AOL File Library: 4,701 to 4,800/aol-file-protocol-4400-4701-to-4800.zip/AOLDLs/Social Issues & Comments/Gay Rights - Response/¤¤Gay Rights Response

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 19KB | 309 lines

The Moral and Legal Nightmare of the Christian Rights Opposition to Gay Rights!
A response to an article by Warren E. Berkley originally written in 1991 and
posted in the Religion Library of America Onlin.
This response assumes that the reader has already read the original article and
will likely make little sense without that original article to refer to. It will
follow the same paragraphing format as Mr. Berkley's article.
HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT
Berkley claims that the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion, which many mark as the
beginning of the modern day gay rights movement, "started out as a routine
police raid on a bar known for illegal sexual behavior." While the raid was
indeed routine, it had
nothing to do with "illegal sexual behavior." The only "illegal behavior"
occurring was the practice of drinking alcoholic beverages while standing,
something that was at that time illegal in New York City, even though it was
almost never enforced
against heterosexual bars. This law was used by corrupt police as a means of
shaking down gay bars for payoffs, and the owners of the Stonewall Inn had
slipped behind in their payments. Gay bars were considered fair game by the
police, and the
harassment of gays and lesbians was routine. On the night of Stonewall, gay men
and lesbians took a stand against this illegal harassment by fighting back.
GAY RIGHTS VICTORIES
Already achieved:
[1] Georgetown University accepts millions of dollars in government funding and
therefore cannot claim to be a totally private religious institution. They
accept students from a variety of non-Catholic faiths. The school is run as a
secular
institution and cannot be exempted from the law (in this case, the local human
rights law).
[2] In most high schools in the country, heterosexuals make efforts to find the
prettiest girl. They call them "Homecoming Queens," and no one on the religious
right has yet raised a cry of alarm about that.
[3] No public money has ever been used to encourage "elementary school students
to think of perverted acts as normal," nor "to urge juveniles to consider
experimentation with homosexual acts." This is simply a lie.
[4] In the opinion of a vast majority of health professionals (both gay and
straight) who deal with AIDS issues, anonymous testing is the best way to gain a
high rate of testing participation. In the absence of a viable cure for AIDS,
there is
little to be gained by tracing of sexual contacts. AIDS is not syphilis.
[5] Cancer, too, can be avoided by changing one's behavior (cessation of
smoking, for example). Money spent on AIDS research is also likely to produce
collateral discoveries of use in treating cancer and other diseases.
[6] "Gay Pride Days" were never designed nor intended to "celebrate sexually
deviant behavior." They are designed and intended to celebrate the history of
courage shown by gays and lesbians, to celebrate their perseverance in the face
of adversity
and discrimination, and to celebrate the accomplishments of gays and lesbians as
individuals and as a member of the communities in which they live.
If these are the best examples Mr. Berkley was able to generate in 1991, one can
only hope he has learned something new in the intervening two years.
Facing
Crucial
Issues
Mr. Berkley says the "object of this article is not to demonstrate the
sinfulness of homosexuality." Good, because he doesn't come close to
demonstrating it. There is no formal "Gay Rights Aggenda <sic>" and never has
been one. That's just one more
of the code phrases bandied about by the radical religious fringe to stir up
discontent and generate hatred against gays and lesbians; other similar phrases
are "traditional family values" (a phrase which I've never seen codified) and
"special
rights" (when gays have asked only for equality before the law). Mr. Berkley
doesn't explain what he means by the incendiary phrase "rally to the point of
attack against" gays, but arson, beatings, and murder directed against gays and
lesbians is
the visible result of such rhetoric. Gay Rights doesn't have a "burden" (a
peculiar choice of syntax), but it does share some common goals. Those goals do
not include declaring "every form of sexual behavior amoral," nor do they
include gaining "the
public acceptance of sexual deviance."
1. Mr. Berkley claims "The view is being advanced that God should concur with
whatever we decide makes us feel good." No gay or lesbian leader has ever
advanced such a notion. No gay religious leader has implied this. Mr. Berkley is
engaging in a
straw man argument here; he sets up a straw man (an argument that has never been
made) and then proceeds to shoot it down.
The limited Biblical references Mr. Berkley refers to have been discussed at
length in other areas of AOL's Religion Forum. The consensus on the part of
faithful gay and lesbian Christians and many others within the Christian faith
who have studied
these verses in both the earliest Greek and Hebrew texts and their modern
English translations equivalents is that some of those verses never had anything
to do with homosexuality at all, and the rest spoke only of a stylized
ritualistic sexual
activity that was part of some pagan cults of the day. They did not refer to
committed same-sex relationships such as the gay and lesbian relationships we
know today.
2. Acceptance of those different from oneself, of "the stranger among us," is at
the core of the Christian message. Gays and lesbians do not seek to be delivered
from the "sin of homosexuality" because they know it is not a sin in the first
place.
They don't ask forgiveness from other church members because no forgiveness is
necessary (on the basis of sexual orientation, that is). They ask that "judge
not, lest ye be judged" be remembered by those who claim to be Christians, and
they ask that
they be judged on their works, good or evil, rather than on their sexual
orientation which has no moral or immoral attribute.
Mr. Berkley says "we must never surrender to the theory that homosexuality is
genetically determined." In an earlier time, Mr. Berkley would have been
insisting that the world is flat, or that the earth was the center of the
universe. He would have
been equally wrong. While there is still not sufficient evidence to prove,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, that homosexuality is genetically determined, all
available evidence to date points in that direction (including several studies
completed in the
two years since Mr. Berkley wrote his article) and there is no evidence
supporting a contrary view. Mr. Berkley says he won't surrender to the theory; I
wonder at what point he might surrender to the overwhelming scientific fact?
4. Some gay activists are atheists, agnostics, or believers in a faith different
from God-centered Christianity. Others are born-again fundamentalists who
believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Lots of good Christians share the
Rev. Carter's
view that "The Bible was not meant to be a rigid rule book." Those who believe
it IS a rigid rule book (especially radical fundamentalists) seem to have great
difficulty following all the rules contained therein.
If we believe what the Bible says, we must acknowledge that being gay or lesbian
is no bar to eternal peace with Our Father. For example, Luke 17:34-35, wherein
Jesus tells about the coming of the Kingdom: "I tell you, in that night there
shall be
two [men] in one bed..." Is Jesus telling us that gayness is neither a bar to
salvation nor a guarantee of it? But Mr. Berkley claims only HIS interpretation
of the Bible is correct (I thought there was only ONE God?!). And he insists
that we must
propagandize and brainwash the young people in the church so they agree with
him.
LOOKING BEHIND THE PUBLIC IMAGE...
GAY RIGHTS:
THE SEMBLANCE VERSUS THE REAL COUNTERPART
First, Mr. Berkley raises the spectre of some nefarious posturing by the gay
community, some "filthy, ungodly culture that is bold, shocking and ugly." Then
he gives his examples which, as before, fail to live up to the billing.
[1] He mentions the Gayellow Pages and describes it semi-accurately as "a
reference book widely circulated in the homosexual community. It gives state
-by-state, city-by-city descriptions of where homosexuals congregate, and what
particular activity is preferred in that place." Coming from Mr. Berkley, one
might assume that he's referring to some God-awful activity. But a glance
through the
Gayellow Pages will show that the "activities" described are dancing, playing
bridge, collecting vintage motor cars, bowling, swimming, playing pool, etc.,
etc. The Gayellow Pages is nothing more than a directory of gay-oriented
businesses and
organizations -- organizations such as churches, sports leagues, legal aid
groups, medical centers, insurance agencies, etc., etc. It's the gay community's
equivalent of the regular Yellow Pages phone book. Horrors! ;)
[2] Mr. Berkley uses the same kind of insinuation in mentioning the Gay Report,
implying that it focuses on bestiality among gays as though that were a common
feature of gay lives. The Gay Report (published in 1977) was a well-researched
objective
survey that sought to describe the homosexual and lesbian experience in America.
It is 816 pages long. The only section that mentions bestiality is barely one
page long and concludes that, while some gay men (just like some straight men)
engage in
bestiality during their adolescent years, such activity "was the experience of
only a few [gay] men...it was not a frequent contemporary pleasure for any."
[3] Since Mr. Berkley cited the Gay Report for his previous "example," one would
think he would have used the same source for his claim that "the typical
homosexual has had over 500 different sexual partners." Of course he can't,
since the Gay
Report doesn't substantiate that figure and, in fact, finds that gay men had
only slightly more sexual partners over a lifetime than straight men of similar
age. While there are individual cases of braggadocio among gay men, just as
there are among
heterosexual men (wasn't it Michael Jordan who claimed 20,000 female partners?;
and do you remember the bragging in the high school or college lockerroom or
fraternity house?), there is no evidence to support Mr. Berkley's claim that
such numbers
are "typical" for gay men.
[4] Of course there is "homosexual involvement with children." Why shouldn't
there be? Homosexuals HAVE children, homosexuals WERE children, homosexuals CARE
FOR children, homosexuals TEACH children in the schools. Homosexuals are part of
society
and, as such, they are also part of the effort to rear, educate, and care for
children of all ages. And it's lucky they are, for growing up gay is
particularly difficult when one has no positive gay roles models to emulate.
That's why gay teenagers
are more likely to attempt suicide (though one might guess Mr. Berkley hopes
more of them succeed at it).
[6] NAMBLA does not claim "there is no such things <sic> as perversion in sexual
desire and practice." NAMBLA does not claim "all forms of sexual activity are
good." But NAMBLA _DOES_ claim that "children should not be denied" sexual
activity, which
is why the vast majority of gays and lesbians, and nearly all gay and lesbian
organizations, have rejected NAMBLA totally. If NAMBLA goals are "the essence of
the Gay Rights Movement," as Mr. Berkley claims, how come virtually every gay
and lesbian
political organization is on record opposing and/or rejecting NAMBLA?
[6] Mr. Berkley says "The reading and research I did prior to writing this
yielded all sorts of sordid, vivid, vulgar information about what homosexuals
do." He declines to share this information with his readers and expects us
instead to simply
take his word for it. But we've already seen how valid his "examples" have been.
And we also know that there are publications and activities within the
heterosexual community that most would consider "sordid, vivid, vulgar," yet we
don't call for an
attack on all heterosexuals. Active heterosexuals spread AIDS, syphilis,
gonorrhea, herpes; they commit crimes (including sexual crimes like rape and
child abuse at a rate far higher than homosexuals); and they contribute to
"lasciviousness and
fornication in general" (Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Swaggart, the Hollywood Madam, et
al). Mr. Berkley hasn't yet issued an article about the "moral and legal
nightmare" of heterosexuality.
Mr. Berkley says the gay movement "would have us picture two men, with a
respectable appearance, strolling down the beach, talking about life and sharing
casual affection." Yes, Mr. Berkley, that's exactly what we would have you
picture, because
that is the reality of our lives. Sorry if the truth blinds you.
EXAMINING A COMMON ARGUMENT FOR GAY RIGHTS
PERSONAL PREFERENCES VERSUS UNCHOSEN CHARACTERISTICS
Mr. Berkley's first error in this section is assuming that a gay orientation is
a matter of "personal preferences." The best evidence to date is that it is
predetermined at birth. Should that be so, it would be exactly like race or
physical handicap
or sex in that it would be innate and not chosen. Further, all studies have
shown that it is impossible for someone to change their sexual orientation in
either direction, regardless of how it was first determined. But even if it were
chosen, so is
religion, yet we don't allow discrimination on the basis of religious
preference.
DRUNKENESS AND HOMOSEXUALITY
1. Homosexuality doesn't begin with a choice. The analogy fails.
2. Homosexuality isn't a transgression of divine law. The passage in I
Corinthians (in its original Greek) did not refer to homosexuals at all, but
rather to debauched heterosexuals. The analogy fails.
3. AIDS isn't caused by homosexuality. It is caused (according to most
researchers) by a virus. It can be spread through any exchange of bodily fluids,
including both heterosexual and homosexual activity. In the absence of the
virus, there is no
risk of AIDS. The analogy fails.
4. Drunks as a group not only ravage their own bodies but create disastrous
consequences for the rest of society through their dangerous behavior (drunk
driving, etc.). The same cannot be said for homosexuals as a group. The analogy
fails.
5. The public acceptance of homosexuality can have nothing but positive effects
on society, resulting in increased toleration, expansion of civil liberties, and
extension of freedom to another 10% of the population. The analogy fails.
GAY RIGHTS VICTORIES, CLOSE TO HOME...
GAY INVOLVEMENT IN SEX EDUCATION
As a Christian, voter, tax-payer and godparent, one think on the radical
fundamentalists' agenda I must be aware of is their effort to assert their
narrow system of Christian intolerance into my goddaughter's educational
curriculum. I'd much rather
my goddaughter learn about sex responsibly than learn to hate those different
from herself.
Any teacher who would flaunt "his sexual aberrations publicly" should be removed
from the school system. But knowing that a teacher is heterosexual (because he
mentions his wife, or wears a wedding ring, or has her boyfriend pick her up
after
school) and knowing a teacher is gay (because he mentions his partner, or wears
a ring bearing a gay symbol, or has her girlfriend pick her up after school) is
not detrimental to any school child and can be very beneficial to those children
who need
to see a positive gay role model (whether that child is gay or not herself).
I wonder what Dr. Silverman is doing these days? ;)
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS...
Let me answer Mr. Berkley's questions: (1) Yes, some homosexuals (some militant,
some not), being good Christians and Jews and members of other faiths, will (and
have) seek membership in some local churches. (2) Usually they were graciously
accepted; occasionally the church members thought they were better than others
and rejected them in stark contrast to the teachings of Christ. (3) Homosexuals
have always held faculty positions, and will continue to do so, because they are
good
teachers and both earn and deserve the respect of those positions. (4) No, there
will be no affirmative action programs for homosexuals. This is another scare
tactic used by the radical fundamentalists, but the record is clear. Never has
any gay
leader or gay organization called for affirmative action or quota programs, and
such programs have been specifically precl
uded from the National Gay Rights Law pending in Congress -- at the request and
insistence of gay groups themselves.
=========
WORKS CONSULTED:
Mr. Berkley cites only two sources for his screed, one of which was written more
than 15 years ago, and both of which are shot full of distortions, discredited
"studies," and unscientific opinion. If I began citing sources, they would run
on for
many pages, since I have read or at least skimmed virtually every book published
on this subject since 1970 (and many published prior to that date), both pro and
con.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][
Misc. Thoughts
*Militant homosexuals don't demonstrate against Biblical values. They
demonstrate against intolerance and bigotry, two things that Christ Himself also
demonstrated against. Nor do they "revile Christians," though they certainly
revile those
unChristian bigots who try to use the Bible to justify their own hatred. Nor has
anyone suggested that even the radical fundamentalist has no right to
demonstrate against homosexuality. The right to speak out and demonstrate is
inviolate under the
U.S. Constitution. It's the right to deny equality before the law that we
disagree with.
*We already discussed NAMBLA. It has little relevance to the issue of gay
rights, though radical fundamentalist activists like to wave it around at every
opportunity.
----
Reading Beneath THE HEADLINE [And Beyond That]
The points about Dr. LeVay's research being tentative and preliminary are well
taken. But that was in 1991. This is 1993, and several additional studies have
since been completed. All came to the same conclusion -- that the evidence for a
genetic or
biologic determinant of sexual orientation is nearly overwhelming. The most
recent research has even identified a specific portion of the X-chromosome
(called Xq28) that is a clear marker for homosexual orientation. As one expert
in the field has
put it, we are now 99.9% positive that sexual orientation is genetically
determined.
Conclusion
Nope. Not even close. Try again, Mr. Berkley.