Sunday after church I'll blast to LAX to fly to Washington to be part of the Human Rights Campaign "team" taking on the Federal Marriage Amendment at our Nation's Capitol. Here's an update from HRC President Joe Salmonese -- your prayers and action invited!
This is it. With President Bush slated to speak from the Rose Garden about the "need" for the Federal Marriage Amendment and with debate starting in the Senate on the same day, we are truly in the final moments of a critical time for equality.
Vote No! Please forward this link to your friends, family and co-workers to take action today!www.hrc.org/voteno
In an attempt to placate his extremist base, the President is making a rare Rose Garden appearance Monday. Anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family whined when the only voices coming out of the administration were the First Lady saying the amendment shouldn't be used as a political tool and Mary Cheney reiterating her father's opposition to the amendment. So, of course, President Bush is answering their call.
We're answering back. On Monday, we'll be on the airwaves and on the Hill. We'll be delivering more than 250,000 postcards to the Capitol making it clear that the Constitution should not be used as a political weapon. We'll be gathering a group of hard-working Americans to talk to the media about how Congress should be focused on finding answers to their challenges, not putting discrimination in the Constitution. And we'll be in the halls of Congress, working with Senators and their staff to deliver the best messages on the Senate floor.
And momentum is on our side. This week alone, the USA Today and the New York Times joined last week's Washington Post in publishing editorials against the amendment. Among other major outlets, the Associated Press, CNN and Good Morning America all ran stories on the fight. Over the weekend, expect to see more press - and more opinion leaders pointing out that this is purely a political ploy, and a discriminatory one at that. I'll be on Fox News' Weekend Live with Brian Wilson on Sunday at 1:30 p.m. (EST) making that point when I go up against Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
Yesterday on MSNBC, Newsweek's Howard Fineman said President Bush has used anti-marriage equality rhetoric too many times and he's at a "stage of diminishing returns." I think Howard Fineman is right. Anybody supporting this amendment now is out-of-step with the American people.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't flood our Senators' phones with calls. The vote could happen as soon as Tuesday, but debate may stretch it out to the following morning. Call every day until the vote: 202-224-3121. And call the White House while you're at it: 202-456-1111.
It's going to be a busy week next week. A big thanks to all of you who took action and encouraged your friends and family to join you. Your voices are key to this fight - don't stop making them heard!
Warmly,
Joe Solmonese
President, Human Rights Campaign
16 comments:
I just found you, and will add you to my blogroll. I'm a progressive, no, make that liberal blogger here in the Los Angeles area, and I'm really glad to have found you.
If you'd like to talk more, please email me at steveaudio at earthlink dot net.
My blog is SteveAudio.blogspot.com.
Again, thanks for your writing and faith.
Susan, I have faxed my comments/remarks/opinion in a respectful fashion to the President urging him to no endorse restricting the freedoms the constitution guarantees, but that instead any amendments added to expand our freedoms and fight discrimination, not encourage it.
"This week alone, the USA Today and the New York Times joined last week's Washington Post in publishing editorials against the amendment. Among other major outlets, the Associated Press, CNN and Good Morning America all ran stories on the fight."
And liberals wonder why so many believe there is a pronounced liberal bias in the US major media (and yes, I do know the difference between editorials and news stories).
For another point of view (and everyone here is open to other points of view, I'm sure), look up "The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response" by Mark Alexander. It is online.
tony ... and can you not see that anything titled "THE Christian Response" is aleady dead in the water as it presumes there is only ONE Christian response and that is their position?
So much for open to other points of view!
Just as there are varieties of homosexual practice, and I guess this is as good a reason as any not to read something that you know that you already disagree with. So much for open minds.
tony ... clarification: I never said I wouldn't read the article -- I read LOTS of things I disagree with and am enriched by them. My point was claiming to have THE Christian response categorically relegates any other pespective as un-Christian ... ergo my "so much for other perspectives" comment.
THE BOOKS WERE A FRONT FOR THE PORN
The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement
By Ronald G. Lee
New Oxford Review
2006
There was a "gay" bookstore called Lobo's in Austin, Texas, when I was living there as a grad student. The layout was interesting. Looking inside from the street all you saw were books. It looked like any other bookstore. There was a section devoted to classic "gay" fiction by writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and W.H. Auden. There were biographies of prominent "gay" icons, some of whom, like Walt Whitman, would probably have accepted the homosexual label, but many of whom, like Whitman's idol, President Lincoln, had been commandeered for the cause on the basis of evidence no stronger than a bad marriage or an intense same-sex friendship. There were impassioned modern "gay" memoirs, and historical accounts of the origins and development of the "gay rights" movement. It all looked so innocuous and disarmingly bourgeois. But if you went inside to browse, before long you noticed another section, behind the books, a section not visible from the street: the pornography section.
Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo's. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.
So why waste thousands of dollars on books that no one was going to buy? It was clear from the large "on sale" section that only a pitifully small number of books were ever purchased at their original price. The owners of Lobo's were apparently wasting a lot of money on gay novels and works of gay history, when all the real money was in pornography. But the money spent on books wasn't wasted. It was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage." By the time I lived in Austin, I had been thinking of myself as a gay man for almost 20 years. Based on the experience acquired during those years, I recognized in Lobo's a metaphor for the strategy used to sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed.
This is how I "deconstruct" Lobo's. There are two kinds of people who are going to be looking in through the window: those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, and those who aren't. To those who aren't, the shelves of books transmit the message that gay people are no different from anyone else, that homosexuality is not wrong, just different. Since most of them will never know more about homosexuality than what they learned looking in the window, that impression is of the greatest political and cultural importance, because on that basis they will react without alarm, or even with active support, to the progress of gay rights. There are millions of well-meaning Americans who support gay rights because they believe that what they see looking in at Lobo's is what is really there. It does not occur to them that they are seeing a carefully stage-managed effort to manipulate them, to distract them from a truth they would never condone.
For those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, the view from the street is also consoling. It makes life as a homosexual look safe and unthreatening. Normal, in other words. Sooner or later, many of these people will stop looking in through the window and go inside. Unlike the first sort of window-shopper, they won't be distracted by the books for long. They will soon discover the existence of the porn section. And no matter how distasteful they might find the idea at first (if indeed they do find it distasteful), they will also notice that the porn section is where all the customers are. And they will feel sort of silly standing alone among the books. Eventually, they will find their way back to the porn, with the rest of the customers. And like them, they will start rooting through the videos. And, gentle reader, that is where most of them will spend the rest of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes.
Ralph McInerny once offered a brilliant definition of the gay rights movement: self-deception as a group effort. Nevertheless, deception of the general public is also vital to the success of the cause. And nowhere are the forms of deception more egregious, or more startlingly successful, than in the campaign to persuade Christians that, to paraphrase the title of a recent book, Jesus Was Queer, and churches should open their doors to same-sex lovers. The gay Christian movement relies on a stratagem that is as daring as it is dishonest. I know, because I was taken in by it for a long time. Like the owners of Lobo's, success depends on camouflaging the truth, which is hidden in plain view the whole time. It is no wonder The Wizard of Oz is so resonant among homosexuals. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" could be the motto and the mantra of the whole movement.
No single book was as influential in my own coming out as the now ex-Father John McNeill's 1976 "classic" The Church and the Homosexual. That book is to Dignity what "The Communist Manifesto" was to Soviet Russia. Most of the book is devoted to offering alternative interpretations of the biblical passages condemning homosexuality, and to putting the anti-homosexual writings of the Church Fathers and scholastics into historical context in a way that renders them irrelevant and even offensive to modern readers. The first impression of a naïve and sexually conflicted young reader such as myself was that McNeill had offered a plausible alternative to traditional teaching. It made me feel justified in deciding to come out of the closet. Were his arguments persuasive? Frankly, I didn't care, and I don't believe most of McNeill's readers do either. They were couched in the language of scholarship, and they sounded plausible. That was all that mattered.
McNeill, like most of the members of his camp, treated the debate over homosexuality as first and foremost a debate about the proper interpretation of texts, texts such as the Sodom story in the Bible and the relevant articles of the Summa. The implication was that once those were reinterpreted, or rendered irrelevant, the gay rights apologists had prevailed, and the door was open for practicing homosexuals to hold their heads up high in church. And there is a certain sense in which that has proved to be true. To the extent that the debate has focused on interpreting texts, the gay apologists have won for themselves a remarkable degree of legitimacy. But that is because, as anyone familiar with the history of Protestantism should be aware, the interpretation of texts is an interminable process. The efforts of people such as McNeill don't need to be persuasive. They only need to be useful.
This is how it works. McNeill reinterprets the story of Sodom, claiming that it does not condemn homosexuality, but gang rape. Orthodox theologians respond, in a commendable but naïve attempt to rebut him, naïve because these theologians presume that McNeill believes his own arguments, and is writing as a scholar, not as a propagandist. McNeill ignores the arguments of his critics, dismissing their objections as based on homophobia, and repeats his original position. The orthodox respond again as if they were really dealing with a theologian. And back and forth for a few more rounds. Until finally McNeill or someone like him stands up and announces, "You know, this is getting us nowhere. We have our exegesis and our theology. You have yours. Why can't we just agree to disagree?" That sounds so reasonable, so ecumenical. And if the orthodox buy into it, they have lost, because the gay rights apologists have earned a place at the table from which they will never be dislodged. Getting at the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah, or correctly parsing the sexual ethics of St. Thomas, was never really the issue. Winning admittance to Holy Communion was the issue.
Even as a naïve young man, one aspect of The Church and the Homosexual struck me as odd. Given that McNeill was suggesting a radical revision of the traditional Catholic sexual ethic, there was almost nothing in it about sexual ethics. The Catholic sexual ethic is quite specific about the ends of human sexuality, and about the forms of behavior that are consistent with those ends. McNeill's criticism of the traditional ethic occupied most of his book, but he left the reader with only the vaguest idea about what he proposed to put in its place. For that matter, there was almost nothing in it about the real lives of real homosexuals. Homosexuality was treated throughout the book as a kind of intellectual abstraction. But I was desperate to get some idea of what was waiting for me on the other side of the closet door. And with no one but Fr. McNeill for a guide, I was reduced to reading between the lines. There was a single passage that I interpreted as a clue. It was almost an aside, really. At one point, he commented that monogamous same-sex unions were consistent with the Church's teaching, or at least consistent with the spirit of the renewed and renovated post-Vatican II Church. With nothing else to go on, I interpreted this in a prescriptive sense. I interpreted McNeill to be arguing that homogenital acts were only moral when performed in the context of a monogamous relationship. And furthermore, I leapt to what seemed like the reasonable conclusion that the author was aware of such relationships, and that I had a reasonable expectation of finding such a relationship myself. Otherwise, for whose benefit was he writing? I was not so naïve (although I was pretty naïve) as not to be aware of the existence of promiscuous homosexual men. But McNeill's aside, which, I repeat, contained virtually his only stab at offering a gay sexual ethic, led me to believe that in addition to the promiscuous, there existed a contingent of gay men who were committed to living in monogamy. Otherwise, Fr. McNeill was implicitly defending promiscuity. And the very idea of a priest defending promiscuity was inconceivable to me. (Yes, that naïve.)
Several years ago, McNeill published an autobiography. In it, he makes no bones about his experiences as a sexually active Catholic priest -- a promiscuous, sexually active, homosexual Catholic priest. He writes in an almost nostalgic fashion about his time spent hunting for sex in bars. Although he eventually did find a stable partner (while he was still a priest), he never apologizes for his years of promiscuity, or even so much as alludes to the disparity between his own life and the passage in The Church and the Homosexual that meant so much to me. It is possible that he doesn't even remember suggesting that homosexuals were supposed to remain celibate until finding monogamous relationships. It is obvious that he never meant that passage to be taken seriously, except by those who would never do more than look in the window -- in others words, gullible, well-meaning, non-homosexual Catholics, preferably those in positions of authority. Or, equally naïve and gullible young men such as me who werelooking for a reason to act on their sexual desires, preferably one that did not do too much violence to their consciences, at least not at first. The latter, the writer presumed, would eventually find their way back to the porn section, where their complicity in the scam would render them indistinguishable from the rest of the regular customers. Clearly, there was a reason that in the earlier book he wrote so little about the real lives of real homosexuals, such as himself.
I don't see how the contradiction between The Church and the Homosexual and the autobiography could be accidental. Why would McNeill pretend to believe that homosexuals should restrict themselves to sex within the context of monogamous relationships when his life demonstrates that he did not? I can think of only one reason. Because he knew that if he told the truth, his cause would be dead in the water. Although to this day McNeill, like all gay Christian propagandists, avoids the subject of sexual ethics as if it were some sort of plague, his life makes his real beliefs clear. He believes in unrestricted sexual freedom. He believes that men and women should have the right to couple, with whomever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and as often as they want. He would probably add some sort of meaningless bromide about no one getting hurt and both parties being treated with respect, but anyone familiar with the snake pit of modern sexual culture (both heterosexual and homosexual) willknow how seriously to take that. And he knew perfectly well that if he were honest about his real aims, there would be no Dignity, there would be no gay Christian movement, at least not one with a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. That would be like getting rid of the books and letting the casual window-shoppers see the porn. And we can't have that now, can we? In other words, the ex-Fr. McNeill is a bad priest and a con man. And given the often lethal consequences of engaging in homosexual sex, a con man with blood on his hands.
Let me be clear. I believe that McNeill's real beliefs, as deduced from his actual behavior, and distinguished from the arguments he puts forward for the benefit of the naïve and gullible, represent the real aims and objectives of the homosexual rights movement. They are the porn that the books are meant to conceal. In other words, if you support what is now described in euphemistic terms as "the blessing of same-sex unions," in practice you are supporting the abolition of the entire Christian sexual ethic, and its substitution with an unrestricted, laissez faire, free sexual market. The reason that the homosexual rights movement has managed to pick up such a large contingent of heterosexual fellow-travelers is simple: Because once that taboo is abrogated, no taboos are left. I once heard a heterosexual Episcopalian put it this way: If I don't want the church poking its nose into my bedroom, how can I condone it when it limits the sexual freedom of homosexuals? That might sound outrageous, but if you still believe that the debate is over the religious status of monogamous same-sex relationships, please be prepared to point out one church somewhere in the U.S. that has opened its doors to active homosexuals without also opening them to every other form of sexual coupling imaginable. I am too old to be taken in by "Father" McNeill and his abstractions anymore. Show me.
A few years ago, I subscribed to the Dignity Yahoo group on the Internet. There were at that time several hundred subscribers. At one point, a confused and troubled young man posted a question to the group: Did any of the subscribers attach any value to monogamy? I immediately wrote back that I did. A couple of days later the young man wrote back to me. He had received dozens of responses, some of them quite hostile and demeaning, and all but one -- mine -- telling him to go out and get laid because that was what being gay was all about. (This was a gay "Catholic" group.) He did not know what to make of it because none of the propaganda to which he was exposed before coming out prepared him for what was really on the other side of the closet door. I had no idea what to tell him, because at the time I was still caught up in the lie myself. Now, the solution seems obvious. What I should have written back to him was, "You have been lied to. Ask God for forgiveness and get back to Kansas as fast as you can. Auntie Em is waiting."
In light of all the legitimate concern about Internet pornography, it might seem ironic to assert that the Internet helped rescue me from homosexuality. For twenty years, I thought there was something wrong with me. Dozens of well-meaning people assured me that there was a whole, different world of homosexual men out there, a world that for some reason I could never find, a world of God-fearing, straight-acting, monogamy-believing, and fidelity-practicing homosexuals. They assured me that they themselves knew personally (for a fact and for real) that such men existed. They themselves knew such men (or at least had heard tell of them from those who did). And I believed it, although as the years passed it got harder and harder. Then I got a personal computer and a subscription to AOL. "O.K.," I reasoned, "morally conservative homosexuals are obviously shy and skittish and fearful of sudden movements. They don't like bars and bathhouses. Neither do I. They don't attend Dignity meetings or Metropolitan Community Church services because the gay 'churches' are really bathhouses masquerading as houses of worship. But there is no reason a morally conservative homosexual cannot subscribe to AOL and submit a profile. If I can do it, anyone can do it." So I did it. I wrote a profile describing myself as a conservative Catholic (comme ci, comme ça) who loved classical music and theater and good books and scintillating conversation about all of the above. I said I wanted very much to meet other like-minded homosexuals for the purposes of friendship and romance. I tried to be as clear as I knew how. I was not interested in one night stands. And within minutes of placing the profile, I got my first response. It consisted of three words: "How many inches?" My experience of looking for love on AOL went downhill rapidly from there.
When I first came out in the 1980s, it was common for gay rights apologists to blame the promiscuity among gay men on "internalized homophobia." Gay men, like African Americans, internalized and acted out the lies about themselves learned from mainstream American culture. Furthermore, homosexuals were forced to look for love in dimly lit bars, bathhouses, and public parks for fear of harassment at the hands of a homophobic mainstream. The solution to this problem, we were told, was permitting homosexuals to come out into the open, without fear of retribution. A variant of this argument is still put forward by activists such as Andrew Sullivan, in order to legitimate same-sex marriage. And it seemed reasonable enough twenty years ago. But thirty-five years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the gay liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.
There is another reason, apart from the propaganda value, that bookstores like Lobo's peddle porn as well as poetry. Because without the porn, they would soon go out of business. And, in fact, most gay bookstores have gone out of business, despite the porn. Following an initial burst of enthusiasm in the 1970s and 80s, gay publishing went into steep decline, and shows no signs of coming out of it. Once the novelty wore off, gay men soon bored of reading about men having sex with one another, preferring to devote their time and disposable income to pursuing the real thing. Gay and lesbian community centers struggle to keep their doors open. Gay churches survive as places where worshippers can go to sleep it off and cleanse their soiled consciences after a Saturday night spent cruising for sex at the bars. And there is no danger of ever hearing a word from the pulpit suggesting that bar-hopping is inconsistent with believing in the Bible. When I lived in the United Kingdom, I was struck by the extent to which gay culture in London replicated gay culture in the U.S. The same was true in Paris, Amsterdam, and Berlin. Homosexuality is one of America's most successful cultural exports. And the focus on gay social spaces in Europe is identical to their focus in America: sex. Cyberspace is now the latest conquest of that amazing modern Magellan: the male homosexual in pursuit of new sexual conquests.
But at this point, how is it possible to blame the promiscuity among homosexual men on homophobia, internalized or otherwise? On the basis of evidence no stronger than wishful thinking, Andrew Sullivan wants us to believe that legalizing same-sex "marriage" will domesticate gay men, that all that energy now devoted to building bars and bathhouses will be dedicated to erecting picket fences and two-car garages. What Sullivan refuses to face is that male homosexuals are not promiscuous because of "internalized homophobia," or laws banning same-sex "marriage." Homosexuals are promiscuous because when given the choice, homosexuals overwhelmingly choose to be promiscuous. And wrecking the fundamental social building block of our civilization, the family, is not going to change that.
I once read a disarmingly honest essay in which Sullivan as much as admitted his real reason for promoting the cause of same-sex "marriage." He faced up to the sometimes sordid nature of his sexual life, which is more than most gay activists are prepared to do, and he regretted it. He wished he had led a different sort of life, and he apparently believes that if marriage were a legal option, he might have been able to do so. I have a lot more respect for Andrew Sullivan than I do for most gay activists. I believe that he would seriously like to reconcile his sexual desires with the demands of his conscience. But with all due respect, are the rest of us prepared to sacrifice the institution of the family in the unsubstantiated hope that doing so will make it easier for Sullivan to keep his trousers zipped?
But isn't it theoretically possible that homosexuals could restrict themselves to something resembling the traditional Catholic sexual ethic, except for the part about procreation -- in other words, monogamous lifelong relationships? Of course it is theoretically possible. It was also theoretically possible in 1968 that the use of contraceptives could be restricted to married couples, that the revolting downward slide into moral anarchy we have lived through could have been avoided. It is theoretically possible, but it is practically impossible. It is impossible because the whole notion of stable sexual orientation on which the gay rights movement is founded has no basis in fact.
René Girard, the French literary critic and sociologist of religion, argues that all human civilization is founded on desire. All civilizations have surrounded the objects of desire (including sexual desire) with an elaborate and unbreachable wall of taboos and restrictions. Until now. What we are seeing in the modern West is not the long overdue legitimization of hitherto despised but honorable forms of human love. What we are witnessing is the reduction of civilization to its lowest common denominator: unbridled and unrestricted desire. To assert that we have opened a Pandora's Box would be a stunning understatement. Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen, it looks to be a bumpy millennium.
When I was growing up, we were all presumed to be heterosexual. Then homosexuality was introduced as an alternative. That did not at first seem like a major revision because, apart from procreation, homosexuality, at least in theory, left the rest of the traditional sexual ethic in tact. Two people of the same gender could (in theory) fall in love and live a life of monogamous commitment. Then bisexuality was introduced, and the real implications of the sexual revolution became clear. Monogamy was out the window. Moral norms were out the window. Do-it-yourself sexuality became the norm. Anyone who wants to know what that looks like can do no better than go online. The Internet offers front row seats to the circus of a disintegrating civilization.
Take Yahoo, for example. Yahoo makes it possible for people sharing a common interest to create groups for the purpose of making contacts and sharing information. If that conjures up images of genealogists and stamp collectors, think again. There are now thousands of Yahoo groups catering to every kind of sexual perversion imaginable. Many of them would defy the imagination of the Marquis de Sade himself. People who until a few years ago could do nothing but fantasize now entertain serious hopes of acting out their fantasies. I met a man online whose fondest wish was to be spanked with a leather wallet. It had to be leather. And it had to be a wallet. And he needed to be spanked with it. Old-fashioned genital friction was optional. This man wanted a Gucci label tattooed across his backside. He could imagine no loftier pinnacle of passion. And he insisted that this desire was as fundamental to his sexual nature as the desire to go to bed with a man was for me. Furthermore, he had formed a Yahoo group that had more than three hundred members, all of whom shared the same passion. There is no object in the universe, no human or animal body part, that cannot be eroticized. So, is the desire to be spanked with a leather wallet a "sexual orientation"? If not, how is it different?
There was a time when I would have snorted, "Of course it is different. You can't share a life with a leather wallet. You can't love a leather wallet. What you are talking about is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. The two are completely different." But the truth is that all the gay men I encountered had a fetish for naked male skin, with all the objectification and depersonalization that implies, that I now consider the distinction sophistical. Leather is skin too, after all. The only real difference between the fellow on the Internet and the average gay man is that he preferred his skin Italian, bovine, and tanned.
Over the years, I have attended various gay and gay-friendly church services. All of them shared one characteristic in common: a tacit agreement never to say a word from the pulpit -- or from any other location for that matter -- suggesting that there ought to be any restrictions on human sexual behavior. If anyone reading this is familiar with Dignity or Integrity or the Metropolitan Community churches or, for that matter, mainline Protestantism and most of post-Vatican II Catholicism, let me ask you one question: When was the last time you heard a sermon on sexual ethics? Have you ever heard a sermon on sexual ethics? I take it for granted that the answer is negative. Do our priests and pastors honestly believe that Christians in America are not in need of sermons on sexual ethics?
Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples, we will be welcoming to our Communion rails (presuming that we still have Communion rails) not just the statistically insignificant number of same-sex couples who have lived together for more than a few years (most of whom purchased stability by jettisoning monogamy); we will also be legitimizing every kind of sexual taste, from old-fashioned masturbation and adultery to the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism. We will, in other words, be giving our blessing to the suicide of Western civilization.
But what about all those images of loving same-sex couples dying to get hitched with which the media are awash these days? That used to confuse me too. It seems that The New York Times has no trouble finding successful same-sex partners to photograph and interview. But despite my best efforts, I was never able to meet the sorts of couples who show up regularly on Oprah. The media are biased and have no interest in telling the truth about homosexuality.
I met Wyatt (not his real name) online. For five years he was in a disastrous same-sex relationship. His partner was unfaithful, and an alcoholic with drug problems. The relationship was something that would give Strindberg nightmares. When Vermont legalized same-sex "marriage," Wyatt saw it as one last chance to make their relationship work. He and his partner would fly to Vermont to get "married." This came to the attention of the local newspaper in his area, which did a story with photos of the wedding reception. In it, Wyatt and his partner were depicted as a loving couple who finally had a chance to celebrate their commitment publicly. Nothing was said about the drugs or the alcoholism or the infidelity. But the marriage was a failure and ended in flames a few months later. And the newspaper did not do a follow-up. In other words, the leading daily of one of America's largest cities printed a misleading story about a bad relationship, a story that probably persuaded more than one young man that someday he could be just as happy as Wyatt and his "partner." And that is the sad part.
But one very seldom reads about people like my friend Harry. Harry (not his real name) was a balding, middle-aged man with a potbelly. He was married, and had a couple of grown daughters. And he was unhappy. Harry persuaded himself that he was unhappy because he was gay. He divorced his wife, who is now married to someone else, his daughters are not speaking to him, and he is discovering that pudgy, bald, middle-aged men are not all that popular in gay bars. Somehow, Oprah forgot to mention that. Now Harry is taking anti-depressants in order to keep from killing himself.
Then there was another acquaintance, who also happened to have the same name as the previous guy. Harry (not his real name) was about 30 (but could easily pass for 20), and from a Mormon background, with all the naïveté that suggests. Unlike the first Harry, he had no difficulty getting dates. Or relationships for that matter. The problem was that the relationships never lasted more than a couple of weeks. Harry was also rapidly developing a serious drinking problem. (So much for the Mormon words of wisdom.) If you happened to be at the bar around two in the morning, you could probably have Harry for the night if you were interested. He was so drunk he wouldn't remember you the next day, and all he really wanted at that point was for someone to hold him.
Gay culture is a paradox. Most homosexuals tend to be liberal Democrats, or in the U.K., supporters of the Labour Party. They gravitate toward those Parties on the grounds that their policies are more compassionate and sensitive to the needs of the downtrodden and oppressed. But there is nothing compassionate about a gay bar. It represents a laissez faire free sexual market of the most Darwinian sort. There is no place in it for those who are not prepared to compete, and the rules of the game are ruthless and unforgiving. I remember once being in a gay pub in central London. Most of the men there were buff and toned and in their 20s or early 30s. An older gentleman walked in, who looked to be in his 70s. It was as if the Angel of Death himself had made an entrance. In that crowded bar, a space opened up around him that no one wanted to enter. His shadow transmitted contagion. It was obvious that his presence made the other customers nervous. He stood quietly at the bar and ordered a drink. He spoke to no one and no one spoke to him. When he eventually finished his drink and left, the sigh of relief from all those buff, toned pub crawlers was almost audible. Now all of them could go back to pretending that gay men were all young and beautiful forever. Gentle reader, do you know what a "bug chaser" is? A bug chaser is a young gay man who wants to contract HIV so that he will never grow old. And that is the world that Harry left his wife, and the other Harry his Church, to find happiness in.
I have known a lot of people like the two Harrys. But I have met precious few who bore more than a superficial resemblance to the idealized images we see in Oscar-winning movies such as Philadelphia, or in the magazine section of The New York Times. What I find suspicious is that the media ignore the existence of people like the two Harrys. The unhappiness so common among homosexuals is swept under the carpet, while fanciful and unrealistic "role models" are offered up for public consumption. There is at the very least grounds for a serious debate about the proposition that "gay is good," but no such debate is taking place, because most of the mainstream media have already made up their (and our) minds.
But it is hard to hide the porn forever. When I was living in London, I had a wonderful friend named Maggie. Maggie (not her real name) was a liberal. Her big heart bled for the oppressed. Like most liberals, she was proud of her open-mindedness and wore it like a badge of honor. Maggie lived in a house as big as her heart and all of her children were grown up and had moved out. She had a couple of rooms to rent. It just so happened that both the young men who became her tenants were gay. Maggie's first reaction was enthusiastic. She had never known many gay people, and thought the experience of renting to two homosexuals would confirm her in her open-mindedness. She believed it would be a learning experience. It was, but not the sort she had in mind. One day Maggie told me her troubles and confessed her doubts. She talked about what it was like to stumble each morning down to the breakfast table, finding two strangers seated there, the two strangers her tenants brought home the night before. It was seldom the same two strangers two mornings running. One of her tenants was in a long-distance relationship but, in the absence of his partner, felt at liberty to seek consolation elsewhere. She talked about what it was like to have to deal on a daily basis with the emotional turmoil of her tenants' tumultuous lives. She told me what it was like to open the door one afternoon and find a policeman standing there, a policeman who was looking for one of her tenants, who was accused of trying to sell drugs to school children. That same tenant was also involved in prostitution. Maggie didn't know what to make of it all. She desperately wanted to remain open-minded, to keep believing that gay men were no worse than anyone else, just different. But she couldn't reconcile her experience with that "tolerant" assumption. The truth was that when the two finally moved out, an event to which she was looking forward with some enthusiasm, and it was time to place a new ad for rooms to let, she wanted to include the following proviso: Fags need not apply. I didn't know what to tell Maggie because I was just as confused as she was. I wanted to hold on to my illusions too, in spite of all the evidence.
I am convinced that many, if not most, people who are familiar with the lives of homosexuals know the truth, but refuse to face it. My best friend got involved in the gay rights movement as a graduate student. He and a lesbian colleague sometimes counseled young men who were struggling with their sexuality. Once, the two of them met a young man who was seriously overweight and suffered from terrible acne. The young man waxed eloquent about the happiness he expected to find when he came out of the closet. He was going to find a partner, and the two of them would live happily ever after. The whole time my friend was thinking that if someone looking like this fat, pustulent young man ever walked into a bar, he would be folded, spindled, and mutilated before even taking a seat. Afterwards, the lesbian turned to him and said, "You know, sometimes it is better to stay in the closet." My friend told me that for him this represented a decisive moment. This lesbian claimed to love and admire gay men. She never stopped praising their kindness and compassion and creativity. But with that one comment she in effect told my friend that she really knew what gay life was all about. It was about meat, and unless you were a good cut, don't bother coming to the supermarket.
On another occasion, I was complaining to a lesbian about my disillusionment. She made a remarkable admission to me. She had a teenage son, who so far had not displayed signs of sexual interest in either gender. She knew as a lesbian she should not care which road he took. But she confessed to me that she did care. Based on the lives of the gay men she knew, she found herself secretly praying that her son would turn out to be straight. As a mother, she did not want to see her son living that life.
A popular definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. That was me, the whole time I was laboring to become a happy homosexual. I was a lunatic. Several times I turned for advice to gay men who seemed better adjusted to their lot in life than I was. First, I wanted confirmation that my perceptions were accurate, that life as a male homosexual really was as awful as it seemed to be. And then I wanted to know what I was supposed to do about it. When was it going to get better? What could I do to make it better? I got two sorts of reactions to these questions, both of which left me feeling hurt and confused. The first sort of reaction was denial, often bitter denial, of what I was suggesting. I was told that there was something wrong with me, that most gay men were having a wonderful time, that I was generalizing on the basis of my own experience (whose experience was I supposed to generalize from?), and that I should shut up and stop bothering others with my "internalized homophobia."
I began seeing a counselor when I was a graduate student. Matt (not his real name) was a happily married man with college-age children. All he knew about homosexuality he learned from the other members of his profession, who assured him that homosexuality was not a mental illness and that there were no good reasons that homosexuals could not lead happy, productive lives. When I first unloaded my tale of woe, Matt told me I had never really come out of the closet. (I still have no idea what he meant, but suspect it is like the "once saved, always saved" Baptist who responds to the lapsed by telling him that he was never really saved in the first place.) I needed to go back, he told me, try again, and continue to look for the positive experiences he was sure were available for me, on the basis of no other evidence than the rulings of the American Psychiatric Association. He had almost no personal experience of homosexuals, but his peers assured him that the book section at Lobo's offered a true picture of homosexual life. I knew Matt was clueless, but I still wanted to believe he was right.
Matt and I developed a therapeutic relationship. During the year we spent together, he learned far more from me than I did from him. I tried to take his advice. I was sharing a house that year with another grad student who was in the process of coming out and experiencing his own disillusionment. Because I had been his only gay friend, and had encouraged him to come out, his bitterness came to be directed at me, and our relationship suffered for it. Meanwhile, I developed a close friendship with a member of the faculty who was openly gay. When I first informed Matt, he was ecstatic. He thought I was finally come out properly. The faculty member was just the sort of friend I needed. But the faculty member, as it turned out, despite his immaculate professional facade, was a deeply disturbed man who put all of his friends through emotional hell, which I of course shared with a shocked and silenced Matt. (I tried to date but, as usual, experienced the same pattern that characterized all my homosexual relationships. The friendship lasted as long as the sexual heat. Once that cooled, my partner's interest in me as a person dissipated with it.) It was not a good year. At the end of it, I remember Matt staring at me, with glazed eyes and a shell-shocked look on his face, and admitting, "You know, being gay is a lot harder than I realized."
Not everyone I spoke to over the years rejected what I had to say out of hand. I once corresponded with an English ex-Dominican. I was ecstatic to learn that he was gay, and was eventually kicked out of his order for refusing to remain in the closet. He included an e-mail address in one of his books, and I wrote him, wanting to know if his experience of life as a homosexual was significantly different from mine. I presumed it must be, since he had written a couple of books, passionately defending the right of homosexuals to a place in the Church. His response to me was one of the last nails in the coffin of my life as a gay man. To my astonishment, he admitted that his experiences were not unlike mine. All he could suggest was that I keep trying, and eventually everything would work out. In other words, this brilliant man, whose books had meant so much to me, had nothing to suggest except that I keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. There was only one reasonable conclusion. I would be nuts if I took his advice. It took me twenty years, but I finally reached the conclusion that I did not want to be insane.
So where am I now? I am attending a militantly orthodox parish in Houston that is one of God's most spectacular gifts to me. My best friend Mark (not his real name) is, like me, a refugee from the homosexual insane asylum. He is also a devout believer, though a Presbyterian (no one is perfect). From Mark I have learned that two men can love each other profoundly while remaining clothed the entire time.
We are told that the Church opposes same-sex love. Not true. The Church opposes homogenital sex, which in my experience is not about love, but about obsession, addiction, and compensation for a compromised masculinity.
I am not proud of the life I have lived. In fact, I am profoundly ashamed of it. But if reading this prevents one naïve, gullible man from making the same mistakes, then perhaps with the assistance of Our Lady of Guadalupe; of St. Joseph, her chaste spouse; of my patron saint, Edmund Campion; of St. Josemaría Escrivá; of the blessed Carmelite martyrs of Compiégne; and, last but not least, of my special supernatural guide and mentor, the Venerable John Henry Newman, I can at least hope for a reprieve from some of the many centuries in Purgatory I have coming to me.
So, what do we as a Church and a culture need to do? Tear down the respectable façade and expose the pornography beneath. Start pressuring homosexuals to tell the truth about their lives. Stop debating the correct interpretation of Genesis 19. Leave the men of Sodom and Gomorrah buried in the brimstone where they belong. Sodom is hidden in plain view from us, here and now, today. Once, when preparing a lecture on Cardinal Newman, I summarized his classic Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine in this fashion: Truth ripens, error rots. The homosexual rights movement is rotten to the core. It has no future. There is no life in it. Sooner or later, those who are caught up in it are going to wake up from the dream of unbridled desire or else die. It is just a matter of time. The question is: how long? How many children are going to be sacrificed to this Moloch?
Until several months ago, there was a Lobo's in Houston too. Not accidentally, I'm sure, its layout was identical to the one in Austin. It was just a few blocks from the gas station where I take my car for service. Recently, I was taking a walk through the neighborhood while my tires were being rotated. And I noticed something. There was a padlock on the door at Lobo's. A sign on the door read, "The previous tenant was evicted for nonpayment of rent." The books and the porn, the façade and what it conceals, are gone now. Praise God.
+ + +
THE BOOKS WERE A FRONT FOR THE PORN
The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement
By Ronald G. Lee
New Oxford Review
2006
There was a "gay" bookstore called Lobo's in Austin, Texas, when I was living there as a grad student. The layout was interesting. Looking inside from the street all you saw were books. It looked like any other bookstore. There was a section devoted to classic "gay" fiction by writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and W.H. Auden. There were biographies of prominent "gay" icons, some of whom, like Walt Whitman, would probably have accepted the homosexual label, but many of whom, like Whitman's idol, President Lincoln, had been commandeered for the cause on the basis of evidence no stronger than a bad marriage or an intense same-sex friendship. There were impassioned modern "gay" memoirs, and historical accounts of the origins and development of the "gay rights" movement. It all looked so innocuous and disarmingly bourgeois. But if you went inside to browse, before long you noticed another section, behind the books, a section not visible from the street: the pornography section.
Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo's. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.
So why waste thousands of dollars on books that no one was going to buy? It was clear from the large "on sale" section that only a pitifully small number of books were ever purchased at their original price. The owners of Lobo's were apparently wasting a lot of money on gay novels and works of gay history, when all the real money was in pornography. But the money spent on books wasn't wasted. It was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage." By the time I lived in Austin, I had been thinking of myself as a gay man for almost 20 years. Based on the experience acquired during those years, I recognized in Lobo's a metaphor for the strategy used to sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed.
This is how I "deconstruct" Lobo's. There are two kinds of people who are going to be looking in through the window: those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, and those who aren't. To those who aren't, the shelves of books transmit the message that gay people are no different from anyone else, that homosexuality is not wrong, just different. Since most of them will never know more about homosexuality than what they learned looking in the window, that impression is of the greatest political and cultural importance, because on that basis they will react without alarm, or even with active support, to the progress of gay rights. There are millions of well-meaning Americans who support gay rights because they believe that what they see looking in at Lobo's is what is really there. It does not occur to them that they are seeing a carefully stage-managed effort to manipulate them, to distract them from a truth they would never condone.
For those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, the view from the street is also consoling. It makes life as a homosexual look safe and unthreatening. Normal, in other words. Sooner or later, many of these people will stop looking in through the window and go inside. Unlike the first sort of window-shopper, they won't be distracted by the books for long. They will soon discover the existence of the porn section. And no matter how distasteful they might find the idea at first (if indeed they do find it distasteful), they will also notice that the porn section is where all the customers are. And they will feel sort of silly standing alone among the books. Eventually, they will find their way back to the porn, with the rest of the customers. And like them, they will start rooting through the videos. And, gentle reader, that is where most of them will spend the rest of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes.
Ralph McInerny once offered a brilliant definition of the gay rights movement: self-deception as a group effort. Nevertheless, deception of the general public is also vital to the success of the cause. And nowhere are the forms of deception more egregious, or more startlingly successful, than in the campaign to persuade Christians that, to paraphrase the title of a recent book, Jesus Was Queer, and churches should open their doors to same-sex lovers. The gay Christian movement relies on a stratagem that is as daring as it is dishonest. I know, because I was taken in by it for a long time. Like the owners of Lobo's, success depends on camouflaging the truth, which is hidden in plain view the whole time. It is no wonder The Wizard of Oz is so resonant among homosexuals. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" could be the motto and the mantra of the whole movement.
No single book was as influential in my own coming out as the now ex-Father John McNeill's 1976 "classic" The Church and the Homosexual. That book is to Dignity what "The Communist Manifesto" was to Soviet Russia. Most of the book is devoted to offering alternative interpretations of the biblical passages condemning homosexuality, and to putting the anti-homosexual writings of the Church Fathers and scholastics into historical context in a way that renders them irrelevant and even offensive to modern readers. The first impression of a naïve and sexually conflicted young reader such as myself was that McNeill had offered a plausible alternative to traditional teaching. It made me feel justified in deciding to come out of the closet. Were his arguments persuasive? Frankly, I didn't care, and I don't believe most of McNeill's readers do either. They were couched in the language of scholarship, and they sounded plausible. That was all that mattered.
McNeill, like most of the members of his camp, treated the debate over homosexuality as first and foremost a debate about the proper interpretation of texts, texts such as the Sodom story in the Bible and the relevant articles of the Summa. The implication was that once those were reinterpreted, or rendered irrelevant, the gay rights apologists had prevailed, and the door was open for practicing homosexuals to hold their heads up high in church. And there is a certain sense in which that has proved to be true. To the extent that the debate has focused on interpreting texts, the gay apologists have won for themselves a remarkable degree of legitimacy. But that is because, as anyone familiar with the history of Protestantism should be aware, the interpretation of texts is an interminable process. The efforts of people such as McNeill don't need to be persuasive. They only need to be useful.
This is how it works. McNeill reinterprets the story of Sodom, claiming that it does not condemn homosexuality, but gang rape. Orthodox theologians respond, in a commendable but naïve attempt to rebut him, naïve because these theologians presume that McNeill believes his own arguments, and is writing as a scholar, not as a propagandist. McNeill ignores the arguments of his critics, dismissing their objections as based on homophobia, and repeats his original position. The orthodox respond again as if they were really dealing with a theologian. And back and forth for a few more rounds. Until finally McNeill or someone like him stands up and announces, "You know, this is getting us nowhere. We have our exegesis and our theology. You have yours. Why can't we just agree to disagree?" That sounds so reasonable, so ecumenical. And if the orthodox buy into it, they have lost, because the gay rights apologists have earned a place at the table from which they will never be dislodged. Getting at the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah, or correctly parsing the sexual ethics of St. Thomas, was never really the issue. Winning admittance to Holy Communion was the issue.
Even as a naïve young man, one aspect of The Church and the Homosexual struck me as odd. Given that McNeill was suggesting a radical revision of the traditional Catholic sexual ethic, there was almost nothing in it about sexual ethics. The Catholic sexual ethic is quite specific about the ends of human sexuality, and about the forms of behavior that are consistent with those ends. McNeill's criticism of the traditional ethic occupied most of his book, but he left the reader with only the vaguest idea about what he proposed to put in its place. For that matter, there was almost nothing in it about the real lives of real homosexuals. Homosexuality was treated throughout the book as a kind of intellectual abstraction. But I was desperate to get some idea of what was waiting for me on the other side of the closet door. And with no one but Fr. McNeill for a guide, I was reduced to reading between the lines. There was a single passage that I interpreted as a clue. It was almost an aside, really. At one point, he commented that monogamous same-sex unions were consistent with the Church's teaching, or at least consistent with the spirit of the renewed and renovated post-Vatican II Church. With nothing else to go on, I interpreted this in a prescriptive sense. I interpreted McNeill to be arguing that homogenital acts were only moral when performed in the context of a monogamous relationship. And furthermore, I leapt to what seemed like the reasonable conclusion that the author was aware of such relationships, and that I had a reasonable expectation of finding such a relationship myself. Otherwise, for whose benefit was he writing? I was not so naïve (although I was pretty naïve) as not to be aware of the existence of promiscuous homosexual men. But McNeill's aside, which, I repeat, contained virtually his only stab at offering a gay sexual ethic, led me to believe that in addition to the promiscuous, there existed a contingent of gay men who were committed to living in monogamy. Otherwise, Fr. McNeill was implicitly defending promiscuity. And the very idea of a priest defending promiscuity was inconceivable to me. (Yes, that naïve.)
Several years ago, McNeill published an autobiography. In it, he makes no bones about his experiences as a sexually active Catholic priest -- a promiscuous, sexually active, homosexual Catholic priest. He writes in an almost nostalgic fashion about his time spent hunting for sex in bars. Although he eventually did find a stable partner (while he was still a priest), he never apologizes for his years of promiscuity, or even so much as alludes to the disparity between his own life and the passage in The Church and the Homosexual that meant so much to me. It is possible that he doesn't even remember suggesting that homosexuals were supposed to remain celibate until finding monogamous relationships. It is obvious that he never meant that passage to be taken seriously, except by those who would never do more than look in the window -- in others words, gullible, well-meaning, non-homosexual Catholics, preferably those in positions of authority. Or, equally naïve and gullible young men such as me who werelooking for a reason to act on their sexual desires, preferably one that did not do too much violence to their consciences, at least not at first. The latter, the writer presumed, would eventually find their way back to the porn section, where their complicity in the scam would render them indistinguishable from the rest of the regular customers. Clearly, there was a reason that in the earlier book he wrote so little about the real lives of real homosexuals, such as himself.
I don't see how the contradiction between The Church and the Homosexual and the autobiography could be accidental. Why would McNeill pretend to believe that homosexuals should restrict themselves to sex within the context of monogamous relationships when his life demonstrates that he did not? I can think of only one reason. Because he knew that if he told the truth, his cause would be dead in the water. Although to this day McNeill, like all gay Christian propagandists, avoids the subject of sexual ethics as if it were some sort of plague, his life makes his real beliefs clear. He believes in unrestricted sexual freedom. He believes that men and women should have the right to couple, with whomever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and as often as they want. He would probably add some sort of meaningless bromide about no one getting hurt and both parties being treated with respect, but anyone familiar with the snake pit of modern sexual culture (both heterosexual and homosexual) willknow how seriously to take that. And he knew perfectly well that if he were honest about his real aims, there would be no Dignity, there would be no gay Christian movement, at least not one with a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. That would be like getting rid of the books and letting the casual window-shoppers see the porn. And we can't have that now, can we? In other words, the ex-Fr. McNeill is a bad priest and a con man. And given the often lethal consequences of engaging in homosexual sex, a con man with blood on his hands.
Let me be clear. I believe that McNeill's real beliefs, as deduced from his actual behavior, and distinguished from the arguments he puts forward for the benefit of the naïve and gullible, represent the real aims and objectives of the homosexual rights movement. They are the porn that the books are meant to conceal. In other words, if you support what is now described in euphemistic terms as "the blessing of same-sex unions," in practice you are supporting the abolition of the entire Christian sexual ethic, and its substitution with an unrestricted, laissez faire, free sexual market. The reason that the homosexual rights movement has managed to pick up such a large contingent of heterosexual fellow-travelers is simple: Because once that taboo is abrogated, no taboos are left. I once heard a heterosexual Episcopalian put it this way: If I don't want the church poking its nose into my bedroom, how can I condone it when it limits the sexual freedom of homosexuals? That might sound outrageous, but if you still believe that the debate is over the religious status of monogamous same-sex relationships, please be prepared to point out one church somewhere in the U.S. that has opened its doors to active homosexuals without also opening them to every other form of sexual coupling imaginable. I am too old to be taken in by "Father" McNeill and his abstractions anymore. Show me.
A few years ago, I subscribed to the Dignity Yahoo group on the Internet. There were at that time several hundred subscribers. At one point, a confused and troubled young man posted a question to the group: Did any of the subscribers attach any value to monogamy? I immediately wrote back that I did. A couple of days later the young man wrote back to me. He had received dozens of responses, some of them quite hostile and demeaning, and all but one -- mine -- telling him to go out and get laid because that was what being gay was all about. (This was a gay "Catholic" group.) He did not know what to make of it because none of the propaganda to which he was exposed before coming out prepared him for what was really on the other side of the closet door. I had no idea what to tell him, because at the time I was still caught up in the lie myself. Now, the solution seems obvious. What I should have written back to him was, "You have been lied to. Ask God for forgiveness and get back to Kansas as fast as you can. Auntie Em is waiting."
In light of all the legitimate concern about Internet pornography, it might seem ironic to assert that the Internet helped rescue me from homosexuality. For twenty years, I thought there was something wrong with me. Dozens of well-meaning people assured me that there was a whole, different world of homosexual men out there, a world that for some reason I could never find, a world of God-fearing, straight-acting, monogamy-believing, and fidelity-practicing homosexuals. They assured me that they themselves knew personally (for a fact and for real) that such men existed. They themselves knew such men (or at least had heard tell of them from those who did). And I believed it, although as the years passed it got harder and harder. Then I got a personal computer and a subscription to AOL. "O.K.," I reasoned, "morally conservative homosexuals are obviously shy and skittish and fearful of sudden movements. They don't like bars and bathhouses. Neither do I. They don't attend Dignity meetings or Metropolitan Community Church services because the gay 'churches' are really bathhouses masquerading as houses of worship. But there is no reason a morally conservative homosexual cannot subscribe to AOL and submit a profile. If I can do it, anyone can do it." So I did it. I wrote a profile describing myself as a conservative Catholic (comme ci, comme ça) who loved classical music and theater and good books and scintillating conversation about all of the above. I said I wanted very much to meet other like-minded homosexuals for the purposes of friendship and romance. I tried to be as clear as I knew how. I was not interested in one night stands. And within minutes of placing the profile, I got my first response. It consisted of three words: "How many inches?" My experience of looking for love on AOL went downhill rapidly from there.
When I first came out in the 1980s, it was common for gay rights apologists to blame the promiscuity among gay men on "internalized homophobia." Gay men, like African Americans, internalized and acted out the lies about themselves learned from mainstream American culture. Furthermore, homosexuals were forced to look for love in dimly lit bars, bathhouses, and public parks for fear of harassment at the hands of a homophobic mainstream. The solution to this problem, we were told, was permitting homosexuals to come out into the open, without fear of retribution. A variant of this argument is still put forward by activists such as Andrew Sullivan, in order to legitimate same-sex marriage. And it seemed reasonable enough twenty years ago. But thirty-five years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the gay liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.
There is another reason, apart from the propaganda value, that bookstores like Lobo's peddle porn as well as poetry. Because without the porn, they would soon go out of business. And, in fact, most gay bookstores have gone out of business, despite the porn. Following an initial burst of enthusiasm in the 1970s and 80s, gay publishing went into steep decline, and shows no signs of coming out of it. Once the novelty wore off, gay men soon bored of reading about men having sex with one another, preferring to devote their time and disposable income to pursuing the real thing. Gay and lesbian community centers struggle to keep their doors open. Gay churches survive as places where worshippers can go to sleep it off and cleanse their soiled consciences after a Saturday night spent cruising for sex at the bars. And there is no danger of ever hearing a word from the pulpit suggesting that bar-hopping is inconsistent with believing in the Bible. When I lived in the United Kingdom, I was struck by the extent to which gay culture in London replicated gay culture in the U.S. The same was true in Paris, Amsterdam, and Berlin. Homosexuality is one of America's most successful cultural exports. And the focus on gay social spaces in Europe is identical to their focus in America: sex. Cyberspace is now the latest conquest of that amazing modern Magellan: the male homosexual in pursuit of new sexual conquests.
But at this point, how is it possible to blame the promiscuity among homosexual men on homophobia, internalized or otherwise? On the basis of evidence no stronger than wishful thinking, Andrew Sullivan wants us to believe that legalizing same-sex "marriage" will domesticate gay men, that all that energy now devoted to building bars and bathhouses will be dedicated to erecting picket fences and two-car garages. What Sullivan refuses to face is that male homosexuals are not promiscuous because of "internalized homophobia," or laws banning same-sex "marriage." Homosexuals are promiscuous because when given the choice, homosexuals overwhelmingly choose to be promiscuous. And wrecking the fundamental social building block of our civilization, the family, is not going to change that.
I once read a disarmingly honest essay in which Sullivan as much as admitted his real reason for promoting the cause of same-sex "marriage." He faced up to the sometimes sordid nature of his sexual life, which is more than most gay activists are prepared to do, and he regretted it. He wished he had led a different sort of life, and he apparently believes that if marriage were a legal option, he might have been able to do so. I have a lot more respect for Andrew Sullivan than I do for most gay activists. I believe that he would seriously like to reconcile his sexual desires with the demands of his conscience. But with all due respect, are the rest of us prepared to sacrifice the institution of the family in the unsubstantiated hope that doing so will make it easier for Sullivan to keep his trousers zipped?
But isn't it theoretically possible that homosexuals could restrict themselves to something resembling the traditional Catholic sexual ethic, except for the part about procreation -- in other words, monogamous lifelong relationships? Of course it is theoretically possible. It was also theoretically possible in 1968 that the use of contraceptives could be restricted to married couples, that the revolting downward slide into moral anarchy we have lived through could have been avoided. It is theoretically possible, but it is practically impossible. It is impossible because the whole notion of stable sexual orientation on which the gay rights movement is founded has no basis in fact.
René Girard, the French literary critic and sociologist of religion, argues that all human civilization is founded on desire. All civilizations have surrounded the objects of desire (including sexual desire) with an elaborate and unbreachable wall of taboos and restrictions. Until now. What we are seeing in the modern West is not the long overdue legitimization of hitherto despised but honorable forms of human love. What we are witnessing is the reduction of civilization to its lowest common denominator: unbridled and unrestricted desire. To assert that we have opened a Pandora's Box would be a stunning understatement. Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen, it looks to be a bumpy millennium.
When I was growing up, we were all presumed to be heterosexual. Then homosexuality was introduced as an alternative. That did not at first seem like a major revision because, apart from procreation, homosexuality, at least in theory, left the rest of the traditional sexual ethic in tact. Two people of the same gender could (in theory) fall in love and live a life of monogamous commitment. Then bisexuality was introduced, and the real implications of the sexual revolution became clear. Monogamy was out the window. Moral norms were out the window. Do-it-yourself sexuality became the norm. Anyone who wants to know what that looks like can do no better than go online. The Internet offers front row seats to the circus of a disintegrating civilization.
Take Yahoo, for example. Yahoo makes it possible for people sharing a common interest to create groups for the purpose of making contacts and sharing information. If that conjures up images of genealogists and stamp collectors, think again. There are now thousands of Yahoo groups catering to every kind of sexual perversion imaginable. Many of them would defy the imagination of the Marquis de Sade himself. People who until a few years ago could do nothing but fantasize now entertain serious hopes of acting out their fantasies. I met a man online whose fondest wish was to be spanked with a leather wallet. It had to be leather. And it had to be a wallet. And he needed to be spanked with it. Old-fashioned genital friction was optional. This man wanted a Gucci label tattooed across his backside. He could imagine no loftier pinnacle of passion. And he insisted that this desire was as fundamental to his sexual nature as the desire to go to bed with a man was for me. Furthermore, he had formed a Yahoo group that had more than three hundred members, all of whom shared the same passion. There is no object in the universe, no human or animal body part, that cannot be eroticized. So, is the desire to be spanked with a leather wallet a "sexual orientation"? If not, how is it different?
There was a time when I would have snorted, "Of course it is different. You can't share a life with a leather wallet. You can't love a leather wallet. What you are talking about is a fetish, not a sexual orientation. The two are completely different." But the truth is that all the gay men I encountered had a fetish for naked male skin, with all the objectification and depersonalization that implies, that I now consider the distinction sophistical. Leather is skin too, after all. The only real difference between the fellow on the Internet and the average gay man is that he preferred his skin Italian, bovine, and tanned.
Over the years, I have attended various gay and gay-friendly church services. All of them shared one characteristic in common: a tacit agreement never to say a word from the pulpit -- or from any other location for that matter -- suggesting that there ought to be any restrictions on human sexual behavior. If anyone reading this is familiar with Dignity or Integrity or the Metropolitan Community churches or, for that matter, mainline Protestantism and most of post-Vatican II Catholicism, let me ask you one question: When was the last time you heard a sermon on sexual ethics? Have you ever heard a sermon on sexual ethics? I take it for granted that the answer is negative. Do our priests and pastors honestly believe that Christians in America are not in need of sermons on sexual ethics?
Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples, we will be welcoming to our Communion rails (presuming that we still have Communion rails) not just the statistically insignificant number of same-sex couples who have lived together for more than a few years (most of whom purchased stability by jettisoning monogamy); we will also be legitimizing every kind of sexual taste, from old-fashioned masturbation and adultery to the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism. We will, in other words, be giving our blessing to the suicide of Western civilization.
But what about all those images of loving same-sex couples dying to get hitched with which the media are awash these days? That used to confuse me too. It seems that The New York Times has no trouble finding successful same-sex partners to photograph and interview. But despite my best efforts, I was never able to meet the sorts of couples who show up regularly on Oprah. The media are biased and have no interest in telling the truth about homosexuality.
I met Wyatt (not his real name) online. For five years he was in a disastrous same-sex relationship. His partner was unfaithful, and an alcoholic with drug problems. The relationship was something that would give Strindberg nightmares. When Vermont legalized same-sex "marriage," Wyatt saw it as one last chance to make their relationship work. He and his partner would fly to Vermont to get "married." This came to the attention of the local newspaper in his area, which did a story with photos of the wedding reception. In it, Wyatt and his partner were depicted as a loving couple who finally had a chance to celebrate their commitment publicly. Nothing was said about the drugs or the alcoholism or the infidelity. But the marriage was a failure and ended in flames a few months later. And the newspaper did not do a follow-up. In other words, the leading daily of one of America's largest cities printed a misleading story about a bad relationship, a story that probably persuaded more than one young man that someday he could be just as happy as Wyatt and his "partner." And that is the sad part.
But one very seldom reads about people like my friend Harry. Harry (not his real name) was a balding, middle-aged man with a potbelly. He was married, and had a couple of grown daughters. And he was unhappy. Harry persuaded himself that he was unhappy because he was gay. He divorced his wife, who is now married to someone else, his daughters are not speaking to him, and he is discovering that pudgy, bald, middle-aged men are not all that popular in gay bars. Somehow, Oprah forgot to mention that. Now Harry is taking anti-depressants in order to keep from killing himself.
Then there was another acquaintance, who also happened to have the same name as the previous guy. Harry (not his real name) was about 30 (but could easily pass for 20), and from a Mormon background, with all the naïveté that suggests. Unlike the first Harry, he had no difficulty getting dates. Or relationships for that matter. The problem was that the relationships never lasted more than a couple of weeks. Harry was also rapidly developing a serious drinking problem. (So much for the Mormon words of wisdom.) If you happened to be at the bar around two in the morning, you could probably have Harry for the night if you were interested. He was so drunk he wouldn't remember you the next day, and all he really wanted at that point was for someone to hold him.
Gay culture is a paradox. Most homosexuals tend to be liberal Democrats, or in the U.K., supporters of the Labour Party. They gravitate toward those Parties on the grounds that their policies are more compassionate and sensitive to the needs of the downtrodden and oppressed. But there is nothing compassionate about a gay bar. It represents a laissez faire free sexual market of the most Darwinian sort. There is no place in it for those who are not prepared to compete, and the rules of the game are ruthless and unforgiving. I remember once being in a gay pub in central London. Most of the men there were buff and toned and in their 20s or early 30s. An older gentleman walked in, who looked to be in his 70s. It was as if the Angel of Death himself had made an entrance. In that crowded bar, a space opened up around him that no one wanted to enter. His shadow transmitted contagion. It was obvious that his presence made the other customers nervous. He stood quietly at the bar and ordered a drink. He spoke to no one and no one spoke to him. When he eventually finished his drink and left, the sigh of relief from all those buff, toned pub crawlers was almost audible. Now all of them could go back to pretending that gay men were all young and beautiful forever. Gentle reader, do you know what a "bug chaser" is? A bug chaser is a young gay man who wants to contract HIV so that he will never grow old. And that is the world that Harry left his wife, and the other Harry his Church, to find happiness in.
I have known a lot of people like the two Harrys. But I have met precious few who bore more than a superficial resemblance to the idealized images we see in Oscar-winning movies such as Philadelphia, or in the magazine section of The New York Times. What I find suspicious is that the media ignore the existence of people like the two Harrys. The unhappiness so common among homosexuals is swept under the carpet, while fanciful and unrealistic "role models" are offered up for public consumption. There is at the very least grounds for a serious debate about the proposition that "gay is good," but no such debate is taking place, because most of the mainstream media have already made up their (and our) minds.
But it is hard to hide the porn forever. When I was living in London, I had a wonderful friend named Maggie. Maggie (not her real name) was a liberal. Her big heart bled for the oppressed. Like most liberals, she was proud of her open-mindedness and wore it like a badge of honor. Maggie lived in a house as big as her heart and all of her children were grown up and had moved out. She had a couple of rooms to rent. It just so happened that both the young men who became her tenants were gay. Maggie's first reaction was enthusiastic. She had never known many gay people, and thought the experience of renting to two homosexuals would confirm her in her open-mindedness. She believed it would be a learning experience. It was, but not the sort she had in mind. One day Maggie told me her troubles and confessed her doubts. She talked about what it was like to stumble each morning down to the breakfast table, finding two strangers seated there, the two strangers her tenants brought home the night before. It was seldom the same two strangers two mornings running. One of her tenants was in a long-distance relationship but, in the absence of his partner, felt at liberty to seek consolation elsewhere. She talked about what it was like to have to deal on a daily basis with the emotional turmoil of her tenants' tumultuous lives. She told me what it was like to open the door one afternoon and find a policeman standing there, a policeman who was looking for one of her tenants, who was accused of trying to sell drugs to school children. That same tenant was also involved in prostitution. Maggie didn't know what to make of it all. She desperately wanted to remain open-minded, to keep believing that gay men were no worse than anyone else, just different. But she couldn't reconcile her experience with that "tolerant" assumption. The truth was that when the two finally moved out, an event to which she was looking forward with some enthusiasm, and it was time to place a new ad for rooms to let, she wanted to include the following proviso: Fags need not apply. I didn't know what to tell Maggie because I was just as confused as she was. I wanted to hold on to my illusions too, in spite of all the evidence.
I am convinced that many, if not most, people who are familiar with the lives of homosexuals know the truth, but refuse to face it. My best friend got involved in the gay rights movement as a graduate student. He and a lesbian colleague sometimes counseled young men who were struggling with their sexuality. Once, the two of them met a young man who was seriously overweight and suffered from terrible acne. The young man waxed eloquent about the happiness he expected to find when he came out of the closet. He was going to find a partner, and the two of them would live happily ever after. The whole time my friend was thinking that if someone looking like this fat, pustulent young man ever walked into a bar, he would be folded, spindled, and mutilated before even taking a seat. Afterwards, the lesbian turned to him and said, "You know, sometimes it is better to stay in the closet." My friend told me that for him this represented a decisive moment. This lesbian claimed to love and admire gay men. She never stopped praising their kindness and compassion and creativity. But with that one comment she in effect told my friend that she really knew what gay life was all about. It was about meat, and unless you were a good cut, don't bother coming to the supermarket.
On another occasion, I was complaining to a lesbian about my disillusionment. She made a remarkable admission to me. She had a teenage son, who so far had not displayed signs of sexual interest in either gender. She knew as a lesbian she should not care which road he took. But she confessed to me that she did care. Based on the lives of the gay men she knew, she found herself secretly praying that her son would turn out to be straight. As a mother, she did not want to see her son living that life.
A popular definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. That was me, the whole time I was laboring to become a happy homosexual. I was a lunatic. Several times I turned for advice to gay men who seemed better adjusted to their lot in life than I was. First, I wanted confirmation that my perceptions were accurate, that life as a male homosexual really was as awful as it seemed to be. And then I wanted to know what I was supposed to do about it. When was it going to get better? What could I do to make it better? I got two sorts of reactions to these questions, both of which left me feeling hurt and confused. The first sort of reaction was denial, often bitter denial, of what I was suggesting. I was told that there was something wrong with me, that most gay men were having a wonderful time, that I was generalizing on the basis of my own experience (whose experience was I supposed to generalize from?), and that I should shut up and stop bothering others with my "internalized homophobia."
I began seeing a counselor when I was a graduate student. Matt (not his real name) was a happily married man with college-age children. All he knew about homosexuality he learned from the other members of his profession, who assured him that homosexuality was not a mental illness and that there were no good reasons that homosexuals could not lead happy, productive lives. When I first unloaded my tale of woe, Matt told me I had never really come out of the closet. (I still have no idea what he meant, but suspect it is like the "once saved, always saved" Baptist who responds to the lapsed by telling him that he was never really saved in the first place.) I needed to go back, he told me, try again, and continue to look for the positive experiences he was sure were available for me, on the basis of no other evidence than the rulings of the American Psychiatric Association. He had almost no personal experience of homosexuals, but his peers assured him that the book section at Lobo's offered a true picture of homosexual life. I knew Matt was clueless, but I still wanted to believe he was right.
Matt and I developed a therapeutic relationship. During the year we spent together, he learned far more from me than I did from him. I tried to take his advice. I was sharing a house that year with another grad student who was in the process of coming out and experiencing his own disillusionment. Because I had been his only gay friend, and had encouraged him to come out, his bitterness came to be directed at me, and our relationship suffered for it. Meanwhile, I developed a close friendship with a member of the faculty who was openly gay. When I first informed Matt, he was ecstatic. He thought I was finally come out properly. The faculty member was just the sort of friend I needed. But the faculty member, as it turned out, despite his immaculate professional facade, was a deeply disturbed man who put all of his friends through emotional hell, which I of course shared with a shocked and silenced Matt. (I tried to date but, as usual, experienced the same pattern that characterized all my homosexual relationships. The friendship lasted as long as the sexual heat. Once that cooled, my partner's interest in me as a person dissipated with it.) It was not a good year. At the end of it, I remember Matt staring at me, with glazed eyes and a shell-shocked look on his face, and admitting, "You know, being gay is a lot harder than I realized."
Not everyone I spoke to over the years rejected what I had to say out of hand. I once corresponded with an English ex-Dominican. I was ecstatic to learn that he was gay, and was eventually kicked out of his order for refusing to remain in the closet. He included an e-mail address in one of his books, and I wrote him, wanting to know if his experience of life as a homosexual was significantly different from mine. I presumed it must be, since he had written a couple of books, passionately defending the right of homosexuals to a place in the Church. His response to me was one of the last nails in the coffin of my life as a gay man. To my astonishment, he admitted that his experiences were not unlike mine. All he could suggest was that I keep trying, and eventually everything would work out. In other words, this brilliant man, whose books had meant so much to me, had nothing to suggest except that I keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. There was only one reasonable conclusion. I would be nuts if I took his advice. It took me twenty years, but I finally reached the conclusion that I did not want to be insane.
So where am I now? I am attending a militantly orthodox parish in Houston that is one of God's most spectacular gifts to me. My best friend Mark (not his real name) is, like me, a refugee from the homosexual insane asylum. He is also a devout believer, though a Presbyterian (no one is perfect). From Mark I have learned that two men can love each other profoundly while remaining clothed the entire time.
We are told that the Church opposes same-sex love. Not true. The Church opposes homogenital sex, which in my experience is not about love, but about obsession, addiction, and compensation for a compromised masculinity.
I am not proud of the life I have lived. In fact, I am profoundly ashamed of it. But if reading this prevents one naïve, gullible man from making the same mistakes, then perhaps with the assistance of Our Lady of Guadalupe; of St. Joseph, her chaste spouse; of my patron saint, Edmund Campion; of St. Josemaría Escrivá; of the blessed Carmelite martyrs of Compiégne; and, last but not least, of my special supernatural guide and mentor, the Venerable John Henry Newman, I can at least hope for a reprieve from some of the many centuries in Purgatory I have coming to me.
So, what do we as a Church and a culture need to do? Tear down the respectable façade and expose the pornography beneath. Start pressuring homosexuals to tell the truth about their lives. Stop debating the correct interpretation of Genesis 19. Leave the men of Sodom and Gomorrah buried in the brimstone where they belong. Sodom is hidden in plain view from us, here and now, today. Once, when preparing a lecture on Cardinal Newman, I summarized his classic Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine in this fashion: Truth ripens, error rots. The homosexual rights movement is rotten to the core. It has no future. There is no life in it. Sooner or later, those who are caught up in it are going to wake up from the dream of unbridled desire or else die. It is just a matter of time. The question is: how long? How many children are going to be sacrificed to this Moloch?
Until several months ago, there was a Lobo's in Houston too. Not accidentally, I'm sure, its layout was identical to the one in Austin. It was just a few blocks from the gas station where I take my car for service. Recently, I was taking a walk through the neighborhood while my tires were being rotated. And I noticed something. There was a padlock on the door at Lobo's. A sign on the door read, "The previous tenant was evicted for nonpayment of rent." The books and the porn, the façade and what it conceals, are gone now. Praise God.
+ + +
The Exodus of Brokeback Moses
(In which an Episcopal bishop is visited by a committee
of newly-awakened laity not long after the General Convention of 2006)
“I thought the people in the pews
Would understand my brilliant views!
You Scripture types are filled with hate.”
“Sorry, bishop, it’s too late.”
“But I’m blazing new terrain!
Bursting the bonds of gay oppression!”
“In reality the only gain
Is in disease and in depression.
Like Ahab searching for the whale
Or Percival searching for the Holy Grail
Each gay is doing all he can
To find that mythical faithful man.”
“But I really think I have the answer!”
“By raising rates of anal cancer?”
“But it’s like a rescue from King Cyrus!”
“You gave them papilloma virus.
Only one percent of gays
Is over sixty-five
How can you call it liberation,
When folks just aren’t alive?”***
“But I graced them with my erudition!”
“Sorry, tonight’s your last rendition.”
“But really now, I carried their load!”
“Sorry, bishop, hit the road.”
“But I’m a prophet and you’re uptight,
This is not what one supposes!”
“It’s obvious we’ve got it right
And you’re not exactly Moses.”
*** Why? Seven types of venereal disease, nine types of liver ailments (e.g., hepatitis), and 10 types of trauma, e.g., fecal incontinence—for a total of 26 diseases (Journal of Adolescent Medicine); high risk of acquiring hepatitis B (New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association); a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in the year 1871 (International Journal of Epidemiology); most unsafe sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships (AIDS --a journal); proctitis associated with the gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis widespread among homosexuals (Health Implications and Journal of the American Medical Association); among lesbians: a higher prevalence of BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors (Sexually Transmitted Infections – a journal).
The Trial of Bishop Smith
The Transcript from the Court of Public Opinion
JUDGE. I would say to the members of the jury that this is a proceeding that has no legal standing. It does not purport to have any implication that anyone be put on trial in a public court for the commission of crimes. This is the court of public opinion. The charge is that a bishop counseled a young man in a way that led to his eventually becoming harmed by homosexual behavior and that the bishop should therefore be held accountable. The charge is one of involuntary manslaughter. The evidence to be considered is only whether the actions of the bishop, based on his views, are harmful. No other consideration should enter into your evaluation of this matter. The prosecution will now call witnesses.
The prosecution calls Mr. Harris.
Q. Mr. Harris, tell us a little about yourself.
A. Fine. My real name isn’t Harris, but I’m reluctant to participate in this using my real name. I’m a director of public health in a municipality in the Midwest, although I’m unwilling to say just where.
Q. And why are you unwilling?
A. It’s difficult to speak out publicly about the kinds of things we are here to discuss. It’s classified as hate speech.
Q. Are you motivated by hate?
A. I am not.
Q. We understand that it’s your view that those who are inclined toward homosexuality will shorten their lives if they act on those inclinations. Is that right?
A. That’s my view. In the general population, the number of people over the age of 65 is about one in six or seven. Among homosexuals, it’s difficult to say with complete accuracy but it’s about one in a hundred.
Q. Are you motivated in saying this by a desire to denigrate homosexuals to deny them their rights?
A. I am not, at least if by rights you mean the usual things that pertain to privacy, freedom of assembly, and the like. If by rights you really mean some form of support, such as marital benefits, then I’m not in favor. Those are more than rights. Those are privileges and, by granting them, we are encouraging a way of life that results in early death.
Q. Do homosexuals dispute what you say?
A. Most of the ones I’ve encountered do not dispute the realities of early death. But some do and they demand definitive studies. Let me tell you the things that have led me to this conclusion. None of them in itself is absolute proof, but taken together they add up to proof at the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. Before the aids crisis, there were studies among homosexuals coming to clinics in San Francisco showing that only a fraction of one percent were over the age of 65. The aids crisis made the percentage even lower.
Q. Why would someone dispute that kind of result?
A. They would dispute something about the methodology or say that people weren’t identifying themselves as homosexuals. But let’s say there were really twice as many as recorded, or ten times as many, it still wouldn’t approach the level of the general population.
You have to start having common sense about these things and not just think in terms of PhD –type studies in peer-reviewed journals and all that. People have to look around them and see how few there are over the age of 65 that have lived that way of life. It’s the most monumental exercise in denial in human history.
Q. But you will admit there are some bad studies along these lines.
A. Yes, bad from the standpoint of academic rigor. There’s one in particular, conducted by a man name Cameron, that comes in for condemnation whenever this subject comes up. He went through the obituaries in some gay publications and noted that one after another said the deceased was age 39 or 42 or 43 years old, compared with general newspapers which obviously show ages that are much older. But just the same, if you went though hundreds of obits like that, and you had common sense, you’d start to think, well, there’s a message here.
Q. Are you saying they should be pronounced a public health hazard?
A. Absolutely not. People would start saying that I sound like Hitler if I started talking like that, and they might be right. They are no harm to anyone but themselves. But to use a phrase that has become common in the gay rights movement, silence equals death. The silence about smoking equals death. Now the silence about homosexual behavior equals death. There is no such thing as safe sex among homosexuals. Safer sex, but not safe sex. It’s unhealthy by its very nature.
Q. Why?
A. Normal sexual intercourse involves penetration of the vagina, which as been made to withstand that kind of pressure. No other part of the body is made to tolerate invasive sexual activity. Over time, other parts of the body will break down, causing semen and waste to enter the blood stream. This causes infections and weakening of the immune system. At that point the possibilities for life shortening conditions begin to multiply.
Q. But people can use condoms, right? And they can avoid intercourse with people who haven’t been infected with things like aids.
A. A condom has no effect on the consequences I’ve just described. As for avoiding aids, that is indeed possible. What you can’t easily avoid are all the other things that are a result of using the body in the wrong way.
Q. But don’t you know of gays who are into old age? There must be ways of avoiding all of this. Committed relationships, for instance.
A. There are definitely exceptions to what I’ve said. There are also smokers who last into old age also. I know one who is over 100 years old. I’m just talking about averages, and averages are important. As for committed relationships, well, you can avoid aids that way, but not the other things. As I say, the whole phenomenon is an exercise in denial, denial of common sense and common observation.
Q. Do you have homosexual friends?
A. I have acquaintances and a few business associates who are practicing homosexuals. As for friends, I can think of one who has died, of aids actually. I can think of another who is not living that way of life any more.
Q. Do you think they can change into heterosexuals?
JUDGE: We have agreed that this is not a subject that will be taken up at this trial. We are trying to determine what kind of attitude toward homosexuals is beneficial to them, an attitude that legitimizes that behavior or one that does not. We are therefore not concerned with whether one is inclined that way or not, only the question of whether the behavior should be approved or seen as normal.
Q. Well, Mr. Harris, do you think it’s a controllable behavior?
A. Yes, it certainly is. I’m not experienced in this area, but I refuse to believe that anyone is a mere victim to kinds of behavior that he doesn’t want to practice. I’m sure it’s difficult, just as it was difficult for me to give up smoking, but it can be done, especially if others can help.
Q. And so we don’t have to get into the matter of whether the behavior can be changed, only whether self-control can be exercised.
A. Well, sure. If the object is to avoid things that will shorten our lives, and we should all want that, then we don’t have to go farther than that. We can talk endlessly about whether it’s innate or genetic, but that’s beside the point. It all comes down to two questions. Is it life-shortening? And: Can it be controlled? The answers are yes and yes.
PROSECUTION. Your witness.
Q. And so what you’re saying is gays are disease-ridden people. Do you really think that kind of a bigoted smear can just keep going without challenge?
A. If by bigotry you are implying that I haven’t given this any rational consideration and that I harbor feelings of hatred toward some group of people out there, that doesn’t apply to me or to anything I’ve been saying. Although it doesn’t really make any difference what my feelings are toward gays or anyone else.
Q. It makes no difference? Explain that.
A. That’s right. There really are some people who go around saying they hate homosexuals or God hates them or whatever. I’ve read statements from others saying that they have a special liking for them. What real difference does all that make with respect to the objective realities? The facts of life and death are the same regardless of what my feelings are or your feelings.
Q. All that is subjective, in other words.
A. Right. Let’s talk about what’s objectively real.
Q. And so you don’t think it’s a slur to call people disease-ridden?
A. I believe strongly that we should make an important distinction, that is, between a person and a person’s behavior. I believe in the sacredness of human personality, and I want to speak in a way that’s respectful of that.
Q. But if a person is the way he is, as part of his essential make-up, and you are saying that it’s essentially immoral or abnormal or unhealthy to be that way, even if it’s genetic, then how can you claim to affirm the so-called sacredness of human personality?
JUDGE He didn’t speak in terms of what is moral or immoral.
Q. All right, Your Honor. Strike that, but he has clearly implied that the people in and of themselves are abnormal and unhealthy.
A. I don’t know whether it’s genetic or part of the innate make up of the person. I don’t know, but I don’t care. It’s irrelevant to the question of consequences. I have a relative with Down’s Syndrome. That’s a genetic condition, and it’s innate and unchangeable, and I can affirm her as a person, but I’m sure not going to confirm that aspect of her as something normal and healthy. If you’re going to do that to homosexuality, then you might as well state that white is black and black is white. By the way, that’s the only connection I’m making between Down’s Syndrome and homosexuality – that if there’s any genetic component, it makes no difference in terms of their being normal.
Q. And so bigotry and hatred of homosexuals is just fine, so far as you’re concerned.
PROSECUTION. Objection, Your Honor.
A. Your honor, if the court please, I’d like to just clarify myself on the matter, because it just seems to come up over and over again, both here and among the acquaintances I have with whom I have this disagreement. I’m not claiming I love homosexuals. If they’re flamboyant, I’m uncomfortable with them. I’ve just known a few of them well, and those few I’ve actually liked as people. We all have to take a live-and-let-live attitude about them, because this is a free country. But I’m for free and open acknowledgement of the fact that this is unnatural and disease-producing. In fact, that’s how I define unnatural – disease producing. To the extent we affirm or support it we will be guilty of helping them kill one another. To the extent we affirm or support it, I might add, we will also be paying the price in terms of more expensive health insurance.
A. But I thought you said you were only interested in this as a matter of the health of those involved and not the general health of the population. But now you’re talking about health insurance. This was Hitler’s approach, wasn’t it, to talk about homosexuals and a threat to the general health of the population?
PROSECUTION. Your Honor, I object to this comparison to Hitler.
JUDGE Sustained.
Q. Okay, but you are talking about the public health now. You’ve contradicted yourself.
A. Well, I am talking about public finance, you might say. People are going around thinking it doesn’t affect them if the laws and other public systems or organizational health plans give marital benefits to gays. I say wake up, because we all pay into systems like that, and it’s now at the point where a high percentage of middle-class people can’t afford health insurance for themselves or their children. I’m not blaming that whole problem of the gays, but if you support something disease-producing, that’s part of the penalty.
Q. Next you’ll be blaming them for hurricanes. No further questions.
JUDGE The last comment will be stricken from the record. Mr. S, do you have further witnesses?
Q. I do, Your Honor. The prosecution calls Mr. R.
Q. Mr. R. You are a professor in the social science department of a major university in the Midwest, is that right?
A. I am.
Q. And what is your field of research.
A. My emphasis is on social psychology, with a particular interest in the historical aspects of that field.
Q. Are you willing to tell us which university?
A. I am not, because it’s gotten to the point where this subject is taboo unless you have just the correct viewpoints.
Q. And would you be able to state briefly what your viewpoint is in the matter under discussion.
A. Yes. My viewpoint is that society is dealing with a grand illusion of the kind that has never been seen to such a wide scale in modern time, with one exception.
Q. And what would the exception be?
A. The exception would be in societies where information is controlled. For instance, in Hitler’s Germany, the illusion was propagated about the inferiority of certain races to the point where most people accepted that. In communist Russia, people had certain illusions about economics, about the intentions of the United States, about the conditions in the West, and so on, because people relied on the official word about everything. But my interest is in illusions in a free society.
Q. And what is the nature of this illusion?
A. It’s the idea that you can use parts of the human body for things other than the intended purpose without adverse consequences.
Q. And how does that relate to other illusions in the past?
A. Only in the sense that people are willing to be persuaded if it’s in accord with their desires. For instance, in the 18th century there were tremendous financial schemes, such as something called the South Sea Bubble, in which large numbers of people invested in something that was a complete illusion. The various forms of propaganda of totalitarian regimes operate on the mass mentality in similar ways.
Q. You can see how these things would affect those who want to have sex, or are looking for love, but how could this phenomenon affect other people?
A. The average person wants to avoid looking narrow-minded and mean, and so if the alternative to giving support to gays is exposure to that accusation, then we tend to avoid it. That’s the very reason why I won’t reveal my name in this proceeding, for instance. Secondly, if something looks like it’s based on the Bible, without any grounding in secular ethics, then people don’t want to interfere with freedom of religion. Thirdly, many people just don’t want one more argument in their lives and so are in favor of giving people want they want to avoid trouble.
Q. And so do you see this as the result of the evil intentions of the gays?
A. Not necessarily. Some of them might be evil, just as there are evil people in every category, but it’s not my intention to demonize them or any other group. I’m more interested actually in the nongay sector, you might call it, that is, the 98 percent of people who don’t fall into that category. Oh, and I forgot another point about the previous question, I mean about why people go along with this.
Q. Go ahead. What that?
A. Okay, I think I made three points about that, and so here’s a fourth one. Many people want to pursue their own personal agenda, including in the sexual area, and they don’t want to appear to be hypocrites.
Q. Explain what you mean there.
A. Well, I know someone at the university who is apparently having an affair with one of the students. This is a male professor, and he’s married. Now, I’ve known him for quite some time, and I know that his views on the gay issues have changed drastically over a period of a few months. This is about the length of time that he’s been having this affair.
Q. And this is a heterosexual affair, is that right.
A. That’s right, but my impression is that he would rather compromise himself by having the affair than be a hypocrite and criticize gays or others who are doing things that are questionable. This is a principle that can be applied to the wider society. The concept of stigma has disappeared, except about people who make moral judgments. They are stigmatized. Each person now has his own concept of truth, and you’re supposed to regard the truth of someone else as equal and legitimate, even if it’s totally contradictory to your own. We are trending toward a nonjudgmental society, period. Homosexuality simply gets placed into that intellectual framework and it silences all opposition.
Q. Do you mean that this is a deliberate tactic, that is, to silence opposition?
A. It’s always difficult, and sometime treacherous, to assess motives. At the same time, you have to have empathy in order to see things from the other person’s viewpoint. If I were a gay activist, I would notice that people are generally reluctant to appear mean-spirited, and this would be the best weapon in my arsenal. I would appear to be the well-intentioned victim of mean-spirited people. That works very well in this particular mode of propaganda. The word “hate” is used at every opportunity. That’s why the identity of the people in this proceeding must remain anonymous.
Q. What motivates you to appear at this trial? Are you a religious fundamentalist?
A. No. I grew up in the Episcopal Church, but I’m a lapsed Episcopalian. I’m not a fundamentalist, although I do believe in God, a God who loves humanity and doesn’t want to see people harm themselves or others. That’s about as far as my religion goes. As for motivation, I tend toward the academic view that things should be debated openly. The gays are harming themselves and their partners for lack of open debate. The truth isn’t coming out. Illusion is king.
Q. You think people would change their behavior based on what you’re saying is the truth?
A. The evidence of societies throughout history makes it clear that many people adjust their behavior based on social pressure. Men who are inclined toward adultery, for example, may always have those desires in a society where that is stigmatized, but only a small minority will act on them.
DEFENSE. Your witness.
Q. How would you describe your political leanings? Are they as right-wing in all respects as they are in this one?
A. I’m conservative on this matter but liberal in certain other respects, such as foreign policy, compared with the present administration. I’m not doctrinaire on politics. Actually I question whether my views on this matter are conservative, strictly speaking.
Q. Oh, please, don’t tell me you’re a liberal about this.
PROSECUTION. Objection. Counsel is being argumentative.
JUDGE. Sustained.
Q. I’ll rephrase that. Are you saying you’re a liberal on this matter?
A. What I’m saying is that I’m not motivated by the idea of maintaining some status quo for its own sake. I think homosexuals have to get to the point where they really are respected as people. It’s appalling that they would be ridiculed and denigrated for something that they didn’t choose for themselves. I’d say it’s in the best tradition of liberalism to favor what’s the best for the people who have been oppressed. But that doesn’t mean validating a behavior that’s harmful to themselves and to their partners. You know this is represented as being a private matter, but it is harmful to others.
Q. Harmful to whom.
A. The partners, as I’ve said.
Q. You think there’s coercion involved?
A. I’m not saying that. I’m just talking about consenting adults here. But still, if you consider the consequences, it means that each is acting in a harmful way toward the other. It’s not an ethical consideration that is ever brought up by anybody.
Q. This is then most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard. It would be funny if it weren’t pathetic.
JUDGE. Now that you’ve had the satisfaction of making that statement, will you continue to cross-examine the witness?
DEFENSE. I will, Your Honor.
Q. Let me understand. You take two people who love each other and demonstrate every kindness toward each other and accuse them of mutual harm, is that what you’re saying?
A. That is exactly what I’m saying. It isn’t intentional. But there are about two dozen kinds of sickness that commonly result. That doesn’t count the sicknesses that come just from weakening the immune system. They’re in denial about this, or they think they’re going to be the exceptions, but if they wake up and see all this clearly, then you have to say they’re acting unethically.
Q. This is part of your theory about the grand illusion, I take it.
A. Well, it’s part of the illusion. The previous witness talked about the physical effects of smoking, the effect of using the lungs for something other to take in air. It’s a good point. If you use other body parts for things other than their obvious purpose, the result will eventually be harmful. Now, the illusion lies mostly in the fact that there are exceptions to this.
Q. And so you admit that what you’re saying isn’t a fixed rule. It’s just what happens occasionally.
A. Not occasionally, but in the great majority of cases. In the average case. People went on for decades thinking that they might be the exception about smoking. Everyone saw elderly people who were smokers. That was the beauty of the surgeon general’s report. It laid out the statistics showing that the exceptions don’t really matter. Smoking is intrinsically unsafe, regardless of the exceptions.
Q. And so it makes no difference to you that there are faithful same-sex couples that live long, healthy lives.
A. Look, you can find exceptions about anything harmful you can name. I’ve studied the history of slavery as a social institution. You can find many examples where slaveholders treated their slaves with kindness and respect. It was a consideration that sustained the legitimacy of slavery for a very long time. That doesn’t alter the fact that slavery is intrinsically harmful to people.
Q. The Bible supported slavery too, didn’t it?
A. That’s subject to dispute, but I’m not here to discuss the Bible or defend the Bible. In fact, so long as the public discussion revolves around the Bible, then it’s going to move in favor of legitimizing homosexuality, because everyone has the right as a citizen to reject the authority of the Bible.
Q. But you affirm the authority of the Bible, is that right?
A. I accept it as a compendium of wisdom on the basis of human experience.
Q. And is this wisdom infallible?
A. Well, there are some things in the Old Testament that are just ceremonial. Those things aren’t to be taken as universal wisdom. Otherwise, I don’t know. I haven’t considered the question enough to have a settled opinion. I’m not here as a theologian. I’m a social scientist.
DEFENSE. No further questions.
JUDGE. Does the Prosecution have any questions on redirect? Or do you have further witnesses.
PROSECUTION. No, Your Honor. The prosecution rests.
JUDGE. The defense will call witnesses.
DEFENSE. The Reverend Price to the stand. (Priest)
Q. You are a priest in the Episcopal Church, am I correct.
A. I am.
Q. Can you speak on behalf of the accused?
A. I am not authorized to speak on his behalf. However, I am acquainted with him and, so far as I am aware, agree with him on this issue and on theological matters generally.
Q. The charge is involuntary manslaughter on the basis that he influenced at least one man to form a homosexual relationship, leading to the sickness that killed him. What is your reaction to this charge?
A. It’s the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard of. The whole premise of this trial is absolutely absurd. I was not present at the time of this counseling, and so I am only assuming that he did so counsel this young man, but the idea of manslaughter is nonsense. I am certain that he had the best interest of the young man at heart and based his counseling on his long experience.
JUDGE. The witness will note that the defendant isn’t being charged with intent to kill.
We are referring to involuntary manslaughter, not voluntary.
Q. Please continue.
A. You have to understand the situations that we sometimes have to deal with in the area of counseling. A young person will come in who has homosexual tendencies, and he might be deeply distressed about this. I’ve been in this situation, and I just can’t describe how terrified a young man can be that his friends will make fun of him and that it’s time that we affirm these people and not make second-class human beings out of them.
Q. And so, are you saying that you would recommend forming that kind of same-sex relationship?
A. Not necessarily. The rules should be the same whether it’s same-sex or opposite sex. Just having physical desire and a liking for another isn’t enough. There has to be respect and commitment.
Q. And what about the possibility that physical harm will result.
A. I’m a priest and a theologian. I’m not a doctor. I will just say as a priest and as a theologian that these are often acceptable and life-affirming relationships and that those who are in them are following Christ.
Q. As a theologian, what is the Bible’s position about this? Doesn’t Scripture oppose these relationships?
A. I have written extensively about this subject. There are some prohibitions in the Old Testament, but these have been superseded along with the dietary prohibitions. In the New Testament, there are a couple of apparent references, but these were to cultic practices and also to practices that went against the inclinations given to certain people by God, which are reflected in many of the same-sex relationships we’re affirming today. And of course, even slavery was taken for granted in those days, so we don’t have to take things in the Bible so strictly.
DEFENSE. Your witness.
Q. Wouldn’t you say that slavery finally was prohibited because certain Christians such as William Wilberforce and Harriet Beecher Stowe and John Brown felt it was a barbaric practice, based on New Testament ideas of compassion.
A. I’d say that sounds like a reasonable statement, but they weren’t basing their compassion on some fundamentalist or literal reading of the Bible.
Q. But based on the Bible, in any case.
DEFENSE. Objection, Your Honor, we’re not here to debate slavery. That issue was settled long ago.
JUDGE. Sustained. Move on.
Q. Wouldn’t you say that if were shown that people who engage in homosexual practices shorten their lives that it would be a matter of Christian compassion to counsel them against such practices.
A. I’m not a doctor and am not qualified to speak on medical issues.
Q. Let me rephrase the question. If the medical evidence were such that it were clear even to the layman that such behavior is harmful, just as doing cocaine is harmful, then wouldn’t it be your duty to counsel people against that behavior?
A. The people who come out with that kind of data are right wingers with a political agenda. You have to be skeptical of it. But to answer your question, I would counsel that all precautions be needed. Safe sex.
Q. And if it were demonstrated to you that there is no such thing as safe sex among homosexuals, that the characteristic practices of homosexuals lead to infection regardless of precautions, and that homosexuals in general die on the average younger than other people for this reason, would you then change the way you counsel people?
A. Listen, you’re talking about the way people are, by nature.
Q. And aren’t pedophiles the way they are, by nature?
A. Now, if you’re connecting homosexuality with pedophilia, that’s an old canard that I won’t put up with here.
Q. The question is what people are by nature. What difference do you think that makes?
A. What difference it makes? Is that your question? Isn’t it obvious? If someone has the innate and probably genetic predisposition toward homosexual relationships, it’s time we recognized that, and not just out of compassion but out of respect for something that’s life-affirming.
Q. How young does a person have to die as a result of some practice before you stop calling it life-affirming?
DEFENSE. Objection, Your Honor. Counsel is badgering the witness.
JUDGE. I’ll allow this question. Repeat it, please.
Q. How many years does a certain behavior have to take off of a man’s life before you will stop referring to that behavior as life-affirming?
A. I mean life affirming in the sense that each partner affirms the life of the other. I mean loving and self-sacrificing. That aspect of these relationships cannot be denied.
Q. But if it shortens the life of each partner, isn’t that death-affirming?
DEFENSE. Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE. Sustained. You’ve made your point.
PROSECUTION. No further questions.
JUDGE. You may step down. Does the defense have further witnesses?
DEFENSE. I do, Your Honor. I call Mr. Prescott to the stand.
Q. Mr. Prescott, this is not your real name, is that right.
A. Well, that’s right, even though I am willing to use my real name, but for purposes of this proceeding, I’ll use that name. I’d like to state for the record that I don’t much care for the premise of this proceeding. I think there’s a political agenda behind all of this and it’s not one that respects the rights of gays and lesbians.
Q. Tell the jury what you do.
A. I’m an executive in one of the gay and lesbian rights organizations.
Q. Hence we can assume that you affirm the normality and general legitimacy of homosexuality.
A. Of course. It’s something that people with an open mind are just coming to realize, much as they slowly came to realize that African-Americans are people with rights and that women are people with rights. As for this notion that it’s intrinsically unhealthy, that’s bigoted claptrap. I’m gay myself, and I’m healthier than most people I know.
Q. You don’t deny, however, that the incidence of AIDS is higher among gays than among the general population.
A. That’s true, and it’s also true that some gays are engaging in unsafe practices, and it’s one of the objectives of our organization to heighten awareness of the dangers of those practices.
Q. What about the contention that gays die younger, even when the practices are safe and there is fidelity.
A. Well, you have to consider the fact that there’s a great deal of social isolation among gays. Gays are just beginning to gain the kind of acceptance they deserve and to be integrated into the mainstream. If you take other groups who are socially isolated, such as unmarried heterosexuals, you’re going to find that the life expectancy is shorter.
Q. And so what is it that people on the other side of this issue are failing to understand, in your view.
A. Well, the most common thing that bigoted people…
PROSECUTION. Objection. Your Honor. This reference to bigoted people and to bigotry sound like a lot of name-calling. That’s the sort of thing that this type of proceeding is designed to avoid.
JUDGE. Sustained. The term bigot implies that the witnesses for the prosecution hold a view that assumes lack of thought or due consideration of the issues involved, a kind of blindness. Please use another term.
A. Well, the most common attitude of people who don’t like gays…
JUDGE. Objection, Your Honor. The other witnesses never said they didn’t like gays. What they said was…
JUDGE. Overruled. I heard what they said. The jury will sort this out. The witness will continue.
A. People who don’t like gays don’t realize that gays have the same need for love that anyone has. Secondly, they don’t understand that they have rights before the law in a free country, the same rights that anyone has. Gays need to be safe from bigots, safe from people who are telling them they’re disease ridden and that sort of thing. This is a new era, an era of respect.
Q. You’ll concede that there are health issues that pertain specifically to gays.
A. Yes, and there are sex-related health issues that pertain specifically to straights. The fundamentalists keep hammering us with this kind of thing, but they seem to leave that point out.
PROSECUTOR. Objection. Your Honor. We don’t have fundamentalists testifying here.
JUDGE. The jury is instructed to take that fact into account.
DEFENSE. No further questions. Your witness.
Q. Are you aware of the evidence that in the general population, about 15 percent are over the age of 65, compared to less than one percent in the gay population?
A. Well I hadn’t heard that statistic before today. But I doubt the accuracy of it, because people don’t self-identify as gay as much as they should, especially older people. Also I notice that it’s right wing groups that propagate that kind of statistic. And the methodology of the guy who got his stats by reading obituaries is obviously ridiculous.
Q. But a journal published by Oxford University called the International Journal of Epidemiology found that gays in a Canadian city had a life expectancy equal to people in the year 1871. Are you in favor of driving gays from the 21st century back into the 19th?
DEFENSE. Objection. Your Honor.
JUDGE. Sustained.
Q. I’ll rephrase that. Do you find that to be an interesting study?
A. I’ve read it. I’ve also read the statement made by that publication that the study should never be used as an excuse to threaten the civil liberties of gays and lesbians.
Q. This isn’t a case about civil liberties but one of whether or not those who want to legitimize homosexuality are helping gays or whether those who oppose legitimizing homosexuality are helping gays.
A. Don’t give me this garbage about how you’re helping gays. This whole point is just another ruse to legitimize hate speech. That’s the kind of legitimacy you want.
Q. Do you think it’s impossible that those who oppose what your organization is doing might have the best interest of gays and lesbians at heart?
A. Not impossible, but they’re seriously deluded. You’ve got to start getting it, mister. Start getting the fact that we’re proud of who we are. And those who aren’t proud about being gay and lesbian, those who are still into self-pity or inferiority about it, have the opportunity to learn the reasons why they should be proud.
Q. Do you think the gay health crisis is confined to the question of AIDS?
A. There is no more crisis, even though an organization with that name got started when AIDS couldn’t be controlled and hasn’t changed its name. The real crisis is one of bigotry, one of hate, one of continuing backlash against a group that is gradually proving itself to be worthy of pride, their own pride in themselves and America’s pride in them as fellow citizens and fellow employees.
Q. I’d like to ask a question regarding your comment about social isolation being the cause of gays dying young.
A. Go right ahead.
Q. If you walked into a hospital room where some 44-year-old gay man was dying of multiple infections, would you turn to the doctor and say, “Well, this is one of the worst cases of social isolation I’ve ever seen.”
DEFENSE. Objection. Objection. Your Honor, this is exactly the sort of ridicule and badgering that the witness has been complaining about. It has no place in this proceeding.
A. Never mind. Your Honor, I’d like to respond.
JUDGE. Go ahead.
A. We can all feel the hostility of this kind of bigot. We will fight against your type. We will eventually win. And American business and other organizations and American society will be the winner too. Diversity will be seen as a strength.
Q. Regardless of whether gays and lesbians reach the age of 55, right?
A. Regardless of what people like you say here or in the newspapers or anywhere else. Time is on our side, and your antiquarian views are becoming history.
PROSECUTION. No further questions.
DEFENSE. Your Honor, the defense rests its case.
JUDGE. There will now be summations. First, the Defense.
DEFENSE. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. You have heard testimony in one of the most extraordinary cases imaginable. A man who is now a bishop had counseled another man to follow his natural inclination to enter into a relationship with a gay man. This was many years ago, when the bishop was a priest, and it was his honest conviction that he was acting in a way that was respectful of the young man’s God-given identity. Later, there were consequences, certain infections, that were attributed to his homosexual behavior, and the defense has stipulated as to the accuracy of this characterization of the facts.
The core of the matter, however, remains unproved. The core of the matter is the speculative question as to whether or not homosexual behavior leads to the untimely death of those who participate in it. Clearly there are some forms of homosexual behavior that have this result. However, to suggest that it’s the intrinsic nature of naturally gay people to be disease-ridden is not only untrue but it is so deeply offensive that many question quite reasonably whether it should be permitted in the realm of public discourse. My own view is that it should be legal but that it should be shunned by all people who affirm a society of compassion and mutual respect. That is the kind of society that you can affirm by a verdict of not guilty. By rendering this verdict, you will also be affirming the integrity of all compassionate counselors who seek the highest well-being of those who come to them for help. Thank you for your attention.
JUDGE. Finally, the summation by the Prosecution.
PROSECUTION. Ladies and Gentlemen, we face an astounding situation in society today. Those who are inclined toward homosexuality, many of whom would have avoided acting on that inclination in a previous era, are now being encouraged to affirm and to take pride in it. For centuries, it has been observed that homosexuals are hard to find beyond a certain age. This just is not, on the whole, a survivable activity. In previous centuries in Europe, they were put into prisons, and the prison wardens would observe that there was hardly anyone in the older age categoes in that situation. Even if AIDS weren’t in the picture, the infections that are created when the body is used in ways other than the things for which nature created it, the result is life shortening. The bishop removed the last hindrance from this young man who might otherwise have avoided a way of life that would eventually kill him. He was a close relation of mine and I know that it was the bishop’s counsel, back when he was still a priest, that made the critical difference. It’s true, of course, that the young man in question bore some responsibility himself. I knew this young man. I am the one who began taking action to create this trial. What this bishop did amounts to clerical malpractice so severe that it should be regarded ethically as involuntary manslaughter. I ask for no criminal indictment. But for the sake of those who might still avoid acting on this lethal inclination, I ask you to render a verdict of guilty. Thank you.
JUDGE The jury will now retire to consider the evidence and render a verdict.
# # #
THE NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS OF
HOMOSEXUALITY
________________________________________
Homosexual activists attempt to portray their lifestyle as normal and healthy, and insist that homosexual relationships are the equivalent in every way to their heterosexual counterparts. Hollywood and the media relentlessly propagate the image of the fit, healthy, and well-adjusted homosexual. The reality is quite opposite to this caricature which was recently conceded by the homosexual newspaper New York Blade News:
Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe hiv is no longer a life-threatening illness.1
Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships. These two factors increase the incidence of serious and incurable STDs. In addition, some homosexual behaviors put practitioners at higher risk for a variety of ailments, as catalogued by the following research data:
Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. Despite two decades of intensive efforts to educate homosexuals against the dangers of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other STDs, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices that often result in various diseases is on the rise.
• According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting "always" using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent.2
• The CDC reported that during the same period the proportion of men reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent. The largest increase in this category (from 22 percent to 33.3 percent) was reported by homosexuals twenty-five years old or younger.3
Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
• A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with HIV "continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV."4 Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.5
• A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.6
Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk. Following in the footsteps of the generation of homosexuals decimated by AIDS, younger homosexuals are engaging in dangerous sexual practices at an alarming rate.
• A Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health study of three-hundred-sixty-one young men who have sex with men (MSM) aged fifteen to twenty-two found that around 40 percent of participants reported having had anal-insertive sex, and around 30 percent said they had had anal-receptive sex. Thirty-seven percent said they had not used a condom for anal sex during their last same-sex encounter. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported using drugs or alcohol during their last same-sex encounter.7
• A five-year CDC study of 3,492 homosexual males aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one-quarter had unprotected sex with both men and women. Another CDC study of 1,942 homosexual and bisexual men with HIV found that 19 percent had at least one episode of unprotected anal sex—the riskiest sexual behavior—in 1998 and 1997, a 50 percent increase from the previous two years.8
Homosexual Promiscuity. Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
• A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.9
• In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.10
• A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.11
• In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."12
Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" typically means something radically different from marriage.
• In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.13
• In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.14
Unhealthy Aspects of "Monogamous" Homosexual Relationships. Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.
• The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner.15 Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
• The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.16
Human Papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a collection of more than seventy types of viruses that can cause warts, or papillomas, on various parts of the body. More than twenty types of HPV are incurable STDs that can infect the genital tract of both men and women. Most HPV infections are subclinical or asymptomatic, with only one in a hundred people experiencing genital warts.
• HPV is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV."17
• HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that "most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies."18
• The link between HPV and cervical cancer. Citing a presentation by Dr. Stephen Goldstone to the International Congress on Papillomavirus in Human Pathology in Paris, The Washington Blade reports that "HPV is believed to cause cervical cancer in women."19
Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.
• Hepatitis A: The Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC reports: "Outbreaks of hepatitis A among men who have sex with men are a recurring problem in many large cities in the industrialized world."20
• Hepatitis B: This is a serious disease caused by a virus that attacks the liver. The virus, which is called hepatitis B virus (HBV), can cause lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and death. Each year in the United States, more than 200,000 people of all ages contract hepatitis B and close to 5,000 die of sickness caused by AIDS. The CDC reports that MSM are at increased risk for hepatitis B.21
• Hepatitis C is an inflammation of the liver that can cause cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer. The virus can lie dormant in the body for up to thirty years before flaring up. Although less so than with hepatitis A and B, MSM who engage in unsafe sexual practices remain at increased risk for contracting hepatitis C.22
Gonorrhea: An inflammatory disease of the genital tract. Gonorrhea traditionally occurs on the genitals, but has recently appeared in the rectal region and in the throat. Although easily treated by antibiotics, according to the CDC only "about 50 percent of men have some signs or symptoms, and "many women who are infected have no symptoms of infection."23 Untreated gonorrhea can have serious and permanent health consequences, including infertility damage to the prostate and urethra.
• A CDC report documents "significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM," indicating that "safe sex" practices may not be taken as seriously as the AIDS epidemic begins to slow.24 In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.25
• The incidence of throat Gonorrhea is strongly associated with homosexual behavior. The Canadian Medical Association Journal found that "gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge . . . and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals)."26 Similarly, a study in the Journal of Clinical Pathology found that homosexual men had a much higher prevalence of pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea—15.2 percent compared with 4.1 percent for heterosexual men.27
Syphilis: A venereal disease that, if left untreated, can spread throughout the body over time, causing serious heart abnormalities, mental disorders, blindness, and death. The initial symptoms of syphilis are often mild and painless, leading some individuals to avoid seeking treatment. According to the National Institutes of Health, the disease may be mistaken for other common illnesses: "syphilis has sometimes been called ‘the great imitator’ because its early symptoms are similar to those of many other diseases." Early symptoms include rashes, moist warts in the groin area, slimy white patches in the mouth, or pus-filled bumps resembling chicken pox.28
• According to the CDC, "transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex."29 In addition, the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals.30
• The CDC reports that those who contract syphilis face potentially deadly health consequences: "It is now known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is a two to five fold increased risk of acquiring HIV infection when syphilis is present."31
Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS):32 The Journal of the American Medical Association refers to GBS problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis as "sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes."33 Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause GBS are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system: According to the pro-homosexual text Anal Pleasure and Health, "[s]exual activities provide many opportunities for tiny amounts of contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of a sexual partner . . . The most direct route is oral-anal contact."34
• Proctitis and Proctocolitis are inflammations of the rectum and colon that cause pain, bloody rectal discharge and rectal spasms. Proctitis is associated with STDs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis that are widespread among homosexuals.35 The Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "[p]roctitis occurs predominantly among persons who participate in anal intercourse."
• Enteritis is inflammation of the small intestine. According to the Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association, "enteritis occurs among those whose sexual practices include oral-fecal contact."36 Enteritis can cause abdominal pain, severe cramping, intense diarrhea, fever, malabsorption of nutrients, weight loss.37 According to a report in The Health Implications of Homosexuality by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, some pathogens associated with enteritis and proctocolitis [see below] "appear only to be sexually transmitted among men who have sex with men."38
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.
• Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, "men who have sex with men" and "men who have sex with men and inject drugs" together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.39
• Women risk contracting HIV/AIDS through sexual relations with infected MSM. According to the CDC, "HIV infection among U.S. women has increased significantly over the last decade, especially in communities of color. CDC estimates that, in the United States, between 120,000 and 160,000 adult and adolescent females are living with HIV infection, including those with AIDS." In 1999, for example, most of the women (40 percent) reported with AIDS were infected through heterosexual exposure to HIV.40 That number is actually higher, as "historically, more than two-thirds of AIDS cases among women initially reported without identified risk were later reclassified as heterosexual transmission."41
• Homosexuals with HIV are at increased risk for developing other life-threatening diseases. A paper delivered at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health reported that homosexual men with HIV have "a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-fold increase in Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5 fold increase in lip cancer."42
HIV/AIDS Among Young People
• AIDS incidence is on the rise among teens and young adults. The CDC reports that, "even though AIDS incidence (the number of new cases diagnosed during a given time period, usually a year) is declining, there has not been a comparable decline in the number of newly diagnosed HIV cases among youth.43
• Young homosexual men are at particular risk. The CDC estimates that "at least half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among people under twenty-five, and the majority of young people are infected sexually."44 By the end of 1999, 29,629 young people aged thirteen to twenty-four were diagnosed with AIDS in the United States. MSM were the single largest risk category: in 1999, for example, 50 percent of all new AIDS cases were reported among young homosexuals.45
• Sexually active young women are also at risk. The CDC reports: "In 1999, among young women the same age, 47 percent of all AIDS cases reported were acquired heterosexually and 11 percent were acquired through injection drug use."
Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection. Studies of MSM treated in STD clinics show rates of infection as high as 36 percent in major cities.46 A CDC study attributed the high infection rate to having high numbers of anonymous sex partners: "[S]yphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia apparently have been introduced into a population of MSM who have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid and extensive transmission of STDs."47 The CDC report concluded: "Persons with STDs, including genital ulcer disease and nonulcerative STD, have a twofold to fivefold increased risk for HIV infection."48
Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
• Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer."49
• At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV "was raised 37-fold compared with the general population."50
Lesbians are at Risk through Sex with MSM
• Many Lesbians also have had sex with men. The homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade, citing a 1998 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, reported that "the study’s data confirmed previous scientific observations that most women who have sex with women also have had sex with men."51 The study added that "sex with men in the prior year was common, as were sexual practices between female partners that possibly could transmit HPV."52
• Lesbians have more male sex partners that their heterosexual counterparts. A study of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians reviewed in The Washington Blade notes: "Behavioral research also demonstrates that a woman’s sexual identity is not an accurate predictor of behavior, with a large proportion of ‘lesbian’ women reporting sex with (often high risk) men."53 The study found that "the median number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for WSW (women who have sex with women) than controls (twelve partners versus six). WSW were significantly more likely to report more than fifty lifetime male sexual partners."54
• A study in the American Journal of Public Health concurs that bisexual women are at increased risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases: "Our findings corroborate the finding that WSMW (women who have sex with men and women) are more likely than WSMO (women who have sex with men only) to engage in various high-risk behaviors" and also "to engage in a greater number of risk-related behaviors."55 The study suggested that the willingness to engage in risky sexual practices "could be tied to a pattern of sensation-seeking behavior."56
• MSM spread HIV to women. A five-year study by the CDC of 3,492 homosexuals aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one in six also had sex with women. Of those having sex with women, one-quarter "said they recently had unprotected sex with both men and women." Nearly 7 percent of the men in the study were HIV positive."57 "The study confirms that young bisexual men are a ‘bridge’ for HIV transmission to women," said the CDC.58
"Exclusive" Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk. The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false. The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections concludes: "The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW was similar to all WSW."59 One reason for this is because lesbians "were significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user)."60
Cancer Risk Factors for Lesbians. Citing a 1999 report released by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade notes that "various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight."61 Elsewhere the Blade also reports: "Some experts believe Lesbians might be more likely than women in general to develop breast or cervical cancer because a disproportionate number of them fall into high-risk categories."62
Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Lesbians
• In a study of the medical records of 1,408 lesbians, the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections found that women who have sexual relations with women are at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: "We demonstrated a higher prevalence of BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls."63
Compulsive Behavior among Lesbians. A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviors: "Like most problem drinkers, 32 (91 percent) of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34 percent), codependency (29 percent), sex (11 percent), and money (6 percent)." In addition, "Forty-six percent had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness."64
Alcohol Abuse Among Homosexuals and Lesbians
• The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than heterosexual women.65 Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent).66
• Although the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists article found no significant connection between male homosexuals and alcohol abuse, a study in Family Planning Perspective concluded that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: "Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking."67 The study noted that problem drinking may contribute to the "significantly higher STD rates among gay and bisexual men."68
Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.
• A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.69
• In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."70
• In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."71
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:
• The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.72
• A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred,
It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships.73
High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness:
Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.74
Greater Risk for Suicide.
• A study of twins that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems, and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders.75
• Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed 1,007 individuals from birth. Those classified as "gay," lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems.76 Significantly, in his comments on the studies in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that "widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill."77
Reduced Life Span. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:
In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.78
In 1995, long after the deadly effects of AIDS and other STDs became widely known, homosexual author Urvashi Vaid expressed one of the goals of her fellow activists: "We have an agenda to create a society in which homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural, and normal. To me that is the most important agenda item."79 Debilitating illness, chronic disease, psychological problems, and early death suffered by homosexuals is the legacy of this tragically misguided activism, which puts the furthering of an "agenda" above saving the lives of those whose interests they purport to represent.
Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens.
For Immediate Release
CODE ANNOUNCED BY EPISCOPALIANS FOR GENERAL CONVENTION
“Columbus Code” to Protect Gays and Lesbians
New York, NY ... The Episcopal Church USA announces its intention to promulgate a code at the General Convention that will be helpful to those trying to protect gays and lesbians from the hurtful anti-gay attitudes. This code will be used not only by those evaluating candidates for ministry but also by sincere Christians evaluating candidates for secular employment.
“The complete document will be made available at the time of General Convention in Columbus, Ohio,” said the Most Rev. Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop. “However, we thought that publishing a draft portion of the code would be a good idea, along with illustrative examples.” This section of the code is as follows:
1. It will be deemed anti-gay and a violation of the Columbus Code to suggest that gay sex is inherently dangerous. The studies that have often been cited to this effect have caused incalculable hurt to gays and lesbians. The pro-gay attitude is to regard such studies as a form of hate speech.
2. It will be deemed anti-gay and a violation of the Columbus Code to state that gay sex leads to early death. An example would be the offensive study showing that only one percent of gays are over 65 as opposed to 15 percent in the general population and also the Oxford University publication stating that gay life expectancy is equal to that of the general population in 1871. The pro-gay attitude is to consider such studies a form of bigotry.
3. It will be deemed anti-gay and a violation of the Columbus Code to state that gays seeking to be sincere Christians are commonly condemned to a life of lonely search for faithful love in a culture consumed with pornography and competitive lust. The pro-gay attitude is to dismiss such claims as a form of internalized homophobia.
4. It will be deemed anti-gay and a violation of the Columbus Code to state that someone has stopped engaging in gay sex under the influence of the Scriptures and a relationship with Christ and has experienced a sense of liberation as a result. The correct attitude is to consider such stories as symptoms of self-hatred influenced by heterosexualist chauvinism.
Bishop Griswold commented in conclusion that “The Columbus Code will be a giant step toward assuring that Episcopalians will understand the hurtful nature of rhetoric that comes out of ignorance and, as a result, will join the ranks of those who are truly welcoming gays and lesbians into the kind of pastoral care they deserve.”
It’s been said that we can understand experience with the help of the Bible and we can understand the Bible with the help of experience. This idea is useful when analyzing homosexuality and may lead to insights that are more compelling than those that have been the focus of debate so far.
Let’s look first at another issue, one that was settled long ago, to clarify the concept. Slavery was defended by many intellectually and scripturally until certain writings clarified the overall aggregate experience of that evil institution. It doesn’t really matter that there were some slaveholders who treated their slaves with kindness and respect. It was writings such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin that finally illuminated the reality of slavery. Viewed in its totality, with the buying, selling, and separation of families, it became clear that slavery means reducing a human being to the status of a piece of property. Keeping that in mind, it is helpful to go to the New Testament and ask: “What is God’s view of the individual human being?” Then the fact that Jesus died for us comes into view as do the teachings of Jesus about the lost sheep and others that make it clear that God views each of us to be of infinite value. Hence the viewpoint of the New Testament is diametrically opposed to the essence of slavery, and it is important that we make no exceptions. It becomes clearer when we analyze the Biblical perspective on the issue in this way than it is if we analyze particular verses, which was once common on that subject.
Certain modern issues may also be clarified in this way. In fact it can be helpful to use modern tools of analysis, such as statistical measurement, to make the clarification. For instance, many people defend the practice of unmarried people living together on the grounds that this will show whether or not they are compatible before marriage. Clearly this is against the teaching of the Bible. Should we assume, therefore, that the Bible is simply out of date? Should we regard it as a matter in which God is offended but people are actually benefited? No, because the matter has been analyzed statistically, and it has been shown that divorces are far more common among those who have been living together prior to marriage – in fact, over 50% higher.
Looking at total or aggregate experience is helpful regarding many other issues -- for instance, smoking. Years ago, most people regarded smoking as being healthy enough in some cases, because everyone knew someone who didn’t seem to be affected adversely. It was the Surgeon General’s report that looked at the total health picture of the population and clarified that the practice of smoking is intrinsically unhealthy, regardless of the apparent exceptions. That view is now the national consensus.
Regarding homosexuality, the erroneous conclusion of many is that acting out on those impulses is beneficial to those who happen to be inclined in that way. However, the consensus of medical analysis is quite to the contrary. It is somewhat analogous to smoking, because it’s a matter of the body being used in a way that is not intended by nature and which the body eventually can no longer tolerate. In the case of homosexuality, in other words, it’s not a matter of whether multiple partners are involved, whether condoms are used, or whether it seems to do no harm in certain specifiable cases. The reality is that safe sex among homosexuals is a myth.
Here’s a short statement of readily available evidence. The practice leads to:
(1) seven types of venereal disease;
(2) nine types of liver ailments;
(3) 10 types of trauma, e.g., fecal incontinence—for a total of 26 diseases (Journal of Adolescent Medicine);
(4) high risk of hepatitis B (New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the
American Medical Association);
(5) a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in the year 1871 (International
Journal of Epidemiology published by Oxford University);
(6) proctitis associated with the gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis widespread
among homosexuals (Health Implications and Journal of the American Medical
Association);
(7) among lesbians, a higher prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C (Sexually
Transmitted Infections – a journal).
Hence by analyzing aggregate experience it becomes clearer that a person who indulges his or her inclination toward this behavior is not only engaging in self-destruction but also in the destruction of others (the partners). It then becomes obvious that anyone who encourages such behavior is implicated in the negative consequences of it and is therefore culpable – more than the participants themselves, because it is relatively easy to avoid false encouragements.
From this broad-based consideration of human experience, we can analyze the viewpoint of God without proof-texting based on particular verses (while acknowledging that this can also have value). We know from the obvious testimony of the New Testament that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, that we are called to do good and not harm to one another, and that that we are not called to do anything that will result in the self-destruction that results from many activities condemned in the Bible. Nothing commanded in the Bible is intrinsically harmful to humanity, and nothing prohibited in the Bible is intrinsically good for humanity. Analysis of the total picture of human experience is sometimes needed to make the wisdom of the Bible clear.
The Exodus of Brokeback Moses
(In which an Episcopal bishop is visited by a committee
of newly-awakened laity not long after the General Convention of 2006)
“I thought the people in the pews
Would understand my brilliant views!
You Scripture types are filled with hate.”
“Sorry, bishop, it’s too late.”
“But I’m blazing new terrain!
Bursting the bonds of gay oppression!”
“In reality the only gain
Is in disease and in depression.
Like Ahab searching for the whale
Or Percival searching for the Holy Grail
Each gay is doing all he can
To find that mythical faithful man.”
“But I really think I have the answer!”
“By raising rates of anal cancer?”
“But it’s like a rescue from King Cyrus!”
“You gave them papilloma virus.
Only one percent of gays
Is over sixty-five
How can you call it liberation,
When folks just aren’t alive?”***
“But I graced them with my erudition!”
“Sorry, tonight’s your last rendition.”
“But really now, I carried their load!”
“Sorry, bishop, hit the road.”
“But I’m a prophet and you’re uptight,
This is not what one supposes!”
“It’s obvious we’ve got it right
And you’re not exactly Moses.”
*** Why? Seven types of venereal disease, nine types of liver ailments (e.g., hepatitis), and 10 types of trauma, e.g., fecal incontinence—for a total of 26 diseases (Journal of Adolescent Medicine); high risk of acquiring hepatitis B (New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association); a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in the year 1871 (International Journal of Epidemiology); most unsafe sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships (AIDS --a journal); proctitis associated with the gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis widespread among homosexuals (Health Implications and Journal of the American Medical Association); among lesbians: a higher prevalence of BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors (Sexually Transmitted Infections – a journal).
anoyymous, can you say, "I feel very threatened by this blog?"
Post a Comment