A school board member in Fairfax County, Virginia, has made a stir by asking for equal time for his agenda, namely, to promote the idea that homosexuality isn't the pinnacle of human existence.
[...]Hunt said students often are exposed to the "Will and Grace version of homosexuality." He contended in the letter that gays often suffer drug and alcohol abuse or physical abuse and that gay men don't live as long as heterosexual counterparts. "There are huge ramifications for people who may make a choice to go into that lifestyle, and we should make sure they are fully aware of the entire issue[.]"
Read the story.
First of all, nobody "makes a choice to go into that lifestyle." Secondly, the drug and alcohol abuse is often the result of depression brought on by -- guess what? -- heterosexual persecution of homosexuals. As for domestic violence, we hardly have the market on that.
First of all, nobody "makes a choice to go into that lifestyle."
Does Nathan mean that gay people compulsively or involuntarily enter into same-sex romantic relationships and sexual activity? If not, can he clarify?
Over on Christopher Blosser's blog a while back he said that he didn't see much distinction between orientation and practice, so I guess that's were he's coming from.
Even if he were right about that (assuming my recollection is accurate and he still holds to it), he'd still be wrong though. Whether it's today's collegiate lesbianism (i.e., Lesbian Until Graduation), Victorian era pederasty in English public schools (see C.S. Lewis' Surprised by Joy, chapter VI) or Greco-Roman pederasty, there have been otherwise straight people in many ages that have chosen to regularly engage in homosexual relations (at least during a portion of their lives), i.e., to enter into some form into the homosexual lifestyle. Not saying that all gays or even many choose to have the orientation they have, but Nathan did say nobody.
Richard -- I was speaking of the homosexual orientation, not necessarily any actions (sexual or otherwise). Obviously, with any action a choice is made. But if you read the story, he is clearly saying that people choose the homosexual orientation -- that homosexuality itself is a choice, rather than an orientation that is either genetic or psychological. I totally disagree with that, and it is not supported by any research.
TPFKAC -- I should have said that nobody in their right minds would choose to be gay. Given the level of persecution that gays and lesbians face in our culture, anyone who would consciously choose to be gay or lesbian should, in my opinion, be classified as masochistic and clinically insane. If I had the choice, I would not be homosexual because it will cause me much pain because of the way many treat gays and lesbians -- this is not to mention the possibility, very real in light of Matthew Shepard and others, that it could cost me my life. If I had a choice, I would be straight. I do not have a choice, however, and I resent people who tell me that I do.
I'm not sure he actually means that, Nathan. He's a little vague in his language, but who can tell how much is getting lost in the newspaper's version of his views?
The current curriculum says that people don't choose their sexual orientation, but can choose their behavior. According to the WaPo, he doesn't want to ban the programs or material now in place but add to them. This suggests that he agrees with the statement now in place.
If I understand him right, he wants to add some messages: (1) that some people with a same-sex orientation experience a degree of change toward normality, and they are pleased with it; (2) that there is a positive correlation between homosexuality and various recognized mental health problems (depression, drug/alcohol abuse).
#1 is true, if the witnesses are to be believed; and isn't #2 established by studies?
Actually, Nathan he says the choice is whether "to go into that lifestyle." Further, most of the bad things he describes are pretty clearly the result of various behaviors (maybe depression wouldn't be, but AIDS and other forms of VD, plus hate crimes pretty clearly are).
It seems clear enough to me -- he's talking about behavior, not orientation.
And nobody says you have a choice about your orientation. Your behavior, you absolutely do.
Maybe you're both right about what this guy wants -- but I dispute Richard's #1 point about the ex-gay thing. Most researchers, psychologists, etc. don't believe that one can be effectively "cured" of homosexuality, and most think it can do serious mental/emotional damage to attempt it.
Victor -- I hope you're not saying that homosexuals cause the hate crimes perpetrated against them by engaging in sexual activity? That's almost like saying: "The devil made me do it." The people who commit hate crimes are solely responsible for those crimes; not the victims.
I am saying that unless one declares oneself as an open homosexual, it is not possible to be discriminated against or bashed for that reason. The person doing something (the discriminator, the basher) cannot do that thing (discriminate, bash) for a reason of which he is not aware.
(This is straight Ratzinger, by the way ... section 14 at the link. Not that I expect Nathan to be impressed by that name-drop.)
Victor,
Your link doesn't work. Did you forget to put the address within the a href tag in quotes? I never could get links to work here until someone pointed out that MT requires the quotes. Example.
<a href="http://www.whatever.com/">
Oooops.
This link should work.
I hope.
"I am saying that unless one declares oneself as an open homosexual, it is not possible to be discriminated against or bashed for that reason."
Uh, this is not true. I know people who have been bashed fror "looking", "talking" or "acting" gay.
As for orientation vs. action -- I agree some people are born with a propensity towards homosexuality. But I think they are a lot more rare than we think. They're not "one in ten". I speak from experience. I once defined myself as bisexual, and was very proud of it. I felt it was part of "who I am."
I was wrong. I went to a university where being gay was cool, so I took normal feelings of attraction for the same sex and thought, "Oh, I must be gay, then." We were being taught most people were at least some form of bisexual!
Now, I know I am striaght, and most of the "gay" friends I hung out with ended up in straight relationships. What did I learn? Peer pressure can "orient" someone into gay behaviour.
There's only two people I know in my generation (20s) who have always been oriented towards homosexuality. One of them is my closest cousin, and he HAS been treated terribly. I agree with Nathan, being really gay is no fun experiment. It's a cross. That's why I'm so glad the group Courage exists. (Gay people helping each other live chastely.)
Cin wrote to me:
"I am saying that unless one declares oneself as an open homosexual, it is not possible to be discriminated against or bashed for that reason."
Uh, this is not true. I know people who have been bashed for "looking", "talking" or "acting" gay.
------------------------------------------
I would deny that there's no relationship between "looking, talking or acting gay" and actually being gay and living out the gay lifestyle. If one has attractions, they themselves in themselves are private.
Sure, other people can make a mistaken judgment that a person is gay, like with Lyle, the Effeminate Heterosexual on SNL. And I'm 90 percent sure that the text of homosexual-discrimination laws use the construction "actual or perceived sexual orientation" or something similar. But people can be mistaken on anything they want for any reason they want. The only way this is rationally related to actual sexual orientation (and thus if purveyors of the gay lifestyle can possible have any point) is if there actually IS such a thing as "looking or acting or talking gay." Because if there isn't such a thing (as the How-Dare-You-Stereotype-Us crowd always insists in other contexts), then we're dealing with an essentially random mistake that should affect breeders equally and has nothing to do with *actually* being gay and can provide no support for the proposition "discrimination makes being gay unpleasant."
But, the thing is, immersion in a lifestyle rubs off on one -- by defining the range of "normality" if nothing else. Then, this "talking, looking or acting gay" stuff either reduces to "looking gay" (like Lyle above, but then it's essentially random as explained above) or it means "acting out the gay lifestyle in deed or speech" -- doing things like hitting on someone or whatever. In which case, like all behavior and all lifestyles, it is chosen. Like the guy who chose to ask me, in an outside-social voice as I was walking down the street near a Dupont Circle movie house, whether I wanted to (blank) his (blank).