My good buddy Tina brought this wonderful little gem (published in her local) paper to my attention. I don’t normally fisk, but this opportunity just seemed too good to pass up:

Several weeks ago, Athens and some other schools in this area celebrated a DOS day.
The correct meaning of this term is “Day of Sodomy.”

You know, if someone is going to resort to juvenile name calling, I wish for just once they’d come up with something new. Does this person really think we haven’t heard that “Day of Sodomy” slur about a thousand times before?

I called the administration to protest before April 25, but they were closed.

Really? The school opened for the very first time ever on April 25? Or do they mean they tried calling once only to discover they were closed and were too lazy to try again during normal hours?

The day was to be a day of silence to support those who practice gross sexual deviance.

Actually the Day of Silence is meant to raise awareness of how gay students (or even straight students who are perceived to be gay) are harassed, ridiculed, and even bullied. It’s a way to remind how these students are silenced (and often suffer in their silence). It’s a way to say, “no more mistreatment!” The problem is, people like our opinion-writer here cannot be honest about this fact. If they admitted what they were really protesting here (the radical notion that kids shouldn’t be bullied for being gay), more people would realize just what monsters they are.

Ignoring what God calls an abomination, all prior civilizations have considered these acts despicable.

This person needs to do far more research into this subject. There’s plenty of evidence to challenge the veracity of the “all prior civilizations” claim.

What sodomites (gays) have to be proud of is questionable.

I survived hateful comments directed at me from people like this author. I managed to reject a mountain of cultural conditioning that tried to convince me that I’m somehow “less than” and horrible simply because I’m attracted to and fall in love with men rather than women. I managed to become the stable, strong, and wonderful person I am despite all of these challenges. If the author finds these reasons for my pride “questionable,” then I’m inclined to find his ability to reason — or empathize with his fellow human beings — equally questionable.

They cannot reproduce naturally but must recruit.

Actually, it’s my experience that the ultraconservative Christians are the ones who recruit. I mean, there the ones with parochial schools, Vacation Bible Schools, Sunday Schools, and all kinds of other programs specifically developed to target children and youth. In fact, they encourage their own children and youth to participate in this recruitment process, often using guilt trips and other forms of manipulation. At best, this claim is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. At worst (and this is far more likely), this claim is simply a matter of psychological projection.

It requires an active decision on the part of a person to become one.

I have yet to meet anyone who woke up one day and decided to be attracted to members of their own sex. I have yet to meet anyone who woke up one day and decided to be attracted to members of the other sex, for that matter. There’s simply no evidence for this claim. And even the ex-gay industry shies away from such a ridiculous notion.

Empirically, sodomites have a shorter life span,

Ah yes, good old Paul Cameron and his “longevity study.” The problem is, that study (and Paul Cameron) has been thoroughly discredited since it came out.

gave us AIDS,

Erm, a gay person can’t give you AIDS unless you have sex with them. 😉

provided most of our non-governmental mass murders, our last known U.S. cannibal and probably most pedophiles.

This is a tiresome old dirty trick called “guilt by association.” The fact that the author would even use it demonstrates just how little substance the original argument has. In fact, I’m surprised the author didn’t take this tactic to its logical conclusion, which would’ve enabled me to invoke Godwin’s law.

Name one thing a sodomite has done that is good that was done solely because the person was a sodomite.

Actually, I’d argue that the struggles I’ve faced as a gay man have made me a stronger and more compassionate man. That compassion has led me to help and touch the lives of many people.

But let’s face it, this whole “solely because the person was a sodomite” caveat is an admission that the author can only hope to make his point if he narrowly defines his challenge. He knows that gay people have made positive contributions, so he has to try to force people to limit their lists to contributions directly linked to their gayness.

The problem is, he’s raising a double standard here. After all, when he listed the social ills (you know, all that crap about pedophiles and mass murderers), he didn’t limit himself to the social ills directly related to gay people’s gayness. He just listed whatever he could think of that any gay person has done. Who cares that Jeffrey Dahmer was a messed up sick fuck? All that matters is that he was gay, so bigots like this author can use the horrible things Dahmer did to defame all gay people. But no, those of us on the pro side are suddenly expected to stick to things that are directly related to sexual orientation.

The whole thing reminds me of those situations where two children are playing a made up game, and the one child keeps rewriting the rules as the game progresses just to make sure he wins.

While is it legal for the sodomites to have a school sponsored “un-gay” club,

I will give credit to the author for being one of the few anti-gay bigots who seems to recognize the constitutionality of allowing GSA’s in school.

the school district does not have the right to enforce a schoolwide celebration of this disgusting practice.

No school district “enforced” a schoolwide celebration during the Day of Silence. the DoS is not run by teachers or administrators. It’s an event that involves voluntary participation of individual students. Indeed, it’s usually the students that request to participate.

All school faculties do is make allowances for students’ participation. They make sure that no participating students are harassed or bullied because of their participation. They might even make adjustments to the day’s activities to allow for some students’ participation, such as revising lesson plans so as not to call on a student who is remaining students. (As an aside, both GLSEN and the ACLU have made it clear that a participating student must break their silence and respond if a teacher asks a question or calls on them during class time.)

Why do the Athens schools and presumably the staff and teachers push sodomy as an acceptable lifestyle?

They don’t. They push the radical notion that no students deserve to be harassed, bullied, or otherwise mistreated, even if they’re gay. Why does the author have a problem with such an idea?

Why should we continue to support this system that “teaches our future” to be our destruction?

Because we tried letting the author’s beloved religious institutions try running the show for several centuries. The results were even worse.

Tolerance can reach the point of being intolerable. Perhaps Athens voters need to turn out the current school board and superintendent for their lack of morals and backbone.

Perhaps the town could instead ostracize and shun this author for thinking that protecting gay kids from mistreatment is somehow “immoral.”

Recently, a principal in South Carolina recently announced he was resigning over the establishment of a GSA at his school. His reasoning (thanks to BlackTsunami for the quote) is as follows:

“The formation of this club conflicts with my professional beliefs in that we do not have other clubs at Irmo High school based on sexual orientation, sexual preference, or sexual activity. In fact our sex education curriculum is abstinence based. [JH comments: I’ll try to leave aside the question of how saying “don’t have sex” qualifies as “education” for now.] I feel the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at Irmo High school implies that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes.

To be honest, this is not a new argument. I’ve seen many anti-gay people refer to GSA’s as “sex clubs.” It’s as if the only thing that they can imagine kids doing during a GSA meeting is discussing (or worse, having) sex. I suppose this shouldn’t be surprising, as anti-gay people seem to get hung up on that whole sex thing themselves, so they automatically assume gay people are equally hung up on it.

However, in the case of a GSA, I can only assume that people making such an assumption have never actually talked to a gay teen. Quite frankly, there are a lot of other things that fall pretty high on the list of things they need to talk about. Let’s just run down a partial list:

1. Concerns over how they’re going to meet their ideal boyfriend or girlfriend when they’re already limited to 2-3% of the population as even remote possibilities. (Hey, I’m in my thirties and sometimes I worry about that one.)
2. Concerns about how their parents will react. (Even gay-affirming parents can be taken aback when their own child comes out to them.)
3. Concerns of how to deal with teasing, name-calling, and bullying from other classmates.
4. Concerns about how to safely figure out if you can tell the cute boy in gym class that you think he’s cute without getting yourself beaten up in the process.
5. Concerns about dealing with people’s strange and sometimes inappropriate questions.
6. Questions on what they can do to ensure a better life for themselves and other LGBT people.
7. Figuring out what their sexual orientation actually is. (Thanks for the suggestion, Rose)
8. Taking comfort in the knowledge they’re not alone or the only one going through this. (Thanks for the suggestion, Erin.)

(Note: If any gay teens or gay adults who remember their teen years would like to suggest additions to this list, I’d be happy to keep it growing.

Quite frankly, there are a lot of things to talk about when it comes to being gay, especially when you’re young and life in general is confusing and uncertain. So this idea that gay kids are just going to sit around discussing sex or hooking up to have sex is so far from reality that it’s not even in the same universe.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the topic of sex won’t ever come up. (Heck, I’m not even saying that no kids will ever meet at a GSA meeting and decide to enter into a sexual relationship.) We’re talking about teens with raging hormones and lots of questions, after all. But at the same time, I think these discussions are more likely to focus on the kinds of things that should’ve been covered in a decent sex ed class, anyway. (You know, one that says more than “don’t have sex.”) Like any other kid, they’re going to want to know about health risks. And they might even want to know about where and how love and sex might intersect. They’re not going to be looking for a how-to manual. (If that’s all they wanted, they could jump on their favorite P2P network and download a couple dozen videos.)

And ultimately, I think this is where those who oppose the formation of a GSA do both the children and their own ideals a great disservice. A GSA provides an opportunity for adult involvement in such discussion. It provides an opportunity for discussions about ethics, responsibility, and many other topics. It provides an opportunity to offer guidance and provide proper role models.

The problem is, anti-gay people automatically assume that there are no ethics involved in same sex relationships. They think there’s no such thing as a good gay role model. They think homosexuality is nothing more than a den of complete depravity.

The problem is, their actions only serve to create that reality they think already exists. In the end, they’re part of the problem.

Jonathan Rowe, one of the contributors to Positive Liberty, pointed his readers to a great opinion piece by John Corvino in regards to ex-gays. It’s well worth the read and I highly recommend it.

Corvino offers an excellent and respectful criticism of the ex-gay movement, as well as those individuals and organizations that comprise it, while affirming the rights of ex-gay individuals to follow their journey towards heterosexuality. (I will note, however, that Mr. Corvino seems unaware that some ex-gay individuals are now accepting life-long celibacy as a valid alternative.) What I find more interesting about Mr. Corvino’s article, however, is when he touches upon the question of whether he feels threatened by ex-gays and their testimonies:

I am not at all threatened by the notion that some people can change their sexual orientation, if indeed they can. In reality, it seems that at best only a small number can do so, and only with tremendous effort. But if they can, and that makes them happy, good for them. I?m confident enough in my own happiness that I need not doubt theirs.

Unlike Mr. Corvino, many people do feel threatened by the possibility that some people might actually be able to change their sexual orientation. And to some degree, that reaction is perfectly understandable. Many in the ex-gay movement, and certainly most of their political supporters, are banking a lot on the claim that people can change their sexual orientation. This is because many of them have the desire to make the poorly founded jump from evidence that some people can change their sexual orientation to anyone can change their orientation. And once they’ve made that jump, their next step is to conclude that everyone (everyonte who isn’t heterosexual, of course) should change their sexual orientation.

The threat comes not from the possibility that some people can change from gay to heterosexual, but from the reality of where many in the ex-gay movement and their supporters want to lead the conversation from there. After all, organizations like NARTH still lament the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disease and would like to see its eventual reclassification.

Of course, the solution to this “threat” is to simply point out that the fact that something can be done does not necessarily mean it should be done. And I think that’s where we queers as a community tend to fall down. We’re so wrapped up playing defense in proving that sexual orientation can’t be changed that we don’t take a more proactive force and ask the bigger question: WHY should it be changed? That’s why the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is a great thing, and why organizations like NARTH have to try and dismiss its declassification as a “political move” rather than a reasoned decision based on careful study. That hurt their entire position and we would do well to remind it.

Corvino talks about this when he admits he’s happy with his life and sees no need to change. This isn’t based on the fact that he “can’t” change (or so it seems to this blogger), but on the realization that it’s a satisfying part of who he is. It’s a great place to be on a personal level, but I think it’s also a great argument on a communal level.

Let those who wish to seek change have it. But those who wish to force that same change on the rest of us will need to justify that decision. And quite frankly, I think they have a losing battle on their hands.