Because it's Right... and Because it's Tactically Sound

A few days ago, an NBA player of no particular note came out as gay...

Which, really, should also be of no particular note.

But then ESPN decided to put a moronic bigot (whose name I won't mention and whose video I won't bother linking to here... why publicize idiots like this) to discuss the issue... and predictably he spouted moronic bigotry all over the screen, and made it an even BIGGER spectacle...

Now, the intarwebs are full of folks reacting against the reaction against the reaction against etc... etc...

They're caught up in the noise, and not the issue.

I try not to do that... and to smack it down when I can.

I take issue with the way issues surrounding homosexuality in public life are covered by the media, and often with the strategy and tactics employed by activists... but I believe in, and work for equal rights and equal protection for homosexuals (and before anyone gets offended by my use of a single word... you're an idiot... YOU are part of the problem... because you are offended stupidly by nothing, and not working towards a real solution).

Chris Kluwe, NFL Punter, wrote a post in support of the gay community in HuffPo yesterday... I normally don't link to them, but I think this is a rational and correct position, reasonably well put...

Really, my position and reasoning are simple...

I speak in support of equal treatment for homosexuals, not because I am one, but because it is the right thing to do.

Because I believe in equal rights and treatment for EVERYONE.

Whether I approve of them or not.

Further, I do so, because anything which can be used against those you disapprove of... can also be used against those you DO approve of...

...or YOU.

It really does get better... VERY NSFW

And now it's time for another post in which I irritate my socially conservative readers...

Watch all the way to the end please, and listen... unless rather serious vulgarity and profanity offend you in which case don't watch the video, or just skip to the end spoken word bit:



I'm not gay, and I wasn't bullied in high school even though I am the worlds biggest geek... But it wasn't out of the inherent kindness of teenagers. I wasn't bullied, because I was the biggest and strongest, and sometimes the meanest kid out there. I was the one who taught bullies a lesson... and believe me, I taught a LOT of lessons.

I'm not big on the "anti-bullying" bandwagon currently gathering steam in America. AS it is, it seems to be a politically correct hysterical reaction, combined with an unhealthy dose of overprotective parents, liability obsessed administrators, and fame seeking psychobabblers.

But, I still think forcing someone to pay a price for non-conformity, is wrong.

I don't care whether you disapprove of homosexuality or not; this isn't really about being gay, it's about being different. About not conforming to the social conventions and constructs enforced by the institutions we laughingly call educational in this country.

I wont say there isn't some value to those social conventions and constructs; society operates smoother with them, and when they are generally followed. A society without a commonly agreed upon set of social conventions is a society that quickly collapses in on itself.

The problem becomes when those who choose not to follow those conventions, in essentially harmless ways, are FORCED into doing so; or are actively persecuted, or actively hurt, physically, financially, spiritually, and emotionally, for not doing so.

That, is the very definition of coercive restraint of human liberty; and it is flatly wrong.

You don't have to support someones choices; but you have no right to enforce your choices upon them.

As people who love liberty, we would not tolerate such behavior from the state; but what is the state but a collection of individuals acting in concert... We should not accept this behavior from individuals, any more than we would from the government.

The message of this video is, if you choose another way, and you are being hurt because of it, it get's better. And unfortunately, until we can destroy those so called educational institutions and rebuild them into something that supports liberty and freedom and individual rights, giving kids that message is the best we can do.

Remember folks, in our fine institutions, it's those who love liberty who are the minority. The ones who don't fit in. We are the threat to the social order.

I don't see how anyone who says they're for freedom, liberty, and individual rights can not support this; because supporting freedom, liberty, and individual rights, means doing so for everyone, even if their choices are completely abhorrent to you (so long as their choice is not infringing on your rights).

It's not about gay or straight, it's about free or not.

Dishonesty, and Dishonor

Top US General Calls Homosexuality Immoral By Al Pessin Pentagon 13 March 2007 The top U.S. military officer has said homosexuality is immoral, sparking renewed controversy about the status of homosexuals in the U.S. military. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, told the Chicago Tribune newspaper the military ban on homosexuals should continue, because homosexuality is immoral. The newspaper posted audio from the interview on its Web site. PACE: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts." General Pace told the Tribune that to officially allow homosexuals to serve in the military would be an endorsement of immoral activity. He said the military should not endorse any immoral acts, mentioning specifically homosexuality and extra-marital affairs, which are also against military regulations. General Pace endorsed the current policy, under which homosexuals serve by keeping their sexual orientation a secret.

Okay now, first off, I'm saying this as a man who is both Catholic, and a veteran; Don't Ask Don't Tell is offensive, insulting to all men and women who wear the uniform, gay or straight, and it should be ended one way or another.

The military is no place for mealy mouthing and careful parsing of statements for political correctness... or rather it shouldn't be, but all too often it is.

Whatever you think of homosexuality, you can't deny that DADT is a moral, social, and disciplinary disgrace of epic proportions.

Now, again as both a Catholic and a veteran, the idea that someone should be banned from serving their country because a general believes their private sexual behavior is immoral, is ludicrous. If his morality is coming from his Christianity he should know he is in no position to judge, that's Gods job.

We ban adultery in the military, not because it is immoral, but because it is dishonorable. It is the betrayal of a sacred oath, and if a man will betray his marriage vows, might he not betray his service oath as well?

There is nothing inherently dishonorable about homosexuality; but we force gay men and women into being dishonorable, ever day that they serve in silence.

Hell, I'm willing to bet MY private sexual behavior would GREATLY disturb Gen. Pace as well; and I'm a happily married man with two kids, who honorably served my country.

The fact of the matter is, there are thousands upon thousands of gay men and women serving honorably in the armed forces today; there always have been and there always will be. To tacitly accept their honorable service, and then insist that they dishonor themselves by being closeted is a shameful stain on OUR honor, as service members, as veterans, and as a nation.

Freedom of conscience is among our highest freedoms, and forced denial of self is an abuse of that freedom.

Hell, I knew for a fact that I was serving with gay service members; and was friends with several serving gays and lesbians who were quite candid about their sexual orientation, with friends only. It didn't effect their job, and it didn't make them poor service members; but it very definitely effected their souls.

It made me ashamed to have to accept this policy. IT IS WRONG.

Now, as to whether gays SHOULD be allowed to openly serve, I am of mixed mind on that.

The priary official concern, and logic behind the offical ban, is that gays serving with straights will result in inapprorpiate sexual behavior.

To my mind, so long as we set and enforce appropriate standards of behavior and discipline, and severely punish anyone who does not abide by those standards, be they gay or straight, I don't care who my buddy wants to have sex with (even if it's me).

Implicit in the banning of gays, while we allow men and women to serve together; is the assumption that gay men, and lesbian women will be less able to control themselves around other service members they are attracted to than straight service members. I find this implied assertion to be quite offensive; and disrespectful to ALL service members not just gays and lesbians.

The fact of the matter is, the rules say keep it in your pants (or if you don’t for gods sakes don't let it screw up the job). If we can expect straight folks to do it, we can expect gay folks to do it.

I'm not saying there aren't issues here. There will always be elements of anti-gay sentiment in the military; especially in the hypermasculine culture that pervades most of the military (and I don't necessarily think that culture is inappropriate much of the time); but so what, there are idiots currently serving who also hate women, Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Arabs, and every other identity group out there (note the caps).

Then there's the people who say "What about AIDS and other STDs that homosexuals are at higher risk for? In the barracks environment, in training, and in combat, there is a lot of close contact, potentially with with bodily fluids, as well as transfusions and the like".

Well, yes that's true, but the fact is that every service member can be required to have an AIDS test every six months, and probably SHOULD be, straight or gay. As I was getting out I beleive they were instituting regular screening for many STDs, and they have been testing for Gonorrhea, Syphillis, and Hpeatitis with every physical, for as long as such test have existed.

Hell, you can’t even say that gay men are at a much greater risk here, because soldiers, sailors, and airmen as a class, are about the most promiscuous people on the planet (I know, I was one of them), as well as frequent patrons of prostitutes, who are the highest risk group for sexually transmitted diseases by far.

After over a decade of exclusion, we now allow gay men with clear AIDs tests to give blood in the civvy world (presuming they don't have other risk factors like a high number of partners etc...); and we require a standard of behavior in or service members higher than society requires for gay men as a whole, so I reject this argument as speciaous.

All that said, I think this whole thing is one gigantic social mess. Hell, we’ve screwed up the military trying to integrate women, and still haven't managed to do so successfully for over 60 years of trying (since the inception of the Womens Army Corps nurses serving near the front in WW2).

And I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to serve either. I’m of the opinion that anyone who can meet the standards of a combat soldier should be allowed to serve in combat. That those standards be the same for all genders, sexual preferences, races, creeds or any other thing. Everybody has to pass the same test no matter what, and that test is predicated on what makes a good soldier, not what the average of the lowest performing group can pass (which is how womens PFT standards were developed by the by).

My point is however, that even given the position of women in our society, as the now dominant cultural force (and if you don’t think that’s true, you haven't watched much network TV or been on a universtiy campus recently - lucky you); we STILL can’t get integrating them into our military forces right. Integrating open homosexuality is a lot more controversial and difficult socially than women.

Then there's the fact that the service environment engenders a lot of very unguarded and intimate social contact, with communal quarters, showers etc... Some raise the entirely valid point that you wouldn't force a woman to shower with a man, nor should you force straight men to shower with gay men who might have sexual interest in them

I don't agree with that point in it's entirety, but I do see the issue; and I don't think the solution is separate accommodation for gay and straight (That would be just ridiculous, and nearly impossible to do in a combat zone anyway). Hell, I don't even think we should have separate accommodation for men and women out in the field. If women want to play with the boys they should shower with the boys... but that's neither here nor their.

The armed forces are not the place for social experimentation, and forcing such a change in the middle of a war is beyond stupidity.

My thought is that “don't ask don't tell” is insulting and shameful to all concerned; that anyone currently serving who is gay should be allowed to come out of the closet should they choose to do so, but we should avoid at all costs treating gays as a protected class etc… etc…

I just don't know how to do it.

Honestly, I don’t think we can do it right now. I don’t think it’s far off, but I don’t think it’s this year, or next year.

UPDATE:

WASHINGTON — Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed mild regret Tuesday for voicing his belief that homosexual acts are “immoral,” but he stopped short of an apology as gay rights groups and a powerful Republican senator rebuked the general for the comments he made to the Chicago Tribune. As critics fired rhetorical volleys, Pace issued a statement expressing regret that he had put so much stress on the morality issue when he defended the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military during a Monday interview with the Tribune’s editorial board. “In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct,” Pace said in his statement. “I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”

Well, although I disagree with him, Ill say I respect the man all the more for saying this, in this way. He didn’t cave to pressure to apologize for his personal views; but he acknowledged that it was entirely inappropriate for him to have expressed his personal views in the context of military policy.

Protesting Truth

"The personal is the political", has been a rallying cry of collectivists, "progressivists", marxists, and others on the left since the 1960's. Never has this concept been so apparent than in it's application to the politics of today.

A lot of folks, libertarian and conservative alike call the Democratic party the "demonrats", or the "dhimmicrats". It's garbage like this that prompts this sort of rhetoric:

"[A]s a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen."

Notice that "as an American" bit was almost an afterthought; but it get's better:

"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."

Not that there was any doubt before, but now serious thought makers within the party are admitting it publicly, they hope for the defeat of America so that they can gain politically.

Lets repeat that: Democratic policymakers, and thinkers are actively hoping for, and in some cases working toward the defeat of Americas efforts around the world. They do this not because they are philosophically opposed to democracy, but because they wish to deny the credit for this success to republicans. Democrats realize that if this project succeeds, it will permanently harm their political position, and though it would be an unqualified boon to the world, their personal political calculation is far more important to them.

The truth is that the Bush administrations ideals, if not necessairly their operations in detail, are succeesing over the ideals promoted by democrats. The democrats refuse to acknowledge this truth, and everything they do is simply railing against it.

They are protesting truth.

This is what happens when you follow the collectivist dictum, "the personal is the political, and the political is the personal". Every bit of life becomes politicised. Every position you hold, every idea you have, every stand you take is now judged against some invisible standard of ldeological purity, and god help you if you are found wanting. In this climate it is not possible for you to appreciate facts or results that are contradictory to, or even neutral towards your position, all data must either be supportive, or it must be discredited.

This stance is most visible, and most violent, in the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. I equate these issues with each other, because both their emotional context, and their rhetoric are similar.

This is a territory where everyone speaks in code, or if they don't they are castigated, attacked as insenstive, racist, sexist, homophobic, and the like. Further, it's a territory where facts, and data are irrelvant to the issues. No facts can be accepted, or even discussed, if they in any way less than wholeheartedly support the position being taken by the group, unless the soul purpose of that discussion is to refute or discredit those data. Contradictory data are to be taken as, and publicly treated as, lies and propaganda, no matter the source, or the credibility.

I should also note, the far right can be just as bad, if not worse, but their stupidity and perfidy shows itself in different ways (equating opinions, values, and morals with facts and truth), and what I'm writing about here is the tendency to protest truth because of agenda.

I have three examples for you: Lawrence Summers, Jada Pinkett Smith, and B strain AIDS (Oh and please don't think I'm singling out women or gays specifically in this, I just couldnt find a good example of blatant race baiting in the last few weeks. I'm sure one will pop up shortly).

More in the extended entry...

Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, is a moderate liberal. He was President Clintons final secretary of the treasury. He has lead some of the most "progressive" hiring, and admissions practices at Harvard, and he has given a great deal of support to liberal causes. Summers however, is also a scientist (well, a doctor of economics actually), an intelligent man, and a man who apparently doesn't take his politics personally enough, or seriously enough for many on the left, where this is a grave, possibly fatal flaw.

Mr. Summers gave a speach recently where he was lamenting the lack of women in the hard sciences, an undisputed fact; and where he talked about the current scientific thinking on some of the reasons behind it. This was not unfounded speculation, but a thoughtful, if shallowly treated (because of time constraints) review of certain research in the cognitive sciences; which suggests there are specific gender related traits which appear more often in men and less in women, that would tend to make men more able, at the top of the standard distribution and above it, in the hard sciences.

This speach wasn't a value judgement, or a condemnation of women, or even a statement that women are less intelligent than men, it was simply talking about a group of scientific studies, presumably without political agenda, presented by someone favorable towards "womens issues", but also someone who has a great respect for truth, and for results. It is those least two traits that really caused the "offense" in question.

Note: According to the best sets of statistics I have seen the average woman is more intelligent than the average man; there are more women at the top end of the standard distribution of intelligence, and more men at the low end of it. However there are more men at the top end outside the standard distribution (though more out of the top 100 known most intelligent people are women) ; the standard distribution for men is somewhat broader than for women, and in that breadth skews a bit higher; Thus the data also say this is true by a very slight margin; a very unpopular sentiment indeed.

Well, the response to this was predictably political, and entirely driven by agenda. MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, told reporters "I felt I was going to be sick," that "my heart was pounding and my breath was shallow," that "I just couldn't breathe, because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," and that she had to flee the room because otherwise "I would've either blacked out or thrown up."

This type of high level (or low level depending on your point of view) emotional rhetoric is considered sensible discourse in this arena. A grown woman; a scientist no less, saying that she was made physically ill near to the point of unconsciousness, and bolting away from an idea that offends her. In any other environment this would be considered immature and silly (and in fact feel free to feel that way now; I certainly do). I personally think this woman does nothing but add weight to some peoples worst prejudices about women.

Mr. Lawrence has been roundly criticised, and thousands of leftist agenda activists have called for his resignation, but hundreds of serious, and reputable scientists have rallied to support him. Cognitive researchers, many of them women, agree that what he said is what they believe to be true right now, and that in fact the differences may even be deeper and more significant.

This scientific belief (we can't yet say it is certain fact, or even a concrete theory) is unnacceptable to agenda politics, so they protest against it; but how can you protest fact?

Which brings me to the B strain AIDS issue.

Recently a substrain of B strain AIDS, originally only found in southeast Asia, but now making its way across Asia and africa, has started to appear in New York and San Francisco.

B strain is remarkably more dangerous than A strain, the dominant form of AIDS in the west. A strain is actually a relatively weak and fragile virus, dying quickly when exposed to air or sunlight, and requiring a signficant number of virus particles to be introduced directly into the bloodstream to infect. It is quite possible for you to have normal unprotected sex with someone who has active A strain AIDS hundreds of times, and not be infected (please note, this is obviously an INCREDIBLY bad idea, it's just the truth), especially if you are male and it is your female partner who is infected. Female to male infection is relatively rare with A strain.

If you are infected with A strain HIV, with modern treatement regimens you can expect to live indefinitely. It was once believed that the mortality rate for AIDS would be 100%, that it was simply a matter of extending time, but there are people who have lived with AIDS for 20 years or more now. For these people, AIDS has become a chronic disease rather than an acute one.

The same things cannot be said about B strain. B strain is a far more hardy virus, surviving for hours in hostile environments, and requiring far fewer live virus particles to produce infection. Notably, B strain appears to be able to produce infection with a far lower volume of body secretions and a lower count of virii in those secretions. Where blood infiltration from small vaginal or anal tears is the primary infection vector for A strain, with B strain, there can be enough virii present in vaginal secretions to cause infection without open wounds. There may even be enough in saliva, and there certainly is from breast milk. The fact that this strain is so virulent, allows it to sometimes survive, and potentially infect, from the residues of vaginal and anal fluids that are left on the gentials or in the mouth after sexual intercourse with condoms and dental dams. This has lead to B strain being the primary cause of new infections for heterosexual men outside the U.S. , and to far higher rates of infection among gay men and lesbians.

Worse, with this particular substrain of B strain, infections proceed far faster than A strain, which typically takes from 6 months to two years, and can take from 10 to 20 years to begin showing symptoms.With treatment and the right immune system, active AIDS infection can sometimes not appear at all (as in the case of Magic Johnson). Conversely, B strain infection can become apparent within weeks, and the progress of the virus from there is extremely rapid. B strain resists all known treatments, and is known to cause death within 6 months in some cases, and 20 months in almost all cases.

So why don't more Americans know about B strain AIDS? It's existence has been known for well over a decade, and this substrain was identified more than 5 years ago, why hasn't this been more widely reported?

Some suggest that it is because reporters and news organizations dont want to inflame a large anti-gay backlash that may occur if this information is discussed publicly. In fact, when stories recently appeard on CNN, and in Time, USA Today, and the New York Times discussing B strain AIDS, gay advocacy groups protested. They did not dispute the facts of the stories, or even their presentation (note, these are all very liberal news organizations, unlikely to treat this issue as an anti-gay issue), but the mere fact that people were talking about this at all. They want us to stop talking about it, because it might make people angry with gays.

They are protesting the truth.

How can you protest the truth?

The truth is that this is an incredibly nasty and dangerous disease, and the information that it is here in America is important to save lives. The information that it can cause infection even with condom use is important to save lives. The information that you can't treat it is important to save lives.

They are protesting the truth, because it interferes with their agenda.

They're right by the way; it probably WILL make people angry at gays. It will probably male people angry at the promiscuous as well. It may produce a reaction, a backlash if you will; similar to that which occurred when AIDS was originally publicised in the early to mid 80's. I think that would be a regretable thing, but it doesn't change the fact that by trying to suppress the truth, these groups are making it far more likely that people will contract, and will die from this horrible disease.

To the agenda protestors, these facts can't discussed, because they might endanger homonormalization, the process of changing the ideas and mores of our society so that homosexuality is accepted as normal. I have no problem with this idea, as far as I'm concerned your sexual preferences are jsut that, yours; what I have a problem with, is that any time something comes out that is negative towards gays, it is forbidden to speak about it, for fear of threatening the goal, no matter how important it may be. There are those who would call me homophopic just for bringing this whole subject up.

Which brings around to my final example (and coincidentally back to Harvard) Jada Pinkett Smith.

Mrs. Smith (the wife of rapper Will Smith), recently gave a talk about her life and her experiences (as a 34 year old straight black woman), during the "Cultural Rythyms" festival at Harvard. The closing of her talk included this quote:

"Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career," she said. "They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it."

"To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open," she added.

I think to most of us, that statement could not possibly seem to be offensive. But most of us do not live and breathe an agenda of changing reality.

The day after the talk, a letter of protest was written to the administration of Harvard, from the "Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations" (boy that's a mouthful isn't it). Some time later a press release was issued, and an article has appeared in the Crimson saying the following:

"The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith’s comments. But the Foundation has pledged to “take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class,” according to the release.

Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation’s “Artist of the Year” at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ’06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was “motivational,” some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.

“Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,” Woods said.

Margaret C. D. Barusch ’06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.

“I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship—a heterosexual relationship,” Barusch said. “I don’t think she meant to be offensive but I just don’t think she was that thoughtful.”

In order to discuss these concerns and ensure that such a misunderstanding doesn’t occur again, Paulus said the BGLTSA and the Foundation are planning a joint breakfast later this week as well as a general discussion forum for all of the SAC member groups.

Paulus added that the Foundation will issue a letter later this week apologizing for any offense the show might have caused and encouraging concerned students to attend the planned discussions."

Heteronormative

It's not really a word, it's a term of art promulgated by the activist industry. Its purpose is to put forth the idea that any favorable discussion of, or endorsement or conventional heterosexual relationships is in fact directly oppression of homosexuals, because it makes them "uncomfortable".

When did being uncomfortable, become oppression? For that matter, how does one have the right to be uncomfortable about someones normal personal relationships? How does one have any right to be uncomfortable about someone speaking of their marriage, or their children?

Let me jsut get this straight, they don't want people to be uncomfortable talking about gay relationships, but they DO want people to be uncomfortable talking about heterosexual relationships?

They are saying that the mere fact that a 34 year old, straight, black woman is talking about her personal experiences, her life, and her ideas is offensive, and is in fact oppression and prejudice.

Honestly, I have nothing useful to say about this. There is no useful way I could respond to or debate this idea, because t's risible on it's face. There is nothing I can say that can indict this idea more than this:

They are protesting truth.

Homophobia is offensive

Homophobia - n.

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Homophobia is offensive.

Not the commonly accepted defnition of homophobia, but the word itself, and the concepts it represents.

Yes, the concept of hating or disliking, or disapproving of someone because of their sexual choices strikes me as silly, but that's not what I'm talking about.

The entire concept of homophobia is that people who don't like homosexuals, or homosexual behavior, are irrational, and that their only reason for that dislike is fear, or ignorance.

I'm going to say right now, that's bullshit.

More in the extended entry...

This concept assumes that if somehow people are more exposed to gay life, or if they are able to "get over their fear", then all will be sweentess and light, and everyone will accept gays.

The most vocal proponents of the homophobia concept also frequently espouse something that just about EVERYONE finds offensive. They often say that people who don't like gays feel that way because they themselves are gay, and they hate themselves for it.

Bullshit.

I hate communists. I loathe their ideas, I loathe what they say, I loathe what they do. If a communist tries to have any influence over my life I will strenuously resist, perhaps up to the point of violence; Does that mean I am commiephobic? I don't have an irrational fear of communists, nor am I ignorant of communists ideas. I have plenty of exposure to communist ideas, and I reject them utterly. Does this mean I'm secretly a communist, and hate myself because of it?

Of course not.

I hate communists because the ideas and goals they espouse are evil and wrong, as are the methods they use to achive them. Man should be free, and have control over his own life, and his own goods. Communists believe exactly opposite what I do, and so long as they attempt to act against my beliefs I will continue to hate them.

My point here is that I have both rational, and personal arguments against communism that have nothing to do with fear or irrationaility or ignorance.

The real purpose of the word homophobia, is to make gay people feel better about themselves. It paints their detractors as they would say their detractors pain them, as compulsive, out of control, mentally ill, irrational, or subhuman.

Only if you assume that homosexuality is a mental illenss, can you ascribe the counter position to a mental illness, which is what homophobia literally is. A phobia is a compulsive mental illness that should be treated.

Now let me clarify, I don't mean to say that in some people fear or ignorance isn't the primary motivator, and in others a subsidary motivator, but the ascription of this to the entire realm of dislike or disapproval or homosexuals, or homosexual behavior, is both offensive, and counterproductive. It doesn't help people to stop hating, disliking, or disapproving of gays to call those people mentally ill.

If you accept that homosexuality is either an inherent nature, or a choice (and I believe it can be either, or both, depending on the person), then you must accept that there are people who on the other side either are inherently anti-gay, or who rationally choose to be anti-gay.

In argument, there is a tactic that relies on a logical fallacy, the ad hominem circumstantial argument of undesireable motives, or appeal to motive. If you ascribe an undesireable motive to those that hold a position contrary to your own, you can then attack the person to undermine their argument, without actually attacking the argument itself. If you say that people who disapprove of homosexuality are operating from fear or hate, you are attacking the man, but not the message.

There are both personal, and rational motives for anti-gay positions.

Homosexuality is by all scientific measure a far more risky lifestyle than heterosexuality. The physical activity itself is riskier, as well as the social environment. Gays tend not to plan for the future. Gays tend to be more prone to depression, self destructive behavior, and suicidal tendencies (for many reasons).

Please note, I am not claiming these statements are universally true, only that they are stastically true.

Despite all the media messages to the contrary, the primary vector for AIDS in the united states is still unprotected gay sex. The primary AIDS vector for straight people who don't use IV drugs, is unprotected sex with a bisexual person, or a partner of a bisexual person. This is especially true in the black and hispanic communities where secret homosexuality is far more common than among whites or Asians.

Note: Asians are statistically four times more likely to be openly gay than blacks. Asians are eight times as likely, and hispanics are more than five times as likely to be transgender than any other racial group. I have always wondered why that is, because social factors alone can't account for it.

The social enviroment of gay courtship is still, 25 years after the rise of AIDS, a very risky, and often hollow place. There are still many semi anonynmous relationships. Many men have dozens if not hundreds of partners. Many men still do not use condoms (do a search on any personal ads site for bareback if you don't believe me). Hang out with gay men for any length of time and you will hear them lament these very things. I'm not going to talk about the reasons behind this except to say they are many and varied, and they may not be so prevalent if homosexuality were more accepted in society, but we don't know.

What about the psychological health argument? How many truly happy gay men do you know? I have known hundreds of gay men, I know very few happy ones. I have known hundreds of lesbians, again I know very few happy ones. Without a doubt they are unhappier when they don't acknowledge their homosexuality, or worse, when they do acknowledge it, but hate themselves because of it, but even once they are open and accepting of their sexuality, rarely are they happy. Once again, the reasons behind this are many and varied, and they may ease if society becomes more accepting of gays, but maybe not.

Gay men and women also find it a hell of a lot more difficult to have and raise children than straight folks, and don't ever think that isn't a big deal to a lot of people. Whether motivated by faith, or by morals, or by science and demographics, theres a lot of folks who think that people should have kids. How many moms do you know who have adult children, and DON'T want to be a grandmother?

Again, I'm not saying these are universal truths, but they are generally and statistically true.

And then there is the argument of faith.

There are about 3 billion people in this world, who firmly and faithfully believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong from a moral standpoint; Ether as the explicit commandment of god, or as a behavior that causes damage to the soul. You may believe these peoples religion is stupid, irrational, wrong, or a symptom of mental illness, but it is very real for them.

Leaving the reasoning behind people positions aside, just because people believe that homosexuality is wrong, doesnt mean that they hate, or fear homosexuals.

My best fried is still a catholic, though I'm guessing the last time he went to church was about the same time I did. His youngest brother came out last year. The funny thing is, I knew the kid was gay from the time he was 7 or 8, and I think he probably knew too. Sure he tried dating girls, but he always knew it just wasn't right for him. The last people to figure it out were, of course, his family. They have a very major problem with his homosexuality. They believe that what he is doing is wrong, and that he is making himself unhappy (and he is, for whtaever reason). His parents want grandchildren. They worry about his safety. They worry about disease. They love their son, but they hate that he is gay. They do not fear him, or hate him, they are not ignorant of him or his feelings, or his life, but they hate that he is gay.

Of course the perfect kicker to this piece would be to announce that I am gay. Well, much to the disappoint of my friend Aiden, I am not, but I am also not one of those folks who belive that homosexuality is wrong. To my mind, someones sexuality has very little to do with what I think of them as a person, but their attidude, and their behavior certainly does.

I hate bitter angry queens. I hate people who thrust their gayness in my face and scream it in my ears. I hate people who tell me that I'm a bigot, or stupid, or unenlightened because I don't like their behavoir. I hate people who's gayness is the only thing in their life.

You know what I really hate? I hate this chant:

"We're here, W'ere Queer, Get over it"

Guess what, I got over it a long time ago, but obviously you haven't.