Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:11:31 -0800 (PST) From: Ray Russ Subject: Pro gay letters part 1 (fwd) From: BCS41@aol.com Subject: Pro gay letters part 1 A COLLECTION OF GOOD LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TO REFER TO OR COPY FROM WHEN YOU ARE WRITING YOUR OWN LETTERS TO YOUR LOCAL MEDIA. FEEL FREE TO COPY ANY OR ALL MATERIAL HEREIN! ------------- SPEAKING UP FOR GAY RIGHTS IS A MATTER OF JUSTICE Editor; Being a gay person I have seen friends discriminated against in housing and employment. If we get harassed it's our problem. If we get attacked it's because we provoked it. If we raise our voices we're flaunting ourselves. If we have AIDS we deserve it. If we march with pride we're recruiting children. If we want or already have children we're unfit parents. If we stand up for our rights we're overstepping our boundaries. If we don't have a relationship with the opposite sex we haven't given it a chance. If we have a relationship with someone of the same sex it's not recognized. We are told our love is not "real." Our relationships receive none of the legal, tax, job or insurance benefits available for others. We are constantly forced to question our own worth as human beings. Experts estimate that a third of teenage suicides are kids who realize they are gay. Our history is virtually absent from literature. Our lives aren't depicted on television shows or in movies (except as silly fools or sadistic killers). Respected gay celebrities, who would be good role models and examples, keep that part of their life hidden. We are called promiscuous by the same people who oppose letting us marry, which would encourage monogamy and commitment. When we ask for equality and fairness they say we ask for "special privileges." There are anti-gay crusaders today deliberately spreading lies, fear and hate, for so-called "religious" reasons. (That is the very opposite of the caring and compassion that religious people are expected to exemplify.) They write letters to the paper, while my gay friends in Dallas are afraid to. Because of all these reasons, and more, I think it is important to speak up for gay rights. It's a matter of justice. ----- CHRISTIAN VIEW ON HOMOSEXUALS Editor, Reaction has been that "the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin." But what to the Ten Commandments say about gay people? Zip. What did Jesus have to say about gay people? Zip. Verses in St. Paul are supposed to condemn gay people, but unless you have a doctored translation, what they are really condemning is idolatry - putting worldly things before God. They don't say anything about committed relationships, gay or straight. Leviticus does admittedly say something bad about men sleeping together. Leviticus also says not to eat pork. So there ought to be a lot of hog farmers and tenderloin lovers reevaluating Leviticus right now. One's sexual orientation is an inherent, unchangeable fact, defined either genetically or by the environment in the first few years of life. There is no research showing that it is a "choice." ------- UNFAIR TO BAN HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES Editor; I commend Hawaii should be commended for considering legalizing homosexual marriages. Isn't marriage between two people who love each other a laudable and quite traditional notion? It seems absurd and unfair that a heterosexual couple can fly to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married on a whim, with all the legal, tax, government and insurance benefits and rights that automatically grants to them, while a gay couple I know who have been together for 27 years in a stable, monogamous, loving relationship cannot marry. Some say marriage should be reserved only for those couples who biologically reproduce. Using that argument, what do you say to couples who are childless by choice, age, or infertility? That their love for each other is less valid without children? Some say they oppose it because homosexuality is against their religion. I can only reply that marriage in a secular office by a justice of the peace is irrelevant to their concerns. Just as a Catholic may refuse to participate in the rites of a Jewish couple, they may decline to participate. Only 30 years ago marriage between white and black persons was a crime in 16 states. These states cited "natural law," a vague grab-bag for justifying prejudice. Many also said the Bible supported such laws. Perhaps 30 years from now we will find it just as incredible that two people of the same sex were not entitled to legally commit themselves to each other. ----- FLAUNTING Editor, An recent letter to the editor criticizing gay people said that "most Americans do not flaunt their sexual preference, whatever it is." Oh, yes they do. Heterosexuals flaunt it all the time. They have public weddings, marriage announcements published in the newspaper (along with affectionate- appearing photographs), wear wedding rings, often old hands, hug or even kiss in public, cuddle together at the movie theater, etc. ----- GAY KIDS Editor, Yet another scientific study has found evidence that homosexuality is genetic, so one reason to teach tolerance of gays is because a child you love may be among them. Most of my gay friends grew up in households that expressed negative attitudes about gays. The parents had no idea their children were gay and the kids, not stupid, hid how they felt as long as possible, terrified that anyone would find out (30% of teenage suicides are kids who realize they are gay). They certainly didn't "choose" to have homosexual romantic feelings. Those who found the courage to be honest with their parents usually found acceptance over time, at least from those parents who loved their kids enough to educate themselves on the subject and discard myths and stereotypes. Some never told their family, preferring distance and silence to possible rejection. They couldn't share important details of their life, including life-partners, and hated making up lies when asked personal questions, so they just stopped communicating. Others tried to deny their nature for a while, and ended up miserable; either alone and lonely for many wasted years, or forced into a non-sexual marriage with an unsuspecting woman to try to change (it never works) or for "cover." A child's sexual orientation is beyond parental control since it isn't a choice. Parents should educate themselves before the day their child says, "Mom and dad, sit down, I have something to tell you." ----- GAYS CREATED, BUT NOT TREATED, EQUAL Editor, If Stephen Anderson (Letters, Aug. 3) really means it when he says that homosexuals deserve the same rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as the rest of us then he has no reason to oppose homosexual rights initiatives because they are only to prevent discrimination, not impose quotas or bestow anything "special." Mr. Anderson turns logic on its head when he says that his opposition to equal rights for gays "descends from the basic principle that all men are created equal, regardless of ethnicity, religion, sex and sexual preference." All men may have been created equal, but they're not treated equally, and that's why civil rights laws are in effect for all those categories except sexual preference, which should be included. Mr. Anderson says that giving rights to gays puts everyone else at a disadvantage. I think a fairer society makes the country as a whole stronger. Barry Goldwater thinks so, too. In his Washington Post article, which formed the basis for Donald Kaul's column, Goldwater wrote "Job discrimination excludes qualified individuals, lowers productivity and eventually hurts us all. Topping the new world order means attracting the best and creating a working environment where everyone an excel. Anything less makes us a second-rate nation. It's not just bad - it's bad business." ----- LOOK AT LIFE FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE Editor, One of the facts of life for a gay person here in America, and particularly for the majority of gays who feel the need to remain in the closet, is the ability, born of necessity, to look at life somewhat from the outside, as an observer. We clearly see the double- standard that we are judged by, the hypocrisy, the unfair assumptions. Are you the kind of person who is willing to see how things look from a different point of view, or do you try to avoid thinking about ideas that might challenge your existing opinions? One of the most powerful ways of seeing life in a new light is called the "reverse questionnaire." It takes common, often offensive assumptions about a minority and mirrors them back to reveal prejudice and hypocrisy. It illustrates the damaging effects of stereotypes. Corporations and other organizations often use reverse questionnaires in sensitivity training sessions. Here are some types of questions designed for heterosexual persons who have anti-gay attitudes: * What do you think caused your heterosexuality? * When and how did you decide you were heterosexual? * Is it possible that heterosexuality is just a phase you will grow out of? * Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of people of the same sex? * To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react? * Why do you heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into your lifestyle? * Why do you insist on flaunting your sexuality? Can't you just be what you are and keep it quiet? * Studies show that more than 95 percent of child molesters are heterosexual? Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers? * If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good gay lover? * Even with all the social support marriage receives, the divorce rate is over 50 percent and increasing. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals? * Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex? * Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone was like you? This type of role reversal startles many - and it's best done with a sense of humor - but the prejudice and hypocrisy of their assumptions soon dawns on people. Also, take a took at heterosexual privilege. There is much talk today about how gay people want "special rights" or "special privileges" but it is really heterosexuals who enjoy privileges that gay people do not. What is "heterosexual privilege"? It is living without ever having to think twice, face, confront or cope with any of the following categories. If you are heterosexual, you can choose to think about these if you want to, but social forces don't require you to do so: * Marrying - which includes the following privileges: Public recognition and support for your intimate relationship (receiving cards or phone calls celebrating your commitment, supporting activities and social expectations of longevity and stability for your committed relationships); joint child custody; paid leave from employment while grieving the death of your spouse; property laws, filing joint tax returns, inheriting from your spouse automatically under probate laws; sharing health, auto and homeowners insurance policies at reduced rates; immediate access to your loved one in case of accident or emergency; family support for your life with your chosen spouse. * Never having to question your normalcy: Having role models of your gender and sexual orientation; learning about romance and relationships from fiction, movies and TV; having positive media images of people with whom you can identify. * Validation from the culture in which you live: Living with your spouse and doing so openly to all; talking about your relationship and what projects, vacations, etc. you and your partner are planning; expressing pain when a relationship ends from death or separation and having other people notice and tend to your pain; receiving social acceptance by neighbors, colleagues and good friends; not having to hide or lie about social activities; dating the person of your desire in your teenage years; working without always being identified by your sexuality (i.e., you get to be a farmer, bricklayer, artist, etc. without always being labeled the heterosexual farmer, etc.) * Institutional acceptance: Employment opportunity (increased possibilities of getting a job); receiving validation from your religious community; being able to be a member of the clergy; being able to serve in the military; being employed as a teacher in a pre-school through high school without fear of being fired any day because you are assumed to corrupt children; adopting children; raising children without threats of state intervention, without the children having to be worried which of their friends might reject them because of their parents' sexuality or culture. Perhaps this exercise has made you more appreciative of the advantages you have in society. Perhaps it's made you more aware of the many struggles that gay people cope with every day because they don't have the same advantages that you take for granted. In any case, I hope you find it enlightening to think about life from a different angle from time to time. ----- BARRY GOLDWATER ON "SPECIAL RIGHTS' Editor; Recently, conservative Barry Goldwater spoke out against the religious right in favor of legislation to protect gays against job discrimination. It was very admirable of him. He wrote "Job discrimination against gays - or anybody - is contrary to our founding principles. Anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this isn't about granting special rights - it's about protecting basic rights." He's absolutely correct. Equal rights aren't special rights. Equality is not a special privilege. There is a certain level of protection that everyone is entitled to in this country and that's why they're called rights. Gay people, like members of other minorities, face irrational acts of prejudice from some people and extra obstacles to overcome in order to be "equal." Civil rights laws effectively put them on a level playing field with everyone else. The law currently protects members of the religious right from being fired because of their beliefs. Isn't that what they consider "special rights?" Yet I bet they would feel threatened if opposing groups were working to change the law so it would become legal to fire them because of their religion or politics, as they are trying to do to gays. ----- THE BIBLE & HOMOSEXUALITY Editor; In response to a recent letter: Regarding the Bible's supposed condemnation of homosexuality, Biblical interpretation changes from time to time. Approximately 150 years ago slavery was condoned and even blessed by Christians who quoted Ephesians 6:5 ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling."). Women were relegated to inferior positions with the justification of I Corinthians 14:34 ("Women should be silent in churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but be subordinate.") Today the denominations, of course, do not support slavery. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible did. Today, a growing number of Biblical scholars recognize that the Bible does not condemn loving, monogamous, responsible homosexual relationships. Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as relating to homosexuality. Four (Deuteonomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46 and II Kings 23:7) simply forbid prostitution, by men and women. Two others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10- 16) are part of what biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans homosexual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field, wearing garments made of two different kinds of material, eating fat, tattoos, and kindling a fire on sabbath day. Christians today do not follow the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. There is no mention of homosexuality in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the subject. If homosexuality were such an evil, don't you think Jesus would have said something about it? The fact is that He didn't, nor is it one of the Ten Commandments. Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10). Any consideration of these statements on same-sex acts must carefully view the social context of the Greco-Roman culture in which Paul ministered. Prostitution and pederasty (sexual acts between adult men and boys) were the most commonly known same-sex acts, and that is what the passages condemn, not loving, monogamous, responsible adult relationships. Romans 11:24 speaks of what is "unnatural." It does not refer to so-called violations of the laws of nature, but rather that it is unnatural to contradict one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural" for a person today with a gay sexual orientation to attempt to live a heterosexual lifestyle. And lest we forget Sodom and Gomorrah, recall that the story is not about sexual perversion and homosexual practice. It is about inhospitality, according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to Ezekiel 16:49-50. The Bible verses people use to condemn gay people have been distorted, mistranslated, or incorrectly interpreted, resulting in hurt to people against whom the original text was not directed. ----- PAUL CAMERON, ANTI GAY CRUSADER Editor; Thanks to your columnist for shedding light on Paul Cameron, the discredited former psychologist who has made the demonizing of gays his life's work. Cameron, expelled by the American Psychiatric Association in December, 1983 for unsound methods and misrepresentation of facts after other psychologists charged him with distorting their findings, provides the phony studies and statistics that are most often quoted by anti-gay crusaders to give authority, justification and respectability to their campaigns of hate and discrimination. Cameron's writings have been cited by people such as Pat Buchanan, Cal Thomas and Pat Robertson. He served as the scientific consultant for both the Oregon Citizens Alliance and Colorado For Family Values, the main groups pushing anti-gay referendums in those states. His statistics were included in "Gay Agenda," a videotape produced and widely circulated by the religious right. Last year officials of the U. S. Army and Navy circulated Cameron's studies around the Pentagon as they tried to block the softening of the gay ban. Cameron's phony studies and statistics continue to cited because, unfortunately, many people want to believe the worst about homosexuals, and they are looking for any way to justify their prejudice. ----- GAY RIGHTS DOES NOT UNDERMINE SOCIETY Editor, In his criticism of homosexuality Thomas Bower says that acceptance of homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual ones "undermines the normative character of marriage and family life." I disagree. Extending social justice and civil equality to one oppressed group does not have to mean taking anything away from others in society. To provide justice for a minority in our society that has been cruelly oppressed and discriminated against enriches and strengthens society as a whole. In closing, I would add that humankind is diversified. If homosexuality is in the natural order of things, as all the evidence suggests, then the church and law may need to shift their views of homosexuality as a sin or a crime. I know this will be difficult for those who wrongly claim all truth in the name of God, but it is justice. ----- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:12:31 -0800 (PST) From: Ray Russ Subject: Pro gay letters part 2 (fwd) From: BCS41@aol.com Subject: Pro gay letters part 2 BIG MONEY IN OPPOSING GAY RIGHTS Editor; In several states around the country, the proponents of anti-gay initiatives continue to march forward. They claim gays and lesbians are the cause of the decline of the family. They say we are the roots of all the evils in the nation. What these carpetbaggers are really after is money and votes. They scare people into the belief that we are the enemy. Once they have an enemy, they have something to fear. Once they are afraid, they write checks. The scarier we become, the bigger the checks get. Get the picture? For their initiative petitions they collect the names and addresses of hundreds of thousands of people. Once they have that information, those people will start getting letters telling them we are the enemy. Of course, each letter will have inflammatory writing outlining why they believe this is so and what they intend to do about it. Of course, each letter will include a return envelope in which to send back a big check. Get the picture? ----- EX-GAY? Editor; In his September 15 letter, Bob Davies of San Rafael, California claims that his "ex-gay" organization receives hundreds of letters and phone calls monthly from men and woman who do not want to be homosexual any longer. I'm not surprised, considering the great penalties gay people in our society pay for being different. If there were an organization that claimed to be able to make black people white, I'm sure it would receive some inquiries, too, for the same reason. It would have been more educational if Mr. Davies had reported just how many successes his organization has had. In my experience as a gay man researching ex-gay groups I haven't found a single one that is willing to release verifiable results to back up their claims. As for Mr. Davies' claim that he himself is no longer gay, I'm happy if he's happy. Personal experience tells me he's a very rare case, the proverbial needle in the haystack. I've known dozens of gay men in my lifetime who at one time or another were pressured or lured into the fundamentalist-run ex-gay movement and all it caused them was more pain. No one I know ever changed. Not only that, no gay person I've ever met has known of anyone who has changed. Where are all these supposedly ex-gays hiding? ----- ACCEPT DIVERSITY, GAYS Editor; When I come across someone who believes that treating gay people fairly and equally is a "threat to the family" I see someone who is trying to rationalize a prejudice. The gay individuals and couples I know lead quiet lives in ordinary neighborhoods. I don't see how being nice to them and letting them live a life that's right for them can be construed as harming anyone else. I think some people are afraid that if kids see gay people in everyday, normal life they will decide to become gay, too, which is nonsense. We know that's not the way it works. We accept and even cherish diversity among plants and animals, yet some of us rigidly demand that all people be narrowly alike. Everyone is a unique individual, especially in matters of love. What attracts the eye and captures the heart is unique to each person. Here in America people have the freedom to be different. We should stop being threatened by differences and instead find them interesting. Our society is a complex tapestry with threads of many kinds. ----- FREE PRESS PRINTS ANTI GAY COMMENTS Editor; One reason people get so offended by Don Feder is not because of his outrageous lunatic-right views but because he employs phony techniques of false association, non sequiters, mangled statistics, and the like, knowing that his conclusions are therefore dishonest. Just take a look at his latest vicious anti-gay diatribe. In a free society, we need to hear all opinions, even the obnoxious ones. I wonder, though, if your paper would publish columns that argue blacks are genetically inferior to whites, or how Jews have a cunning conspiracy to control the world's economies. They, too, are obnoxious opinions held by many Americans. On the other hand, speaking as a gay man, I am aware that the average non-gay person doesn't take much time to think about the irrational, nasty hatred that we see daily and which constantly worries us. Oh, they are peripherally aware of it, but they have more pressing concerns and more interest in issues that directly affect themselves. Perhaps they need to think about it a bit more, and columns like Feders's does that. Feder has a hard-core following of haters whose minds are permanently closed, but he shows the vast majority of Americans, who are by and large fair-minded and good- hearted, why gay rights legislation is necessary. Maybe I've watched too many old movies, but I think good will win out over evil. But we have to see the villain. If people see the face of bigotry, as they do regularly in Feder's columns, perhaps they will be motivated to combat it. ----- MORE ON FLAUNTING Editor, Whenever I have a letter printed in the paper concerning gay rights, someone invariably mails me an anonymous note saying "Keep your sex in he bedroom where it belongs - we do not flaunt our sex like you do." It a sad but all-too-common mentality. Merely by existing and being honest about it is considered flaunting. Asking to be treated fairly is considered special privilege. Equal treatment is somehow threatening, as though being tolerant and fair to homosexuals takes something away from heterosexuals. Some people, it seems, not only want gays back in the closet, hiding and lying, they want to cement that door shut. I don't consider arguments in favor of equal rights and fair treatment for gays in housing, employment, etc. to be "sex talk." Personally, I would like nothing better than to keep my private sexual life private, because it's nobody else's business. The people who make it an issue are those who think it is o.k. to single me and my friends out for mistreatment because of who we love. As long as that happens, then we must and will speak up and object. As for "flaunting," heterosexuals have public weddings, marriage announcements published in the newspaper (along with affectionate-appearing photographs), wear wedding rings, often hold hands, hug or even kiss in public, cuddle together at the movie theater, etc. You don't see gay people doing that. I guess flaunting is in the eye of the beholder. ----- ELIMINATE REFERENCES TO GAYS? (SARCASTIC TONE) Editor, Regarding the recent controversy over teaching about homosexuality in the schools, I have a proposal: Ask the Des Moines school board to eliminate ALL mention of homosexuals from our history books, literature, the airways and film. We can't stop the problem by simply preventing information about homosexuals from being taught. Sooner or later some student - probably an intelligent, open-minded troublemaker - might become curious about who wrote "Leaves of Grass," or the composer who created the holiday classic "The Nutcracker Suite." Our children must be prevented from learning this information at all cost if we are to succeed in keeping them uneducated. The music of Tchaikovsky, Copland, Bernstein and Cole Porter have to go. Ban the writings of Walt Whitman, E. M. Forster, Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, Virginia Woolf, Gertrude Stein, Gore Vidal and Plato. Remove the creations of Michaelangelo (and all those beautiful male nudes!) from our art history texts. Buy up and destroy all the old Rock Hudson movies. Get Elton John off the radio. Erase Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted and Lawrence of Arabia from military histories. Sanitize Eleanor Roosevelt. Prevent mention of Edward II, King of England. And this is just the beginning. Let's put an end to all these mind-expanding educational programs before something really bad happens! Once our children start to think and question, we might lose control, and see social justice and civil rights for gays and lesbians become a reality. ----- IN THE GENES? Editor, In the April 8 letters, one person wrote "Since gay sex doesn't result in offspring, homosexuals can't very well pass their genes to future generations." He reveals an incredibly shallow understanding of heredity. Scientific studies done in the past few years by the Boston University School of Medicine, UCLA, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, The National Institute of Mental Health, State University of New York, and others have found evidence indicating a genetic component to sexual orientation. These have been widely reported in newspapers, magazines, radio and television. The most recent work was done by a research team at the National Cancer Institute under Dr. Dean Hamer. Hamer was struck by the fact that gay men are more likely to have gay male relatives on their mother's side than their father's. This led him to suspect the X-chromosome - because males have only one X-chromosome, which they receive from their mothers - as a contributory factor to homosexuality. That's just what he found. If the writer is truly interested in learning the truth on this issue, I suggest he go to the library and look up the March 1993 issue of Atlantic Magazine, which has a lengthy and persuasive article by author Chandler Burr. The author says that after 50 years of study the bottom line is clear: "Homosexuality is highly attributable to genetics - by some measures up to 70 percent attributable. Five decades of psychiatric evidence demonstrates that homosexuality is immutable." These studies anger those who have a prejudice against homosexuals because they discredit their arguments that it is a choice and it is unnatural. If it's in someone's genes then it would seem, by definition, to be natural - of and from nature. ----- GOOD OLD DAYS? Two July 9 letter-writers, admirers of Pat Buchanan and the religious right, long for the morality of the past. One of them says "ask your parents and grandparents" about the days when we had a healthier society. Everyone was much more moral back then. Let's take a look at those virtuous days of my parents and grandparents. Racism was rampant, discrimination perfectly acceptable. During the 1950s my father, who ran a small-town bar, refused to serve black people. My grandmother was born (out of wedlock) at a time women weren't allowed to vote, were ordered about and occasionally battered by their husbands. My mother had a very abusive, alcoholic father who constantly cheated on my grandmother and beat her, and when she went to her church for guidance she was told that the husband is master of the household. My mother had a favorite uncle, a bachelor, who was fun and clever but subject to bouts of intense depression. At the age of 28 he blew his head off with a shotgun. Looking back today my mother says he was probably homosexual. There was no support, comfort or understanding of that back then. To borrow a phrase from one of the July 9 writers, it was the good old days when "sodomy was viewed as a form of perversion." Yes, the good old days. Syphilis was widespread, and fatal (no penicillin yet). The great depression, a period with the highest divorce rate ever. A few wars. The holocaust. McCarthyist witch hunts. Back-alley abortions. Income tax rates above 90%. Homosexuals committed to mental institutions for lobotomies or castration. KKK lynching down south. The origins of the Mafia, bootlegging during prohibition. I think our society is better off today than in the "good old days." ----- HOMOPHOBIA IS HATEFUL, NOT JUST OPINION Editor; Mr. Greg Fleckenstein (Letters, April 4) says I am "name-calling." He resents being called a bigot and a hater just because he "stands up for his beliefs." Those beliefs of his, as expressed in a March 23 letter, are that all gay people need to seek psychiatric help, are unnatural, are responsible for the breakdown of the family, are immoral and deviant, and that gays like me should not be "tolerated." Boy, I'm sure glad he didn't resort to name-calling. Mr. Fleckenstein, it is prejudice, ignorance and intolerance such as people like you exhibit that hurts a lot of people. I speak from experience. It hurts gay people, who learn to hate themselves. It hurts the families of gays who are trying to accept and understand their gay sons and daughters. It legitimizes the discrimination of gay people in housing and employment. It gives an excuse to the people who harass and beat up gay people. It drives many gays into hiding and into forced, unhappy marriages. And it makes many teenagers who realize they are gay commit suicide. I'm sorry if pointing out a little harsh reality has brusied your feelings, Mr. Fleckenstein. I believe you when you say you don't wish us any harm, but you fail to realize that your attitudes about us translate into great harm for us, both psychological and physical. I hope you will do a little soul-searching, and a little reading up on what the experts in the fields of psychiatry and human sexuality have to say. Many of them have spent their whole lives studying this issue. They would take issue with every one of your opinions and conclusions. You may think you are debating some abstract political idea but you are playing with people's very real lives. ---- JESSE HELMS Editor, Senator Jesse Helms, the "Godly" senator from North Carolina, pillar of the religious right, has spent most of his lengthy tenure in Congress spouting racial bigotry, finally quitting only when it became politically unwise. These days he's into legislative gay-bashing. His ambiguous amendment to the national education-funding bill orders that any school offering support for or education about homosexuality lose federal funding. No instructional materials, no counseling, nothing. This ensures that vulnerable gay and lesbian teenagers, who already feel desperately alone and outcast, have nowhere to turn when they're harassed and beaten up. It will inevitably mean more pain, more closeted teens, more dropouts (28% of gay teens drop out of high school now), and an even higher suicide rate. How did such a despicable man come to be considered "Godly?" Maybe because of his efforts to promote the tobacco industry, which is responsible for sending so many new applicants to heaven each year. ----- BIBLE ETC Editor; In his latest column, your radical right columnist Cal Thomas criticizes President Clinton for "Biblical revisionism" because of his comments on abortion and homosexuality. Thomas says "Now comes a President who wants to revise those rules that have been accepted as doctrine for 2000 years." If Mr. Thomas is the Biblical expert he pretends to be, he should be well aware that Biblical interpretation has changed over the years. Approximately 150 years ago slavery was condoned and even blessed by Christians who quoted Ephesians 6:5 ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling."). Women were relegated to inferior positions with the justification of I Corinthians 14:34 ("Women should be silent in churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but be subordinate.") Today the denominations, of course, do not support slavery. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible did. What influences lead us to new ways of understanding Scripture? New scientific information, social changes and personal experience are the greatest forces. Scientific awareness of the homosexual orientation did not exist until the 19th century. We have learned from decades of careful study that people do not choose their sexual orientation. And more people find out every day that someone they know and like happens to be gay. What the Bible teaches is of great significance. The problem, however, is that popular attitudes are often read into Biblical statements to justify personal prejudices. This has been particularly true of homosexuality. Today, a growing number of Biblical scholars recognize that the Bible does not condemn loving, monogamous, responsible homosexual relationships. The Bible verses people use to condemn gay people have been distorted, mistranslated, or incorrectly interpreted, resulting in hurt to people against whom the original text was not directed. ----- GUEST EDITORIAL ON GAY ISSUE BY STOSINE As a gay man of 41, I sometimes feel discouraged about the state of acceptance and understanding of homosexuality in America. I think we have come a long way - at least the issue is being discussed now - but I still see much of the same prejudice and ignorance, and hear many of the same arguments as ten years ago. I see anti- gay propositions in Oregon, Colorado, Maine and Florida. Some succeed, some fail. I think we are making progress, but sometimes it seems excruciatingly slow. Two steps forward, one step back. I see people like Pat Robertson purse their lips and talk about life style choice and use Scripture to justify their prejudice. They have turned the Good Book, with its instructions to love unconditionally and judge not, into a weapon. They oppose fairness and equality for gays, calling basic rights a "special privilege" that gays should not have. They use Scripture and invoke Christianity to encourage ordinarily good people to act on their fears rather than their virtues. This encourages hate, intolerance, discrimination and even violence. In a study of 400 young men incarcerated for gay-bashing, the Boston Globe reported that the bashers generally found nothing wrong in what they did and, more often than not, said their religious leaders and traditions sanctioned their behavior. One teenager said that the pastor of his church had said "Homosexuals represent the devil, Satan" and that the Rev. Jerry Falwell had echoed that charge. Despite what the Bible commands, some Christians judge their gay neighbor. They pick and choose parts of Scripture, such as Leviticus, to support their existing prejudices against gays, but they ignore literally hundreds of other passages on the same pages which, for example, forbid a woman to wear the color red or a man to shave, eating pork, shopping on Sunday or wearing garments made of two different kinds of material. If homosexuality were such an evil, you would expect to have Jesus say something about it. The fact is He didn't say one word about it, nor is it one of the Ten Commandments. Some people say that being gay is a matter of choice, which contradicts the knowledgeable researchers in the field of human sexuality, such as Kinsey and Masters & Johnson, who state clearly that sexual orientation is something over which a person has no control. The complex workings of the brain which cause sexual attraction are still a mystery, but one thing the experts can say with certainty is that gay people do not choose to be gay. The only choice for a gay person is to live in the closet, lying and hiding, or to be honest about who they are and live life openly. I didn't choose to be gay, but I did choose to tell the truth. And the only way I can "promote" my sexual orientation is to show other gay and lesbian people that you can be gay, live openly and lead a full and happy and normal life. The fact that I have been in a loving, monogamous relationship for over 15 years now has given hope to many younger gays and surprised many anti-gay persons who cling to stereotyped notions. It doesn't take a genius to understand that being gay is not a choice. Why would 20 million Americans choose a lifestyle for which they will be scorned by an intolerant society? A lifestyle in which committed couples are not entitled to the same legal benefits as straight married couples? A lifestyle for which they might get beaten up or killed? A lifestyle that may very well isolate them from friends and family? Some people confuse being gay with sexual activity. They think if gays stop doing sexual acts, they'll stop being gay, when in fact it is something inside, just as it is for heterosexuals. Being gay is not a rebellion against society, it is conforming to what one feels inside. Our critics also ignore a number of basic facts of life. Allow me to recite them. Gays pay taxes; gays vote; gays frequently have children; gays run for, win and competently fulfill the duties of elected office. There are gays out there wearing Superbowl rings. Gays also contribute heavily to every aspect of the world's cultures and societies. Saying otherwise is insupportable idiocy. To depict us as frivolous creatures engaged in an endless search for sexual thrills is to deny that we can achieve excellence as real adults in the real world. Lesbians and gays are subject to the same terrifying, chaotic free falls into love endured by everyone else. We're stupid in love, romantic in courtship and deeply committed over the long term. Let me tell you about a man. He still lives in the small town of his birth, which I'll call Rolling Rock, Iowa. He lives there on a farm with his mother. He never had a chance to do anything about being gay; he never had any such love in his life. He never marched in a rally or wrote a letter to the editor. A couple of years ago a fight was waged in Iowa to pass a civil rights law that included gays. People across the state were asked to write their legislators. The man from Rolling Rock sent organizers a copy of the letter he sent to his legislator. It said, "I am writing to support the civil rights bill for lesbians and gay men. I have lived and farmed in Iowa all my life. If such a bill had existed 40 years ago my life might not have had to be as lonely as it has been. I am 60 years old, and I am a gay man." He signed it. He sent it. People wonder sometimes why gays "have to" do some things, in much the same way they wonder why heterosexuals "have to" get married. Why do we "have to" have marches or rallies? Why do we "have to" insist upon being written into existing civil rights laws? Why do we have to shout about anything at all? Let me tell you why. Living a relatively bearable existence doesn't cut it. Too many people out there live their entire lives like the man from Rolling Rock, and human beings deserve better. Even in big cities, gay help lines get calls in the middle of the night from people who need to talk about coming out of the lonely closet. These people are fighting the fight of their lives. They are struggling to give themselves permission to love.. Plus, there are people out there who do everything in their power to make the lives of gay people miserable. So, not only do gays "have to" celebrate their pride, but their heterosexual friends "have to" reject neutrality in favor of demonstrating as much support as possible. Prejudice, ignorance and intolerance of gays hurts a lot of people. I speak from experience. It hurts gay people, who learn to hate themselves. It hurts the families of gays who are trying to accept and understand their gay sons and daughters. It legitimizes the discrimination of gay people in housing and employment. It gives an excuse to the people who harass and beat up gay people. It drives many gays into forced, unhappy marriages. And those attitudes make many teenagers who realize they are gay commit suicide. (Approximately 1130 words) ----- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:14:19 -0800 (PST) From: Ray Russ Subject: Pro gay letters pt 3 (fwd) From: BCS41@aol.com Subject: Pro gay letters pt 3 MARRIAGE ENCOURAGES MONOGAMY AMONG GAYS Does marriage encourage sexual monogamy? Yes, I think that it does. At least, it can't hurt! Of course there will always be those who commit adultery, but in general I think one of the benefits of the institution of marriage is that it encourages a encourage commitment to one person. But in Sunday's Gazette a self-described "blood-bought, born-again, spirit-filled Christian" said no. He said "mankind's institutions" like marriage are of no help because only being religious makes a person monogamous. He opposes allowing homosexuals to marry because "marriage won't help them to be any more monogamous than heterosexuals." It was quite odd, I thought, to come across a born-again Christian who criticizes the institution of marriage. Well, is he right? Are the religious more monogamous than everyone else? One study says no. In the March 8 issue of Newsweek (page 56) there was a review of the new 432- page book "The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior." It said that the authors surveyed nearly 8,000 Americans over the past nine years. Their statistics showed that "very religious" people actually cheat on their spouses more than plain old "religious" people. One 31-year-old female prostitute is quoted as saying, "I love doing conventions, particularly the Republicans. Not only Republicans; almost any very conservative group. Many of these come to these functions without wives, but even if they have their wives, they sneak around and they serve up sex action like you wouldn't believe." Hey, look at Jimmy Swaggart. Would it be fair to say, therefore, that the "very religious" should be denied the right to marry, along with gays, since they often fail at the goal of monogamy? ----- CHARACTERISTICS OF HOMOPHOBIA Editor; Living in a university town, as I do (Iowa City is home to the University of Iowa) I get to meet many educated professionals. The other day I was talking with a clinical psychologist about the type of responses I get - often nasty and irrational - after I have a letter about homosexuality published in the newspaper. We talked about why some people develop homophobia. First of all, they have to be angry. It doesn't matter whether they are angry at themselves, their parents or at the world. Angry people need to take their anger out on something, and any minority group serves the purpose. Today, gay people make a particularly inviting target. Secondly, they feel insecure. They constantly rate themselves against others. When people are confident enough not to rate themselves or others they don't get turned off by blacks joining the baseball league, women running corporations or gays fighting in the military. Along with a combination of anger and insecurity, they have another characteristic. They don't think in a reasonable and logical manner. For example, how can people object to a gay man serving in the military when that person has already served with distinction for 20 years? That's like saying a woman could not raise a healthy family for years after it is discovered she has no marriage papers. If homosexuality made a difference, then why wasn't that difference observed during the 20 years that person served? Another consequence of anger and insecurity is that it blinds people to evidence. They have a need not to see that their views are contradicted by the facts, by experts or by scientific discoveries. ----- POLITICAL CORRECTNESS The term "political correctness" is a form of Orwellian double-speak, formerly used in Stalinist Russia to silence political opponents, and today used by demagogues to deflect attention from their own specious arguments. Like its' counterpart "un-American" used by anti-Communist witch-hunter Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950's, it is an empty phrase used an excuse to avoid engaging the real issues. In short, it is a smear term, harmful to thoughtful discussion. ----- RELIGIOUS RIGHT Editor, Members of the religious right say that people who approve of Rev. Jesse Jackson's political activities while criticizing Pat Robertson's are guilty of a double- standard. But Jackson and Robertson worship two vastly different Gods. Jackson worships a loving, tolerant God and seeks to include many diverse groups of people, while Robertson uses his idea of a stern, judgmental God to justify excluding all the people who don't pass his litmus test on political issues. The religious right has taken the term "Christian" and turned it into a political code word, ignoring the fact that millions of faithful Christians disagree with their political agenda and do not support the exclusionary and often unconstitutional solutions they offer for our nation's problems. They say they favor limiting the power of government, yet when it comes to enforcing their own beliefs they want laws to persecute gay people, control women's reproductive rights, censor books and movies, teach creationism, make everyone pray when they pray, etc. Pat Robertson has said on his 700 Club television show that only ultra-religious Christians are qualified to have the "reign" of government. They call their critics "anti-Christian bigots." Can a Christian who disagrees with their politics be an anti-Christian bigot? Robertson and the others are dirtying Christianity by their grab for worldly political power. It's disturbing to see the image of a Christian being changed from love, kindness and setting a good example to one of nasty partisan politics, intolerance, ignorance and name- calling. ----- SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE The fundamentalist, or radical right, agenda today apparently includes more than just degrading the science education of our children with the nonsense of creationism. They use similar tactics of fabrication and distortion to rewrite our nation's history in their favor as well. Those who say that America was "founded" on Christianity or that our Constitution "contains no separation of church and state" badly need to go back to history class. It is just not true. America was founded by people who were fleeing the absolutism and cruelty of governments dominated by state religions. Our founders were extremely concerned about keeping church and state separate because they had seen firsthand the consequences of mixing them. For example, laws enacted by Virginia Governor Thomas Dale in 1612 included being whipped three times for saying anything disrespectful of a minister, a "bodkin (knife) thrust through the tongue" for cursing and compulsory tithes of ten percent of everyone's income to the church. Non-attendance at church was punishable by a whipping or, on the second offense, by six months in jail. Fundamentalists in other states enacted similar laws. New York law required baptism of all children under penalty of the arrest and imprisonment of their parents, and members of other religions (most notably Quakers) were sentenced to hard labor for the crime of preaching a religion other than the official one. Political privileges were limited to Christians and this did not include Catholics or Jews. Most of our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin were skeptics or deists. When they mentioned God or Creator they were referring to nature's god, a more open-minded and less dogmatic belief than even the most liberal Christians today. For over ten years prior to the writing of our Constitution religious activists - the Pat Robertson types of their time - pressured their representatives to put references to God, Christianity and Jesus Christ into it. Not only were such references not put in, but safeguards against religious intrusions into government were made. The very first thing that was established was that there would be no religious test for office. In other words, persons of any religion - or no religion - have the same right to hold public office. Even a proposal to open the Constitutional Convention with prayer was nixed by a huge majority. One of the first treaties we ever concluded as a new nation was the Treaty of Tripoli with the Barbary pirates in 1797, and it says, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Congress unanimously passed it and it was signed by President John Adams. This "wall of separation" was made for religion's benefit as well as government's. Just look around the world today at nations like Iran whose governments are more like religious dictatorships, with one "official" religion. America has so far been able to avoid the tyranny, oppression, terrorism, and religious war that characterizes so many nations around the world which have no separation of church and state as we do. The rise of fundamentalist Islam and the rush to create Islamic Republics in Iran is the mirror-image of what fundamentalists are calling for here in America. If that seems like a harsh judgment, so be it. That's the way it looks to me. They would abolish religious liberty as we have known it throughout the unique American experiment and would relegate to second-class citizens those who did not meet the rigid requirements of orthodoxy. It certainly should be viewed with alarm by those who hold minority religious beliefs and those who have exercised their right to hold no religious convictions. The Religious Right's claim of an exclusive endorsement from God is disturbing. Of course we need ethics and morals in government, but let's not imply that without religion - or without the "correct" religion - a person cannot be ethical or moral. Some of the finest, most moral people I know are not religious while some of the worst scoundrels in public and private life are, or loudly proclaim themselves to be, religious. I'm with James S. Tinney, a Howard University political scientist and a Pentacostal theologian, who commented after a large fundamentalist "Washington for Jesus" rally, "I reject the idea that Washington should be for Jesus or Muhammed or Buddha, or any other religious figure. It should be for all the people of every faith or of no faith." ----- SODOMY LAWS Editor; The Virginia sodomy law has been cited in attacking the decision of a judge to let a mother raise her child. The argument goes: She is a lesbian and therefore violates Virginia's anti-sodomy law. The people who make this argument seem unbothered by the fact that she has never been charged, tried or convicted under the sodomy law. Their argument is that if one says one is gay or lesbian - if one merely acknowledges that status - one is automatically guilty of the crime of sodomy. This provides us with the strongest argument for the repeal of sodomy laws in the 20-odd states that still have them (Iowa doesn't). Sodomy laws are used to make gay men and women "presumptive felons" - guilty without a trial - and to consequently deprive them of civil and human rights, like the right to raise one's own children. Or serve one's country. Or hold a job. If we believe in the right to freedom of speech and the right to equal treatment in this society, then states like Virginia should repeal their sodomy laws. ----- GROWING UP GAY Often my spiritual energy has been drained trying to answer the question "How can you be both gay and Christian?" It has been a deeply painful process. Let me tell my faith story. As a boy I was often sick and spent many nights on a respirator. Eventually, because of my illness, I had to leave my family to attend school in another state. I was happy for a while, but all was not well. It puzzled me that most of my friends were interested in girls and I was not, but it didn't bother me too much. I figured I would change to be like the other boys. In college I became friends with a fellow. Gradually I realized I was in love with him, which frightened me very much. I didn't know what I had done to be the way I was, but I knew it must have been bad. I knew it was so terrible that I could never tell anyone, and I began to walk in front of cars on the highway by the woods, hoping that they would take me away from my pain. And so the years passed. My friend married a young woman, and I was best man. Three months later, I decided I must find a way to change or I could not go on living. I got up enough courage to visit the village pastor, and I asked "What I want to know is if you believe in healing for homosexuals." There. I had said it. Someone knew. I had never felt so naked, so exposed, so vulnerable. Or so honest. I felt a huge weight lifted from me. The pastor looked at me without even batting an eye and calmly said "That depends on whether there is a brokenness." I was stunned. I had finally experienced the grace I had heard about for so long. I began to see that the brokenness in my life came not from my homosexuality, but from the deep homophobia of my church and society that I had so thoroughly internalized as to make it seem natural. I have learned that the spiritual affliction of our times is not homosexuality, but homophobia. It is the fear and rejection of children and adults who discover themselves to be gay that has caused so much pain and suffering. That is what is an abomination in the eyes of God. ----- RELIGIOUS RIGHT To The Editor - The more I see and hear the actions of the so-called Christian Coalition the more I think about a line Jimmy Stewart said in "Fools Parade": "God uses good people; the bad ones use God." ----- SCIENTIFIC STUDIES Editor; A recent study conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health and the Center for Health Policy Studies in Washington found that large numbers of men and women have had fleeting homosexual feelings. The significance of this study must not be overlooked. I believe that a great deal of homophobia is generated by heterosexuals who are bothered by having had such a thought. Since these basically heterosexual people were able to control their brief impulses easily they assume everyone ought to be able to exercise similar self- control. They think homosexuals are weak or immoral for giving in to those thoughts, not realizing that for gay men and women the orientation is central, not fleeting. Also, homosexual thoughts bring concern, even panic, to many people, and persons who have an underlying fear of their own homosexual tendencies are vociferously abusive in their attacks against homosexuality. Those who do not feel threatened by any homosexual leanings within themselves are more understanding and relaxed in their attitudes about gay people. ----- GAYS A THREAT? Editor; Today there is a lot of propaganda against gay people being disseminated by fundamentalist religious and conservative groups. They portray gays as perverted, deviants and weirdos. They circulate videotapes that show extreme examples of homosexuals' behavior. They say that gays are a threat to the nation's social and political order, and use scare tactics to bring in donations. It would be just as easy to review the history of heterosexual conduct - the Roman orgies, gang rapes in Massachusetts, prostitution, Tailhook, the Hillside Strangler murders, etc. - and use those examples to discredit all heterosexuals. If I stacked the deck and showed only the outrageous and offensive moments, I would be doing exactly what the critics of gays are doing. (I'm sure I could compile some pretty weird video pictures of heterosexual behavior from the Mardis Gras in New Orleans.) There are millions of gay people in the United States. Most do not engage in flamboyant San Francisco- style displays of their identities. All of the gay people I know tend to avoid calling attention to themselves because of the penalties society imposes on them because of their difference. It is not "perversion" when a gay person acts according to his or her nature. The perversion occurs when people force homosexuals to be heterosexual. The truth is that gays have been and continue to be oppressed into the unnatural lifestyle of pretending to be straight. ----- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 18:15:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pro gay letters part 4 (fwd) From: BCS41@aol.com Subject: Pro gay letters part 4 BIBLE Editor; In Sunday's Register, Rep. Hurley says that the Bible tells us right from wrong, and therefore should be considered in "how we deal with legislation" on homosexuality. Unfortunately, many people do not focus on the overriding message of the Bible, which is love and compassion, but on specific verses that justify their existing prejudices. We must be careful not to legislate like that, or to be consistent we will have to create a lot of new laws. The same people who quote from the Bible on homosexuality ignore other verses in the same sections which, for example, forbid a woman to wear the color red or a man to shave. They no longer quote the parts of the Bible that say witches must be put to death, but always know exactly where old passages are about "man lying with man." The Bible also says widows must not remarry (I Tim. 5:5) or be admitted to church if under 60 years old (I Tim. 5:9). It says women may not have authority over men (I Tim. 2:8), and it forbids working on Sunday (Ex. 35:1-2 and Num. 15:32-36), blasphemy (Lev. 24:10-14,23), killing cattle without bringing an offering to priests (Lev. 17:2- 5), or kindling a fire on Sabbath day (Ex. 25:2,3 and Ex. 31:14). Leviticus, which is often invoked against homosexuals, also prohibits eating raw meat, the planting of two different kinds of seed in the same field, and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn. People have, throughout history, been able to justify their prejudices on almost any subject by finding certain passages and lifting them out of context. The fundamentalists of the 18th century even quoted the Bible to justify slavery. Let us remember, if homosexuality were such an evil, you would expect to have Jesus say something about it. The fact is He didn't, nor is it one of the Ten Commandments. Rather than legislating by selective verses taken out of context, let's keep these important lessons of the Bible in mind when making our laws: "Judge not lest you be judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love your neighbor as you love yourself." ----- EX GAYS In his Feb. 27 letter, Randy Schulke says gays "pooh- pooh older, wiser and especially religious values" and compares me, a gay man, to an alcoholic, lacking sufficient willpower to change my "tendencies." Why do people like Mr. Schulke "pooh-pooh" the scientific studies done by the Boston University School of Medicine, UCLA, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, The National Institute of Mental Health, State University of New York, and others? Why do they persist in contradicting all the knowledgeable researchers in the field of human sexuality who have spent decades studying this issue? I think they cling to stereotyped, outdated notions because they find it easier and more comfortable to coddle their prejudices. It's not possible to change someone's in-born sexual orientation, but it is possible to make them miserable over it. There is an "ex-gay" movement today that preys on the spiritually and emotionally wounded. Using the tenets of born-again fundamentalism, they try to convince dissatisfied homosexuals - usually young gay men just coming out and stressed by family pressure and society's intolerance - that they can change by suppressing their orientation. Countless people have been misled by ex-gay ministries into believing that sexual orientation can be changed, only to find, even years later, that they had found only temporary happiness in the delusion that they had changed. These "ex-gays" no longer call themselves gay but continue to have same-sex erotic feelings and dreams. Add to that the pain of many spouses of these individuals who thought they had married a heterosexual. Anyone can suppress one's feelings and live a lie, for a time, but it doesn't work in the long run. Besides, living a lie doesn't seem like much of a Christian ethic. Homosexual relationships shouldn't be compared to alcoholism, they should be compared to heterosexual relationships. The similarities far outweigh the differences. I am 41 years old and I have been in a loving relationship with my companion for more than 14 years, faithfully and monogamously. We consider ourselves committed to each other for life. We cannot legally "marry" because secular law in our society will not allow it. We have no more in common with alcoholics than does Mr. Schulke and his wife. I would like nothing better than to have my private sexual life not an issue, because it's nobody else's business. The people who make it an issue are the people who think it is o.k. to single me and my friends out for mistreatment because of who we love. As long as that happens, then we must and will speak up and object. ----- GAYS LIKE LEFTIES? Editor; In his December 17 letter A. J. Wilhite says it is an insult to compare a gay person to a left-handed person like him who was "born this way and have to live, and fight and adjust to this...society." For decades, experts in the field of human sexuality have said they believe gays are also "born that way" and recent scientific findings support this. Gays also have to live, fight and adjust to a society that demands conformity. If Mr. Wilhite feels insulted at this mild but accurate comparison, then there is no word strong enough to describe how I feel. I am a 42-year old gay man who has been in a loving, monogamous relationship with my companion for 16 years, living as normal and ordinary an everyday life as any married couple, yet I see anti-gay comments that compare all gays to alcoholics, drug addicts, liars, thieves, pedophiles, rapists, adulterers, and gamblers. Whew. My partner and I have nothing in common with any of those other categories, which all involve a victim. Why do people insist on comparing us to horrible things when we are most similar to is a heterosexual couple who have been married for 16 years? ----- BIBLE Editor, Some people have been asserting that catastrophes such as flooding, draught and AIDS were manifestations of God's wrath. They claim to have inside knowledge of what God was intending, and it is always the perceived sins of other Americans, not themselves, who are to blame. The Bible is not a series of texts designed to condemn the world and it's people. It is a collection of teachings to help us live in harmony with each other. Themes of compassion, patience, justice, love and forgiveness run though its pages. Love thy neighbor, judge not, etc. Some of these people seem to have made God into nothing more than a reflection of their own petty human frailty. If God is indeed angry, it is most likely with these self-appointed saviors who claim that His will for us includes intolerance, hatred and violence. Now that is blasphemy worthy of God's vengeance. ----- BIBLE Editor, The handful of Bible passages used to condemn gay people are about as relevant today as the many passages stating the world is flat (Isaiah 11:12, for example) or Proverbs 31:6, stating that alcohol should be given to those who are depressed so they may "forget their troubles and worry no more," or the apostle Paul's many passages denying women their full personhood. In the 1800s a Methodist minister started a school to teach women to read. A noted senator of the day said "Next thing you know, the reverend will want to teach his cows to read. The reverend should read his Bible." When will people understand that just because something appears in the bible doesn't make it necessarily true or correct? "All that's in a gold mine is not gold." ----- CHOOSE TO BE GAY? Editor, It doesn't take a genius to understand that being gay is not a choice. Why would 20 million Americans choose a lifestyle for which they will be scorned by an intolerant society? A lifestyle in w hich committed couples are not entitled to the same legal benefits as straight married couples? A lifestyle for which they might get beaten up or killed? A lifestyle that may very well isolate them from friends and family? The only choice a gay person has is whether to accept being gay and live a happy, productive life or deny it and live in a lonely closet. ----- MARRIAGE Editor, It's funny how the same people who accuse gays of being promiscuous also oppose letting them marry, which would encourage monogamy and commitment. ----- MANY KNOW GAYS Editor, Many people say they have no gay friends or acquaintances. Of course they do, they just don't know it. As the case of long-closeted Rock Hudson showed, gay people are an invisible segment of the population, a situation that perpetuates homophobia. ----- GAY `LIFESTYLE' Editor, I have a life, not a lifestyle. There is no single homosexual lifestyle any more than there is a single heterosexual lifestyle. ---- HOW MANY GAYS? Editor, Many people question the statistic that 10 percent of people are gay. From personal experience, I think it's probably higher (it's amazing how much remains invisible to most heterosexuals). But, fine. Even assuming the 2 percent figure that conservatives cite when they want to argue how insignificant we and our concerns are is true, that still amounts to more than 5 million Americans, or neatly twice the population of the state of Iowa. Five million people (2 percent) or 25 million (10 percent), or pick your own figure. Even there were only TEN gay people in the whole world they would still be entitled to be treated fairly and decently. ----- GAY "BEHAVIOR" Editor, The problem I have with people who moralize about "behavior" when talking about preventing AIDS is that they are often using it as a code word for "don't be gay," reflecting an ignorance of the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice. A gay man can't switch, at will, to start finding women sexually appealing any more than a heterosexual man can will himself to desire only men. I would like to point out to various ignoramuses that gay people did not "cause" AIDS. It is true that here in America the disease first appeared among the gay community, but the epidemic began among heterosexuals in Africa and overwhelmingly afflicts heterosexuals worldwide. ----- TEXTBOOK QUOTE >From HUMAN SEXUALITY by James L. McCoy PhD, Professor of Psychiatry, Houston. Published by Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., page 283: "It is widely recognized among psychotherapists that men who have an underlying fear of their own homosexual tendencies are vociferously abusive in their attacks against homosexuality. Those who do not feel threatened by any homosexual leanings within themselves are more understanding and relaxed in their dealing with people of homosexual orientation." ----- ANTI GAY REFERENDUMS Editor, It blows me away that people who profess to have Christian values and family values take up shields and spears to defend discrimination. Hate is not a Christian value, a family value or a traditional American value. To try to deny people their rights because they are not exactly like us is cruel and un-American. ----- CURING GAYS Editor, To wish to change one's sexual orientation is certainly OK if it is the individual who wishes to do so. It is the perhaps well-intentioned who pressure homosexuals to change who do a lot of damage. The idea of "curing" homosexuality has a long and unpleasant history. In this century, doctors and moralists have tried castration, lobotomy, hormone injections, aversion therapy and even shock treatments. Virtually everyone now agrees that any effort to reverse sexual orientation is not only futile, it is psychologically harmful. In 1990 the American Psychological Association condemned efforts to change sexual orientation. The Christian fundamentalist-run "ex-gay" organizations are going a real disservice to people. They encourage gays to suppress their normal feelings and needs. With enough pressure, working on persons programmed by society to have low self-esteem, you can change any behavior superficially. It is possible to change one's sexual behavior by suppression or repression; there is no data which support the changing of sexual orientation, a major difference. These "ex-gays" continue to have same-sex dreams, fantasies and arousal. When you try to find an "ex gay" what you find are rather sad, desperate people playing mind games and semantics, no "cures" or lasting changes. The whole motivation behind the movement to change gays is political - fundamentalist and conservative politics dressed up in a lab coat. ------ Editor; Tim Hickman's experience growing up gay closely mirrors my own - having sexual dreams of a gay nature and crushes on cute male classmates and TV stars at an early age, one day realizing in a panic that I'm one of those "queers" people talk about and I'd better not say anything to anybody, hearing and reading the most awful, untrue things that supposedly described people like me, struggling with self-worth and loneliness, thoughts of suicide, eventually coming out to the world's most wonderful parents when I couldn't bear lying to them any longer when answering their questions about who I was dating and when I was going to get married and give them grandchildren, and, finally, today speaking out for gay rights and justice while living with the man I fell in love with and consider that I "married" 16 years ago, today enjoying the acceptance of my family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. I recognize Ian Binnie's ideas about homosexuality, too - unfortunately. They are a throwback to the slanderous things I heard about gays as a child which so traumatized me they sent me more than once to thoughts of suicide. Gay people are people. We are just like heterosexuals. We fall in love. We have the same needs for companionship and a loving relationship. Yes, some gay people are loud and offensive, obnoxious or outrageous. So are some heterosexuals. Yes, some gays have been caught molesting children, but so have heterosexuals. Yes, some gays hang out at bars looking for a quick pick-up for sex, but a peek into any heterosexual bar will reveal heterosexual playboys cruising for the next conquest. Usually with age, and after sowing a few wild oats, both heterosexuals and homosexuals long to settle down into a comfortable relationship. -------- Editor; Regarding Ralph Copeland's January 6 letter "Perversion can be changed," what is truly vile and disgusting is this sort of thinking which seeks to vilify and stereotype people in order to mark them for abuse and exclusion. This desperate need to create malicious enemies out of other people spawns the sort of sickness that destroys democracy and dissolves the heart of civilization. Mr. Copeland says he is convinced that homosexuality is not genetic. Scientific studies done by the Boston University School of Medicine, UCLA, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, The National Institute of Mental Health, State University of New York, and others, have found a genetic link to sexual orientation. Their findings support what experts in the fields of human sexuality and psychiatry have been saying for decades, that sexual orientation is not a choice. But whether or not homosexuality is genetic, as all these experts and researchers believe, actually makes no difference. This is America, where people have the right to be different even if they did "choose" to be. One thing is certain: People who are prejudiced against gays choose to be prejudiced and they can change if they want to. The gay people I know never had the choice to be homosexual or not but were forced to live lovingly and well within the sexuality they were given. What they want is what all people want: to be loved by their families, to live productive lives and to form meaningful relationships. They seek to move through the world without the fear of losing their jobs, being kicked out of their homes or suffering beatings or insults because of who they are. -- ______ |"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same \ /Tina M. Wood | God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and \ / AL715@yfn.ysu.edu| intellect has intended us to forego their use." \/ Cumberland, RI | --Galileo Galilei