Bad Journalism

This is yet another entry regarding homosexuality and the ongoing debate. I know my blog was supposed to contain a greater variety of topics, but I am apparently stuck on this one. So yes, bear with me once again.

This topic isn't something that came to me recently and I am sure it isn't new to anyone with a brain. This entry's aim is to acknowledge the problem that occurs on both sides of a debate: the problem of bad journalism leading to misinformation.

I was reading one of the Catholic Online articles (I want people to know that I have stopped my consistent visits to the publication, mostly due to what I write about in this note). I was upset. My angst was not due to the arguments the author was making. It was from the comments that people made following the article. The content of the article was not really controversial. What people were saying most definitely was.

The following is an excerpt from what I read:

As one of our people here has pointed out to me.

Same Sex attraction has been put on the "disorder" list again yet the Same Sex Community is in denial of this.
Doesnt this also say that maybe it wouldnt be a good idea to marry since it is not in the same league as one man one women marriage?
We do meet same sex folks at the website: Courage Apostolate.
We do love you and we do learn from this sight.
Maybe you should take a look at this sight?

The Courage website does not encourage anything.
I suggest you look at this website.

You will not succeed in your endeavors.
Why is it the same sex community is so defensive of the possibility that they might be wrong about this because they are disordered after all?

Just a suggestion on my part.

Here is another comment from that same person:

What I gather being Same Sex is still considered a disorder.

How come they sugarcoat this fact?
So the question hasnt been answered yet. Therefore marriage equality isnt even on par with marriage.
I hope someday we get the real facts on the issue of same sex attraction medically and scientifically someday.
Right now we dont have real clear answers other than those found at Courage Apostolate.
Also Father John Harvey wrote an excellent book The Catholic Church clear answers to difficult questions.
I think its been helpful to me understanding our brothers and sisters who suffer this dilemma or disorder.

The comments above are from a woman whose writings I've seen before. I actually like her a lot, and she seems to have an interest in obtaining the truth, and not just the Catholic truth. However, her search for truth is enveloped by the teachings of the Catholic Church. She had written that she believed homosexuality to be a disorder, because everything she had read on the subject pointed in that direction. She does usually end her posts by saying that she wanted to hear other ideas, except not in the ones above.

First off, if everything this woman is reading is declaring homosexuality a raging disorder, then she is obviously not reading EVERYTHING. A person would have to be sheltered to a great extreme to not realize there are other pieces of literature out there that view homosexuality in a completely different way. Perhaps some of these people are THAT sheltered that they really cannot comprehend that. However, I do not believe this particular woman, and most people in general are that removed from society's grasp that they are not able to hear or read other viewpoints. Basically, what it comes down to, in my opinion, is biased selection and willful blindness towards these other viewpoints and facts.

This is where I find myself to be most contemptuous of the Catholic Online and other religious publications. They are dealing out opinions as facts, they are lacking in their research and they are making biased, unsubstantiated conclusions without looking at other facts.

As an aside, I want to make it clear that I do not stoop to entertain the whole homosexuality-as-disorder debate. I think it is old, fatigued, and has been proven over and over again to be false. It might not be the norm to be gay, but abnormality does not equal disorder. Honestly, whenever I encounter a person who asserts something like that (I rarely do, because I think that viewpoint is really that dead), I tell them that I can't argue against a point that is not worthy of debate, that is so unsubstantiated and so carelessly projected. If a person really believes something so ridiculous, they are beyond the ability to have a reasoned discussion on the matter. Why? Because their facts are whacked.

However, unfortunately, there are those rare few (they all seem to flock to Catholic Online) that continuously assert these ridiculous positions that have no basis in science or fact. Yes, they have basis in their religion, but religion can never really be unbiased, especially a religion as old and as poorly moderated as the Catholic Church.

What shocks me is that people are so quick to support their conclusions with what I see as factually shaky support. What shocks me even more is that these people are finding words out there, published words, that make these edgy and ridiculous statements.

This is what gets me. I understand that people have a a desire to learn and discover new information. This day in age, there is literature out there that supports any viewpoint and it is easily disseminated via the internet. Of course, anytime a piece of literature is read for information's sake, one must ask the question: how reliable is this?

I took it upon myself to do a little research into what this woman was saying. In all honesty, I was a little concerned because I hadn't read any scientific studies regarding homosexuality and I was fearful that maybe this woman was right. Maybe they did put homosexuality back on the so-called "disorder list." My research showed no such shift. From what I know, the APA is still the major psychological organization that most doctors and therapists follow. I don't know how that works exactly, because I know there are other academic and professional publications out there.

From what I can tell the above commentator was horribly confused. After reading some of the stuff on her cited websites, I was also confused. She gets her information from the website of the Courage Apostolate (CA from here on) which is an organization with Vatican recognition and also the National Assoc. for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).

CA is not considered, and it does not consider itself, a reparative therapy group. From what I can tell, and from what I have heard from other people there is no "changing" gays and lesbians into heterosexual. Further, I have read elsewhere that the Catholic Church does consider homosexuality to be changeable to a certain degree (it should be noted, however, that this is in part due to the fact that CA does not believe in using the terms "gay" or "lesbian" or "homosexual" because they denote a certain permanence. They use the phrase "person with homosexual attraction." This interesting use of terminology prevents them from being a reparative therapy group because they can't change straight a person that was never gay or lesbian). Personally I do not have any personal problems with the CA simply because its a church sponsored organization basing its instruction on church teachings. They do not tout suspect statistics and studies as scientific fact, at least not on the website, and they do acknowledge that homosexuality is a deep-seated trait of a person that sometimes cannot be quelled. They use the word "sometimes" which I do not personally like, but basically its a group that trying to get its members to cope with being homosexual and live a celibate life. They are not trying to change them into heterosexuals (it should be noted that this is something that groups affiliated with the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints claim to do, a claim that I think is despicable, immoral, and irresponsible given the importance of marriage in our society and to Christian churches).

NARTH, on the other hand, is a group with which I have major problems. It claims itself to be a secular organization devoid of religious or biblical persuasion or bias. It holds that homosexuality is a disorder, it should be re-categorized as such, and, with treatment, it can be changed. First off, NARTH's scholarship and research generally has a religious undertone, despite its claims of secularism. One of its leaders testified in a gay adoption case in Arkansas. The judge in that case stated on the record that his opinion was highly suspect and could not be trusted due to his obvious bias against homosexuality demonstrated though his obvious religiousity. Secondly, NARTH is in complete opposition to the medical/scientific community at large. There seems to be a great deal of professional and societal opposition to what NARTH advocates.

I've had some run-ins with NARTH-related research and studies. My former employer and instructor, Professor Teresa Collett, sometimes cited their studies in her articles. Maggie Gallagher, and major presence in the Traditional Marriage Movement and the leader of National Org. for Marriage (NOM) also cites NARTH's studies. NARTH is certainly not some crazy, radical group on the sidelines. It does have a professional following. Although the psychiatric community at large generally avoids them as a person would an embarrassing cousin or uncle, it is not a group that is largely ignored. However, just because they aren't ignored doesn't mean they have any scientific credibility in the community.

Going back to the comment and this woman's dependence on these two bastions of anti-homosexual rhetoric, what I read was vastly different from what this woman actually put in her comments. In no place did either website state that homosexuality is now, again, considered a disorder. NARTH certainly suggests that it should and it cites studies and research that support that conclusion. CA is a little different though. The CA describes homosexuality as an "objective disorder" a phrase the website openly declares a philosophical term, meaning homosexuality does not comport with morality. The website acknowledges the fact that psychology understands homosexuality, but that their view is different.

The paragraph where the above was stated was a little murky and confusing. Yes, its words did ultimately say that the psychological community at large does not consider homosexuality a disorder, but it said it in a confusing way:

At Courage, we choose not to label people according to an inclination which, although psychologically understandable, is still objectively disordered.

I find this statement particularly misleading. There is a big difference between a medical or mental disorder and a "disorder" that exists because it goes against a certain part of morality (a religious morality at that). The term "objectively disordered" is not really isolated nor described in a way that separates it from its medical uses. I would have been fine had the CA went and said "although the psychological community and its standards state otherwise, we believe homosexuality to be that of an 'objective disorder,' which is not the same as a disorder listed under a medical or scientific treatise." However, they didn't say this. What bothers me is that this woman who read this somehow translated that to mean the American medical community at large has declared homosexuality a disorder. Of course, the CA did not actually go and say such things, but the language was highly suspect and unclear.

The above situation is what I call "bad journalism." Published material that invokes a controversial debate should put its statements in a context. Quite frankly, I think its a little appalling that CA is using the word "disorder" when what they are describing is not a disorder, technically speaking, but rather something that does not comport to the Christian faith. Yeah, they qualified the word with "objective," however, what does that actually mean to people with lower education levels or to people who are looking up this information with the sole purpose of trying to prove homosexuality is a medical disorder? It apparently meant nothing this the woman who posted those comments and most likely not a lot to other people who read it. The term "disorder" is being used as a term of art, like a person calling someone or something "retarded." Although I would like to say that the woman who commented is an idiot and she was stupid for her interpretation, I do not actually believe that. I've actually had discourse with her through our comments and she is actually a really nice gal and she generally seems interested in her truth-seeking endeavors. Of course, based on her writing I have to admit she does not seem to have the greatest comprehension level (she does say some really weird things that come out of nowhere). In no way, however, do I think she's incompetent.

Part of what bothers me about this is that it seems like intentional misdirection for the purpose of proving a point. I will completely admit that homosexual rights activists do the same thing all the time. It is unlikely you are ever going to go to HRC or UCLA and find a study that tends to prove homosexuality is a disorder. More analogous would be finding a pro-gay website that featured kind words about Christian religion members, or at least an unbiased portrayal. I see it all the time on blogs and in in the comments of liberal gay rights articles. Liberals are constantly calling the marriage traditionalists "bigots" or "bible thumping jerks" or whatever else. I do think this is very improper. However, I feel like the conservative side of this debate tends to do it a lot more than the left. In particular, I feel like the conservative side of the debate tends to push out these slanted, insulting viewpoints and sees it as fair play simply because its clouded in religion; they must because it's God's demand. People may disagree, but I really find the words on the CA website to be conveniently unclear and inarticulate and I get the feeling that it might be intentional. How can reputable organizations and the people that make up them publish such garbage?

Why Don't Devout Catholics Do What They Should?

I am ticked . . .

I follow the Catholic Online articles and often comment on them. My purpose in doing this is not to trash-talk the Catholic faith, intentionally stir-up controversy (although I do not think that necessarily a bad thing) or boost my ego. The truth is, I find the debate between conservative Catholicism and the secular population very interesting. I enjoy tossing around different ideas simply for the sake of intellectual enrichment. My purpose is not to degrade any religious beliefs, or even argue against the validity of Church teaching. Indeed, I myself am a Catholic and do follow its teachings generally. However, I do not like the blind adherence to religious principles exhibited by so many on the site. Further, I think blind faith without test and tribulation leads to a very uninformed zombie.

The Catholic Online, I've gathered, does not appreciate this quality in me. In the past several weeks, I have tried to post numerous comments on their boards. For sure, most of them extend my disagreement with the rigid Catholic teaching exhibited on the site. As most people know, I am not what I would consider a "devout" Catholic, in the generally accepted meaning of that word. Thus, I have great disagreement with people on the board. Further, I just graduated from law school, I don't really like discussing problems and issues that end up in useless agreement. That's boring. It's so much more fun to turn heads.

Of the comments I've tried to post on the board (I believe there were 5 or 6), only one was posted, and it was an addendum to a larger comment I had posted earlier (that never made it up) so it didn't make much sense. The board has its "disclaimer" that states any harassing comments or false representations of the teachings of the magesterium will not be posted. Personally, I don't think my comments fall into this category. I can certainly get heated up and will often write from the heart, especially regarding issues that mean something personal to me. I will flat out say, none of my comments harass, and none of them misrepresent established Church teaching. Indeed, most of my comments do not even touch on Church teachings simply because I do not know enough about them where I would feel comfortable writing on them.

My comments are nothing more than opinion, occasionally littered with relevant facts. Yet the moderators of these boards seem to think they are inappropriate. I have e-mailed Catholic online twice and even tried to call them in an effort to figure out why my thoughts are being rejected. Nobody on their end wants to discuss it.

This is where I get infuriated. If the Catholic Online wants to be some kind of "praise Jesus" site with no discussion whatsoever and everybody agreeing with one another, I think that's fine. However, that is not what they make themselves out to be. In their disclaimer they say they allow robust discussion. Well that is apparently not true, at least not in my case. Apparently, they do not like any kind of adverse thought antithetical to Church teaching. My question to them is "why?" I am not conceited, I do not think I am going to write some fabulous argument countering the authors' words that is going to change the faith of others on the board. I suppose it could happen, but that's probably unlikely.

What bothers me about this is it is simply bad form in argument. A debater cannot pick and choose which of its opponent's arguments it's going to defend against, and then slyly ignore the other hard ones.

For example, I was reading an article about gay marriage and the writer stated within that homosexuals engage in dangerous sex practices. I do not disagree, there are many gay men (and women) out there that practice unsafe sex. For sure, in my comment I did not dispute his assertion. However, I felt it necessary to clarify that homosexual men are not the only group of people that engage in dangerous sex. Heterosexuals are equally, if not more, guilty.

Now, obviously I wasn't in an actual debate with the writer of the article. However, I do think it appropriate to make comments like that, pointing out false assumptions that people are making, as in a debate. Basically, what this website is doing is allowing its writers to assert these horribly suspect opinions and statements of fact, but blocking a dissenter's ability to write out corrections. This is very bad.

I found this interesting. While talking to one of the representatives of Catholic Online on the phone, he told me that their publication was larger than the New York Times. This very well could be true. However, one thing I wanted to say to him is that I could never imagine the New York Times, a renowned journalistic publication not allowing some form of correction, i.e. letters to the editor. The Catholic Online might be a large publication, but it is not a paradigm of journalistic integrity and objectivity, and certainly not in the same echelon as the NYT. I literally almost laughed out loud when the guy said that.

A larger question looms however. Why is this conservative publication so afraid of valid comments that oppose statements in its articles to the point that their haphazardly censoring what ever "feels" bad? Honestly, I do not actually know. I think there is a concern for other readers. They are obviously reaching out to the Catholic conservative audience and I suppose they may lose more and more readers if people are reading posted comments that offend their beliefs, thinking it is the website condoning what these people are writing. I think it could also be the whole, "Crap, this guy's writing some good stuff that puts us Catholics in our place, we shouldn't let this out." This is even worse because the editors are assuming that their readers are a bunch of idiots and cannot defend the Church's stances against criticism. Having been in contact with Catholics all my life, I realized very early on that it isn't hard to stump them when it comes to contradiction in teaching. It has happened to me when defending the Catholic faith against criticisms I do not like.

My personal opinion is that the Church is filled with bad debaters. Part of the problem is that followers of the Church see it as having this infallible authority, and the Church makes itself out to be just that. Justice Jackson once said of the United States Supreme Court: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are fallible because we are final." This concept doesn't exist in the Catholic Church. There is no "we might be wrong." The Church basically closes itself off to public debate, at least from within the Catholic community. Indeed, if you question, you cease to be a Catholic. I've seen this happen many times. It scares me. One, because the Catholic Church is basically leading itself unprepared into a very important debate, and two, it makes the Church look like a bunch of idiots.

If the Church really wants to start being a practical and important part of the debate on Catholic issues, it has got to step out of the strict authoritarian role and it needs to venture out in to the land of secular law. It has to understand that its teaching and rules only apply to those who choose to follow them. The Church has no armies or police to enforce its rules, its only power over people on earth is stating "you will not inherit the kingdom of God." I am not saying that this is not an effective mechanism, indeed, a lot of people do keep strict adherence to Church teachings for that very reason. However, it doesn't really work against those who don't believe it. Thus, I think the Church needs to start making its way into the secular debate, and giving more substantive arguments than "the bible says so." Yeah, the bible does say it, but the bible is simply not relevant authority to a lot, and a growing number, of people.

This is what bothered me a few months back regarding the abortion debate I was having with people on those boards. People kept saying, abortion is murder, murder is bad, it should not be allowed. Well yes, that is one way to look at it, but then secularists (who do not follow biblical teachings as closely) say it falls outside the definition of murder, because murder is the intentional killing of a human person and that doesn't include an embryo or fetus. Then the religious argument goes all to hell because religious arguments do not work in a secular debate. At some point, you have to stop saying "God hates abortion" and start making some other claim.

I do want to mention that I think the religious argument is a valid and important argument to assert in debates concerning public morality. However, it cannot be the only source of argument, especially not in a system that makes use of far more secular views than Catholic/Christian views. It concerns me that devout Catholics wont go out and venture beyond their religious identity. And it certainly doesn't work to keep ignoring secular arguments, good arguments, simply because they're not religious. This is what Catholic Online is doing and it makes the Catholic Church look like a very weak opponent in the debate. I think they should rethink who and why they censor.

General Thought on Gay Marriage and the Catholic Church

I was reading an article in the Catholic Online bulletin this morning about how a gay Catholic church is "queering" the Rosary prayer. First off, I have no significant bias towards either side in the debate. I can understand why the Church would be upset; although I am not a huge prayer junkie, I guess I wouldn't want some of the most fundamental prayers of Christianity being changed haphazardly to suit a single person's faith. On the other hand, well, who cares?Let them do it.

What bothered me were the verbal attacks uttered by commentators. Things like "they should be excommunicated" and "they are not Catholics" were flying around the board. Now, I have no problem with members of my religion disagreeing with others. However, I do have great issues with lay-members of the faith making decisions as to who is and who is not a Catholic, or a good-enough one.

First off, a person is a Catholic, or they're not. There are unCatholic actions and practices, but there are not unCatholic Catholics. That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying someone who disagrees with executive or legislative action is unAmerican. No, being American is just that, it describes an origin, what country you associate as your "place."

Second, what actually makes one Catholic better than the other? I may not be the most devout Catholic, going to Church, praying daily, supporting Catholic movements. However, I still am a Catholic. I mean I was baptized, had my first communion, confirmed into the Catholic church. Is someone a better Catholic if they have more education in the religion? If that's the case, me and most of my high school friends are the best Catholics in the world. My personal view is a Catholic is a person with acceptance into the Church via the rites of passage who implements a significant amount of the religious beliefs and their education (wherever it comes from) into most of their daily life. Of course I think the stupid people writing comments on these articles and the bozos that write them are Catholics too, although I do sometimes question their implementation of the Catholic faith into their daily lives. Being a jerk is not a Catholic virtue last I checked.

This doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, it's just something I have been thinking about the past couple weeks and it was on my mind this morning. I just think it so terribly wrong and tacky to go around demanding ouster from the Church and calling people unCatholic. It's not anybody's decision to make. So please, if you ever hear someone say something along those lines, give them a piece of your mind.

The second issue I wanted to discuss was an article I read regarding President Obama's "National Family Day." The pres issued a proclamation claiming some day (don't remember what, I probably missed it) where he wanted all families to come together and be together. In the executive order was very broad, encompassing all families, whether it's a mom and a dad and kids, homosexual parents (WHAT!?!?!?!?! ISH!!!!!!!!!!), single parents, guardians, etc. It included every family known to man.

Well, once again I was reading a Catholic Online article and some wretched writer, Kathleen Gilbert, wrote a bulletin sort-of-thing about "National Family Day." In the article, she ingeniously stated the obvious: Obama's interpretation of "family" includes GAYS!!!!!! Although the author never really said anything pejorative regarding gays or those families, it was obvious what she was pointing out: "Lookout Catholics, these gay families and their gay kids are coming." However, one thing she conveniently forgot to include was that there are more families than just those headed by homosexuals that are in opposition to Catholic teaching. Quite frankly, I've been reading all these Catholic articles about how the best family structure is the traditional family. So really, the Church should probably have issue with every family included, except one. But no, this ingenious, faithful Catholic woman . . . who writes . . . she only saw the gay thing.

OK, here's my point, Obama's inclusion of all families also includes those slutty little girls that get knocked up at 17 and the baby's daddy hits the road. It includes families separated by divorce. It includes pseudo-traditional families where the parents live together but aren't married. These are things that also go against Catholic teaching, yet this Gilbert woman completely forgot to mention that.

Actually, I wrote a rather scathing letter to her via her listed e-mail address to tell her that her mistake tended to showed a particular animus towards gays. To sit there and complain that gays and their marriages are immoral because of scripture, but then completely disregard those other things that are also in opposition tends to show that she is focusing on gay families simply because she doesn't like them, her personal preference (notice how I said "tends to show," there could be something else that could get her off the hook). It has nothing to do with scripture, it has nothing to do with morality, it has nothing to do with family. All it is is two men or two women shacking up and adopting kids.

By the way, I gave the author my full name and e-mail address in my letter to her in case she wanted to discuss it or give me a rebuttal. This was only yesterday, so perhaps she has not had the time to get back to me. But, I think it's probably going to go unanswered.

Further, I tried to post a comment similar to the one above on the board following the article. It was never posted. I tried once again, it, too, was also never posted. I wrote a stearn but kind e-mail to customer service at Catholic Online. Nothing. Are they just sick of me, or did I call their author on her egregious mistake and they're embarassed? Of course I don't know for sure . . . but I do.

Parental Rights v Gay Rights? Not Quite . . .

A couple weeks ago I was having a discussion with some of the usual commentators on the Catholic Online website. The discussion related to an article regarding the push for GLBT education in Alameda School District public schools in California. The bishop who wrote the article condemned the school district's efforts, claiming that it was indoctrinating homosexual education into the young students' minds. Something noteworthy about the efforts of the school district was that there was no parental override, meaning parents could not get their children out of this teaching. Thus, any student in the Alameda school district had to go through GLBT sensitivity schooling.

Obviously, the readers and commentators on the article were utterly furious. In all honesty, I do not think their worries were without merit. I do have issues with children being forced to learn certain things without parental approval. However, I am also a major proponent of separation of state and church, especially in schooling. Obviously as a gay man I side with the school district, but my reasons for siding with have less to do with my own homosexuality and more to do with that fact that I just do not believe this is an issue where children are learning something anti-Catholic/Christian without parental consent. I do think there needs to be far greater sensitivity instruction in schools because schools are becoming more diverse in general.

I think a description of what the efforts of the Alameda school district is actually doing is in order. First off, I do not see this as an effort on the part of the district to "indoctrinate" homosexuality into the minds of young children. Quite frankly, I think the word "indoctrinate" is something that religious conservatives and culturally unsympathetic people throw out in an effort to create fear. Indeed, the vast majority of people commenting on the afore-mentioned article are probably those types of people that think homosexuality can still be taught. There were some comments that included statements saying such things. These people most likely see the efforts of the schools not as a way to alleviate prejudice, but as a way to get kids to accept and be ok with homosexuality, if not become homosexual.

Funny enough, when I first read this article, it was when my aunt who lives and teaches in California was visiting us in Minnesota. Now, my aunt is in the Burbank district, so her school would not be subject to the Alameda initiatives. I spoke with her and asked her opinion on the article. As soon as I finished telling her about the Alameda efforts, she jumped in immediately and said it was desperately needed. Although she never gave me any specific examples, she made it very clear that she had seen some terrible behavior in some of her students, especially when it came to cultural sensitivity. As soon as I finished with her, I went immediately to my laptop and wrote out my comment concerning the article. Of course, I included what my aunt had to say on the matter.

After I posted my comment on the board, I received a slew of responses over the next few days that I found rather insulting. One woman accused me of being a "paid representative" for the gay community who was purposefully infiltrating the Catholic website with secular, demonic garbage. Another woman accused another less devout poster as being anti-Catholic, telling her "Shame on you."

I believe that these people and the deacon who wrote the article are creating a religious issue where one does not exist. This is not an issue of whether the gay agenda is improperly impinging on the rights of parents to teach their children that homosexuality is morally unacceptable. Something that those people seem to forget, or maybe they do not even realize, is that there is a lot of hostility in schools among different groups of children. Children nowadays have a larger vocabulary than what we did as children. My aunt has heard small children, some no older than five years old, calling other children sluts, whores, gays, queers, racial slurs and other pejorative words. This is something that is incredible. I didn't know any of those words existed when I was that young and I did not learn of their existence until much older.

What this type of education is trying to do is get kids to be nice to one another and alleviate this type of name-calling that creates a hostile and uncomfortable environment in schools. The fact that children this age are going around insulting each other with words that would make even a sailor blush is remarkable. This is going beyond what people would call an immature, schoolyard taunt. We all remember the days of being called a doody head. However, I never recall being called a slut, a whore, or a fag by my middle school or even by my high school peers. Not only do these words create a hostile environment in schools, but these children are learning words that will ultimately damage their life and turn them into bullies if they continue to think this type of conversation is publicly acceptable.

I think the Alameda initiative is really just trying to get kids to realize that this type of name-calling is not only wrong, but it hurts people and it is not acceptable conversation in the public sphere. For religious groups to go around saying that this type of tolerance training in schools is impinging on parents' God-given and Constitutionally given rights to educate their children is completely ridiculous. To equate education that tries to keep kids from calling each other gay or queer or dyke-y with "indoctrination" of homosexuality against parents' wishes is irresponsible. Indeed, to turn this into an issue of religious right is laughable. Parents do not have a Constitutional right to keeping their kids in schools where those children are making a hostile environment for others.

One thing I mentioned earlier was that in addition to creating hostile environments in public schools, these children are learning language use that could be detrimental to their success and futures. Let me give an example. In the past decade, the legal field has become furiously interested in the gay rights debate. Indeed, the ABA has stated that all ABA approved law schools must have GLBT non-discriminatory clauses in their admissions statements, even if the state has no laws requiring such protection. Further, firms all across America have begun to take great interest in creating diverse workforces that include GLBT (mostly G and L) lawyers. Although I do not know for sure, the ABA actually may require firms to have some sort of non-discrimination policy for GLBT individuals. Needless to say, the legal profession is not a good choice for homophobes.

If these children continue thinking that using the word "gay" in public discourse is acceptable, they most certainly would not be last very long in the American legal field. Of course I assume that anyone who thinks that such usage of words is appropriate would even be in law school. Most of my law school classmates (actually all of them I think) knew it was inappropriate to call people naughty words. However, only a few years ago did University of Michigan Law School graduate, Ann Coulter call John Edwards a faggot on the national morning news.

Of course, by going through life's experiences, most children will probably learn at some point in their life that such talk is not a good thing. However, I still think it is a good idea to instruct kids on how to be sensitive and nice to one another. Just because they will eventually learn to be tolerant does not mean we should ignore telling them that at a young age.

The Big, Pink, Limp-Wristed, Flaming Elephant in the Room: Is it as Easy to Spot as People Think?

Part II:

Last night I wrote about the trouble gay men and women come across when they meet an allegedly closeted homosexual person. The idea that a person we know might be gay can be both troubling and perplexing. As I explained earlier, when first asserting to the relevant people that a person might be gay, the normal reaction from heterosexuals (although not exclusively) is one of complete bewilderment. People just can't imagine a closeted gay man acting straight.

I was watching a very funny episode of 30 Rock. Tina Fey's character was attending her high school reunion. She was nervous because she always thought she was the antagonized geek that no one liked and she thought attending the reunion would bring about all those old dynamics with her high school peers. When she finally did arrive, she learned that her classmates despised her not because she was a geek, but rather because she herself was the actual bully. One of the people she used to be "friends" with was a man that she always assumed was gay and always tried to make him feel comfortable by telling him that she knew and it was OK. In a hilarious dialogue between Fey and the angry, flamboyantly gay man, he introduced her to his wife with whom he raised two very beautiful . . . dogs. Because he was so angry with Fey for always thinking he was gay, the only thing he could do was "dance."

I think that situation depicted in 30 Rock is what heterosexual people expect when it comes to closeted gay men and women. However, something that people don't seem to realize is that the whole point of being closeted is to keep people from knowing you are gay. It does not make much sense to be closeted when it oozes through your every pore and invades your every gesture.

No doubt, those men and women do exist. I think there are many people whose homosexuality is embodied in their mannerisms and other features, no matter how hard they try to hide it. I myself have known many guys in that situation. However, I think that is a precarious judgment to make simply because, as we all know, one's sexuality does not necessarily have to match up with our outer appearance and demeanor. However, I think heterosexuals, and many times even homosexuals, think that those are the only closeted people that exist. What they don't realize is that there are people out there who superficially embody the paradigm of heterosexuality and still are gay.

Actually, I take that back, I do think people realize that those people do exist. What I am trying to get across is that it never registers that the outwardly heterosexual friend might actually be gay and we cannot tell because they have no characteristics or mannerisms that would define them as gay. Indeed, I myself was shocked when my close, happily married law school friend started coming on to me. He seemed so straight. He was married. It then hit me that the only element necessary to make a person gay is a sexual attraction to the other person. Indeed, it is the only thing that matters and is relevant to a judgment as to whether someone is gay.

I have an example of this. One of my friends had a boyfriend for twelve years. I've met him on numerous occasions and he was a wonderful guy. One night, she was going through his e-mail (I realize that's improper, but let's quell our moral issues with that for now) and came across dozens of e-mail exchanges between him and his online boyfriends. These e-mails were very explicit and left nothing to the imagination as to what they were about. So basically, this guy, whom no one ever suspected had any homosexual tendencies (including myself), and never once acted in a suspiciously homosexual manner, was caught red-handed.

The situation described above exemplifies the problems I see with the staunchly closeted homosexual person. I think the problem is that cleverly secret homosexual men go such lengths to hide their sexual identity, they end up putting themselves in precarious, morally suspect positions. My friend was devastated when she read her boyfriends e-mails. She actually did not even believe them at first, she thought they had to be a joke, that he was playing a trick on her . . . a trick that involved over sixty fabricated e-mails written over the course of a couple months. The chances of that being the case have to be zero.

I feel like this is where gay men and women play an integral part in the development of good heterosexual relationships and marriages. Like I said before, the only reliable indicator of a person's sexual identity is their sexual and romantic behavior. Since there are closeted gay men and women out there that do not embody the persona of a gay man, that is the only device that can be used in making these determinations. The only way these men are going to act is if they a) know (or suspect) another man is gay and b) they are certain they can get what they want without blowing their secret. I was the only gay man in the group I was with during that recent evening. I was the only person that had any chance of figuring out that this guy might actually be gay. My heterosexual friends were never going to figure it out (or get a hint of his possible homosexuality) simply because there was nothing to look for. The only thing they, as heterosexuals, could observe is the rare occurrence of him hitting on another man, which they probably would never see.

Now, I am not saying that I, as a gay man who has a first-hand account (indeed, the only account) of what happened, have any business going and telling his wife. I, of course, told my close friend, but she is my confidante and I do not think it is inappropriate to do so. A lot of people would disagree with me on the disclosure issue. Several of my good girlfriends in law school (after realizing that our friend was gay and witnessed him coming precariously close to cheating on his wife) were adamant that someone should tell his wife. I and one other friend adamantly disagreed with them. Even if I could find some string of logic that would morally allow me to do so, she'd never have believed any of us. Further, I do believe it is a conversation that someone should have exclusively with their spouse.

I was reading an interesting article on one of my favorite legal blogs by one of my favorite legal writers. Her name is Julie Hilden and she writes on a lot of free speech, first amendment issues, as well as intellectual property. In this particular article, she was discussing how people were outraged when Tom Cruise was speaking negatively about postpartum depression and psychology. The retorts that Tom Cruise received were that he did not have the personal experience necessary to speak on such subjects. Hilden adamantly disagreed with those assertions, saying that personal experience, although valuable, is not a valid a prerequisite to knowledge. I partly agree, and partly disagree. I think she is right. A male gynecologist, although he is not a woman and has never had a personal experience with his areas of practice, still is (most likely) an expert in the field of gynecology (I know some of my female friends may disagree with me on this, but I am trying to be brave). I also saw her point when talking about Tom Cruise. She said his comments sparked furious, good debate on the issue. That is very true. However, I wonder what Hilden would say about personal experience as being an alleged prerequisite for my topic.

In all honesty, I think out and proud gay men and women have a lot to offer due to their experience with the coming out narrative. As strange as it may sound, there is something in gay men and women that picks up on the subtle tendencies in other members of our same gender that hint to us that someone might be gay. I also believe that most heterosexual people simply do not have this ability. Now let me clear, I am not a proponent of "gaydar," I do not think homosexuals can smell it on each other. I think it's simply recognizing the subtle behavior in people that reminds us of ourselves when we were first learning of our sexual identities. I think the experience is invaluable and usually necessary. You know your own kind. Also, I do not think this is something on which heterosexuals are incapable of speaking or that all heterosexuals are deprived of the ability to recognize the subtle gay man. I do think it's a rare case though, the heterosexual person who has so much familiarity with the gay culture that their actual heterosexuality is not an impediment in their judgment.

Now, of course, there is the whole "does it matter" question. Personally I think it does, it greatly matters. I've known several people, all women (save for one), who have dated men that have turned out to be gay (or have a homosexual attraction). I think it is a serious problem, especially when the situation involves a married couple. For the record, I am only speaking of closeted men and women that are hiding their sexuality from relevant people, such as a heterosexual spouse. I am a firm believer that people should be able to design their personal relationships in whatever way to suit their emotional and sexual needs. If a heterosexual, female fiance is aware that her future husband has homosexual tendencies and she is put on notice of the consequences, then I think the couple is free to live how they want. It is when men are blatantly lying to their spouses about these things and they didn't disclose their tendencies before their marriage, or even before starting a serious relationship that is not a marriage. I think that is a major breach of the marital agreement. Actually, I think it is an egregious breach. It's a double lie.

Before people go and say that this is just a waste of time and nobody really cares, there are psychologists and therapists out there that have dedicated their practices to helping straight men and women who have inadvertently found themselves in a serious relationship with a homosexual spouse. I would direct people to look up Bonnie Kaye on the internet, a licensed therapist who has counseled over 30,000 women, all of whom found out their husbands were gay. It's an extremely interesting website. I've engaged in some e-mail conversation with her on the topic and it is very interesting and emotional.

There is a question begged by all this analysis. What are heterosexual people supposed to do? If a man could be gay, but there is basically no way to tell unless you catch him red-handed, how is a woman supposed to protect herself against this kind of trap? What if he is just extremely careful and leaves absolutely no tracks? Bonnie Kaye has some very interesting ways of being able to figure out if a man is closeted, and with most of them I disagree. She suggests getting online tracking devices and lists a number of ways to tell if your husband is gay, i.e. he has gay friends or he watches homosexual pornography (well . . . yeah!). Again, I think those can be somewhat indicative of homosexuality, but I do not think they are in the least bit reliable and should never be given too great of weight. If my friend's long term boyfriend and I decide to get a beer once a week or something like that, I would hope she wouldn't think I was trying to get on her man. Bonnie Kaye assumes that the woman will be able to come across evidence of that sort. I think closeted men are much more clever than that. Indeed, many of them spend years and years perfecting their secrecy.

To be honest, I think the best device is good judgment and intuition. I think every woman, even those without any experience with homosexual culture, knows her man well enough to suspect if something is wrong. Men and women are not that resilient to moral guilt. If the man you love, and loves you, is engaging in behavior like that, then you are likely to pick up on it, even it you cannot identify it as homosexuality. Of course there is always the off-chance that you find the person who is incapable of feeling guilt, but I do think that is rare.

I do think it is terribly sad to find men and women in this situation. For as much contempt as I have for these lying, closeted individuals, I do have pangs of sympathy. Being an out gay man or woman is not always easy, and there are times when even the most out and proud members of the gay community feel the need to tone down their "gayness." Until society really comes around and accepts being gay as normal, there will always be closeted homosexuals. Even then, I think there are people, mostly men, who simply refuse to "be gay" because it's not manly. But who knows? There is always hope.

As for what to do about the debacle, I am a firm believer that marriage laws need to reflect the pain and suffering heterosexual spouses go through after finding out their spouse is homosexually active. In addition to the health problems (I really hate to think about that), the revelation that your spouse is gay and has been cheating with members of their same gender creates such emotional turmoil. Bonnie Kaye sent me several packets of letters she has received from women over the years who have been subjected to this problem. They are heart-wrenching and tear-jerking to say the least. I think it is time for society to stop condoning these marriages between homosexual men and women and their uninformed spouses. Under the no fault divorce regimes active in most states, spouses who breach their marital agreements in this egregious form receive no sort of punishment. I hate using the word "punishment," but I truly believe that is what form the retribution for that breach should be. I think it raises major moral problems.

For the record, I am not saying that criminal sanctions should be used. Actually, I adamantly believe that criminal sanctions should never be used to rectify a marital breaches (except for killing your spouse of course). I think there should be some form of civil liability placed upon these cheating spouses. I think the law needs to deter these men and women from entering into heterosexual marriage. Obviously, every person has a right to heterosexual marriage, but not a right to go and cheat on your spouse with another man or woman. I wont get into a major legal discussion, but I will admit that my proposal is highly controversial and is not without its problems. However, I do think the burdens of this type of legal reform would be greatly outweighed by the benefits.

The Big, Pink, Limp-Wristed, Flaming Elephant in the Room: Is it as Easy to Spot as People Think?

Part I:

The last few years have been interesting to say the least. In law school, I came across a lot of wonderful people, professors, students, lunch ladies, security guards, all of whom were incredibly kind and lovely. However, my life in a conservative, Catholic law school introduced me to a new group of people, a group whose members I rarely came across before. This group is the band of closeted homosexual men that exists in every conservative, homosexually unsympathetic culture. What was even more strange was the reaction I received from my friends after I confided my stories in them. Some of them were cautious about believing my assertions that these men were actually gay. Ultimately, I've realized that most heterosexual people are not in a proper place to discern whether a man or woman might be actually hiding in the closet.

Before I delve into discussion on this topic, I do want to inform anyone who reads this that I am a major proponent of all people being able to keep their private lives behind closed doors. I also think everyone has an unfettered right to control their image in the public sphere. I do believe that a person's sexuality is their business and their business alone. With that said, I do have difficulties, however, supporting the gay man or woman who chooses to hide their sexuality. This difficulty is augmented when they do so to the detriment of other people involved in their lives, i.e. a heterosexual spouse.

The reason I chose to write about this topic at this time was because I had a rather awkward encounter with a male acquaintance a few days ago. I was out with some friends at a bar. One of them was this acquaintance. I remember having a secluded casual conversation with him away from my friends' ears. I wont go into great detail about the conversation (we were talking about movies or something of that nature), but there was a point at which I noticed the conversation steering in a very unexpected direction. I began to get the impression that he was coming on to me. The things that were coming out of this guy's mouth, specifically directed at me, were incredibly shocking and made me blush out of discomfort. What made me all the more appalled was that I knew this gentleman was married to a woman whom I have met and whose company I've enjoyed.

Needless to say, I was pretty sure this guy was trying to initiate some super-platonic encounter with me. The next day, I phoned one of my close friends who was there, told her about the situation, and asked her opinion. Her first comment was she was certain he wasn't gay because he had a wife. She also said she had never witnessed any behavior from him that would remotely constitute as "gay." It was apparent that she didn't believe me, or at the very least thought my opinion was suspect.

My conversation with her got me thinking. What was it that was preventing my friend from believing my account of this story? I will admit, it's not like this guy was getting so physically aggressive that observers would have no choice but to believe he was gay. However, I know what I heard from this guy and, although I would never say that our encounter makes him a homosexual as a matter of fact, his tone and words were highly suspect. It then hit me, my friend does not recognize the subtle signals that I see as being indicative of a homosexual orientation.

Now, my friend is a very liberal, open-minded, accepting person. She has many gay male friends and she loves them dearly. She is not one of those people who thinks all homosexual men think every other man is gay. However, she, like the vast majority of the heterosexual American population, has very limited experience in the homosexual arena. The gay men she knows are out and proud, they are the stereotypical gay men you see in the media. There is no questioning their sexuality because they announce it in every possible way. To her, gay men exist in only limited form. Unless a guy is either open about his sexuality, or is running around in a pink polo with bleached hair kissing men, a man is not gay.

What I found really interesting while talking to my friend was that she gave absolutely no deference to my experience as a gay man that, quite frankly, includes dealing with a lot of closeted gay men. Although she agreed that what he said was weird, she couldn't fathom it being said in a homosexually provocative context. She said he must have been joking. No doubt she could be right, but what I found strange is that she had no problem immediately denouncing my opinion as incorrect. There was never a moment where she thought the guy could actually be a closeted homosexual.

This experience with my friend was not the first of this sort. As most people who know me know, I had several suspicious encounters with several of my male law school classmates throughout my time in school. Of course I shared these strange interactions with my close friends. Some of those people with whom I spoke often doubted my ability to discern gay from straight. I am sure many of them did not believe the strange stories I told. What made my stories all the less convincing was that all of these men were allegedly heterosexual and two of them were married to women.

Now, I don't actually think my friends ever really disbelieved my accounts of these situations. I think most of them doubt my interpretations of these events as circumstantial proof that those men were gay. I know my friend does not think I am lying about what this guy said to me the other night, nor do I think my law school friends think the situations I described to them were fabricated. When it comes down to it, they do not believe closeted men really exist, at least not at the level these men would have to be.

Now obviously, people know closeted homosexual men and women exist. It's just that they don't believe anyone they know could be that way. I think the heterosexual population has prematurely lulled itself into thinking the vast majority of the American population is ok with men and women being gay. For a lot of these people, they do not believe men and women are closeted because they see no real reason for such secrecy anymore. To them, the world is a friendly, accepting place that loves gay men and women. States are slowly but surely allowing gay men and women to marry, the media is depicting openly gay men and women both in television shows and in the news, and gay men and women are everywhere in almost all areas of American society. Why on earth would a gay person be closeted nowadays?

This is the type of logic that goes on inside the doubtful heterosexual's head. I think this logic is coupled with America's well-known stereotypes of gay men and women. A man or woman cannot be labeled as gay unless they act as such. Indeed, my friend from the other night could not believe what I was saying simply because she's never seen that guy act like a gay man. My friends from law school could not believe our good male friend, married to an empirically beautiful woman, was trying to kiss me because he was gay. The only gay men who are closeted are those gay men who are married, yet are effeminate in gesture, dress, and tone. The archetypal manly man could never be gay.

Gay men and women are in a different place than open-minded, accepting heterosexual people. As people attracted to the opposite gender, heterosexuals do not as easily see the safe haven that the closet can provide. Most of them have never had to decide whether to keep their heterosexuality a secret. I would believe that most out gay men and women have, at some point before coming out, debated whether to keep their sexuality hidden. I certainly did and most of my gay friends did as well. Gay men and women understand and realize that a large part of their community is still not open about their sexuality. It's because we understand why people would remain in the closet. Most of us debated doing so.

Now obviously, most out gay men and women would never rethink their decision to be openly gay. Being out of the closet is a much better life for sure. However, that doesn't mean the alternative has no benefits. These benefits the closet provides make the secret homosexual a very real person to us. For people whose homosexuality poses an actual threat to their safety, reputation, or finances, hiding ones sexuality by whatever means available seems a viable and, often, necessary option.

I think that distinction is very important. Heterosexuals simply do not realize that there are men and women out there that endure great fear from the thought of their sexual identities becoming known. These men and women do not necessarily exhibit the stereotypical characteristics in gay culture. Indeed, it's part of being closeted. When my friend told me she couldn't believe her friend was gay because he's never acted gay and he was married, I told her she wouldn't ever see him act that way. The only thing that is gay about him is the fact that he comes on to other men. Unfortunately for him, that is the only necessary component. The only reason why I picked up on it is because of the things he was doing to me. Heterosexual people assume that the closeted homosexual is easy to spot. I used to think the same thing. However, my past experiences in law school and elsewhere have made me realize that it's not as easy as one would think. Indeed, it is often undetectable.

2009 Gay Pride Observations

This weekend was the annual GLBT Pride festival in Minneapolis. Although I do have some issues, both politically and personally, with the Minneapolis Gay Pride Festival, I decided to attend this year. While walking around Loring Park and it's surrounding areas, I made a few shocking observations, some of which I wanted to post on here.

One observation I made was that the younger crowd (perhaps ages 18-30) were very tame this year. In past years, I feel like the younger crowd has donned the more traditional Pride garb of brightly colored short-shorts, flip-flops, and perhaps a pooka shell necklace. This year, I noticed the younger crowd was not nearly as sexually provocative in their dress. While there were men walking around with the shirts hanging out of their pockets instead of on their persons, it did not seem to be for sexual arousal. Rather, it was just because they were hot (It was rather warm during the mid afternoon). Even with that, their bottoms were mostly baggy cargo shorts and not the tight "booty" shorts that are usually worn. Most of the younger crowd was dressed normally, dragging along their puppies and dogs.

The older crowd was drastically different. My friend and I were in the beer garden and she and I both commented on how so many "older" men were dressed provocatively and with the purpose of expressing sexuality (that's actually being polite, the actual statement I recall was "Why are there so many old, half-naked, fat men?"). One man, my guess would be he was in his early forties, was running around in a super-hero get up, complete with gold tights, some wretchedly tight, pink tank top, and a cape. If he was wearing under garments, their purpose was lost on me; the tights left little to the imagination. Another older gentleman (most definitely in his late 50s, early 60s) was wearing nothing but a kilt. These were the most shocking examples, but I noticed a great deal of older men who were wearing things that we'd all prefer to see on younger, more physically fit men.

Now I must admit, this was shocking to me. Usually, it's the younger gay men, with their well benched chests, running around in clothing that would make conservatives gasp. This year, there were way more older gay men publicly displaying themselves in "inappropriate" garb. In fact, my friend and I both jokingly (somewhat) remarked at how disappointed we were that there were so few "hot, half-naked guys."

Another observation I made was that there was way less public inebriation among the younger crowd this year. I was in the Beer Garden for a few hours and I did not see anyone who was being inappropriate or obviously too intoxicated. Also, my friends and I stopped by Nick and Eddie's in the Loring block to have some lunch. Next door, Cafe Lurcat was hosting a very loud, expressive gathering in honor of the Pride Celebration. Although things were very loud and people were celebrating, I did not notice one incident of improper, drunken behavior such as vomiting in the street. Although Cafe Lurcat was a bit more boisterous (their party beat the one at N&E's by far), it was very well contained and within the boundaries of the bar.

Let me be clear that I am only commenting on the behavior of the GLBT crowd in the public arena of the park. Of course, in the evening the gay bars became a complete mess. Mens' shirts came off, people were "trashed," and there was a lot of "sexy" going on. Now of course, this is not something with which I have a major problem. People go to clubs to get drunk, to meet people, sometimes with the intent of finding a torrid affair with a duration that lasts shorter than a bald man's haircut. This happens at both gay and straight bars. It's a part of our young culture. As long as that stays in the clubs and out of the Starbucks and Targets, I see no problem with people doing those things.

Further, this posting is not meant to say that there was no improper behavior going on publicly at all. I am sure there were some younger guys running around in undergarments, vomiting up Bacardi in the waste receptacles. I just never saw it and anything I did see was not what I'd consider terribly improper behavior. Also, I did not attend the parade this year. So who knows what happened during that.

Generally, I was pleased with my overall impression. I realize that attributing this lack of indecent behavior to any cause is a shot in the dark. Maybe the vast majority of promiscuous, younger gay men were just too hungover from Saturday night's events to make it to the park that day. Maybe it was something else. Personally, I like to think that it has something to do with a changing disposition in the younger gay community.

As a member of what I consider to be the younger gay community, the past few years have changed my behavior. With gay marriage nascent in Minnesota's and other states' legislatures, and its arrival in many other states, I have tried to put forth my very best behavior. I have encouraged other homosexual people to do the same. I think it is a very dangerous time to have gay men prancing down Hennepin in their bedroom attire and lesbian women walking around publicly with only conveniently-placed rainbow stickers. The gay community needs to show greater Minnesota that we, as a culture, are the type of men and women that can and should be married with children of our own and leading a publicly respectable life as such.

I wonder if this year's demure Pride was the result of such a phenomenon. To be sure, Minneapolis' Gay Pride event tends to be more family oriented than other cities. One of my friends from law school and his wife were super excited for their son's first Pride. They took him to the parade and carried him around the Loring Park festival. Thus, the multitude of children probably has a taming effect on the celebrants. However, there have been many Pride festivals where that has not been the case. There were certain parts of past Prides that I would never want my young child to observe. However, I can honestly say that I would have had no problem exposing my child to anything that occurred the day I spent in the park (with the exception of Old Kilt Man and Super Gay, I wouldn't want my child to go blind).

Another thing I've been thinking about is why there were so many older gay men exhibiting what I would consider to be inappropriate behavior and dress and so fewer younger men this year. The only explanation I can come up with is that there might be a cultural difference between younger and older gay men.

For older gay men who grew up in the 60s and 70s, I think the American gay community is currently dealing with a different set of problems than those with which older gay men and women dealt in their younger years. I think much of the 60s, 70s and 80s were about getting the greater public to realize that gay men and women existed. The "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" mantra was more relevant then than it is now. In the recent 90s and now in the early millennium, the mantra seems to have shifted to "Now that you know we're here, what are you going to do about it?" I think a lot of older gay men and women, in trying to get people to notice their existence maybe used devices of inappropriate dress and sexually provocative behavior to get the full attention of the predominant heterosexual community. The older gay men and women might still be stuck in their attempts to get noticed. I believe that now, since the gay community is far more prevalent in today's metropolitan and political communities, there is not as a great a need for shock value for purposes of getting attention. Thus, I like to think the younger gay crowds are adjusting themselves and their behavior to the new mantra.

Sadly, I have no statistics or studies on which to base my ideas. However, this year's Pride Festival was really quite lovely. I was very impressed by the vast majority of celebrants' behavior and dress. I like to think that my observations are due to a shift in the mindsets and attitudes of the gay community, specifically in the younger crowd. I think young gay men and women are beginning to see the possibilities for the general gay community and are starting to subdue and prepare themselves for leading a "normal" American life, something that a lot of gay men and women desperately need right now. I know I am and I am definitely looking to the future with high hopes.

Sweet Comment to Emma's Below

Hey, one more.

So there is this Jean woman who also follows the "gay" Catholic Online articles. She seems like a good gal. She had this to say about Emma's comment and I thought I would post that also.

"Emma: First of all we love you. Second of all we all live a life hampered by the "original sin" no one has escaped it. 
We all struggle with all of this. 
No one is persecuting you in the Church. 
If they are then they know not about Christ. 
Please go to the Courage Apostolate and seek guidance here on the web. 
Emma we accept the fact that were all struggling with something and you are no different. 
Also if you can find a Holy Hour then I recommend you go if you can. 
Ask Him the Lord help you but seek guidance. He comes first. 
I dont know who is persecuting you but they shouldnt be doing that and we pray for you. 
Love in Christ brothers and sisters."

-Jean

It is good to see Catholics out there like Jean. I don't agree with her, but I like her. 

FYI, the Courage Apostolate Jean references is a Catholic organization that helps Catholic gay men and women, not to change their sexuality, but live a celibate life. I have not researched it extensively, but I think it is a nice change to the whole gay-to-straight thing. In the words of Karen Walker, "They're turning gay men straight? Good Lord, don't they know what that'll do to the fall line?"

Amazing Comments from Catholic Online

Good morning,

So I just went through about 10 days worth of e-mails from my online subscription to Catholic Online. Although I love the articles, my favorite part is reading the comments. As I've said before, the reader of Catholic Online tends to be the more devout Catholic. Once in a while, I come across some really great comments that dare to counter what the usual readers write. The following paragraphs show my favorites from what I read this morning. Just so you know, I copied and pasted the comments from the website, so all spelling and grammar mistakes are original.

The first comment I read was from a person identified as Schuyler. The article he or she commented on was one that raved about this new therapist who claims he can "change" gay men and women. I put the word "change" in parentheses because the article never actually said anything about regaining heterosexuality. It just said the patient would no longer be gay. I feel like a lot of these psychologists and therapists spouting these words are being over-general. Here is the article, if anyone wants to read it.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=33842

Now as most of you know, I think the whole changing gay people to straight is ridiculous, an utter pipe dream. In all honesty, I can't believe there are doctors and scientists making such statements. Also what I find very strange is that I thought doctors were no longer able to treat homosexuality as a disease due to definitional changes. Granted, this thought comes from a comment I read on the IMDB "Prayers for Bobby" page, so I don't actually know for sure. Perhaps, if a patient comes willingly to a doctor and asks him or her to treat his homosexuality, then it is OK? Regardless, it's weird. Anyhow, here's the comment I read that touched my heart.

"I have trouble with this article. It seems to me that both sides make assumptions and expect homosexual person to act on them. I do have same sex attraction and I have suffered much emotionally from both sides of the argument. I do not know why I have same sex attraction and it kills me when both sides of the argument make these statements that almost always lack credibility from my own personal knowledge. This mystery of sexuality I assume has to do primarily with love and my attraction to the same sex does not deny that love, even though it may not meet its logical end. Even life ends in death because of original sin. I can just hope as jesus saves us from death he can save us from all our futile actions. I just hope and pray people on both sides will remember they are messing around in the dark at the core of sexual persons and that they have a little more humility and compassion and stop going from a bias to a conclusion. All these men who want to fix us should look to themselves and see that i am still a brother. This is a political issue in america. A culture war and I get the feeling that I and other homosexuals are just a trophy fought over. I am a catholic fully believe all the church teaches but I wish people would stop biting and devouring one another and feed, help, a brother whos smallest problem is his predominant attraction."

-Schuyler

I think the part that touches me the most is the "I can just hope as jesus saves us from death he can save us from all our futile actions." Whoever this person is, they are my hero. He touches perfectly on the futility of making the homosexual-to-heterosexual change. He, of course, does not say anything extraordinary. However, the simplicity with which he says it makes the message come across as very poignant. It feels good to embody the person you are meant to be. Jesus doesn't hate us because we are gay. No. Even if he deems it a sin, he knows gay men and women are doing their best. I know many Catholics repeat, over and over again, the "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin" mantra. To a certain extent, I think that is true. But when the so-called sin is something so personal and challenging . . . ? I just don't think God would put people in THAT difficult a position.

I also very much like when he says that so much of what is said on both sides of the argument is so out of line with general common sense. It sometimes feels like that. People who say homosexuals choose to be homosexual are, flat-out, rejecting common sense. It's old and it's cliched, but no one chooses to be gay in a world where so many people see being gay as weak, strange, despicable, etc.

The Trophy Comment . . . Gold. So true.

The Next comment came from a woman named Emma. Like Schuyler's, it was also very simple, and with some grammar issues. This one actually brought tears to my eyes. I just love it when people think God loves them regardless of our problems. Darn right! Emma commented on an op-ed article, written by a lay-member of the Catholic Church. The article warned its readers to beware of the new morality that requests accepting homosexuality as normal. To read, click below:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=33803

I've read articles by this particular writer before. She's a good writer, I will give her that. However, her articles are extremely biased and have shaky support. Thus, I only read her articles specifically to trash-talk them in my comments. Anyhow, here is the comment I read after this particular article.

"iam gay and i have a lot of trouble living as gay and expressing my sexuality because iam not accepted as being gay by my family or some other people not that iam very open about it because fear of persecution not just in society but within the church. i find it very hard to go to church and i find it hard to date.i think god accepts me as iam i have felt his great love.that is what is important salvation i have brought many to the lord just as iam. just wish my life was a lot easier . love is the key."

-Emma.

Again, this comment does not bring anything new to the table. However, what I like about Emma's comment is that it demonstrates the self-acceptance that many Christian homosexuals need in order to function as a good and moral person.

Much like Emma, I too have ultimately realized that God loves me as a gay man. I know so many people, mostly men, who are gay (some I know they are for sure gay and some I just suspect they are gay) and have such horrible struggles with their sexuality. Often times, it isn't even a struggle with God, but a struggle with one's own wish to be "normal." Indeed, I think the vast majority of closeted gay men and women aren't saying to themselves "If I am gay God will hate me." Rather, it's probably something like "I don't wanna be gay, no one will like me." However, something quelling comes from the realization that God loves the gay men and women, even if the bible tells us homosexuality is wrong. I just feel so bad for this woman because, even though she's accepted her homosexuality, she does not seem comfortable living as a gay woman. Poor thing, bless her heart.

One thing more I'd like to add is that I often forget about the struggles of so many gay men and women in this world. I have a very easy life as a gay man compared to so many others, even many others with whom I am close. I have a supportive family, many years of education, including a legal education that is a killer mechanism, and great friends. Even though I am a Catholic, born and bred, I've really learned (and in some ways been empowered) to scoff at much of what has been taught to me in my Catholic education. Indeed, there is a lot of stuff in the bible that's utterly incredible.

I remember riding the bus in Arizona one day, and there was a woman and her daughter (maybe grand daughter). The woman was literally yelling at the child, no more than 5 or 6 years old, to read her scripture passages out-loud and memorize them. The little girl would finish, and then ask her mother if she could read her secular book about dogs, or princesses, or whatever. The wretched woman would not let her read her favorite book, but instead kept screaming at the child to read over and over again the same bible passages. It seriously reminded me of that scene from Carrie when the mother is beating her daughter and demanding she repeat the scriptures the mother was reciting (" . . . and Eve was weak"). I remember almost crying at my observation, this sweet little girl being badgered by her homely mother. I hope that little girl isn't gay. Isn't it sad that I even think that?

The Conservative Catholic's Scriptural Stance Against the Cultural Advance of Gay Men and the Validity of Those Arguments

I am an avid follower of the Catholic Online. While most people close to me know that I am not a devout Catholic, I do like knowing what is going on in the Catholic Church and the positions it holds on certain political issues. Further, the vast majority of my education has taken place in Catholic institutions and I did have a modestly religious upbringing in my parents' household. Thus, Catholic thought has a great deal of influence on my thinking and my views.

Having followed the Catholic Online articles for over a year now, I have been exposed to many different opinions from Catholics, ranging from devoutly conservative to progressive. Catholic Online, from what I have seen, tends to attract the more devout Catholic. I often will see, in the member comments below the articles, phrases like "Praise be God" or people praising the words of anti-gay opinions. What tends to bother me the most with these types of comments is that they are shamefully unsupported with any kind of authority. If I've learned anything in law school, it's that an opinion or argument is bogus without any support. Worse, these people are creating a gap between Catholic homosexuals and the Church that they revere and adore. Indeed, many of these men and women, like me, have grown up in the Catholic Church and have grown to love its guidance. Now we have people telling us that our sin is so great that we are doomed. This creates a great tension that I feel ultimately drives homosexuals from the Catholic Church. I ask those people, by what authority do you suggest my sin to be so much greater than yours? 

I think most homosexual Catholics have felt the tension with the Church regarding issues of gay marriage and the questionable, if not utterly incomprehensible, arguments asserted against gay marriage. For gay men like myself who grew up in the Catholic faith going to mass, going through the rites of passage in the Church (i.e. baptism, first communion, first reconciliation and confirmation) and also participating in the mass as cantors and choir singers, alter servers, gift bearers and other functions lay people serve as members of the Catholic Church, the realization that one is gay brings about a great deal of concern and doom for one's faith. What makes it even worse is that a large part of the Catholic Church is not concerned with making their homosexual members comfortable with being gay and being Catholic. Actually, the leaders of the Catholic Church make statements condemning and damning the homosexual; basically, if you are gay, you cannot be a Catholic. 

We all know where this comes from and it is common and stable in Catholic minds. The bible proscribes homosexual conduct. I realize there are a lot of people, good people, who use semantics to try and override those biblical passages they claim only allegedly condemn homosexual behavior. I personally believe the does-the-bible-really-demand-heterosexuality argument useless and unconvincing. I personally believe, for purposes of scriptural analysis, that arguments of human bias and outdated mentalities are more convincing in the debate. However, this is not what this entry is really about. For many devout Catholics the bible says what it says and the meaning behind its words is timeless. Thus, when the bible says men shouldn't lie with other men as they do with women, it's basically saying acting on homosexual sexual urges is against God's command.

I do not dispute that. For Catholics, the words of the Lord are law. When we break those commands we sin. This includes men lying with men the way a man lies with a woman. However, the words of Jesus condemn a great deal of behavior besides acting on homosexual urges. The bible states that we are all born sinners and Jesus died so that our sins may be forgiven. Even though we sin, it is not a sentence to hell. This is something that devout Catholics conveniently forget when raising their scriptural arguments against gay marriage and homosexual conduct. 

Inherent in the scriptural arguments against homosexuality is this idea that sexual conduct between members of the same sex is some kind of super-sin, that it is way worse than any other sin. It is this idea with which I take issue. I will admit that I am not a biblical scholar or a theologian. I am not an expert on canonical law. However, in my many, many years of Catholic education and in my many years of being a "good Catholic boy" I have never come across this hierarchy that Catholics always seem to depend on when urging scriptural proscriptions of homosexuality. Devout Catholics seem to think that the practicing homosexual, who has led a good Catholic life despite acting on his or her homosexuality, is way worse off than the heterosexual who has led a moderately Catholic life. I just cannot fathom where this logic comes from. We are all sinners, we all are born with it, and we all commit it. No one is pure in the eyes of God. Although Catholics like to shout out that any amount of sin will lead to our eternity with the Devil, those people conveniently forget that they themselves sin too. Nowhere in the bible have I ever seen or heard a passage referenced that says if a man or woman lies with another person of the same gender they are doomed to hell.  Where does it say that active homosexuality is a deal breaker? Where does it say that the liar, the cheater, or the violent are safe as long as they don't sleep with a person of the same gender? Although I am not one hundred percent sure, I do not think it says anything of the sort. We all live with sin, committing it often, if not daily. For anyone to go around saying that another person's sins are greater than their own is truly not acting under proper authority. Indeed, in the story of Mary Magdalene, Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Even the most non-religious people, with the poorest of religious backgrounds and upbringings have heard that passage referenced many times. If someone can point out to me some passage in the bible that says the good homosexual person is damned to hell because homosexuality is the kind of sin that is just utterly unforgivable and worse than the everyday sins we all commit, then I would be more inclined to believe scriptural arguments. I do not think I will ever come across the person that can find it. 

I do wonder if the Pope himself, described as God's human presence on earth, could change the Catholic views to support such an idea. I think he could. He probably could make some kind of papal decree that would support the sin hierarchy. However, he would have to admit that such a statement would ultimately be scripturally unsupported. If anything, the bible delineates a loose hierarchy to a certain extent. Catholics, and other Christians, are taught the Ten Great Commandments and the Seven Deadly Sins (these are never explicitly mentioned in the bible in one single place, but rather compounded by scholars). Not one of those Great Commandments is "Guys should not nail other guys." Not one of the Seven Deadly Sins is "sex between two men." I suppose some could argue that the sin of "Lust" might encompass homosexuality. I do not know enough about it though to make an argument. However, I cannot say I have ever come across such an argument. 

Even if the Pope decided to make such a decree, it would most likely not come without difficulty. For sure, there would be tremendous scriptural debate, probably a debate as to whether the Pope can change scripture (unless higher authority states he is able to do so), and most likely a backlash against the Church by progressive members. At any rate, it would be foolish for the Church to ostracize members based on particular sins. 

Troubled Friends Lost

Today I had an interesting conversation with a friend. Among the many issues and questions posed in the discussion, one addressed was how much of your friends' drama must you endure before you can ultimately say "NO MORE." Put another way, how must you endure before you start feeling like you are an emotional dumping ground for your friends. 

As friends of people and as people who have friends, we all understand the unspoken, implied obligation to assist friends in difficult times. Everybody, at one time or another, has had a friend come to them seeking advice and counsel on some issue. Likewise, many of us have gone to our friends in the past for their advice on our various debacles. Indeed, most people would jump at the chance to be an adviser to a close friend; we become proud that our friends trust us enough to come to us with their problems seeking resolve. It gives us a chance to show off and bestow the wisdom gained through our own personal experiences. Even if the topic is beyond our mental or experiential reach, we can still sympathize and provide generic, friendly support. 

However, there is a point at which the friendly duty of being the sympathetic comrade turns into one of a counselor or therapist; where it starts feeling like more work than a friend should have to do. Thankfully, most of my friends, in my adult years, do not do this to me. They are very mindful of the limitations that are upon us as friends and they respect those limits and boundaries. There are those few people however, bless their hearts, that have no idea what the boundaries are, much less when they've crossed them. 

This may all seem like trivial, philosophical nonsense, but I have had some past friendships dissolve over these sorts of issues. Everyone has been around the person that loves to complain (and not the good, funny sort of complaining of the artful, comedic bitch). They are annoying, their friendship makes us itch and we don't like to be around them. Further, even though we may care about the person very much, their constant battle with their problems starts to deteriorate the foundational platonic bond. 

It is at this point I feel it necessary and rightful to tell your friends they've crossed the line. To be clear, this should not be because you feel you've earned a right to yell at them, or that they had it coming because they were abusing your friendly graces. Rather, it should be stated strictly as a way to save the friendship from further deterioration. You're putting them on notice that their behavior is starting to cross a line that could have detrimental effects on the friendly dynamic. 

The above description should be saved for extreme circumstances. Obviously there are the stock categories of friendship drama that do not fall under this topic. When friends break-up with their significant other or they just need to vent because of their overbearing mother, it's probably something that we should just suck up and listen to no matter how tedious. 

However, even the generic stock drama that plagues every friendship can go on to become to something worthy of repulsion. For example, the friend who, after being dumped over a year ago, still comes to you sobbing and asking existential questions you can't answer; or the friend who loves to trash talk the same person over and over again: these would fall under the "unacceptable" category for me. 

Another way to look at it is this: there is a point at which you can no longer provide the guidance and help that your friends need to make them better. Indeed, you start worrying that your advice is actually not helping them at all (assuming they take your advice into account). There is a point at which you start feeling like your friend's therapist and you start thinking that maybe they actually do need specialized help. 

Part of why I decided to put this up on "Bored to Sobs" was because I've had a lot of friends in the past few months dealing with problems of this sort. Their friends were coming to them with the same problems that never seemed to get better. The friend I spoke to today regarding this issue is still friends with her troubling friend, which is very good. On the other hand, one girl I know cut off all contact with one of her best friends. To be sure, she had good reason to end the dynamic, but one does wonder if maybe things could have ended differently had there been more communication regarding limits and boundaries. It's really sad how these instances of drama can really grow into something worthy of ending an ultimately good relationship with a friend. I think the best way to alleviate this problem is to give our "problem" friends fair warning. We need to keep our friends on notice of how much we are willing to take before we might end up having to call it quits. Then, at least, if they don't change and still pull the same crap, it's not like you're abandoning them. 

Another reason I put this up here is because I hate to see friends fall into this kind of trap. I think of friendship as being something very important, probably more so than most people. As a gay man, I've realized how important my close friends are to me, especially in a community where the legal constraints of marriage do not apply and men can run off without even having to say goodbye. I've read articles on how platonic relationships are so much more important in the gay community specifically for that reason. Heterosexuals, upon getting married, often find their previous platonic relationships fizzling out. I think this is for two reasons: 1) because when you get married and start having children you have less and less social time and 2) because the marital contract (or whatever word one might use to describe the binding effect) essentially makes friendships obsolete. You have your husband or wife legally bound to you. They are always there to help you with your problems. In fact, they really have to help you. Realistically, they probably become the most important and trusted counselor of all, replacing the need for good advice-giving friends. Although gay rights are in a wonderful stage of transition, most of the gay community still does not have access to that legally-binding commitment. Even if a homosexual couple happens to live in a state granting recognition of their union, they still don't receive recognition on the federal level. Thus, gay men and women tend to take their friendships more seriously, especially with other gay men and women. 

As an aside, I am not necessarily saying that the heterosexual's loss of friendship after marriage is a negative or even that the homosexual's strong friendships are a positive. I think there are both negative and positive consequences to both. However, I will say that close friendships are difficult to come by, and even difficult to maintain as life goes on. I try very hard to keep very open communication with my friends specifically to avoid the above mentioned problems. Letting them know when they are crossing a line and subjecting you to unendurable torture is only just the start. 

Good night.