Pageant Fever

Well, if I hadn’t watched it live, I really wouldn’t have believed Miss California could have so… eloquently answered a question read by Perez Hilton regarding same-sex marriage. Her response can be likened to our dear Joe Biden, so on the mark to skirt the real issue at hand, so capable of sounding intelligent… and then, unscripted opinion seeps into the mix. The irony of the situation is that Miss California probably would’ve been crowned if not for giving such a… proud answer.

The fact that an auditorium full of seemingly progressive people cheered this answer concerns me. America, as she so aptly pointed out, is about the people’s will. And when the people chose slavery, segregation and discriminatory law, the courts honored the people’s will and watched from the sidelines… Right, Miss California, because the people always make smart decisions in terms of extending rights to smaller groups them themselves, right. Who does Miss California think choreographed all her dance numbers? Who does she think she is insulting her hair and makeup artists like that? Well, she’s not Miss USA, and that’s good enough for me.

I don’t read Perez Hilton’s blog, but nor do I live under a rock. He’s gay. If I knew that going into the pageant, how didn’t Miss California? I know contestants are meant to be educated, opinionated and diplomatic, but if you sacrifice your integrity, your time, and your energy to appear in a beauty pageant, why not go the extra step in securing victory by greasing the judge’s wheel a little? I would have been deeply offended if I were sitting where Hilton was that night.

What I really can’t bring myself to comprehend is how a woman from a progressive state like California buys into the belief that same-sex marriage is a problem. She didn’t get to explain her views in great detail, thankfully, but one can guess her reasoning behind them. I’m not trying to be judgmental or intolerant, that is the opposition’s job, but if Miss USA is meant to represent the whole of America, she can’t do it with blinders on to a corner of society.

So, with that in mind, I’m sure at least Hilton and another judge gave her low marks, because she lost out to Miss North Carolina (whom, it is noteworthy, I had pegged as the winner from her taped introduction). It’s a shame, really, because she seems interesting enough. Intelligent, beautiful… profoundly walled off from tens of thousands of people in her state… It’s self-evident just how she voted on Prop 8 last year.

I don’t mean to insult Miss California. Honestly, I mean to insult the society that allowed her to walk onto the stage. California needs to give back it’s liberal hippie dippy reputation, it now has to be given to Iowa.


Be good,

Will

A Gay Rights Timeline

The Gay Rights Movement. That’s what activists working toward basic human rights and equality are labeled. It’s unfortunate that LGBTQ individuals and our allies even need a movement to secure fundamental rights as American citizens. However, we do, and I was surprised how very little is actually known of the movement itself. I had dinner with some friends who, while being heterosexuals all, knew surprisingly little about the greatest cold war on human rights in history. Blacks in America had their challenges, but it was never a crime for two consenting African Americans to have sex. The kind of regulation, stereotyping, and general disdain gays and lesbians have endured has gone on too long. So, I had to know, where it all began:

In 1924, Chicago gave rise to the nation’s earliest gay rights organizations: The Society for Human Rights.

Decades later, in 1948, Alfred Kinsey publishes his study of human sexual behavior. Most people use this particular study to claim that 10% of the population is homosexual.

Another long break in progress for gays and lesbians, it was not until 1962 that Illinois became the first state to remove private, consensual sexual relations between two men or two women

The Stonewall Riots in 1969 shook up the status quo, opening up localized problems into a national dialogue. The three days of anti-raid protesting changed the way people viewed the movement.

Four years later, 1973, the American Psychiatric Association acknowledges that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, owing in no small part to the research and lobbying of Dr. Robert Spitzer.

Wisconsin becomes the first state in the union to pass anti-discrimination laws, officially extending protection to gays and lesbians in 1982.

The Supreme Court proves mildly friendly in 1996 when, in a 6-3 ruling, it strikes down Colorado’s Amendment 2. The amendment to the state’s constitution revoked anti-discrimination protections from gays and lesbians. The Supreme Court ruled that “special rights” were basic human rights.

2000: Vermont becomes the first state to offer civil unions to gays and lesbians, stopping short of gay marriage thanks to a definition in state law that defined the union as one between a man and a woman. In 2009, however, the state legislature overrode the veto of Governor Jim Douglas and same-sex marriage was legalized in the state.

Lawrence v. Texas, another 6-3 split ruling, by the Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws in the United States. The Court backed the belief that private individuals may do in private what they will in 2003.

In 2004, Massachusetts becomes the first state to recognize full same-sex marriage.

Finally, in 2007, the House of Representatives approved a bill ensuring fairness and equality for the workplace for LGBTQ individuals.

In 2009, Iowa became the third state to legalize same-sex marriage.

The future holds opportunity untold. In this time of economic peril, banks and corporations have been given their economic bailouts. Gays and lesbians have been holding the bucket for decades and it’s time to cash in on a check written by the Founding Fathers. Blacks got to do it, it’s high time we do the same.


Be good,

Will

Kudos to Colbert

Stephen Colbert aired this counter-ad on his show last night. I had to admit I smiled a lot. This is the kind of national dialogue that we need! Colbert represents a liberal slanted audience by portraying a super-right-wing commentator. His persona is so over the top that apparently, out there somewhere, some groups really believe Colbert supports the National Organization for Marriage.

Kudos to Colbert!


Be good,

Will

How You Can Help: Sign the Petition

I love the Human Rights Campaign. I’m buying a box of their bumper stickers and giving one to all my friends. I know the rhythm of my blog entries is for them to be kind of long, but I want to let this “How You Can Help” speak for itself. The petition the HRC is sponsoring is one that takes very little time or effort, but one that can leave a lasting impact for ourselves and our loved ones. Legalizing same-sex marriage is of vital importance to our rights as homosexuals. Take a moment and support equality.


Be good,

Will

SOMETHING in Advertising

The expression goes “Truth in advertising.” Well, this video campaign by the National Organization for Marriage is not a good example of truth in advertising. Despite this, there is still a lot to glean from watching this video. Some things that are in this video include but are not limited to: Narrow-minded, insensitive, hateful, hurtful, disingenuous, insecure, offensive, shameless, cliché, passé, and in dire need of better special effects.

Another expression I’m fond of: “That’s the measure of a man.” Well if we adopt this principle for corporations, charities and other groups, we can take a measure of it. The National Organization for Marriage clearly does not mind being target of smalltime bloggers like me, so they obviously feel they have nothing to lose…

By now, I hope you have watched the video. And I hope you realize the grand irony that they actually feel they DO have something to lose. Despite being portrayed by actors, some of their sentiments ring true in the organizations that support the creation of these ads.

Taking the measure of this group, the National Organization for Marriage, it is clear that they are not too fond of redefining marriage. From earlier blog posts, I hope you know the definition has already changed according to the world’s most reputable dictionary. This is a big deal in some circles apparently.

The “California doctor” who would have to choose between her “faith and her job” because of legalization of same-sex marriage… happiness for thousands of couples… needs to grow up and realize life is bigger than high school or fake doctor college. The fact that this ad even exists is a good testament to our Constitution. They get to exercise their rights to free speech, now it’s my turn.

My right to happiness is a freedom, no, a promise from our Founders, as laid down by the Declaration of Independence. Though not codified into law, it has been the abiding principle of the courts for over two centuries. The case of Miranda v. Arizona legalized interracial marriage. Why are you not campaigning against this case? It redefined marriage as it was known before the ruling.

But those cases had to do with a man and a woman; the traditional family unit. Which can, and historically has, included multiple women, underage girls, serial rapists, and atheists. By the beliefs that would be imposed on a society because of one religion (i.e., that marriage is a union in the eyes of the Lord), atheists of any sexual orientation should be forbidden the right to marry because of their lifestyle.

I am being persecuted because of my lifestyle. Who I love, or rather even how I love, is not a danger or a “storm” to heterosexuals. If this “storm” spoken about so passionately about in the advertisement linked is like any other storm, there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The entire premise of a pot of gold is a metaphor for better circumstances than the ones before the storm. For gays and lesbians, we can only aspire for a full blown “storm.” We need this tumult. Our rights are nonnegotiable. No organization has the right to fly into the eye of our storm and sit there, throwing rocks when malcontent that the nation is evolving around them.

This storm is a rallying point, not a divisive war for our nation. Gay rights are heterosexual rights. The full benefits of marriage stop with gays and lesbians. How long is it until some radical group reinstates the law prior to Miranda v. Arizona? Chipping away at the law is no way to gain respect. The belief that anyone is immune from activist judges, whom Organization must fear above all else, is silly.

I write “activist judges” with some hesitation since there is a widespread belief that judges with compassion is a bad thing. The fact that 75% of the states that currently recognize same-sex marriage have done so under rulings of the court, I’m a fan of activist judges. All judges are activists! Their entire job is to ensure liberty and justice for all, not to put limitations on them.

The measure of our judges is in line with our expectations of the country. The measure of organizations like this come up short with progress and hope. It is time to rise above our differences and recognize that the last great discriminated group needs to join the adults at the table. We are not second-class, we are not a threat to family values, we are an extension of the family because we come from straight couples.

In short, there is no calm before the storm. We’re living the storm. Spend money on better projects, like HIV/AIDS prevention. Campaigns like this need to realize that living in accordance to their subjective morality probably isn’t good national policy.

Be good,


Will

Start Young

Carl Walker-Hoover, age 11, committed suicide on 6 April of this year. According to reports from his mother, Sirdeaner Walker, local news groups and Carl’s school, he was the victim of bullying. Specifically, Carl was the target of anti-gay jokes and teasing.

There are several problems with this premise. First, that Carl Walker-Hoover may or may not have been gay at all. Second, that kids can be so relentlessly horrible to one another that they can drive another to take his own life. Third, that the school did nothing to really address the situation. Despite attending the New Leadership Charter School, leadership was not taken in this case and the endgame was not favorable for Carl or his mother.

Cruelty is included standard in most humans. Compassion takes real effort. The fact that none of Carl’s classmates could curtail the abuse he was experiencing proves our classrooms are not teaching empathy or understanding. The educational system is a necessary evil in this country. Attendance is mandated by law and no one is going to dispute Carl should have been removed from this environment. However, some old-school philosophers will be quoted as saying the experience would serve to “toughen him up.” Well, Carl is dead. That is a flawed philosophy. More proactively arranging an escape could have gone a long way in this case.

This story highlights the need for massive reforms in the way we educate children. If elementary and middle school students are experiencing this kind of bullying, they’re obviously old enough to deal with the realities of the situation, so open a dialogue, get them talking. Society can’t adopt the belief that some states have about sexual education (i.e., that talking about it will sanction it and thereby make kids go out behind the middle school and get pregnant). Talking about homosexuality in a positive, meaningful way will not turn schoolboys or schoolgirls gay, but it could go a long way in proving that there is a bigger, more complicated world than the cafeteria.

Based on pure empirical observation, kids are coming out earlier and earlier (thank you, internet). Cases like this make us absolutely question whether or not this is a good thing, but we still don’t know if Carl Walker-Hoover was in fact gay. With years come sobriety and better coping mechanisms; bullying eventually softens in the mind’s eye... If you can survive it. It’s a bleak note and coming out only enhances the dangers. But I say that it is a good thing. It proves that some corners of society are more ready to deal with reality, that homosexuality is inborn and not a choice. If being gay were a choice, I highly doubt 8-12 year olds could make it.

So start the dialogue young to match the coming out process for some of them. Don’t leave a tiny segment of kids exposed to intolerance. That is the biggest disservice the compulsory education system could possibly give these kids. It is important to remember, as rightwing advocacy groups often whine about, that children are our future. Don’t put strings on that phrase by implying only the heterosexual ones. Gay or not, Carl was bullied with homosexual-based jokes and ridiculing. This is a major hot button issue that needs a forum in the school systems.

Cheap and Easy

Time got away from me and I was unable to update my blog yesterday, my apologies!

I really want to talk about one of my favorite quotes in the entire history of oppressed minorities. On 28 August 1,963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’”

This sentiment is taken from the “I Have a Dream” speech, wherein King outlines his desire that every person have a chance to live freely and equally in this country. His daughter, Coretta Scott King, was one of the most well-known LGBTQ-friendly advocates. The idea that virtues of civil rights and equality can be transmitted from generation to generation is a hopeful one; but there is a dark side, too. For every tolerant individual, it seems as if there are two or three homophobes, bigots, racists, what have you. These are also virtues that are taught at home.

Now, being gay, I don’t understand homophobia. If I were to openly discuss a fear of heterosexuals, I would be thrown into therapy as a social degenerate. But since I have no fear, I am a “functioning” member of society. Homophobes are considered a fact of life yet they do not pay us the same courtesy. They believe we, as homosexuals, are liars and can be changed into heterosexuals through therapy, prayer, intimidation or incentive.

Dr. King speaks of cashing a check. This is also a long overdue sentiment in the gay community. We feel our struggle for civil rights is an uphill battle, one of limited progress and baby steps. I say, because we live in a free country where our rights are guaranteed from birth, but get taken away when we come out, this is actually an entitlement battle. We are fighting for what is already ours, we are fighting to take back the rights stolen outright by unapologetic powers that be. The silver lining in this debate is our ability to change the system, to cast off tyrants, as laid down in the documents that gave this nation a backbone.

Giving homosexuals the right to marry would be cheap and easy. During the recent Proposition 8 fight in California, both sides raised at least $82,869,785 to pass/defeat the amendment respectively. I’m not economist, but couldn’t that money have been used to, say, fund healthcare, veteran’s insurance plans, bolster the floundering educational systems, deal with poverty, etc.?

By donating millions and millions of dollars to fund homophobia, individuals and organizations are taking away liberties they themselves would revolt over if taken away from them. Imagine your state voting to abolish the right to marry for all people with blue eyes. It’s an extreme example, but to gays and our allies, our sexual orientation is as trivial as blue eyes. Discriminating on the basis of what or who we do behind closed doors seems like playground childishness. There are better ways to spend time and money. Sending kids to college with the $80 million on both sides of Prop 8 would be a good way.

Now, again, I’m no economist, but if we set aside all the money used to pass or defeat the gay marriage amendments, wouldn’t there be some kind of economic benefit for the states? I imagine the jobs created, the money from registering marriage licenses, the wedding cakes, the photographers, the venue rentals, on and on the cookie crumbles until we see some kind of return on investment in civil liberty. In valuing our citizens, America always benefits one way or another. Dr. King’s long fought battle enabled educational reform, continued marriage protections, gave rise to federal antidiscrimination laws and so much more. The similarities in our struggle for equality are almost too many to ignore.

Homosexuals need a civil rights bailout. In a country where every person is born with a silver spoon in their mouths in terms of freedom and equality, it is immoral to strip these rights away for merely living our lives in accordance with what makes us happy. It is time to cash this check and to acknowledge the benefit of these micropayments since the 1960s. Progress has been made, but as is the case in California, progress can be taken away, too. Legalizing gay marriage is a great step in the right direction, it’s cheap and it’s got to be easier than what we’re doing now.


Be good,

Will

Ex-Gay is Not Okay: A Letter to Linda Wall

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH) believes that “Ex-Gay is Ok” according to one testimonial, written by Linda Wall of Virginia. Well, I’m gay, and I would just like to officially announce my counter-campaign: Ex-Gay is Not Okay.

The purpose of Ex-Gay is Not Okay is to directly address the criteria and criticism of “former homosexuals.” First order of business for my new campaign is to lay down the law: There’s no such thing as a former homosexual. Let’s be plain, we homosexuals aren’t presuming or insulting the heterosexual world by putting on airs and calling ourselves “Ex-Straights.” We know how silly and dead wrong that would be, how unfair and how deeply cutting it would be. Plus, we know that, thanks to the University of Illinois and biology, there are factors contributing to our sexual preference besides demons and temptation. Sorry!

In order to be Ex-Gay, a person would actually have to be homosexual in the first place. Ms. Wall, for example, is a good model for this case study. She was, according to her own testimony, “raised in a Southern Baptist family with a deacon dad, Sunday school-teaching mom and preacher brother. So when (she) was at the end of my rope, (she) knew it was the Lord that (she) needed.” Many of the so-called Ex-Gays have a similar upbringing. And I’ve arrived at a very important conclusion: These people undergo the same curious/questioning period that every other human goes through. But instead of owning their curiosity, they hide behind their faith. Ex-Gays are oftentimes products of “restorative measures by the church.”

Well, that’s fine and dandy for the church, but what about the individual? Well if you believe the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Association of School Administrators, the American School Health Association, the National Education Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Federation of Teachers who formed the "Just the Facts Coalition,” the individual is a liar.

According to the primer prepared and distributed by “Just the Facts:” "The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions…”and “…together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.'”

Call it my inner Secular-Progressive, but if every organization of merit believes homosexuality cannot be cured, prayed away, bullied out of you, or repressed through therapy: Ex-Gays are lying. NARTH is the only mental health organization that advocates this kind of “treatment.” Every other group, to little surprise, is religious in nature, including Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out” ministry.

So all in all, I call this whole “Ex-Gay is Ok” campaign a sham based on false testimony, specifically aimed to demonstrate how homosexuals are wicked creatures with poor impulse control and a lack of communication with a loving God.

Well while writing that sentence, I forgot about the Gay Christian Network, More Light Presbyterians, the New Ways Ministry, DignityUSA, Soulforce, the Reconciling Ministries Network, the IntegrityUSA group, the Lutherans Concerned, Emergence International, the Al-Fatiha Foundation and thousands of individual churches, Bible study groups and millions of individuals who believe in leading a normal homosexual life in accordance with “God’s laws.” So, whose Bible is feeding them wrong information? I highly doubt it's those preaching acceptance, for some reason.

Ms. Wall, did your the writings outlining punishment for homosexuality come from the Old Testament, which Jesus overrode by saying “love thy neighbor?” It’s true. Also, did you know that the New Testament literature concerning homosexuality was never uttered by Jesus, but was instead codified by Paul? And if you knew this, why have you chosen to live in accordance with these New Testament laws instead of some other good ones, like:

Virgins should remain virgins because one man says so (1 Cor. 7:25-26). Slaves must accept benevolent or harsh treatment in any circumstance (1 Peter 2:18). Men must raise their hands when praying (1 Timothy 2:8). Women who prophesies or worships must wear a head covering (1 Cor. 11:5). And for men, you have to have long hair… forever (1 Cor. 11:14).

So, context, Ms. Wall, context. When quoting the will of the divine, perhaps it would be best to remember that in almost every case, Paul is talking to individual cultures about individual circumstances and not making universal platitudes concerning homosexuality. If two men lying together is such an abomination, why didn't God strike down David and Jonathan? I refer you to 1 Sam. 18:1-3 for more on that gay relationship.

But I understand, Ms. Wall, I really do: You simply follow the words of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 when you pick-and-choose your beliefs: “Test all things and hold fast to that which is good.” But then, you would have us believe that the entire Bible is accurate, and that the Old Testament verses, the six or seven of over a million in the Bible’s totality, are accurate. Well, how’s your headscarf coming, Ms. Wall? Having it both ways seems… unfair.

With that understanding, using the Bible as a shield to make guilty those simply living their lives is going against Jesus’s command to, you guessed it, “love thy neighbor.” Reparative therapy kind of singles people out, it’s not too loving. And for another matter, it doesn’t really work:

Robert Spitzer, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, searched for over a year and a half to find the “thousands of happily heterosexual ex-gays and lesbians” groups like NARTH and Exodus International report “helping.” He found 247 people who qualified for his study, but picked 200. Of the 200 people, 11% of the men were “fully” heterosexual as a result of the therapy. Since NARTH only referred 46 clients total to the project, it begs a massive question: If every one of the 1,000 mental health experts of their organization treats 50 clients per year, that’s 50,000 possible “ex-gays” in one year they could have referred to Dr. Spitzer’s study. And yet they came up with 46, a majority of whom “still struggled” with their “tendencies."

And the best part of the study, when considering that 11% of 200 people were “entirely” heterosexual as a result of reparative therapy, the failure rate is 99.98%. That’s oddly high for a therapy that has “cured” thousands of homosexuals. Information from this study can be found on Google, but I advise caution; always consider the spin of the website from which you read the information. A lot of groups would have you believe Spitzer is a homophobe who feels homosexuality can be reversed. This is not so, as he was instrumental in removing homosexuality as a mental condition in the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders." So, this leads to the conclusion that ex-gay really isn't that okay.

Ex-gay is even less okay when you take into consideration the testimonies of family members left behind when victims of the therapy commit suicide. The gay agenda is about fighting for equality and tolerance. The so-called ex-gays and their puppet masters are veiled behind their beliefs. Ex-gay is a product, a marketing label and a brand and society isn’t buying. The health experts of merit have spoken and the textbooks have been written. Ex-gay, is in fact, not okay.


Be good,


Will

How You Can Help: Tell 3

Since I launched Moving Out/Moving Forward on a Monday, I figured having a hump day special would be nice for readers. While I hope to continue writing blogs with substance, I also want to offer some solutions and some hope, both of which are in major deficit right now.

I want to profile an organization I believe is at the forefront of the LGBTQ fight for equality and it’s called Tell 3. Although relatively new, the organization website is asking you to “Tell 3 people what it’s like for you or your loved ones to be LGBT. Because we used to think coming out would win us rights. Now we know it takes more than that. Take a step towards equality.”

They are relying on a very old marketing strategy: Word of mouth. They aren’t making flashy viral videos or writing hip shock-content. Tell 3 is working to promote the “gay agenda” in a peaceful, personal way that is almost sure to disarm even the most radically opposed person. I say this with some certainty because I have experienced it firsthand. Normally I would provide a hyperlink to a case study, but this article is about promoting the message of Tell 3 and not debunking rumor. Instead, I’ll use some fancy empirical data to make a point.

When a face is given to a movement, when the “enemy” becomes a real person instead of just an idea, people soften to their humanity. In any Sci-fi television series (Star Trek for instance), the alien terrorist is befriended by one member of the human crew who manages to sway the tide of hatred and intolerance in favor of peace. It’s kind of the same concept when dealing with gay rights. There’s a great scene in “Milk” where the guys are standing in a basement and Harvey is pressuring his followers to call home and come out, the theory being that heterosexuals will support gays and lesbians if they know one of us.

So, here’s my challenge to readers: If you’re a part of a GSA or if you talk about gay rights daily, great! But go the extra mile and Tell 3. Tell people what it’s like to be gay in America. Tell people the challenges, the hopes, the heartaches, the ideals, just tell them something to give them a positive face to identify the movement with. This is a campaign for our heterosexual friends and allies as well; anyone can jump on board and make the world a safer, more positive place.

And while the campaign is called Tell 3, I hope you’ll tell a great deal more. Smokey the Bear is famous for saying “Only you can prevent forest fires,” well along those lines I say the ball’s in your court to prevent homophobia and intolerance. Make a difference.


Be good,

Will

Gay Elephants

… Not literally. This isn’t a tale similar to Roy and Silo, two homosexual penguins in Manhattan’s Central Park Zoo. Instead, it’s always nice to confront the elephant in the room before engaging in deeper discussion. There is a lot of debate over whether or not gays and lesbians can commit to lasting marriages. More troubling still is the debate over whether or not gays and lesbians can provide stable, supportive environments for raising children. Compound that problem with the belief that gays are actively recruiting leaves a very large, very ugly elephant in the room.

While science seems divided on whether or not there is one single “gay gene,” an impartial team (that is to say, one not funded/sponsored by family or homosexual advocacy groups) at the University of Illinois has concluded the interactions of multiple non-sex genes help determine sexual orientation. This, despite knowledge that over 1,500 different animal species have been observed engaging in homosexual activity, begs a serious question: Do gays love differently than their heterosexual counterparts?

Roy and Silo aren’t alone. In addition to humans, scientists and animal behaviorists believe 150-250 different species of animal are capable of forming socially monogamous unions for life. And since- I’m speculating- a number of those species show up on the list of 1,500 animals capable of homosexuality, is a monogamous relationship between two female swans really any different than a human relationship between a man and a woman?

Since some Christian groups subscribe to the belief that homosexuality is a choice, they believe being gay can be cured, that underneath every “gay” individual is a pained straight soul yearning for freedom. So by the transitive property, these people must feel that everything they are capable of, so are gays and lesbians. Because, after all, the only thing that makes them different is a little choice. It’s only logical then to assume that if heterosexuals can form monogamous unions that last until death, so can gays and lesbians.

As a pure side-note to heterosexual readers: Do you remember consciously choosing to be straight? Every time I ask a friend this question, they balk, and immediately say “no.” So why is it all right to assume homosexuality is a conspiracy of people choosing to buck the “traditional” marriage.

As another side-note: The “traditional” marriage is a modern construct. Some Mormon sects still practice polygamy. King Solomon had 700 wives. I’m not good with numbers, but isn’t that 699 more than the “traditional” marriage between 1 man and 1 woman Christians hold in such high esteem? Two loving gay men are somehow more dangerous than polygamy… which Christianity is full of?

From a purely social perspective, the argument that “it’s not natural for two men to love each other” is put to bed- no pun intended- by science. The unusually high concentration of nerve endings in the anus would lead some religious thinkers to speculate their placement is part of a larger design, a plan from an all-knowing higher power, if you will.

So now that it’s evident that homosexuality is seemingly natural and all around us, the last step in taking away the elephant’s tusks is to address the question: Do gays love any differently? Well the obvious answer is normally the right answer: No. Researchers John Gottman (the University of Washington) and Robert Levenson (the University of California-Berkley) have studied 40 heterosexual and 40 homosexual couples and concluded that, as a generalization, gay and lesbian couples “operate on essentially the same principles as heterosexual relationships.”

The only marked differences in the study report that gays and lesbians are less burdened to solve conflicts, and thus, are more prone to walking away from the relationship. With no messy divorce proceeding to go through, there’s no incentive to remain; so that much seems obvious. On the flipside however, Gottman concluded that when gays and lesbians do resolve conflicts in relationships, we do it with more humor and upbeat attitudes than our straight counterparts.

If homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom and research supports the theory that homosexuality is at least partially controlled by genetic interactions, if gays and lesbians are truly capable of monogamy like their straight counterparts: Why is gay marriage still illegal?

Based on the most recent information available, 45 states allow some form of homosexual adoption. That’s 7 more states than necessary to pass/modify an amendment to the United States Constitution. On some level, that inspires great confidence that gays and lesbians can raise children.

“Children need a man and a woman to give them gender roles!” Really? Gender roles? The ones that say women should stay pregnant and tend to the chores while the husband works eight hours and wears suits? Aren’t we a little too progressive for such stereotypes? Family advocacy groups worry that homosexual parents will raise homosexual children; honestly, if they feel it is a choice, I don’t know why they’re worried in the first place, wouldn’t they just choose to be straight to spite their gay parents? Well, I can say from experience a heterosexual couple didn’t raise a heterosexual son in me. My parents aren’t the only ones breaking the mold, there are a lot of gay people out there… Some of them want to be parents.

When reading the conclusions of multiple studies it becomes evident that children raised by gays and lesbian couples will fall within “cultural norms” when forming social and sexual identities. If gay parenting is a recruiting technique, groups who see the bogeyman in it have to explain how homosexuality existed before gay adoptions.

Gays and lesbians don’t seem to have too many problems in forming lifelong partnerships; heck, if the animals can do it, certainly homosexuals can. We don’t seem to have too many problems adopting and raising “normal” children. And we’re better at conflict resolution when we want to be. Gosh, maybe the elephant in the room isn’t so ugly after all. Reality is often much better than fear.


Be good,

Will

Equality Defined

Equality (Noun): “the quality or state of being equal.”

Equal (Adjective): “regarding or affecting all objects in the same way.”

I’m pretty certain Mr. Merriam and Mr. Webster won’t mind me mentally substituting “objects” for “people” for the sake of argument. But now that the risky business of defining equality is out of the way, it is easier to understand the broad strokes of a very common argument in the gay community: Our constant struggle to gain equality.

That’s right: Equality. It takes all kinds coming from all stripes to fight for something, and it took me awhile to realize that’s probably why our movement is symbolized by the rainbow flag. There have been arguments in the mainstream media that same-sex marriage is a “slippery slope.” There have been arguments that gays and lesbians are seeking “special rights” by demanding marriage equality. “Equality” and “special rights” are not synonymous as some right-wing “family advocacy groups” like Focus On the Family would have you believe.

If Alfred Kinsey is to be believed, 10% of the population is LGBTQ. This is a large minority of people. Family advocacy groups and the Mormon Church recently played a critical role in the passage of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that restricted the definition of marriage in the eyes of state courts to unions between one man and one woman only. There are more gays and lesbians in this country than there are Mormons, and yet voters were persuaded in no small part to ban same-sex marriage in California because of record donations from the Church of Latter-Day Saints.

In so defeating Proposition 8, California voters restricted thousands of couples and potential couples 1,138 federal rights, protections and benefits that marriage gives to heterosexual partners. These couples are not regarded in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts. I understand (and will discuss later) the argument that changing the definition of marriage to include unions between two consenting adult males or two consenting adult females makes some people uncomfortable. With the rate of divorce running so high for heterosexual couples, you’d think family advocacy groups would really be worried about shoring up their marriages instead of denying mine.

And by the way, the definition of marriage has already been changed. In 2009, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary was amended to include the following note on the word “Marriage:”

“… the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”

With this inclusion in one of the foremost authorities on definitions, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is more progressive than the State of California. Isn’t that a little insulting to any Californians who value equality above comfort?

Getting back to these aforementioned “special rights,” is it logical that the government may take away a sex offender’s right to vote in elections after he is convicted but takes no action to prevent him from marrying a mother of three? Gays and lesbians can’t marry at all, and yet heterosexual sex criminals can marry at will. Somehow, it just doesn’t seem equal.

Also, family advocacy groups claim to be preserving the family unit, the cultural ideal, the unit that will produce children. Gays have been hammering it for years, and I shall continue because the point is strong and valid: Infertile couples can’t produce children; yet infertile couples can marry. It just doesn’t seem equal.

Why, in the greatest country on earth, are we debating granting “special rights” to a minority of people whose greatest crime is the desire to be treated fairly and like everyone else in our society? The “gay agenda” so often pandered as this wicked thing is the heterosexual agenda: To live a life free and honest and open, free from the regulations and impositions of others. Equality, true equality, is our greatest goal, and people of all stripes are campaigning to be treated just like everybody else in this country. That is our demand. “Special rights” to those who would oppress, “reality” for the heterosexual population at large.


Be good,

Will