doesn't care about them either.  Bringing them up is nothing more than an attempt to score rhetorical points on her part.

I'm going to pass on commenting on her final points.  I think I have demonstrated that her arguments are nothing more than the kind of rhetoric she accuses her opponents of engaging in.  Janet Mefferd would like to paint herself as the victim of the big mean gays and "abortionists."  Yet her clear dishonesty demonstrates that she is merely projecting her own behavior on those with whom she disagrees.

While I find Christopher Yuan's life and journey as he describes it in "Out of a Far Country," I find the way in which that story culminates to his conclusions in the "Holy Sexuality" chapter to be troubling and problematic.  Again, as I alluded to in my previous post, this is where he at least implicitly shifts from telling his personal story to offering a moral prescription for others.  As such, I feel this chapter needs to be directly addressed.

This shift I'm talking about quickly becomes visible when Christopher begins his defense or justification of calling on gay men and women to a life of celibacy.  Christopher offers his realization that there are people in the Bible who lived their entire lives abstinent, noting that both Jesus and Paul were both such men.

The thing note, however, is that both men acknowledged that it was neither an easy calling or one that everyone was suited for.  When Jesus's own disciples comment that it would be better to remain unmarried, Jesus responded that "not all can accept this," without any sense of condemnation (Matthew 19).  Similarly Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthian church (chapter 7), he notes that it is better to remain single, but that those who cannot control their lusts should get married.[1]  So as I read Christopher's insistence that it's not unfair of God to demand celibacy -- especially lifelong celibacy -- of certain people, I'm skeptical that his two examples of holy and celibate men would actually agree with him.

But the thing is, Christopher isn't claiming that God is demanding lifelong celibacy of individuals, but of an entire class of people.  I have no problem believing that God called Paul, Jesus, or even Christopher Yuan to lifelong celibacy.  God places individual callings upon people all the time.  But to say that an entire class of people must remain celibate simply because of who they are drawn to when it comes to sex and romance[2] is an entirely different claim, and I think it's a position that takes far more defense than Christopher offers.  I also think it takes far more appreciation of what one is claiming God demands of all gay and bisexual people and just how hard a road one is calling others to.

That last statement is pivotal to me.  What I see here is that some -- either including Christopher or those who will be further emboldened by him -- are trying to tell other people -- and entire class of people, in fact -- what God's calling is for their lives.  I maintain that this is not how callings work.  Callings are not placed upon people by other individuals.  No, the things so placed are rightfully called burdens.  Callings are made not to classes of people, but to individuals by a god who draws that individual in, gives the individual a heart and desire for that calling, and fills that individual with a sense that while the calling may not always involve an easy road, it is entirely doable.  This is not what is being offered here in the chapter on holy sexuality.

As I've referred to the chapter's title which invokes the word "holy," let's look at the statement popularized by some Exodus leaders and repeated in this chapter:

"The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, but holiness."

My problem with this statement is that it reduces holiness -- a complex and wondrous topic -- to a mere question of not having sex or at least not having the wrong kinds of sex.  It reduces the idea of holiness in sexuality to following the right rules, avoiding the right taboos, and so on.  It does nothing to illuminate what makes sex or sexuality holy -- sacred to and glorifying of the Divine -- which makes it hard to accept the unsubstantiated statement[3] that the holiness of one's sexuality or sexual activity is affected by the gender of one's partner(s).

I wish Christopher the best in following what he believes that God has called him to.  But I would ask him not to attempt to universalize that calling for all gay people or allow others to use his story to do so.  It's simply not his or their place.

Notes:
[1]  Not exactly a ringing endorsement for marriage as a sacred institution, is it?

[2]  And like so many others, Christopher never seems to acknowledge that same-sex relationships have a romantic side or other aspects beyond the sex.

[3]  Christopher and others might argue that "The Bible says so" should be good enough.  Setting aside that not everyone agrees about what "the Bible says" on the topic, I will note that this underscores an extremely authoritarian approach to morality and assumes and authoritarian God who gives a moral code that is based on nothing more than His say-so.  I am deeply troubled by such an understanding of both morality and God.  Indeed, I think conservative Christianity would be greatly served by the sudden appearance of many more Jobs in their ranks.

There's a part of me that wishes I lived in a different world.  That part of me wishes that I lived in a world where the Yuans' book, "Out of a Far Country," existed in a vacuum.  In such a world, I could appreciate the book for its own merits and my discussion of it would be complete with my previous post on the topic and a brief explanation of where I disagree with Christopher's conclusions and theology and leave it at that.

Unfortunately, that's not the reality I occupy.  In reality, I live in a world where some people -- influential people -- have invested a great deal of time and money in presenting QUILTBAG people -- particularly gay men -- in the worst light possible.  There are those who still either explicitly or implicitly seek to link homosexuality with substance abuse, pedophilia, risky sex, and other destructive behaviors.

Such people like men like Christopher Yuan.  They love such men's stories, because they can point those men's experiences, generalize them, and say, "See?  This is what all gay men (and QUILTBAG people in general) are like!"  Courageous men like Christopher -- and I do not discount his courage or the truly amazing nature of his transformative journey -- become tools in the anti-gay political machine's to inaccurately paint and even dehumanize an entire class of people.

Some may feel that it's unfair to hold Christopher responsible for how others might misuse his story.  After all, such people are responsible for their own actions some might say.  And in many ways that's quite correct.  However, I will note that Christopher and Angela are not isolated or separate from the very community that would misuse this book to generalize about all QUILTBAG people.  Indeed, the book makes it quite clear that Christopher and Angela were familiar with groups like Exodus International -- which has spent years cultivating the "gay lifestyle = risky sex and substance abuse" narratives. In fact, in the chapter "Holy Sexuality," Christopher invokes the common Exodus slogan, "The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, but holiness," and talks about "gay identity" that is identical to the view expressed by many ex-gay groups and individuals.

As such, I have to assume that Christopher knew how his story would be perceived and presented by others.  I find the fact that he did nothing to address that and point out that his story is unique and not representative of all gay men, let alone QUILTBAG people in general, troubling and questionable.

He spends much of the book talking about friends -- friends that eventually abandon him -- from the circuit party scene, from the drug scene, from the porn scene.  And I have no doubt that they did exactly that.  But he makes no note that the problem isn't that his friends were gay, but were part of scenes that are notorious for being filled with the kind of people who are only friends of convenience.  Perhaps Christopher didn't make any gay friends from other scenes -- coffee shops, pub-style gay bars, social groups, or groups that have a political/social justice bent -- that tend to be filled with gay people who are more likely to swarm around someone in need.  People get involved in different scenes after all, and I'm not questioning his experience.  But again, as someone who should know what the narrative many conservative evangelical Christians try to push concerning QUILTBAG people, I'm troubled that he put in no effort to make it clear that his friends' abandonment of him was probably far more influenced by factors other than their sexual orientation.

I find the same problem in the chapter "Holy Sexuality," which I hope to cover more in a future blog post.  But for now, I'd like to note that Christopher describes the sequence in which he identifies and eliminates his "idols."  He starts by identifying drug use as an idol and something he needs to live without, which I can certainly agree with.  Then he moves on to determine that dance music and the party scene is idol for him.  He is quick to note, however, that there is nothing inherently wrong with dance music or going to clubs.  He simply points out that he does not believe that he could do these things without falling back into old drug habits.  I can certainly understand this and honor his personal wisdom in realizing what he needs to do for himself in order to keep himself healthy and under control.  I'll also note that in a sense, he also acknowledges this as a personal struggle and a personal choice of how to deal with it.  He doesn't try to make it a universal ban on dance music and clubbing for all people.

Then he gets to the issue of sex.  He describes his own relationship to sex as follows:

I had an addiction to sex.  Having several anonymous partners at a bathhouse in the same day had been nothing out of the ordinary for me.

An actual addiction to sex is a serious problem, and I sympathize with Christopher and anyone else who has struggled with sexual addiction.  But Christopher jumps from the above statement right to the question of living without sex at all.  It's as if in Christopher's mind, there's no middle ground here.  A gay man is either celibate or he is addicted to sex.

Perhaps he doesn't mean that.[1]  Perhaps he means this as a personal decision, that for him, the only way to break free from the sexual addiction he felt was to turn to abstinence.  If that is the case, then I can respect that as another personal decision based on personal struggles.

However, the context of the rest of the chapter doesn't leave me with that impression.  But my analysis of the rest of his views on holy sexuality will have to wait for another post.  And at any rate, given the tendency of many in the ex-gay/anti-gay movement(s) to conflate homosexuality and sexual addiction/"promiscuity," I'm still concerned that he either intentionally or unintentionally contributed to that conflation by not addressing the issue.

Notes:
[1]  Assuming the email I received regarding my last post, Christopher is reading my blog posts concerning his and his mother's books.  Given that, perhaps he will see fit to clarify what his thinking/intent on this and my other concerns are.

Today, I finally finished reading "Out of a Far Country:  A Gay Son's Journey to God.  A Broken Mother's Search for Hope" by mother-son team Angela and Christopher Yuan.  It was an interesting read and I found it both enjoyable and problematic.  As such, I want to do a number of blog posts about it.  In this blog post, I am going to try to focus mainly on what I enjoyed abut the book.[1]

The book focuses on two stories (though I'm sad to say that the one story ultimately gets subsumed by by the other), the story of each of the two authors.  Christopher shares his journey of coming out, walking away from his biological family, making many bad decisions, facing the consequences of those decisions, and reclaiming his life and reuniting with his family.  It's touching, moving, and raw.  As someone who loves both stories and seeking to understand the heroes of those stories, it made for an incredibly compelling read.

Intertwined throughout this was Angela's own story and her journey through the initial shock of her son's announcement that he was leaving[2], her conversion to the Christian faith, and her acceptance of and patience with her sons journey before finally being reunited with her.

In many ways, Angela's story was far more interesting to me than Christopher's, which is why I was sad at how her story seemed to become little more than a subplot in his journey rather than something in its own right.  In part, this was because while neither Angela nor Christopher use the word in the book, it seems pretty clear to me that Angela is codependent and her initial reactions to Christopher and his bad decisions epitomizes the controlling behavior that those of us who struggle with codependency are so prone to.  As such, I was able to relate to Angela's journey of recognizing these behavior patterns in her life and changing them as much -- perhaps more than -- I could relate to Christopher's story.  After all, Christopher's journey and my own were quite different and we've arrived at different places.  As such, in many ways, I found myself drawn more to his mother.

I also admire the honesty and rawness with which both author's described their experiences, thoughts, and feelings throughout their journeys as well.  It was easy to see and understand not only what they were going through, but how their experiences and responses to them transformed them.  As such, while there's much about the book that bothered me (and I will get into that soon enough), I think it was well worth reading and would encourage interested people to give it a try.

I will note however, that it deals with many deep and potentially triggering topics (including homosexuality, family rejection, drug abuse, HIV, imprisonment, and religiously-based homophobia).  Anyone who does accept my recommendation needs to be ready to deal with heavy topics.

Notes:
[1] Sadly, what I found problematic about the book will likely take more than a single post.

[2] Though in fairness, Angela did lay down an ultimatum that contributed to Christopher's decision.

I often enjoy looking over the stats for this blog, particularly to see how people run across this blog.  Today, I found myself fascinated by one visit in particular because of the search they used to land on my blog:

do people have to be an lgbt ally to not be homophobic

Personally, I find that a fascinating question.  I also think it's a question that requires us to first understand what terms like "homophobic" and "ally" mean.  Of course, different people probably understand the words slightly differently, but since it's my blog, I'm going to explore how I understand those terms.

I tend to view homophobia as any action which negates, denigrates, trivializes, or lessens the basic dignity and humanity of QUILTBAG people, either collectively or individually.  This means that actually being up a QUILTBAG person, fighting against full equality for QUILTBAG people, and telling a joke that makes fun of QUILTBAG people or trivializes their experience are all homophobic acts in my book.

So what's an LGBT ally in my book?  Anyone who believes that QUILTBAG people deserve to be treated with the same humanity, decency, and respect given to heterosexuals as a matter of course and acts out that belief.  That doesn't mean that I think that one has to run out and volunteer to help with the latest marriage equality campaign or anything else so "grand."  For me (and others may feel differently), being an ally can be as simple as expressing displeasure when someone else tells a homophobic joke.  It can be as simple as lending moral support to the trans* friend who is having problems with a transphobic coworker.

So to get back to the original question, I think it's actually inverted.  I think the real question is, "Can a person seek to rid themselves of homophobia and still not be an ally?"  As I think about it, I'm inclined to think the answer is no.  I think as a person becomes aware of how their thought patterns and actions -- even the minor ones -- hurt QUILTBAG people -- even unintentionally -- and seek to change them, they are in effect going through the process of becoming an ally (or a better one).  After all, when you become aware of such things in your own life, you tend to become more aware of them around you, and it tends to bother you there.

On occasion, I've written about the emotional manipulation and lies that Eugene Delgaudio uses in his fundraising emails.  Today marks another one of those occasions.  I received another email about how he's helping to fight the good fight to help repeal marriage equality legislation in various states and even fighting to aid the appeal to the Proposition 8 decision if it goes before SCOTUS.  It's all his pretty standard claptrap.

But what really draw my attention and spawned this post is the subject line he chose for this:

Real marriage outlawed

I'm so awestruck by that line, I feel the need to repeat it:

Real marriage outlawed

Okay, let's ignore the fact that Eugene Delgaudio and his band of merry hate-peddlers don't actually get to define what marriages are "real" and what ones are "shams" and force that definition on the rest of us.  Let's just for the moment pretend that only marriages between one man and one woman are a "real" and the other marriages (including those of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon) are cheap knockoffs, presumably being sold by hucksters standing on NYC street corners alongside the hucksters selling Rilex watches and Guxi purses.

That subject line still makes no sense.  Nothing has been outlawed.  There are no special agents bursting into churches to interrupt man-woman marriages and arrest the priest trying to perform such a thing.  The IRS isn't lining up to audit men who mark "married" on their 1040 and list a woman as their spouse and accuse them of fraud.  Newspapers aren't refusing to print marriage announcements for man-woman couples out of fear of being charged with conspiracy after the fact.

Men and women are still happily getting married to one another and the population at large is freely and happily celebrating those weddings.  The idea that such marriages have somehow been "outlawed" is ridiculous to the point of me wondering what color the sky is in Mr. Delgaudio's world.  Because anyone who can write that subject line in any sense of seriousness -- and there's no sense that he's being ironic or intentionally engaging in hyperbole -- is not someone I can picture as living in reality.

Sadly, this kind of bizarre thinking seems to be prevalent among the anti-equality crowd.  They are convinced that allowing same sex couples to marry will somehow outlaw or destroy man-woman marriages.  To their way of thinking, the peaceful co-existence of same sex marriages as an additional option alongside man-woman marriages simply isn't possible.  This is "us vs. them" thinking at its most extreme.

Some opponents of marriage equality say it's not about being against gay people.  But when most opponents of marriage equality -- and gay rights in general -- hold this extreme "us vs. them" mentality at the heart of their arguments, it's nearly impossible to believe that claim.  After all, as my mother used to tell me, "Actions speak louder than words."

For those of you who missed it, Cardinal George of the Chicago diocese of the Catholic church recently made statements on FOX News comparing the QUILTBAG community to the KKK because pride parade organizers changed the parade's route this year, meaning that the parade would pass by Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.  Because you know, marching past a church one day out of the whole year and potentially making things a bit more difficult for church-goers wishing to attend services that day[1] is exactly the same as terrorizing non-caucasian people with cross burnings and other such activities.  (For further thoughts on the Cardinal's statements, be sure to check out Fannie's post.)

Well, apparently that hasn't gone well for Cardinal, (shocker, I know) because he issued the following statement on the archdiocese website:

Statement from Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago
January 6, 2012

During a recent TV interview, speaking about this year's Gay Pride Parade, I used an analogy that is inflammatory.

I am personally distressed that what I said has been taken to mean that I believe all gays and lesbians are like members of the Klan.  I do not believe that; it is obviously not true.  Many people have friends and family members who are gay or lesbian, as have I.  We love them; they are part of our lives, part of who we are.  I am deeply sorry for the hurt that my remarks have brought to the hearts of gays and lesbians and their families.

I can only say that my remarks were motivated by fear for the Church's liberty.  This is a larger topic that cannot be explored in this expression of personal sorrow and sympathy for those who were wounded by what I said.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI

This is what some of us like to call a "fauxpology."  Note that the Cardinal isn't actually sorry for what he said, he's merely sorry for the way some people interpreted what he said.  Apparently, to the Cardinal, there is some mystic context in which it's okay to compare QUILTBAG people -- any QUILTBAG person[2] -- to the KKK.  A real apology would have started not with "I'm distressed that people took my statements that way," but with "That was a rather cruel and defamatory thing I said.  I'm sorry."

It would've ended there, too.  There would be no further need for an explanation or an attempt to rationalize his statements.  To be honest, the person you owe an apology to does not care why you said or did something hurtful to them. They don't care whether you were motivated by fear, greed, or voices in your head.  They just want you to stop hurting them and make whatever restorative steps may be appropriate.

The fact that the Cardinal goes on to talk about his "motivating fears" means not only that he's trying to make excuses why what he said wasn't so bad, but he's trying to make the whole thing about him.  Instead of focusing on the people he's hurt, he's making a shameless play for sympathy.

It's a bad play at that.  He's afraid of the loss of religious liberty?  Again, consider that the only "religious liberty" in jeopardy by the parade were that some church-goers might have been inconvenienced for a single service.  And while I appreciate that the parade organizers were willing to do something to mitigate that problem, such a minor inconvenience would have hardly made a martyr of anyone.  The Cardinal is simply playing into the persecution complex that his church has been well known for lately.

Recall that the Catholic church has lately been playing the martyr card because various states -- including Illinois -- has been telling them that Catholic Charities cannot take taxpayer money for adoption and foster care services while discriminating against QUILTBAG people.  They've also been complaining that Catholic health services cannot receive aid for health programs that refuse to either provide women with reproductive services or at least refer them to someone else.  It seems to me that Catholic leaders like Cardinal George only care about waning liberties when it's their own religious liberties.  When it comes to the rights of women and QUILTBAG people that they're religion doesn't care fore, they're okay with diminishing rights.

Of course, the greatest insult is how Cardinal George plays the "I have friends and loved ones who are gay" card, as if that somehow absolves him of his horribly anti-gay and homophobic statements.  I recently talked about the "gay friend" defense and will not repeat myself here.

Given the importance that the concept that repentance and reconciliation plays in Catholic theology, it seems to me that Cardinal George would do well to do a better job acting out both in this situation.

Notes:
[1]  To the parade organizers' credit, they delayed the start of the parade when the church expressed concerns about the parade interfering with church-goers ability to attend services.  In my book, they're willingness to work with the church made the Cardinal's comments all that more egregious.
[2]  Okay, I wouldn't be surprised to learn there's a QUILTBAG person out there who is actually a member of the KKK.  But then, they're sexual orientation and/or gender identity have nothing to do with the fact that they're a racist.  And it wouldn't be a comparison.