Salon weighs in on ex-gays
Salon.com has posted a four-part attack series on the ex-gay movement. Part 1 begins with a federal judge's decision to knock down Montgomery County's biased and factually inacccurate sex ed curriculum, and spotlights the involvement of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX).
My favorite line of the article is the last one though.
Mr. Drescher is wrong. Not only does common sense tell you that civil rights cannot be given to people based on their preferences or choices, but our own law contradicts him.
This is a direct quote from the Dep of Justice website: "The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was established in 1957. The Division is the program institution within the federal government responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, handicap, religion, and national origin."
The US Commission on Civil Rights exists to prevent discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin."
Nowhere in that list does the term "sexual preference" exist.
Mr. Drescher's comment exposes the irrational, unreasonable bias of the organization he is a part of, which ex-gay opponents often cite to back up their own arguments.
My favorite line of the article is the last one though.
But [ Dr. Jack Drescher, chair of the American Psychiatric Association's Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues] says that whether you take the nature or nurture side of the argument doesn't matter when it comes to protecting the health and civil rights of gays and lesbians. "Even if homosexuality is not innate, you could still argue for civil rights."
Mr. Drescher is wrong. Not only does common sense tell you that civil rights cannot be given to people based on their preferences or choices, but our own law contradicts him.
This is a direct quote from the Dep of Justice website: "The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was established in 1957. The Division is the program institution within the federal government responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, handicap, religion, and national origin."
The US Commission on Civil Rights exists to prevent discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin."
Nowhere in that list does the term "sexual preference" exist.
Mr. Drescher's comment exposes the irrational, unreasonable bias of the organization he is a part of, which ex-gay opponents often cite to back up their own arguments.
posted by stan at 10:31 AM
6 Comments:
Absolutely not. But none should be given based on, and that is the key phrase, preferences or choices.
Religion is a preference and a choice.
And nobody chooses their sexual orientation.
anon
you make a good point which I am ashamed to say I had not noticed and/or considered when you say religion is a preference and a choice.
i am stumped to some degree, which rarely happens, but at least I will admit it. my only immediate response is that i do not support discrimination of anyone's basic civil rights because of their sexual orientation, but that I still would oppose special rights based on their sexual preference.
i would consider gay marrriage one of those special rights
as for your assertion that nobody chooses their sexual orientation, that is almost too simple and broad of a statement to be addressed. if you are asserting that those who practice homosexuality are "born gay," you have no proof. that is a fact.
and if you would argue then that a group of people that pursue a certain predilection or leaning should be awarded special rights based on normalizing those predilections, i think you are on shaky ground
Listen man, I assume you're straight, as I am. Do you remember choosing to be straight? Of course not. A gay guy has the same thing. Something turns his head, it just isn't a pretty girl. He didn't ask to be gay, any more than you asked to be straight.
And as far as "normalizing" anything, I'd look at it the other way: why would you want to "abnormalize" something? There are gay people, there have always been gay people, there are gay people in every society on the earth. Dude: it's normal for a few people to gay.
And getting married is not a special right, it looks to me like everybody should have the right to marry. Everybody else has the right. Why exclude them? They're not hurting you in any way by it, are they? They love each other, they want to have a home together, how can be against that?
Anon
I appreciate the response and I also appreciate the way you've responded.
I respect your sentiments, and I think they spring from a praiseworthy ethic. You are for equal rights, inclusion and not exclusion, promoting love and not opposing love because of preference.
But I would respectfully and humbly suggest that what you have offered are praiseworthy only for their sentiments. I do not think your statements and questions bear up under questioning and clarification.
But I am assuming to a point, and I won't write any more under assumptions. If you do come back though, I would ask you to clarify some of your statements:
You say, "Why would you want to "abnormalize" something?"
Are you saying that nothing should be abnormalized? If so, what about environmental abuse, or excessive speeding? And I by no means would ever compare homosexuality to murder--please do not misunderstand--but surely you are not against "abnormalizing" murder?
If you agree that some things should be abnormalized, how do you distinguish between things that should, and things that shouldn't? I assume you will come back to the issue of homosexuality not being a chosen orientation, which I will address at the bottom.
You say, "There are gay people, there have always been gay people, there are gay people in every society on the earth. Dude: it's normal for a few people to gay."
I would say that throughout history there have been many kinds of people that show up consistently in every society. To go back to the murderer comparison, there have been murderers throughout history. So it's normal, in that sense, for people to be murderers.
But I don't want to compare murderers to homosexuals. I hope you understand I use that example only to prove a point--when you say, "It's normal for people to be gay," you are proving nothing about whether that is actually a good thing or not.
If I were to compare homosexuals to a group of people that have shown up throughout history, I would say, "Throughout history there have always been people who misuse the gifts they've been given. It's normal for people to be this way."
You say that "getting married is not a special right, it looks to me like everybody should have the right to marry."
I agree with you. I think everybody does have the right to marry. But does that mean that 8-year olds can get married? No, we put restrictions on when people can get married.
The question is not, does everybody have the right to marry? Of course they do. The question is, who do we have the right to be married to? That is a much tougher question.
If you say we have the right to be married to anyone we want, do you then propose to limit how many people we can marry? On what grounds?
Hopefully, if men can marry men, there will be opposition to older men marrying 16-year old boys, and the normalization of what is now called pedophilia. But on what grounds can you oppose that?
I will give you a grounds, and you can take it or leave it. But I would suggest that it is more grounds than you have to stand on against a slide into the normalization of things you would not wish on an enemy.
My grounds is that marriage is normal too. It is normal for people to be married, to put a twist on your own statement. But the word marriage means something specific. There is a reason why states have voted to define marriage, because a defintion exists.
And this meaning is not something out there in theory. It is grounded in reality. Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman for life. It is the engine that drives societies, reproductively and socially.
And for Christians, marriage is meant to be one of the greatest ways that two people can come together and demonstrate the love that they have received through Christ, by imitating his example of selfless love. But in order for them to do this, there needs to be a husband and there needs to be a wife, for each has their own role. Ephesians 5 is the Scriptural basis for this. Husbands are told numerous times to love their wives by giving themselves up for her.
Husbands are told that they should love their wives like Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the church? He died for it, and he did so willingly, not resentfully. He died, that we might live.
That is the kind of love husbands are told to love their wives with. Wives, then, are told that their role is to support their husbands. And that is a highly inflammatory statement to make, I know, because we are into the realm of feminism and gender equity. But that is another debate. I will only say that many people have not seen an embodiment of the kind of marriage the Bible describes, and that is why they dismiss it.
The church, and individual Christians, have a lot to answer for when it comes to the loss of the sanctity of marriage. And the passage of no-fault divorce laws in the 1960's has further eroded, and in some ways "abnormalized," marriage.
You say, "They love each other, they want to have a home together, how can be against that?"
I would ask you to define love. First, what is love? What does it mean to love?
Left-liberals always want to talk about shades of meaning and subtlety. But they are total hypocrites when it comes to their use of the word love.
Does love always include sex, or romantic feelings? I have male friends who I love. I tell them I love them. Not often, but sometimes :) But I do not have sexual desires for them.
C.S. Lewis wrote a book called "The Four Loves." He identified affection, friendship, eros and charity, or agape love as the four loves. If you want to read more about that, there are brief notes on the book at this link: http://www.lifegoeson.net/MonkeyShines/4loves.htm
Lastly, you say, "Do you remember choosing to be straight? Of course not."
There is a lot I could say. But I will keep it brief. What I say might surprise you.
I have chosen to desire women as a heterosexual. If I had wanted to, I could have chosen to live a homosexual lifestyle. There are points in my life where I do believe I have been presented with the seed of a thought, "What if I am gay?"
Now, liking women instead of men came more naturally for me than I think it does for some men, and most men have this experience as far as I can tell. But I think most young people grapple with this today, because of the intense efforts to normalize it. And many who want to normalize homosexuality say to those who grapple with it, "Don't repress it. Maybe you are gay."
But "Am I gay" is the wrong question. We are all talking about our sexuality as if that in some way defines the totality of our identity or personhood.
The right question is, "What is sex intended for?" I will let you answer that.
Post a Comment
<< Home