Recently in Anti-Gay Bigotry Category

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.

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.

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.

Warren Throckmorton is Associate Professor of Psychology at conservative Grove City College and the creator of the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework, a set of guidelines for therapists who wish to help gay people of faith (particularly a more conservative form of Christianity) to reconcile their sexuality with their faith.

Recently, Dr. Throckmorton wrote a blog post in which he discussed Christian media sources to refrain from discussing or even mentioning recent studies relating to sexual orientation.  The entire post (and the rest of his blog) is well worth reading, and is one of the reasons I respect Dr. Throckmorton.  As fellow gay blogger, Pomoprophet, put it while covering this post:

Throckmorten[sic] (though he doesn't fully agree with me) is the type of Evangelical Christian that I can actually respect. He is informed and thoughtful. When he talkes about "defending truth is the name of Jesus" he does so with the best data available on "the truth", not merely conservative talking points that fit nicely into his narrow view of the world. I find it ironic that many Evangelicals shun one of their own because he reports the facts and the studies and calls them on their anti-gay animus.

The fact that Dr. Throckmorton has faced much criticism from his fellow evangelicals -- some have even pressured Grove City College to terminate his employment there -- for his honesty and his integrity makes his commitment to both all the more admirable.  However, I would like to suggest that in this post, Dr. Throckmorton has gone beyond simply standing up for the truth, but acting in what some Christians might consider a prophetic role.  Consider this quote from his blog post:

Many evangelicals get their information from NARTH through groups like Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. Others get information from Christian media. However, these studies are not reported in these places. No wonder most evangelicals approach sexual orientation with a 1990s mindset. It is as if the evangelical world is in blackout mode when it comes to current studies on sexual orientation.

Dr. Throckmorton is not merely standing up for the truth, but he is calling out those here are hiding the truth, misconstruing it, or even lying about it.  This has become an endemic problem among many evangelical leaders (for more examples of this, simply check out a half dozen other posts from Dr. Throckmorton's blog, an equal number from Fred Clark's blog, and my own post from Wednesday.)

Note however, that Dr. Throckmorton's prophetic warning is not merely aimed at those leaders who would either leave their followers in ignorance or even actively deceive them.  His warning to those followers is also clear:  Do not assume that your leaders are being honest with you just because they're standing in front of a cross.  It is up to those who value truth to verify the veracity of what they're being told for themselves.  To do otherwise is to play some small part in their own deception.

Thank you, Dr. Throckmorton, for being such a voice for integrity and justice.

I received another email from Eugene Degaudio.  This time, he is asking for donations to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that is working its way through both the House (H.R. 1397) and Senate (S. 811) committees right now.    In his usual inflammatory manner, Delgaudio has dubbed this bill "The Gay Bill of Special Rights."  Read the bill as it stands in both houses of Congress for yourself and see if you can spot any "special rights" it grants QUILTBAG people.

Delgaudio speaks of the bill and those supporting it thus:

But this organization is more dangerous because it's learning from past success.  You see, they'll be using the same tactics other groups used to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a battle you and I lost.

In their own words, the "lessons and tactics learned in the repeal fight are finally being utilized."

Interestingly, Delgaudio does not mention what "tactics" pro-equality advocates have found successful.  The only "tactics" I recall anyone using to push the repeal of DADT consist of the following:

1. Honestly portraying QUILTBAG people honorably serving their country only to suffer as a result of the policy.
2. Demonstrating through testimonies and other verifiable evidence that allowing QUILTBAG people to openly serve in the military does not and would not negatively impact unit cohesion, military preparedness, or any of the other things that the anti-gay lobby would have you believe.

Effectively, the "effective tactics" that the pro-equality crowd has been using is the honest truth.  Compare this to Delgaudio's own choice to drum up political and financial support by lying.  From his email:

Churches would be forced to hire homosexual youth pastors or face lawsuits for discrimination.

However, this is not true, as both versions of the bill have religious exemption clause.  Section 6 of S. 811 reads as follows:

This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution or institution of learning, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a), 2000e-2(e)(2)).

Section 6 of H.R. 1397 contains nearly identical language:

This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); 2000e-2(e)(2)).

It's no wonder that Delgaudio doesn't want to discuss what the "effective tactics" the pro-equality side are using.  After all, his supporters/marks[1] might start comparing those tactic's to Delgaudio's own.  And I don't imagine making it even more obvious that he's a liar will not help Delgaudio's cause.

Note:
[1]  What else do you call people you lie to in order to get them to give you money?

Trigger Warnings:  Homophobia, suicidal thoughts, sexually violent dreams, frank sexual talk.  If you don't feel you can handle reading this post, I completely understand.  Please feel free to ask Personal Failure to share one of her otters with you instead.

Confessions of a Former Conservative is one of my favorite blogs, as he critiques, challenges, and denounces some of the more spiteful things said by fundamentalist and other ultra-conservative Christians online.  One of the blogs he regularly critiques is written by a woman named Gerie.  He recently posted a critique on her condemnation of Christians who are pro-gay and reaffirmed her own certainty that being gay is a sin.  As she quoted the Romans 1 "clobber passage," I offered the following commentary on Former Conservative's post:
 

You know what? That particular passage pisses me off. You know why? Because it suggests that the cause of homosexuality is idolatry. Well, guess what? I grew up a good little Christian. i said the sinner's prayer and meant it. I did everything I was supposed to. And I still turned out gay. I tried to convince myself it was a phase. I stayed gay. I prayed to God and begged with Him to turn me straight. I'm still gay.

So you know what? Fuck Romans 1 (or at least Gerie's interpretation of it.) Because I did everything I was supposed to and I still ended up fucking gay. So obviously, either Romans 1 is bullshit or Gerie's interpretation of it is.

And I'm not the only person who had that experience. There's at least one website dedicated to people who did everything right and even tried to overcome their gayness and yet remained gay.

I understand that Gerie's the type that will continue to believe her whacked-out interpretation over reality, but come on. She can at least acknowledge that she's a reality-denier. It'd be the honest thing to do, and given how important the truth (supposedly) is to her.....

Apparently, Gerie read my statement, because it's a fairly that her Monday post is a direct response to what I said.  As I read it, I was both amused and disgusted.  I was amused because I found many of the things Gerie said in response to my comment to be quite predictable.  I was disgusted for the same reasons.  Gerie's response is a non-response.  A response actually engages with what was said and seeks dialogue.  Gerie's lengthy missive makes no such attempt.  Instead, it is little more than a reiteration of her position and an attempt to make my own personal narrative fit into her preconceived ideas on the topic.

Gerie says the following of me and my comment in the introduction to her post:

But this heartfelt comment that I read, stood out from the others and I am sure, touched the heart of God. I know this because from the time I read it, the Lord had me on my knees, praying and interceding with many tears for this person. Who I don't know personally and have never met, but for a little while, as I prayed for him, I could feel the pain in his heart, and the inner conflict and turmoil that sin has caused in his life.

To be frank, I find the above statements patronizing and sanctimonious.  Gerie claims that my post had her in tears and she had this great emotional experience over me.  However, note that her response is simply to pray and "know what I'm feeling."  And yet she did not make any attempt to contact me.  She did not join the open conversation on Former Conservative's blog.  She did not try to find my email address[1] in order to contact me directly.  Instead, she decided to write a blog post about me (she couldn't even be bothered to address her comments to me) on a blog that doesn't allow comments.

These are not the actions of someone who wants dialogue.  I will go so far as to say that this is not someone who even cares, despite her claims to the contrary.  A person who cares about someone seeks to engage in conversation with that other person.  Gerie is simply having another self-aggrandizing moment of (faux) piety.

 I also find it curious that based on a single, 225-word (not counting the quoted passage) comment , Gerie is sure that she knows exactly what I am feeling[2] and why.  If Gerie thinks that such a short message can give her a complete insight into my numerous and complex feelings on the topic of my sexual, romantic, and emotional feelings and the fact that I was brought up to think those things made me evil (a position I have since long rejected both with good reason and for the better), she is sorely mistaken.  And there's certainly no inner conflict.  I've long made peace with my feelings and the Divine.  So any "inner conflict" Gerie is sensing is an invention of her own imagination.

Gerie takes a pause in her discussion to offer the following aside to parents, which I find very telling:

Parents, take the time to talk to your children and pay attention to what's going on inside of their hearts. I am learning that Satan attacks our children mercilessly simply because he can get away with it and he is never suspected.

I bolded the part that I find most interesting in a most disturbing way.  Reread that and let it sink in.  According to Gerie, Satan is allowed to attack children.  By whom?  Well, by Gerie's god, of course!  Again, take a moment for that to really sink in.  Gerie's god allows Satan to attack children.  He does nothing to stop it.  What's worse, if Satan's attacks on children works, Gerie's god sends those children to eternal torment as a punishment for not standing up to those attacks.

Am I the only one that thinks that makes Gerie's god a complete fucking bastard?

I'll also note that ex-gay ministries and reparative therapy "experts" have spewed all this "parents be careful or your children could go stray" stuff before.  Some of the family members of former ex-gays will gladly tell you that it places an unbearable sense of guilt on them.  Mom and Dad don't need any more shaming over my sexual, romantic, and emotional feelings than I do.

Gerie continues:

For instance whether a child accepts the belief that they are gay or not, and believing they were made that way or were born that way, because the feelings were there as far back as they can remember.

People don't believe they're gay.  People believe that there's a god who hears their prayers.  People believe that humans are basically good.  People believe that buying lotto tickets from the middle of the row increases their chances of winning.  These are all intellectual ideas with a great deal of doubt, uncertainty, and unverifiability.

Romantic and sexual attractions are too concrete and too visceral to be considered mere belief.  The boy who is left feeling cold at the thought of kissing Judy or Lilly,[3] but whose heart flutters at the thought of kissing Ken or Roger has more than a "belief" that he is guy.  The young girl who wakes up from her fifth dream about making out with a girl all sweaty and aroused has more than a "belief" that she is gay.

Sexual orientation is about feelings and attractions.  These things are inherently involuntary.  People don't plan to feel a certain way, and emotions tend to happen on their own.  If those feelings tend to be towards members of the same sex and of a romantic and sexual nature, that person is gay.  There's no "belief" involved.

The belief that a person is born gay is correctly identified as a belief.  However, it is a belief that is based in a great deal of evidence and common sense.  There has been a great deal of research that has demonstrated a high level of certainty that sexual orientation is biologically determined and most likely a matter of genetics combined with pre-natal conditions.  Of course, this brings me to the next statement made by Gerie:

Common sense tells us that if God will judge homosexuality as sin that He would never intentionally plant those desires in our hearts, but that the source of those feeling had to originate from somewhere else.

Gerie is correct about what common sense tells us.  However, I will argue that her conclusion is counter-intuitive and completely works the reasoning in the wrong direction.

You see, all the research and the experiences of actual gay people suggests very strongly -- to those who value empirical data above blindly following dogma -- that all those feelings and desires are inborn.  As such, the reasonable conclusion is that no loving god would "make" us gay and then condemn us, so no loving god would be condemn those who are gay.

Instead, Gerie chooses to assume -- based on nothing other than a dogmatic acceptance of a "literal interpretation" of certain clobber passages that theologians have challenged repeatedly -- that God hates homosexuality.  So instead of relying on scientific research and the experiences of countless gay people, she decides there must be another explanation for gayness.  As I said in my original comment, Gerie is engaging in reality-denial here.

Of course, Gerie's explanation is still problematic.  Her solution is to say that Satan gave people those feelings, even at a very young age.  But as I noted earlier, Gerie's god still had to allow Satan to do this.  I do not accept that a loving god would condemn people to eternal damnation for choosing to cope with the feelings He allowed Satan to give them the best way they know how any more than he'd condemn them if He had given those same people those same feelings Himself.

Gerie's god simply makes no sense to me unless that I accept that He stands for some things I consider morally abhorrent.  If I accept that, then I have no desire to have anything to do with such a god.

After going on about Satan's evil ways of getting people to believe various things and God's abusive ways of sending people to eternal torment for falling for Satan's tricks, Gerie hits upon a rather ironic statement about the hard questions:

Never go to your Pastor or any man with the hard questions that he couldn't possibly know the answer to, go to God.

I find this ironic because Gerie has effectively condemned herself.  If you read through the post I'm critiquing and the rest of your blog, you will find that Gerie makes a regular practice of "answering the hard questions" herself.  Does this mean that secretly, Gerie believes that she is God?  It would certainly explain a number of things.

I'm sure that Gerie would defend herself by saying that she's going to the Bible and giving not her own answers, but God's answers.  The problem with this claim, however, is that this is the same claim that just about every pastor I know would make (except that many pastors I know would honestly add that it's their understanding of God's answers "as it stands now" and that it may be inaccurate).  There's nothing that actually demonstrates that Gerie has any more authority to make that claim than they do.

At any rate, Gerie suggests that the correct thing to do is to ultimately go to God with the hard questions:

So we should always try to understand things from Gods perspective. Get on your knees and go to God and ask for wisdom and understanding. Be persistent and never give up. We want everything to happen overnight and can I tell you that it just doesn't work that way. Not with the things that matter.

This is sound advice, except that it assumes that people like me -- or people who disagree with Gerie's understanding of a wrathful god hell-bent on doing horrible things to people He disapproves of for reasons he has a hand in -- haven't done this already.  If Gerie doesn't think I and tohers sought god earnestly and painfully, then her understanding of me is fatally flawed.  To be blunt, she has no understanding of me.  As I mentioned before, she is merely making assumptions about me and those like me to make our narratives fit her preconceived notions.  Gerie is engaging in more reality-denial.

As for the comment that God doesn't answer questions over night, I will simply comment that I waited on God for eight years for an answer and only came to the answer I did when it nearly destroyed me.  Between accepting that I'm gay and slitting my wrists -- something I seriously considered for over thirty minutes and in such detail that I can still picture the curve of the blade, the grain of the wood, and the exact color of the brass rivets of the knife I was going to use -- I decided that any truly Divine being would rather see me accept my feelings.

If Gerie and her god doesn't understand that...well I'd say my opinion of them would go down, but I'm not sure that's possible at this point.

Next, Gerie moves into one of her favorite subjects: how it's important to fear her god.  Now quite frankly, considering all the horrible things Gerie's god allegedly does, I'd be apt to fear him if I believed in him at all, too.  That's a god who should be feared, not loved.

To support her position, Gerie quotes Luke 12:5:

But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!

So there you have it.  Even Jesus says we should fear god.  But maybe we should see what Jesus had to say in the verses that bracket that one.

4 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!  6 "Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins?[a] And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

So basically, Jesus isn't saying "fear God" so much as he's saying "if you're going to fear anyone, it should be God, but you shouldn't even fear him."  This actually goes along with what the apostle John said about love casting out fear.

I'm going to jump over the section where Gerie goes on at length about how for heaven to work, God has to have perfect obedience in order.  That in itself would make a great blog post.  However, for now, I'm simply going to suggest that reading this part of Gerie's post about how God needs to be a tyrant for everybody's own good with Bob Altemyer's book "The Authoritarians" in mind.

The thing I will note, however, is that Gerie makes a switch in her argument about morality at this point.  Up to this point, she has been calling for blind obedience to God's commands (or Gerie's interpretation of them) simply because He's God and if you don't, He'll torment you forever and ever.  Now she's trying to claim that God only does this because it's the only way to keep things going smoothly, as if suddenly keeping things going smoothly is now the real reason for morality rather than avoiding God's wrath.  Of course, she offers no proof that (her interpretation of) God's commands will actually make things go smoothly, so this comes off more like an abusive father who is claiming that beating his child until limbs break or a lung gets punctured is "for their own good."  Both arguments are just as unsubstantiated.

Of course, it also implies a real flaw with Gerie's god.  If the only way that God can make things to work is to give commands from on high and torment those who disobey, he's a terrible God.  Hell, he's worse than some of the worst human leaders to have ever walked.  If Gerie's god has no way of motivating people to follow him,[4] then he needs to go back to god/management school.

Gerie eventually gets back to me and my comment, offering this rather condescending analysis:

The comment that I read, said that he did everything right, and he is still gay. He said the sinners prayer and begged God to take away his gay tendencies. What we have to understand is that saying the "sinners prayer" won't save anybody, despite what we have been taught by church people. And understand that all of your sinful desires don't go away automatically once you are saved.

You know, I'm always amused by the number of conservative Christians who claim to know my heart.  In this case, Gerie doubts the sincerity of my prayer of repentance.  Other people simply think I didn't pray hard enough, have enough faith in God, or didn't give God enough time.  I'd like to know what Divine Power these people think they possess to know what I did, where my heart was, or what I was really thinking for my childhood, teenage years, and even my early twenties.

I could give a lengthy story about my life, my choices, and my pains.  I could talk about the horror the first time I woke up from a wet dream, horrified that the dream had involved not a girl, but a male classmate[5].  I can talk about the nights I laid in bed for several minutes to an hour praying for forgiveness over every little perceived sin -- and things I wasn't sure really was a sin but asked for forgiveness for "just in case."  I could talk about the time I spent in church praying, worshiping, and leading others in the same.  I could talk about the time I spent in high school and college being just as obnoxiously "righteous" as Gerie.

But I won't, because I don't have to explain myself to Gerie.  I don't have to explain myself to anyone.  And i certainly won't bother trying to explain myself to someone who doesn't have the decency to ask me rather than just go off making whatever assumptions about me will prop up her preconceived notions.  I deserve more respect than that and I have more respect for myself than that.

Gerie goes on to say the following:

What saves us is that after we turn to Jesus with a sorrow for the condition we have allowed ourselves to get into, that we firmly determine in our heart that we will never commit another sin.

The problem with this is that Gerie is now trying to blame the person for being gay.  However, Gerie has already conceded that someone else -- she believes it's Satan -- has planted these feelings in gay people.  So basically, Gerie's trying to say that it's both not gay people's fault for being gay and is their fault.  Gerie has just contradicted herself at this point, and it becomes apparent to me that Gerie will say whatever she has to in order to defend her position, even if it means contradicting herself.  Logic, consistency, and reality be damned.

Gerie goes on to tell me (oh, it appears she does address me in the second person after all -- after a huge wall of text) that while my feelings may really, they are a lie.  You know, while I understand that feelings are not always an accurate depiction of reality -- like I how I occasionally feel that no one loves me despite the fact that there are dozens of people who love me -- this idea of "feelings as a lie" as Gerie presents it makes no sense.

Being gay is all about feelings.  If you have certain feelings towards members of the same sex and only members of the same sex, you are gay.  That's the very definition of the word gay.  So to acknowledge that I really have those exist and yet deny that I'm gay is a contradictions -- or an attempt to redefine what it means to be gay.  I'm afraid Gerie will lose that battle every time.

Next, Gerie goes on to demonstrate her complete lack of comprehension of homosexuality:

Stop right now, believing in your heart that you are gay, its a lie! You are caught in a trap by believing the lie. As a man thinketh in his heart so is he. Look at yourself. You are a MAN!  You are not a woman. God Himself created you and He made you a man!

In my thirty-seven years of life, I have never doubted I am a man.  I have never thought of myself as a woman.[6]  Gerie seems to be conflating being trans* with being gay or bi.  They are not the same thing.  It is perfectly possible to see oneself as a man[7] and still prefer the romantic and sexual companionship of another man.

Again, Gerie's inability to understand what it actually means to be gay and her willingness to uphold her incorrect assumptions about what it means to be gay rather than learning from the narratives of actual gay people shows a callousness and lack of caring in her that is inexcusable.  Someone who will not even listen to what I have to say and consider my narrative as it is rather than what they want it to be is not someone who deserves my ear or my respect.

I'm going to end my commentary here, as I believe I've said everything that needs to be said.  The rest of Gerie's post is a combination of exhortations to fight (displaying assumptions about what I have and haven't done and why I changed my point of view), making faulty analogies between other (alleged) sins that fail for reasons I can't be bothered to go into right now (hey, I'm allowed to get tired, and I've been working on this post for over two hours now), and threatening me with hell if I don't.  That last makes her closing comment about hoping that she'll meet me some day (but making no real effort to enter into real dialogue or relationship with me at the present) all the more ludicrous.

Notes:
[1]  If you click my linked name next to the note on FC's blog, it takes you to my main site.  On that page is a link to send me an email address.  Apparently, clicking through two links to find my email address is too much effort for Gerie.

[2]  I suspect she'd claim that God let her feel my pain, as I get the impression that Gerie is a Pentecostal/charismatic Christian as well.  However, as I'll demonstrate as I continue through her post, she's either wrong or God sent her a "distorted picture."

[3]  I cannot say whether this is universal or even common, but personally, I was almost more disturbed by my lack of attraction to girls as I was the presence of feelings for boys.  I vividly remember laying in bed realizing that the thought of kissing a particular girl (one I had convinced myself I had feelings for) left me feeling cold and uncomfortable, and wondering, "What the hell is wrong with me????"

[4] And now we're back to one of my points in Monday's post.

[5]  What's really messed up is that I was more disturbed that the sexual activity (non-penetrative, by the way) in the dream was with another man rather than the fact that it was non-consensual on my part.

[6]  Granted, I have occasionally wondered what it would be like to be a woman.  However, that is not the same as thinking that I am a woman or want to be one.

[7]  Though I grant you that my understanding of what it means to be a man is far more fluid and far less riddled with stereotypes than Gerie's.

Several months ago, I foolishly filled out a "survey" about same-sex marriage put out by the Public Advocate of the United States.  I say it was foolishly and put the word "survey" in quotes because it seems to me that the real purpose of putting the questionnaire online was to gain email addresses of potential donors.  Since then, I have received frequent emails from founder Eugene Delgaudio telling me about the latest "homosexual menace" or "conservative traitor" along with a request for more money.

These letters are both infuriating and entertaining, as Delgaudio is the sort of professional anti-gay that has to give an incendiary name to every piece of pro-gay legislation that comes out.  It's entertaining because his outrageous descriptions of anything that might make life better for QUILTBAG people are laughable.  The infuriating part is that apparently, people swallow his outrageous nonsense and send him money to "keep fighting the good fight."[1]

Friday's plea for support, however, was not amusing at all.  Since Friday was Veteran's Day, Delgaudio chose to twist people's sense of appreciation for the courage and sacrifice of members of our military into something horribly hateful towards QUILTBAG people -- including QUILTBAG people who have themselves demonstrated their courage and offered their lives in the very military service Delgaudio speaks so highly of.

The U.S. Military has sacrificed so much for us, and our government repaid them with disgrace.

Now radical homosexuals are not only allowed to serve openly in uniform, but celebrated for their perversion.

What Delgaudio decries of disgraceful and perverse is the radical notion that some QUILTBAG people want to join the ranks of the veterans whose courage and sacrifice he just praised.  What Delgaudio finds disgraceful is that people -- including our current presidents -- has decided that if QUILTBAG people want to make that kind of courageous sacrifice for their country, we should let them.

Truth be told, Delgaudio doesn't care about the courage and sacrifice of veterans, at least not nearly as much as he cares about oppressing and demonizing QUILTBAG people.  If he truly cared about our brave veterans, he would care about all of them, even the ones who aren't straight or cisgendered.

And lest anyone think that Delgaudio is unique in caring more about a military person's orientation than sir bravery and sacrifice, consider again the following video:



That's right, some conservatives will thank you for your military service until they find out you're gay.  Once they find that out, they'll boo you.

And let me once more express my own gratitude for all our veterans and current members of the military, regardless of their orientation and gender identity.

Notes:
[1]  Some days, I'm not sure whether I'm more sympathetic that they're being swindled or more furious that they're allowing themselves to be motivated by such hateful vitriol.

Recently, a New Jersey teacher posted comments on Facebook that spoke out against teaching about LGBT people of historic significance and denigrated gays.  She went so far as to call homosexuality a cancer.  This has led some people, including Garden State Equality head Steve Goldstein -- to criticize her and even recommend that the school reconsider allowing her to hold her position.

Proving once again that the conservative Christian caricature of them is quite unfounded, the ACLU has actually defended teacher Viki Knox:

"Although we do not agree with the sentiments expressed on Ms. Knox's personal Facebook page, her comments are protected by the First Amendment," ACLU Legal Director Ed Barocas stated. "The ACLU believes that the response to offensive speech is not the restriction of speech, but more speech."

I agree with Barocas, and I am hesitant to remove a teacher for making personal comments outside of school and outside the capacity as a school employee and representative.[1]  As distasteful, hateful, and bigoted as I find the quotes in the article, I cannot in good conscience seek to silence Knox or prevent her from saying them on her own time and when she is acting as a private citizen.

Having said that, I think it's important to note that while I and the ACLU are more than willing to stand up for her freedom of expression, Ms. Knox is quite happy to deny that freedom to QUILTBAG individuals.  Indeed, the whole thing that sparked this controversy was the fact that she took issue with recognizing and acknowledging gay people of historic significance.[2]  And she made it perfectly known that she would like all QUILTBAG people to remain completely closeted:

"Why parade your unnatural immoral behaviors before the rest of us?

Bear in mind that according to religious conservatives and other homophobes, immoral behaviors includes things like two men holding hands and one woman giving another woman a back rub.

Knox is not unique in this matter.  Many anti-gay individuals and groups will work towards the silencing of QUILTBAG individuals, forcing us into the closet, and making us all but invisible, yet will complain about their own rights to spew their drivel are being violated -- or even just when they perceive them as having been violated.[3]

I don't fault them for sticking up for their rights.  I do think some LGBT advocates go too far in some (hopefully rare) cases.  I just wish they'd grant us the same courtesy.

Notes:

[1]  Of course, as Goldstein notes, one of Knox's comments include the phrase "That's what I teach and preach," which does suggest that the school would do well to make sure that she is not using her teaching position as a bully pulpit for not only expressing her views, but giving them some sense of authority.

[2]  For a wonderful examination of how writing marginalized groups out of the pictures contributes to their continued marginalization and oppression, see mmy's fantastic take on the well-known incident where it happened to women this past Spring.

[3]  This example was the result of a racist comment rather than a homophobic one.  However, the principle remains the same:  haters want to silence others while wrapping their hatred in the First Amendment.  Specifically who they hate is irrelevant.

This morning, I read an article by Michael Gormley about the status of New York legislation that could bring about marriage equality here in the Empire State.  I've been following this story pretty closely in my private time and am excited that my state may soon allow me to marry my (hypothetical) partner rather than requiring me to elope to Massachusetts[1].  I practically cheered to learn that they only need one more state senator to sign on to guarantee passage.

Gormley reports that the current hold-up is discussions over religious protections:

Democrats and Republicans emerged from meetings with Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and said there is progress toward proposed additional religious protections that could bring a gay marriage bill to the Senate floor for a vote as early as Wednesday night.

By the sounds of it, Cuomo and supporters are trying to take the teeth out of the old arguments currently be raised by the National Organization for Marriage of Moralists.  I'm a bit troubled by that, as the arguments about religious freedoms are all based on lies.  Truth be told, churches and religious organizations already have plenty of protections.  A minister or church cannot be compelled to host or perform any marriage -- even any opposite sex marriage -- they do not approve of.  Any stories about such nonsense (such as the Ocean Grove pavilion controversy) are usually misrepresented, and a careful examination of the facts demonstrate that the situation is not about religious freedom at all.  To be frank, the Religious Right crowd is fond of spreading misinformation to make themselves look like martyrs and to drive fear-based political action and decisions.

My pragmatic side almost wants to just shrug and give a thumbs up to the unnecessary "religious protections" that may get put into the new legislation.  After all, if such legislation forces NOM and company to shut up (or at least makes it easier for people to see their lies for what they are), then it's not all bad.  But then, I read this part of the article (emphasis mine):

More protection for religious organizations such as adoption agencies and marriage counselors is sought by undecided Republican senators who are key to the vote.

You see, the mention of adoption agencies tells me that someone is thinking about situations like what's going on with Catholic Charities in Illinois[2].  And this is the exact kind of lying that I'm talking about.  You see, NOM would have you believe that Catholic Charities in Illinois is being forced to close their adoption services if they continue discriminate against same sex couples.  However, that's not true, unless you assume that the rich and powerful Catholic church needs government assistance to do its charity work.

You see, that's the part that NOM and company fail to mention:  Catholic Charities operates their adoption services in Illinois (and elsewhere) under a government contract and with state funding.  And the state regulations require that any organization or business who uses taxpayer money to provide a service must not discriminate against anyone who seeks out that service.  This isn't a case of Catholic Charities losing their religious freedom.  When it comes to their adoption services, they gave up that freedom[3] when they became a contracted agent of the state funded by that same state.

If the religious protections in this new legislation goes on to say that religious groups can offer state-funded and state-contracted services and still discriminate, then those clauses are no longer about religious protections.  They are about state endorsements of religious privilege.  They are about using taxpayer money -- including gay taxpayers -- to support an agent of the state who is allowed to engage in discrimination while acting as an agent of the state.

And that's just not cool.  It's also why even my pragmatic side cannot get behind these so-called "religious protections," even if they do bring marriage equality to my state.  Because marriage equality that still allows religiously motivated agents of the state to discriminate against me isn't actually marriage equality.  It's still a form of second-class citizenship.



[1]  Seriously.  New York would consider me married right now if I went and had the ceremony in a state that already performs same-sex marriages, but will not currently allow me to have the ceremony here among my loved ones.  That's just a strange state of affairs.

[2] This also took place with Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and looks like it will be a common theme across the country.

[3]  In fairness, they only gave up that right in terms of how they conduct their state-contracted and state-funded services.  They're still free to give homily's about how gay people are inherently disordered to their heart's content.

Tuesday, I blogged about a recent CDC study that suggests that gay teens tend to engage in riskier behaviors than heterosexual teens.  Yesterday, Alvin McEwen drew attention to a blog post by Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage of Moralists that mentions this study.  Except that Brian tries to use the study to demonstrate that gay teens are "safer" in states that ban same-sex marriage than in states that have embraced such unions.  He does this by comparing some of the statistics for Wisconson and Massachusetts:

For example, about 25 percent of Massachusetts teens who self-identify as "gay" said they had missed schools because they felt unsafe, compared to 14 percent of Wisconsin teens. More than half (50.5 percent) of Massachusetts gay teens said they felt "sad or hopeless" compared to 29 percent of Wisconsin teens. Thirty-three percent of Massachusetts gay teens attempted suicide, compared to less than 20 percent of Wisconsin teens. Massachusetts gay teens were about twice as likely as Wisconsin gay teens to commit a suicide attempt serious enough to require medical care (15 percent to 8 percent). (By contrast, heterosexual teens in both states were about equally likely to have committed a suicide attempt that required medical care: around 2 percent.)

You see?  Brian Brown has shown that this survey says that kids do better in Wisconsin than they do in Massachusetts.  But Brown also plays with some of the figures from the study.  For example, Brown notes that a whopping 25% of Massachusetts teens that self-identify as gay miss school due to feeling unsafe, compared to 14% of teens in Wisconsin.  Those figures come out of Table 18 (page 27) of the study.  The problem is, Brian is comparing the wrong numbers.

The 14% of students in Wisconsin are students who (1) have had sexual contact and (2) have only had sexual contact with members of the same sex.  This percentage comes from a sample set that is defined by sexual activity, not self-identity.  That is a qualitative difference.  The importance of that of that difference become obvious when you look at the table, find the figure that corresponds to the group of Massachusetts students specified by sexual activity rather than self-identity, and discover the comparable figure in Massachusetts drops to 12.6%.*  We have nothing to compare the Massachusetts students who self-identify as gay with, because that data is not available for the state of Wisconsin.

Brian plays this same shell game with the other statistics he cites.  Comparing the correct figures makes the results for those two states much closer** together.  The fact that Brian plays the shell game to make his argument more compelling is particularly ironic hypocritical, as the whole point of his blog post is to whine that the media and homosexual activiists play with statistics to get them to say what they want.  I'm sure that some members of the media and gay people do exactly that.  However, I know Brian Brown does it.  I just showed you where he does it.

Of course, what's bizarre is that Brian brings up the CDC survey, not to discuss anti-gay bullying, but to defend his opposition to marriage equality by conflating the two issues:

Why is this stark clear evidence that marriage is not responsible for gay teens' suffering never, ever considered worthy of mention in the debates over bullying?

The answer to Brian's question is actually quite obvious:  No LGBT person I know considers the fact that same-sex marriage is not yet a reality to be a cause of anti-gay bullying.  No LGBT person I know considers achieving marriage equality to be the solution to ending anti-gay bullying.  GLSEN does not hand out "support marriage equality" buttons to raise awareness of or stop anti-gay bullying.  They hold the National Day of Silence.  They push schools and educators to create safe spaces for LGBT teens.  They push schools to adopt anti-bullying policies that explicitly mention LGBT students.  Dan Savage starts the It Gets Better campaign and associates it with the Trevor Project.

The only link that LGBT people make between marriage equality and anti-gay bullying is that they are both issues that arise out of the same anti-gay animus.  Beyond that, we understand that they are issues that need to be approached in different ways through solutions meant to address them appropriately.

It's people like Brian Brown and the other folks of NOM that tend to conflate such issues.  It's NOM who tried to link a California educational program about gender identity and bullying to marriage equality, for one example.  In reality, NOM tries to link this issue to anything that will scare people into fighting against marriage equality.  They do this because they know that they can't stand on their anti-gay animus alone.

Brian Brown and the rest of NOM are simply projecting their bad faith tactics onto us, their opponents intended victims.

---

* This does raise interesting questions as to what differences there are between students who self-identify as gay and those who have actually had sexual contact exlucisvely with members of the same sex.

** I'm hoping Erin will confirm or correct me on this, but based on the CI values, I believe ate least some of these percentages are too close to really comment on which state is better or worse, statistically speaking.

Alvin McEwen over at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters pointed out that Peter Heck, a guest columnist at One News Now is whining about all the gay celebrities that came out recently.  Alvin wrote a wonderful response, explaining (though I hope to add to it) how coming out is not the same as discussing your sexual escapades, and I highly encourage my readers to check out his post.  However, he left a lot of stuff in Heck's column untouched, so I want to take a closer look at the column.

CNN host Don Lemon recently became the latest in a string of high-profile individuals to "come out of the closet" and inform everyone who would listen that he enjoys practicing homosexuality.  Every time this occurs, and we are treated to the seemingly endless litany of interviews that applaud the recently outed individual's courage and fortitude, I'm left scratching my head.

The reason Peter is scratching his head is because he simply doesn't understand what's so courageous about coming out.  I mean, sure, he's writing a column for a "news agency" run by the American Family Association, an organization that spends a great deal of energy vilifying and dehumanizing QUILTBAG individuals.  But surely, the fact that people like Peter actively encourage open hostility towards us wouldn't make the thought of opening yourself up to such hostility a daunting thought, right?

But what really gets Peter is the fact that in his mind, people are telling him about their sex lives:

First, why do the very people who constantly tell us that what a person does in their bedroom is no one else's business, simultaneously find it necessary to inform everyone of what they do in their bedroom?  If this is a private matter, Don, then let's keep it private.  Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but frankly, I don't care to know what kind of sex the evening news anchor is into.

Here's the thing:  I doubt Pete's hypothetical news anchor isn't telling Pete whether he's a top or bottom.  I doubt he's telling him whether he prefers to do it doggy style or has a preference for the reverse cowboy position.  That would be telling Pete about his sex life.  And yeah, i can see where that might be considered inappropriate*.

But saying, "Hey, I'm gay."** is not the same as discussing one's sex life.  Yeah, it tells you that if one is going to have sex, it's going to be with someone who's the same sex as the person speaking.  But then, that same information is transmitted in different ways.  If Peter casually "checks out" -- or even just takes a second look -- at a woman, he's announcing to everyone present that he's heterosexual and will probably have sex with a woman at some point in his life.  Somehow I doubt Peter sees anything wrong with that.  It's just gays he has a problem with letting people know.

And let's face it, I doubt Peter gets upset about wedding announcements in his local paper, either.  And yet, those announcements make it pretty clear that the couple will be having sex.  In fact, they're probably having a lot of sex at the moment Peter is reading their wedding announcement, as they're most likely on their honeymoon.  And yet, Peter is okay with knowing that.

Of course, Peter doesn't read a wedding announcement and immediately start thinking of a couple having sex.  No, he thinks of everything that comes with marriage.  He's picturing that couple holding hands in public.  He's picturing that couple having breakfast.  he's picturing that couple making plans for the weekend or discussing how to pay an upcoming bill as they have dinner together.  Because Peter knows marriage is about more than sex.

But to him, being gay or being in a same-sex relationship is only about sex.  We don't hold hands.  We don't cuddle while watching a movie on television.  We don't discuss our household budget or do any of that stuff.  To Peter Heck, we just strip and get it on the moment we both get home.  In effect, Peter thinks about gay people (and mostly gay men) having sex.  He thinks about it more than most gay people!***

But then we get into Peter's real problem:  He's a persecuted hegemon, and the fact that gay people are coming out and not immediately being tossed into prisons**** fires up his persecution complex:

Does anyone actually think that in the politically correct world of American media there was any chance Don Lemon was going to be publicly criticized amongst his peers for such a declaration?  Lemon's home network of CNN has become notorious for their one-sided reporting of the emerging face-off between homosexual rights claims of sexual anarchists on the left and the rights of conscience for the traditional morality crowd on the right.

Of course Peter's argument is completely flawed.  Peter and the company he keeps are not merely "expressing their conscience about traditional morality here."  Peter is out to vilify not only QUILTBAG people, but anyone on the "left."  He tars us all as "sexual anarchists."  This is not the act of a "proponent of traditional morals."  This is the act of  an anti-gay propagandist.  Even as he tries to claim victim status for himself, he cannot resist the urge to take a swipe -- not to mention a false claim (apparently, dishonesty is okay with today's "proponents of traditional morality) at those he sees as worthy of his disapproval.

But that doesn't keep Peter from trying.  He draws out how he and his fellow Bible-believing "defenders of morality" are the real persecuted people

If Lemon really wanted to demonstrate courage, let's see him "come out" in the media as a Bible-believing, born-again follower of Jesus Christ whose faith teaches him that homosexuality is morally improper.  Rather than basking in the glow of the entertainment crowd's unyielding affection, he would be immediately tarred and feathered for his draconian allegiance to discriminatory and prejudicial fairy tales coming from an ancient, bigoted book.

The thing that Peter keeps ignoring -- and hoping everyone else will ignore as well -- is that he and his kind are not just saying what they believe.  They are trying to make us agree with him, or at least let them dictate our actions based on what they believe.  They're trying to vilify, dehumanize, and even control and outlaw other people.  That's not standing up for "traditional morals."  That's attempting to become a privileged oppressor.

The fact that Peter Heck cannot see the difference between these two things says a lot about him.



*  Granted, I will be the first to admit that I'm perfectly happy to discuss my sexual preferences in certain social settings.  I see nothing wrong with that, as I think having a healthy attitude and openness about sex rather than being all uptight and secretive about it.  But that's still a far cry of telling every random person I meet about these things.

** Or bisexual for that matter.

*** Please stop to think about how creepy this is.  Peter Heck and people like him spend more time thinking about my sex life more than I do, despite not even knowing me.  Quite frankly, the only person who arguably has any healthy reason to think about my sex life more than I do is my own partner.  And I am not sleeping with Peter Heck.

**** I actually don't know whether Peter believes that QUILTBAG individuals should be criminalized, but the people who gave him his platform do.

Yesterday, I ran across a Truth Wins Out blog post by Evan Hurst.  Evan dissected an interview between Peter LaBarbera (of the disingenously named Americans For Truth About Homosexuality) and Matt Barber (of Liberty Counsel).  Both men are professional (and by that term, I only mean that they get paid for those efforts) anti-gay activists.  Matt was talking about the recent flack he's been (justifiably) taking for claiming that gay kids commit suicide because they know deep down that being gay is a sin.  During that interview, Matt made the following infuriating comment.

They promote these propagandist 'LGBT' laws to the exclusion and detriment of other classes of kids who are perhaps even more frequently bullied and in larger numbers: Overweight kids and racial minorities come to mind.

This is infuriating to hear, because the statement is nothing more than a diversionary tactic by s9omeone who doesn't care about anti-gay bullying.  It's not only disingenuous, it demonstrates that they don't really care about anyone who gets bullied.  Want proof?  What "all-inclusive bullying protections" have Matt Barber and company actually supported?  What "all-inclusive" legislation have they pushed any level of government representative to introduce, sponsor, or support?  Any?  Any at all?

And truth be told, Matt is ignoring the institutional church's and many religious organizations' complicity in anti-gay bullying, complicity that encourages and condones (if not explicitly, then implicitly) in ways that the bullying of overweight kids or racial minorities aren't.

I know of know major Christian denomination who has an official doctrinal stance that states that overweight people or racial minorities are inherently disordered.  I know of no religious organizations that have been formed specifically for the purpose of "fighting the evil overweight agenda."  I have yet to hear an entire sermon preached on the evils of overeating or being black.  I have not ministers, religious organizations, or political organizations make a concentrated campaign to spread defamatory and damaging propaganda about overweight people, and no one outside of organizations who attack racial minorities would even consider remaining silent when confronted by those organization's tactics.

No, this kind of institutionalized dehumanization and vilification is currently reserved solely for QUILTBAG individuals, and it's the kind of thing that not only condones anti-gay (and anti-QUILTBAG)  bullying, but implicitly (if not explicitly) encourages it.  And that's the painful truth that people like Matt Barber are trying to obscure when they pay lip service to the truth that all bullying should be stopped.  They're trying to shift attention back to the cases of bullying they can fully get behind so that no one notices their silence regarding the bullying they're okay with.

Related articles

• Can We Stop the Gay Bullying Epidemic? (education.com)
• Anti-Gay Bullying: One Mother's Letter to President Obama (bilerico.com)
• Office of Civil Rights to Investigate Anti-Gay Bullying in York County, Virginia Schools. (bilerico.com)