Gay Teens: A Debate

Great Debates
61

  1. MGibson, saying “my father is a monk” is one way I can make sure people are listening to what I say. A brief history (sans a lot of history, and thus brief;)): I was born in 1981. Father became a monk (an oblate, and thus technically a monk in the order he professed to, or however that’s said) in 1997. I don’t remember what, if any, vows he took, but he and my mother are still married and, I assume (and, from what I have read, rightfully so), still, er … trying for that sixth child. Er, open to its conception. Whatever.

  2. I was asking about this “The Gay Lifestyle”, which seems to me to be based in as much fact as “The Gay Agenda”; ie, not much. Saying that one objects to “the gay lifestyle” seems to me (and to a lot of other people, from what experiences I’ve had discussing it) to be saying that all gay people do X thing(s) that are so hideous as to merit, in some cases, physical abuse (gaybashing, anyone?). In my experience, actually, there are lots of people who object not just to same-sex sexual activity but the thoughts involved there (these are the same people who find it incredibly difficult even to entertain the notion that a homosexual relationship could be anything like a hetero one in the sense that it isn’t just about sex). Many of these people also believe that non-heterosexuality is a choice. If I recall correctly, we have at least a few of these people on this MB.

The root of this, and what I have a rather large issue with, is the idea that if you’re gay/bi/whatever, you’re automatically engaging in dangerous sexual acts involving anything (and, depending on who you talk to, everything:() from girls to boys to children to trees to helicopters. Back when I was frequenting a forum called “Christian Fools” elsewhere, there were some people (not many, but very vocal) who maintained that there was effectively no difference between non-heterosexuality and bestiality, pedophilia and some other things. I and various other people brought out everything but the kitchen sink to show these people and it made no difference whatsoever.

“The Gay Lifestyle” also, I feel, lumps every single non-heterosexual into This Great Big Sinful Category by saying that everyone who isn’t straight automatically does all these awful things. By generalizing about said people, it is my belief (and something I have seen come to fruition, so to speak) that it dehumanizes a group of people who need not have anything more in common than that they are not straight. Gay/bi people are individuals just as anyone else is. We don’t all vote one way, we don’t all eat the same thing … heck, there’s more than one handshake;) And I swear, if anyone asked my fiancee about my fashion sense, that person would find out just how many of us can accessorize:D

62

Just to contribute my 2p to this thread…

I know when I was a teen, I despreately wanted someone to talk to about what I was learning about myself, my homosexuality. Instead, all I had was a few other friends who were as confused as (or more than) I was. As a result, I had to fend for myself, as well as deal with a lot of bullying that just made it all the more difficult to cope. I did contemplate “ending it all” on more than one occasion, I must confess. It was an uphill battle against bigotry, hate, condesention, pity, small-mindedness.

I have been reading threads like this one for a long time, usually more heated, less intelligent. Similarly, I have talked to many people. And I have to say that over time, I have been gradually losing respect for the “fundies”. I was brought up to respect the opinions of others, especially when they were presented in a polite and reasonable way. But as I near 40, I find that breaking down. I just cannot understand how people can close their minds and their hearts to a stereotyped group the way that “fundies” do toward gay people.

Furthermore, Hamish mentioned “compromises” earlier:

I find that frustrating too… those was are slightly “less fundie”, who accept gays as long as they are not “practicing gays”. Please! So… it’s ok for me to love another man, but not to express that love through physical contact - sex?

Using religion to defend homophobia is wrong. In the past, religion was used to justify racism, mass murder, war. Most religions condemn murder, yet murder was carried out time and time again in the name of those religions. We have since learned (well, are still learning) that this was wrong. We are now at the point where we need to begin learning that religion can not be used to justify homophobia.

Asserting that it is the right of parents to teach their children that homosexuality is a sin is equivalent to saying that parents have a right to teach their children that racism or murder is acceptable.

We are all human beings and should be judged only by our actions, not by the color of our skin, or by the sex of the person we fall in love with or have sex with.

As a gay man, I am tired of reminding people that I am a human just as they are, that I am capable of the same deep love that they can feel, that my love for another man is no less that their love for a member of the opposite sex. I am also tired of being considered a “sinner”, or less of a man, or less of a human, because I find love with men and not women.

Above all, perhaps, I am frankly amazed that how much of an American phenomenon this seems to be. I have never run into this sort of discussion in the nearly 20 years that I have been living in Europe. (Not to say that there is no homophobia in Europe, it just appears to be far less common.)

63

Oh, that’s nice. I guess we can be Jewish, too, as long as we don’t pray.

64

Silly people! Some people just subscribe to the wrong ideas (I don’t mean the wrong beliefs - I mean they’re incredibly misinformed) and they’re too stubborn to do any research or even talk to non-heterosexuals. Glad I don’t associate with such ignorant people. Christian FOOLS indeed!

And what is this “gay lifestyle” and why don’t I practice it? Oh. Right. Because there really isn’t a specific gay lifestyle. You can talk to all the non-heterosexuals you want, and you’ll find that they all have different lifestyles. Some are prudish little creatures that live with their grandmothers and only communicate with lovers online. Some are loud, flamboyant, and into drag. Some are almost undistinguishable from “normal” people. And so forth.

I don’t know why people feel the need to preach about something they hardly know about. How many gay magazines have they read? How many gay friends do they have? How many gay clubs have they been to? How often do they close their mouths and use their ears? What makes them think that others will listen to them if they never listen to others?

Sheesh.

65

**

I certainly don’t respect people who hold abhorrent opinions simply because they present them in a polite manner.

**

Parents do have a right to teach their children racist values. I’ve seen clan rallies on television with children under 10 wearing those little white sheets. How can we prevent that from happening without having the government up our asses every second we’re with our children? As for the murder part, well, my parents certainly taught me when violence was acceptable.

**

It’d be nice if everyone judged others by the content of their character.

**

I don’t blame you. I sometimes get tired of hearing about gay issues. Mainly because it feels like I’m banging my head against the wall trying to convince some people that homoseuxals deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Marc]

66

Here here, Marc. I just don’t understand why people even CARE so much in the first place.

67

Pun, that’s “…the order he professed in…” We’re going to have to work on your religious-jargon technical vocabulary! :wink: But I understand just what you mean; Skulldigger is a fully professed Tertiary in the Society of St. Francis, as well as my wife. A call to “the religious life” does not necessarily presuppose celibacy. (And, FWIW in relation to this thread, the regional chaplain of the order to whom she makes annual reports on how she’s living out her Rule of Life is a gay man from Charlotte in a committed relationship.)

[quote]
I don’t blame you. I sometimes get tired of hearing about gay issues. Mainly because it feels like I’m banging my head against the wall trying to convince some people that homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else.

I completely understand that, Marc! Part of the reason I opened this thread is that I felt a conviction from seeing matt’s words that I wasn’t doing what I could to help these kids, and the other part is exactly what you flagged in the post from which that quote is taken – that under our social system, parents make decisions for children, and in general properly so, and for gay teens, those decisions are often devastatingly harmful.

Those of you with access to the Pizza Parlor’s Beverage Bar (you must be a member who is either over 18 or has proven to the administrators that you have parental consent to go into that forum) may be interested in a thread on homosexuality as sin (or not) over there.

68

Well, what can you do to help homosexual teens? I admit that I’ve got very little to offer to the gay youth of America. I’d like to see schools take a harder stance on harassment but I’m not sure how much that would help. Most of the teasing I observed in school was done beyone earshot of the faculty. I’d really like to certain school districts to stop squashing extra-curricular activities in an effort to avoid gay/straight clubs.

As for parents making decisions for their kids I guess we’ll just have to wait for things to improve. I don’t see any practical way to force parents to stop teaching their kids that homosexuality is wrong. Frankly, if it were practical I’d still be against it.

Marc

69

Polycarp-I’m also getting weary of it. I want to cry when I read what some of our gay posters here have gone through (I couldn’t make it through the gaybashing thread).

People doing this in the name of GOD makes it even more disgusting.

But I still feel I must do my part. Right now, I’m over at theforce.net where there is a HUGE debate on whether to allow homosexuality in the fan fiction forums, as long as it doesn’t go over PG13. Currently, that’s allowed for hetero fan fiction, but NO mention of a same sex relationship, even if it’s G rated. And I’m on the side arguing against that policy.

I mean, yeah, it’s just a Star Wars message board, but still.

70

They do not actually do it in the name of God, dear. They claim to, but they are erroneous.

And Poly, re: religious-technical jargon, I’ll take your word for it (seems as though I’m being corrected in some sort of figure of speech or whatnot every other post the past day or so;)), but the construct doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. ::shrug::

Re: combatting parents teaching their kids whatever about sexuality, perhaps the best thing to do is to make available factual resources (that is, those free from religious influence, whose stance ultimately boils down to “because that’s what we believe”) that help not just those who are non-het but who just plain want to know more. Hell, there’s a board for non-het people over at The Motley Fool, and my mother joined before I did because she wanted advice back when I came out to her (lo these two plus years ago). Remember, folks, that people seek out information because they want to know more, not just necessarily because they’re trying to find out more about themselves. My pipe dream of such a factual resource would include arguments to common religious “problems” with sexuality, but I doubt that’d really fly.

Lastly, agentfront expresses something I’ve seen many times and really ought to be addressed every time it’s brought up, because I know it’s been frustrating for me and I don’t imagine I’m alone.

They preach against it because they are under the misguided impression that it will make a difference to someone. They do not generally intentionally associate themselves with anything they consider to be particularly (in this case I mean “more so than other stuff”) … leading them into sin, I guess, is the best way to put it. Basically, many of them don’t want to open themselves up to the possibility of so much as one “sinful” thought. Their opinions are usually set and it takes rather unique situations for that to happen (and there’s no exact mathematical formula, per se, that one can use to change them. It either happens or it doesn’t). And to answer the last question, I don’t think they ultimately care if they are respected in their beliefs on a lot of things, because to them it doesn’t matter. The expression “If you disagree with what I say, your beef is not with me but with God.” They are usually unable to recognize their own imperfection, even theoretical, in their analysis or whathaveyou or whatever particular bible verse or preacher saying they espouse.

In short, they don’t know because they don’t want to know, and in many cases they will go out of their way not to find out. It seems to me to be a sort of “guilt by association” attitude, which is really quite sad.

And especially important to note is that it is often not an important issue to them.

71

I see something quite pervasive here which has been brought up many times. Please forgive me for the repetitive generalization, but I wanted to rephrase it slightly, and hope that it may be useful. I hope that I am not mischaracterizing the nature of the debate here, but rather I am simply stating how it appears to me.

Let me begin with a quote from iampunha:

Now to me, it seems that when one tries to argue that homosexuality is wrong, homosexuality is often portrayed as a concept. One seems more likely to say that homosexuality is wrong than to say that person X, a homosexual, is performing a sinful sexual act. However, when one tries to argue the converse, they often portray people as good people who incidentally happen to be homosexual. It seems more likely that one would say that person X is an upstanding person who just so happens to be homosexual than to say that homosexuality is an inherently wonderful concept (I am not saying that it isn’t, but rather that that’s rarely how people argue in favor of homosexuality).

While this is not the optimal solution, I believe that we do not necessarily have to first teach teens that it’s okay to be gay or to try to circumvent teaching that states that homosexuality is a sin. A first step might instead be to show children positive role models who incidentally happen to be homosexual. It may have to be mentioned that they are homosexual, but instead of focusing on the concept that it’s okay to be homosexual, can we first focus on making sure teens know great people who happen to be homosexual? Would this respect the rights of those who wish to individually teach their children that homosexuality is sinful?

72

And yet it somehow seems like we’re talking about this constantly on these boards. At least there seem to be some nuances lately that are thought-provoking, this thread for instance was a different angle on the issue. But it sure does seem like alot of people love to get into ridiculous circular debates about this issue, blanket indictments of sweeping categories of behaviour running headlong into vitriolic defenses, where even the bystanders feel like we’re banging our heads against the wall :wink:

73

Well, no, it does not, exactly.

“The one gay lifestyle” to which fundamentalists object is the lifestyle in which one has gay sex, as I tried to explain.

Since even a lifestyle wherein gays do not engage in behaviors otherwise considered sinful by fundamentalists, is condemned by them if it includes gay sex, it is clear that the part they object to is the gay sex. In other words, gay sex is a necessary and sufficient condition for fundamentalists to classify whatever lifestyle is being examined as sinful.

No doubt many fundamentalists assume that all or most gay men lead a dissolute lifestyle of alcohol abuse and promiscuity. And obviously this is as incorrect as assuming that all fundamentalists are Phelps clones. But neither alcohol abuse, nor promiscuous sex, are enough to lead a person’s behavior to be classified as “the gay lifestyle”, unless it includes gay sex.

This was going to be a longer post, but matt_mcl posted the following:

Which would seem to imply that at least one gay Doper agrees that gay sex is a necessary part of “the” lifestyle of most gay men.

In other words, when fundamentalists object to “the gay lifestyle” they mean they object to “having gay sex”. No doubt they object to other behaviors committed by gays and straights alike, such as alcohol abuse, but nobody is advocating the acceptance of excessive drinking as morally neutral, as some do for gay sex.

Whether or not they have the right to object, and how schools or the state should regard their objections, is another and more contentious issue.

Regards,
Shodan

74

The problem is that they conflate having gay sex with a variety of things so oogy and scary as to attempt to make any attempt to win rights for those people just right out of the question. Or they just try to play on the ooginess of discussing sex, period.

Which is why I don’t really go for the “We’re not just our sex lives - we do other things too!” line. Even if it’s only our sex lives that are being condemned, it’s still too much. Other people do not have veto power on my consensual sex life. Other people do not get to discriminate, harass, devalue, exclude, revile me on the basis of who I fuck when they’re not around. It’s wrong, it’s cruel, it’s pointless, it’s specious, and it’s unevolved. Period.

75

Well, Texican, thank you very much for providing us with a sample of the ignorance we’re trying to fight.

You, of course, noticed that the only things that the parents in this case found objectionable was discussions of:

You noticed the complete lack of sense in objecting to discussions of any sort, for, as you know, in the face of a lack of discussion, the only thing that can flourish is ignorance. You also recognized, certainly, that teenagers talk about sex, and that being apalled at that concept is truly, astonishingly, funny.

I have to say that your final flourish was truly inspired; “It is fine if that is how you want to raise them, but advocacy groups have no rights to impose their views on others.” When Massachusetts News is clearly advocating a fundamentalist approach to politics. The delicate, precise irony of your statement has left me in awe.

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

76

I’d like the source for that, Texican.

:rolleyes:

Was that all the article, or was it mostly your words?

77

Guinastasia: It was almost all from an article that I found elsewhere. Only the very last couple of sentences were mine. The point I was making is not that the import of the editorial was necessarily correct, but that there is another side to the argument that states that parents have a right to know what their children are being taught, and to decide for themselves what values are apppropriate. I’ll try to find a link to the original article, or preferably one that is reporting instead of an editorial. I got it from another site I visit, and it was the best I could find on short notice that discussed the event.
And no, that was not what the parents found objectionable. What they found objectionable was the deliberate attempts to keep them from learning exactly what was going on in these forums. That and teaching them appropriate sexual techniques is not the responsibility of the education system.

78

At the risk of encouraging a hijack of the thread I started, I need to comment on the attitudes of conservative Christians, with whom I’ve dialogued rather extensively.

Yes, there are some who are completely ignorant of the reality of what gay people do, feel, and live. But many others are operating from a different perspective, and their views are fairly clear and reasoned, if from a quite different stance than the humanist one. Roughly, it works like this [Disclaimer: the material in quotation marks below is not my opinion, but represents my understanding of how thoughtful conservative Christians view homosexuality]:

"All men and women are sinful, people justly deserving of God’s condemnation. However, out of mercy and grace, He sent His Son to die to atone for the sins of all mankind – to take them on Himself, so that those who join themselves to Him would not be deserving of the punishment for them, but rather would have Him as Advocate before the Throne of Judgment.

"Many sins are not specific acts, but rather attitudes and intent. ‘The man who looks on a woman not his wife with lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her’ conveys the general concept here fairly clearly.

"God defined sexual acts between two men or two women as sinful in every case, as shown in Scripture [insert the Bible verses we’ve all grown weary of seeing here]. Beyond that, the homosexual person suffers from the continuing desire for sinful acts and sinful relationships on an ongoing basis. Like the rest of us, they are supposed to abstain from acts of sin and to pray for the strength to resist sinful desires, which the Holy Spirit will without doubt give to them (though like the rest of us they may slip and fall in resisting temptation).

“It is wrong for churches to turn away gay people; they are sinners just like the rest of us. But it is equally wrong for any action that would appear to ‘condone’ their sin. Our job is to stand by them and help them to resist the temptation to sin. And we should do this because we are commanded to love them as our brothers and sisters, and to try to help to lead them out of their sinful lifestyles.”
Now, I can grasp the conceptualization behind this. It’s not by any means my own point of view, but I trust you can see the thought and compassion within it, even as you reject it. And within this reading of what God wants, the question of love, commitment, etc., becomes irrelevant, because the following of His rules, whatever they may be, because He is God and the One who defines what is sinful and what is not, is what every human being is obliged to do. (Of course, my quick argument to that is that if fornication is sinful, and whether love and commitment exist between two people has nothing to do with whether acts they commit are sinful or not, then every married couple who has sex is sinning by fornicating.)

Shodan, your analysis in re extracurricular school clubs at first makes sense, but suffers from one small problem. We are talking American public schools here, and the students who attend them are American citizens, whose right to free association and freedom of speech is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In standard interpretations of the applicability of those laws, “balancing” is appropriate – is the individual’s right improperly trammelled by regulations aimed at the protection of the community, or not? In my classic example, the right of a religious group to hold a prayer meeting is not “unduly trammelled” by a policeman forcing them not to hold that meeting in the driving lanes of a freeway at rush hour – generalized as “time, place, and manner” rules that do not govern content are acceptable. In the case of a school, the responsibilities of the school as an organization towards the underage citizens whom it serves include the right to act, temporarily and with restrictions, in loco parentis – it may decide what it will permit and what it will forbid since it must provide for the welfare of the students, ensuring their protection, their advisement and training, etc., by virtue of the legislation empowering it to exist and to provide education for the students who attend it. But such judgments must be content-neutral. Hence it can, as you note, choose to allow extracirricular groups or to forbid them, en masse – but to pick and choose which groups will be permitted to form on the basis of content is forbidden by the Constitution. (In this, so far, we agree.) However, to ban all groups rather than permit one whose content is displeasing to the school administration is the farthest thing from “being neutral” – it is prohibiting students’ rights to free association and freedom of speech on a content-based basis, since it was made clear that it was the formation of one particular group that prompted the forbidding of all groups. (I would of course welcome your critique of this analysis – and also that of any lawyerly types that stop by this thread.)

Equally, I am under the impression that the forbidding of providing information to children about the resources available to them for dealing with a concern they have, on the basis of religious belief or general distaste for the information to be provided, would be extremely questionable under the same Constitutional standards.

But the absolute bottom line that I have on this entire question is that IMHO people’s religiously-based beliefs do not extend to the right to place other people under a sense of worthlessness, despicability, and despair, as has, I believe, been adequately demonstrated that social attitudes regarding homosexuality do to gay teenagers. And that problem needs fixing, “and that right quickly!”

79

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/01/02/news-tsang.php
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/may%202001/501fis~1.htm
http://www.stevekaneshow.com/glsnmass.htm
note the ages of the kids.
http://www.stevekaneshow.com/glsen.htm
some exerpts from the actual workshops
http://www.stevekaneshow.com/glstapes.htm

this was from just a quick google search on glsen and fisting. I realize i will get bashed, but my point is that while people say outwardly that what they are seeking is tolerance, what they are actually doing is recruiting among the young and impressionable. I believe that a parent has a right to determine what sexual information their children, and that is what 12-16 year olds are, are exposed to. Listen to some of those tapes. They give way TMI about sexual practices and the advocacy of the acts.

80

So, Texican, what would it take for you to go gay?

What if Brad Pitt came up to you and suggested a hot and heavy fisting session; would you be all aquiver with the urge to get down and dirty, or would you be repulsed?

What makes you think people can be recruited? Have you got any evidence whatsoever to support that assumption?

Meanwhile, have you ever considered the implications of advocating a position that advocates ignorance? As in, we need to keep people from even knowing about some things? Has ignorance ever served a good cause? Has ignorance ever solved a problem?

The truth will set you free. Ignornace is the tool of oppression.