We’re all gay now.
The New York Times is reporting this morning that nine young men in the Bronx have been accused of systematically kidnapping and torturing gay men and teens. Seven of the alleged perpetrators have already been arrested.
This account of the crime makes tough reading. Skip over it if necessary, but anyone engaged in the debate over equal rights for gays and lesbians in our society should confront it squarely.
The attackers forced the man to strip to his underwear and tied him to a chair, the police said. One of the teenage victims was still there, and the “Goonies” ordered him to attack the man.
The teenager hit him in the face and burned him with a cigarette on his nipple and penis as the others jeered and shouted gay slurs, the police said.
Then the attackers whipped the man with a chain and sodomized him with a small baseball bat.
First, the usual caveats: the alleged criminals in this case haven’ t been convicted; they are innocent until proven guilty.
But without naming names, we can still use this horrific act of terrorism to illustrate what lies at the heart of the debate over gay equality.
Being gay isn’t a Vince Vaughn movie. Being gay isn’t about an agenda or a conspiracy. Being gay isn’t about voting Republican or Democratic.
Being gay isn’t a discussion of biology. Being gay isn’t something that makes you squeamish. Being gay isn’t an act of rebellion or an affront to your values.
Being gay is one normal way of being human in a free society.
Let me say it again: Your gay neighbors are normal human beings, trying to live their lives in a free society. And you know what? They’re afraid.
They’re not frightened of some abstract theological argument. This isn’t a Sunday morning political talk show kind of thing.
They’re afraid because it’s still acceptable to use “gay” as a derogatory term — signifying weakness, falseness — long after “nigger” has been rightly banned from our lexicon.
They’re afraid because they could be attacked and killed by young men who have been taught by their society that homosexuals are, in a word, filth.
Gays are human. They’re normal. And they’re afraid with good reason.
More than a decade has passed since two young men in Wyoming kidnapped Matthew Shephard because he was gay. They tortured him, bound him to a fence on a backroad, and left him to die.
So it’s long past time to stop using homosexuality as a culture-war wedge issue.
We must stop wasting time trying to find complex and increasingly threadbare arguments to explain why the religious views of one sect or another should outweigh our society’s most sacred principles.
What are those principles? All men are created equal. We hold this truth to be self-evident, don’t we? We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.
Among these the first is life. The second is liberty. The last is the pursuit of happiness.
To accomplish this we must insure that teenage gays and lesbians aren’t driven to suicide by hazing and isolation.
Gay families must be treated equally under the law — not “separate and sort of equal” — and that means they must be allowed to marry and allowed to adopt children.
It’s time for men and women who are gay to serve openly in our military, just as we once made the decision to allow men of color and then women to serve in the military.
Does wanting this equality for all our people sound like a “gay agenda?” Fine, I guess that makes me gay.
All Americans who want safety and freedom and tolerance and decency between neighbors, we’re all gay now.
Tags: glbt, human rights, sexuality
A small sample of same-sex sexual behavior across non-human taxa include:Bonobos, bottlenose dolphins, common toad, fruit flies, garter snakes, rams, bearded vultures and Laysan albatross. There are non-Wikipedia scientific reference for each one.
You can make male fruitflies exhibit homosexual behavior by mutating the genderblind gene which results in reduced production of the neurotransmitter glutamate. There is a huge peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
Some knowledge of gene imprinting (epistasis) would help one understand why such animals could, and do, continue on. As for the sickle cell gene “cropping” up occasionally, well, what can you say about a gene that’s been around for thousands of years and is naturally selected due to its protective effect on individuals who live in malarious regions of the world.
Ideology trumps rationality.
Oh, my bad. So evolution is a crock. Okay, now I get it. What’s natural is natural as long as it meets your notions. What’s unnatural is actually natural and sustainable as long as it’s fits your notion and what’s patently unsustainable and no more than an aberration dependent on mutated or faulty genes or glands or something is natural as long as it meets with your ideas. Huh, man that simplifies things.
From now on I’ll just assume evolution is garbage and that what seems right or rational is wrong and irrational.
Man, what a load off my mind. Thank God (ooops!) your ideology trumps rationality.
Anyone can look up and understand the selective process that has preserved the sickle cell gene? Anyone can look up the definition and evidence for gene imprinting or epistasis. Is the genetic manipulation of the genderblind gene a liberal conspiracy? Is molecular biology a hoax? Have Americans become so blinded by ideology that we now depend opinion rather than the science of genetics?
Epistasis is a natural phenomenon and part of evolution and it explains things – like breast cancer due to the loss of an imprinted NOEY1 gene. If people have a copy of the sickle cell gene and are protected against severe malaria infections, then of course it’s going to be passed on. That explains why the gene exists to this day whether it hurts someones feelings or not.
Bret, Do a little bit more reading of evolutionary theorists like Steven Jay Gould and EO Wilson, for starters, to see that such debates aren’t as clear cut as you think they are.
There are several plausible explanations for why homosexuality keeps showing up in our gene pools. Here’s one:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html
From article: …They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.
Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.
“This is a novel finding,” says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist and commentator on sexuality at Stanford University in California. “We think of it as genes for male homosexuality’, but it might really be genes for sexual attraction to men. These could predispose men towards homosexuality and women towards hyper-heterosexuality’, causing women to have more sex with men and thus have more offspring.” … End excerpt.
Lots more out there. Big world of knowledge and theory at one’s fingertips! Never stop seeking, Bret!
jdm,
1) well of course i’ve demonstrated that i’m not tolerant of your “opinion,” or in other words, of your homophobia. as i said way above, i’m proud to be bigoted against your line of bigotry. racism, misogyny, homophobia — none of these are to be tolerated in any way.
2) on the other hand, do you disagree with that and instead believe that when confronted with racist or misogynistic opinions, it’s best to just politely agree to disagree?
3) it’s a bit funny to me that you’d get up on your high horse with things like “instead of winning the argument through the perponderance [sic] of the ideas presented” or “labels that merely say, ‘I can’t win this argument, so go away’.”
because if you review this thread, you’ll find that not only did i call you out as a homophobe, i explained why i did so (reminder: it’s because you fit the definition). and you haven’t had anything to say about that.
and i’ve also challenged many of the points you’ve asserted about homosexuality, and you haven’t had anything to say about those either, other than to just repeat that homosexuality is “against nature” despite it being pointed out over and over that homosexuality is very prevalent in nature and hence can’t be against nature.
so what’s the deal? this would be a great opportunity for you to live up to your standards and stand up for your ideas. what ill effects does homosexuality have? how is it ill-fated?
or is it just going to be more of the same “we just have a difference of opinion”? or in other words, “i can’t win this argument, so go away”?
with regard to bret, i’m not sure that i’m really saying anything that pnelba and oa haven’t already, but the point of view of this sentence is really wrong:
What’s unnatural is actually natural and sustainable as long as it’s fits your notion and what’s patently unsustainable and no more than an aberration dependent on mutated or faulty genes or glands or something is natural as long as it meets with your ideas.
bret, what kind of qualifications do you have to judge what in nature is “unnatural” or “patently unsustainable”? when we see something in nature, then the overwhelming likelihood is that there’s a good reason for it to be there, even if we’re not smart enough to figure out what that reason is.
OA, HT, once again my communication skills are failing me.
OA, your examples line up with whats seen in cattle breeding. The more “female” we make a cow, the more “male” the bulls tend to become. It only goes to figure that if a certain gene line produces more femininity it will affect others in that line too. Like I said, in that sense it’s natural I suppose.
HT, looking for reasons to accept something as natural or normal in nature will skew your result, just like it works with lots of other things. We see children born blind, deaf, deformed, etc. Does nature provide a reason for that? Does that make sense in your theory? How is that sustainable in nature? I know blind people that do fine and grow up and marry and have kids. None of them that I know of would wish blindness on their kids. Does a child born with some horrid deformity mean nature intended that child to pass on that deformity, that it should become the norm? Yes, it’s “natural” but it doesn’t mean it is sustainable. Those tendencies are aberrations we try and guard against.
I will repeat, I have no hate for homosexuals, no desire to see anyone harmed or hurt or treated as less because of their sexual preference. I also see no reason to create special groups that receive special treatment. We already have hate crime laws that offer additional protections for certain groups, a violation of the concept of equal justice for all. I will grant you that homosexual tendencies may be part of nature and that I simply may not understand the reasons why. It simply makes no sense to me. I don’t understand God either. After thinking about it for a few minutes I also realize I have a hard time separating gay men and pedophiles, something others have no problem doing. Almost all the pedophiles I dealt with were gay men. I suppose that colors my judgment. I will try and work on that.
In the end what this argument comes down to is that some people see the unfair treatment certain groups have suffered and bend over backwards to try and make things right. I think that’s admirable up to a point. When you go beyond fair and equal treatment then you have crossed the line and have taken on a crusade based on faith in your opinion and feelings. You don’t want fair and equal anymore, you want special treatment for those you feel have been wronged. I think that crosses the line between right and wrong.
But the issue is civil protections and rights not our view of a sexual morality or practices. I think that we can all agree that people should be treated with dignity and respect regardless of how they act, if they are gay, if they are living together out of wedlock, if they are divorced, if they are married if the they are virgins or for that matter any sexual desire or non desire that they share in the privacy of their homes.
We can have these philosophical discussions about homosexuality and we can have religious beliefs about sexual morality, however to me this is a totally different topic it is about hating people and kids; about violence and about the acceptance of torture and violence simply because of a perceived sexual practice.
I would be labeled a Christian conservative and do hold a specific beliefs about sexual morality as shown in scripture and tradition and will not be ashamed of those beliefs or ashamed of that scripture. However this same scripture says that without love its all crap anyway, we should be defending gay people from violence never excusing that violence.
If not letting gay’s marry contributes to the violence than I would be in favor of allowing gay civil marriage for that reason alone. I am not sure it would though, the people who I see doing this sort of thing would also beat up kids with disabilities or minorities or anyone else that they could as they are at heart sadists, and I do think as pointed out above are often wrestling with gay desires themselves.
A lot of staunch opinions.
I always though equal protections meant gays should be able to marry
Putdowns, namecalling, scapegoating, etc. is an unfortunate “stage” our culture’s adolescents go through. So most of us who have wintered that awful period in our lives, respond to today’s generation by answering, “My generation survived it. I survived it, so tough it out. We didn’t need special treatment, so why should you?” If you’re straight, the common reaction is anger. So the namecallee either lashes back or grows thicker skin, or both. More namecalling bounces off the straight kid.
If the scapegoat is gay, the putdowns and namecalling doesn’t bounce off. Underneath the anger is shame. Shame strikes deep, and eats away from the inside. Sadly, suicide is too often a chosen option. Add violence and fear to shame, (and it’s not confined to the Bronx)….is not far from being a Jew in Nazi Germany, a pregnant girl in Yemen, or Roma in France.
Homosexuality isn’t shameful. We must do better.
I want to respond in particular to anon’s comments here. We have laws against the molestation of children.
No one is suggesting that those laws should be relaxed or shouldn’t be enforced.
In fact, the vast majority of pedophilia and sexual assault of children involves men raping female children.
There is no more connection between homosexuality and pedophilia than there is between heterosexuality and pedophilia.
–Brian, NCPR
I would dispute that Brian based on my dealings with the slime.
All pedophiles are not homosexuals. If you disagree with that statement, and ignore the facts, then I guess you can argue that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia.
One of my favorite, most trusted, websites is Religious Tolerance (yes, I’m an atheist but religion is one of my hobbies). There is an excellent essay on the topic at that website.
Amen.
Being gay is not a choice or a sickness.
Being a bigot is both.
During the Ground Zero Mosque [sic] tempest in a teapot, I tried to reassure Muslims that it was just “their turn” and that right-wing fanatics would eventually tire and move on to another innocent scapegoat to pulverize with their hateful bigotry. I pointed out that the far right typically alternated between three scapegoats: Muslims, Latinos and gays (while the ‘liberal media’ scapegoat is always there in the background). Sadly, I was right. Latinos better be careful. Once these anti-American extremists bash gays for a while, they’ll probably move back to Hispanics.
So what does it mean to be a bigot in this context of sexual morality?
For example my Church holds that God’s will for romantic relationships and family are a man and a women in marriage raising together their children. It also holds that intimate sexual relations outside of this context are sinful. We are also taught to love other human beings, to never use violence, and to not judge another human being, and as St. Paul said to get along with everyone on the outside as best as possible. Would all churches who follow the scripture in this area be considered bigoted? This is the concern that many Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews have.
Personally I feel that because of the violence we should really look at how we are coming across on this non-essential non-central teaching.
But will we be allowed to continue to express these traditional teachings concerning family life and sexual morality without being labeled bigots?
I am really just curious how that is viewed?
anon, um, xcuse me?!> The teenage victim is 17 years old, OVER the age of consent in NY. Furthermore, the 17 YEAR OLD admitted to “sex” with the 30 year old only after having been repeatedly brutalized, so whether he even had sex with the 30 year old is highly debatable. In any event, the 30 year old is not a “sexual predator” or “child molestor.” They are both consenting adults under NY law.
If the 17 year old was straight, he’d probably live in the south, vote republican tea bagger, and have 3 or 4 kids now by an unmarried teenage girl. So get off your soap box, especially when you are legally wrong.
that’s a great point to raise, mervel (as is typical for you!), subtle and nuanced with no easy answer. here’s a little jumble of thoughts.
one is that it’s certainly possible for the teachings of a religion to be bigoted. i think far too often people think of religion as granting some kind of moral immunity. (i suspect some people will really balk at even the suggestion of that, insofar as they view their moral framework as residing within and deriving from their religious framework, so that morality outside of religion doesn’t make sense. that’s certainly not my take on things.) but if, say, our religion teaches that a race or races is inferior to another or others, then that’s just bigoted. maybe that’s not enough to make our hypothetical religion bigoted as a whole, but it’s definitely a bigoted teaching.
on the other hand, many devout christians believe that adherents of other faiths are going to hell. aside from the question of whether that’s a bigoted belief or not — you could certainly make an argument that it is — i think this is the sort of thing that hardly ever rises to bigotry in practice — and “in practice” is what really matters. the vast majority of us are just fine getting along with people of other faiths. you’re doing your thing, and i’m doing my thing, and that fine! and i would go further to say that most of us accord each other’s faith at least a fair deal of respect.
and there are other aspects of faith that just aren’t seen as a big deal. i have a good jewish friend who loves pork, for example! is it a sin every time he eats a hot dog? strictly speaking, i guess it is according to his faith tradition, but the much more important fact is that in practice no one cares whatsoever. it doesn’t make any difference at all!
i’m obviously not tying this together very well, and that’s indeed because i haven’t thought things through really well enough to be able to! the rough point i want to make is that the vision i’d like to have for religion’s relationship with homosexuality is a lot like the examples in the last two paragraphs. maybe that’s not actually a workable vision. but i hope something like it is.
I remember and try to adhere to wisdom shared many years ago by a Presbyterian minister: “See the face of God in every being you encounter.”
To put this into secular words: “Treat evey being the same: with love and compassion.”
If we all did this, the above discussion/debate would not exist.
A worthy goal, indeed.
Brian M: I suggest you ignore comments from people who launch angry tirades while cowering behind the veil of complete anonymity. I may strongly disagree with people like JDM and Bret, but at least they have the guts to sign their comments.
Sorry Brian, I couldn’t read this whole post. Sometimes my fellow Homo Sapiens disgust me; I can’t call them human. And I can’t read the comments on here either. What is there to discuss?
Hermit,
Yes most people in their day to day life simply do not want to delve into the private lives of other people they don’t care, I know I don’t care individually.
However, does the relationship between traditionalist religions and their view of sexual morality directly lead to the sadism and horrible violence that happened in NYC Brian is talking about? That is the question for me and for others who follow traditional views and must wrestle with this. I don’t think homophobia is unique to Christians just as anti-semetism is not unique to Christians although Christians sometimes practice both.
For example many Christians today co-habitat outside of marriage, this according to scripture and my Church is called fornication; a sexual sin no different from having sex with someone of the same sex. Now are there roaming bands of people pulling people who are living together off the street and sodomizing them with broom sticks? Is this a big concern for people who are fornicating? How about teenagers in high school who are having sex, once again fornication, are they labeled and bullied? In reality often the kids who are virgins are the ones who get labeled and bullied today particularly if they are guys. The difference is being gay, and that to me is the essence of homophobia.
Anyway I am rambling.
I truly wish this site had a quote feature!
PNElba says:
October 11, 2010 at 11:03 am
All pedophiles are not homosexuals. If you disagree with that statement, and ignore the facts, then I guess you can argue that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia.
I did not say that. I said almost all the pedophiles I dealt with were homosexuals. There seems to be a preponderance of that in the news. The Roman Catholic priests always seem to be bothering their Altar Boys. Yet they do have access to girls too. I’ve certainly heard unsubstantiated rumors of Nun rape also. But it’s the boys they seem to go after. The science teacher that abused my family members didn’t bother girls. And if you are exposed to the homosexual literature I’ve unfortunately had to view, violence is a very much a part of the whole show. Whether that’s part of the fantasy or whatever I can’t say. But visual depictions of young, boy appearing men, bound and gagged being “raped” doesn’t look too much like a committed, loving relationship to me. It looks like people that want to bind young boys and rape them to satisfy their desires.
Again, while I have no hate or wish any harm on anyone, my experiences cause me to look at the gay scene a bit differently than other people. When I have to leave a table in the food court at a mall because to gay men are fondling each other in front of my kids- there’s a problem, and it’s not me being a prude.
Bret says:
And, I don’t see where I or anyone else said you did say that.
Boy am I glad I stayed out of this one.
1. Outlaw marriage. As a single heterosexual I receive no benefit and therefore find it discriminatory.
2. No law should be made to give special protections to any group. Black, brown, red, yellow, gay, straight or otherwise.
The rest is all BS.
” PNElba says:
October 12, 2010 at 9:58 am
Bret says:
I did not say that.
And, I don’t see where I or anyone else said you did say that.”
That’s a direct cut and paste from your post in response to my post! Maybe you live in an alternative world where you can redact your statements (are you in Congress perhaps?) but I don’t see you getting out of this. Are you denying you wrote that?
bret, did it occur to you that pnelba wasn’t addressing you with that comment? obivously s/he can speak for themselves, but when i read it, i took it as a followup to brian m’s comment, which as he noted was directed at this excrescence suggesting that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia.
get over the persecution complex!
while i’m here, i can’t bother but complain that 1) i think drawing conclusions about “the way things are in general” based a collection of personal anecdotes is a pretty bad way to organize one’s thoughts about the world and is no substitute whatsoever for rigorously collected and analyzed data; and 2) the problem with gay men fondling themselves in front of you at the food court has nothing to do with them being gay. you know this, right? it’s just as inappropriate when a straight couple does it.
Turd you could outlaw marriage you could let everyone marry however many people they wanted and whatever sex they wanted, and I doubt it would impact the Latin Kings decisions to rape suspected gays in the Bronx. I think they are different issues.
The legal age for consent in New York State is 17 so in essence sexual relations between the 30 year old and the two 17 year olds could be consensual abeit morally questionable. Now, if the 17 year olds complained that they were forced then it would be considered rape and the full extent of the law could used against the 30 year old.
It’s the same no matter your sexual orientation. However, mob mentality is not a legal way to settle crimes, they are unjustified actions that take place of lawful actions and are usually fueled by prejudice.
People will hate regardless of reason. Giving special protections is not the answer. I think you’ve had some thoughtful posts and I agree that what happens inside my home is for me and nobody else. That’s privacy.
Yes.
I actually kind of like the idea of having the government get totally out of the marriage business. It would solve many of these issues and would let people set up the legal boundaries of their own relationships.
Marriage would still exist of course just not be sanctioned by the government.
The other option I would think might work would be a return to common law marriage by default. If you live with someone for particular period of time; legally you are married in the eyes of the law regardless of what you do or don’t do by your actions you are married. It would protect children, property rights issues, and all of the other issues that come up in all of these living together relationships and would also not make any sort of judgment one way or the other about marriage.
Bret,
Honestly, I’m not trying to “get into it” with you. And I hope you see there seems to be a misunderstanding because I used the html blockquote to repeat what you said.
I said “all pedophiles are not homosexuals”.
You said “I did not say that . I said almost all the pedophiles I dealt with were homosexuals. ” (at 8:21 AM)
Then I said “And, I don’t see where I or anyone else said you did say that.” (at 9:58 AM)
Man, you do seem to have a persecution complex.
Brians statement was at 8:04, my response disagreeing with his “no connection” post at 8:48 and the next post about “all pedophiles” was yours at 11:03 which fully appears to be a response to my post. If it was not in response to my post then perhaps in the future you should qualify which post you are responding to so as to make things clear. This board style lacks the useful quote features found on other boards, the down point of a blog I suppose.
HT- Personal experience versus nice clean data? Yeah, right. Real life versus washed numbers. You should work for the gov’t, you’d fit right in.
In the future please just assume I’m not responding to you Bret, because I’m trying my hardest not to annoy you.
Really? Then perhaps you’d like to apologize for your implication that I had no true basis for feelings regarding the 9/11 issue, and even after being made aware I was there fro 9/12, at Ground Zero, you specifically said you were wrong and that you wouldn’t apologize for your nasty remarks. That is both insulting to me and to your honor, if you have any.
” PNElba says:
August 20, 2010 at 10:50 am
Bret, I regret the example I used but I don’t apologize.”
Bret, the fact that you think I have no honor bothers me not one bit.
Proof you lack honor and character.
And equal proof you have a major persecution complex.