“Family” Groups: Suicide Helplines Promote Homosexuality

The Trevor Project is a national organization providing crisis intervention for gay youth. At a time when more and more young Americans are ending their lives in part due to their sexuality, such an organization should be finding supporters from every corner of the country. After all, no child should contemplate ending his or her life even before it has a chance to truly begin. No parent wants that, whether they are pro- or anti-gay supporters.

Apparently, two family groups–The American Family Association and the Florida Family Association–disagree. As reported by ThinkProgress, the AFA and the FFA believe “that the Trevor Project is ‘recruiting teens and children to become gay’ through its suicide prevention hotline.”

Can you believe this?

The Trevor Project’s sole purpose is to provide a lifeline for the youth who are contemplating killing themselves. This organization and its volunteers have no hidden agenda other than preventing needless deaths. They offer a sympathetic ear for troubled teens. They aren’t looking to fulfill some recruitment quota like armed forces recruiters.

Still, the FFA is incensed that an advertisement for The Trevor Project is aired during a Teen Nick program called “Degrassi,” which features a transgendered teen, and they are angry at Target for sponsoring the ad.

Since the show’s focus group are teens, it makes sense for the ad to appear during this slot. The ad doesn’t advocate homosexuality; it offers hope to a struggling teen who might be watching the show and who might be contemplating suicide. And Target shouldn’t be boycotted for this, as the FFA is calling for in its form letter.

Target should be on the receiving end of praise not criticism.

Trying to prevent a child from ending his or her life should be the primary focus here, but once again, hate and ignorance reign supreme.

Dan Savage to Cain: Some Proof Being Gay Isn’t a Choice

As you no doubt already know, Herman Cain, Republican Presidential hopeful, believes homosexuality is a choice as well as a sin.

Well, Dan Savage, author, journalist, and editor, wants to provide Cain with scientific evidence that being gay isn’t a choice. I think his experiment is genius and will solve the argument once and for all.

Dan Savage posted the following on The Slog:

Dear Herman,

If being gay is a choice, show us the proof. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that’s done, Herman, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick, Herman. Name the time and the place and I’ll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument.

Very sincerely yours,

Dan Savage

If Cain is able to oblige Savage’s request, then homosexuality can certainly be a choice. However, no straight man, who truly loves lady parts, is going to stop petting his favorite kitty in order to walk someone else’s dog.

Savage knows that, I know that, you know that. Hopefully, when Cain reads this, he will know it too!

 

Ex-Gay Minister Admits He’s Gay!

ThinkProgress reports that John Smid, founder and former director of Love in Action (LIA), one of the oldest ex-gay conversion ministries, has come out of the closet.

Since Smid’s resignation from LIA in 2008, he apparently has had a change of heart about his own sexuality (he’s gay and married to a woman) and his beliefs on homosexuality in general. (I would guess so, now that he “realizes” he’s one of us!) Click here to read his latest blog post.

Smid’s revelations have led him to understand how narrow minded his previous views on homosexuality were. He even admitted the following:

“I was completely unwilling to hear anything that didn’t fit my paradigm. I blocked out anyone’s life story or biblical teaching that didn’t match up with what I believed… Now that I am not submerged into one sided perspectives, I am open to studying and reading the scriptures for myself, I am finding so many rich truths that I wasn’t ever made aware of before.

To me, this admission proves that proponents of conversion therapy know logically that ex-gay conversion doesn’t work, but since the facts contradict prejudice-based ignorance, they choose to ignore it like presidential hopefuls Rick Santorum and Herman Cain. The science is there, but people like Santorum and Cain (and at one time Smid) refuse to look at the data because it doesn’t support the hate they spout.

Now that Smid is free from such hateful clutter, he sees the word of God in a new light. He understands that the Bible is about love and acceptance, not about fostering hate and fear.

He even now realizes that “One cannot repent of something that is unchangeable…. the transformation for the vast majority of homosexuals will not include a change of sexual orientation. Actually I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual.”

It’s nice to hear an ex-gay minister say those words. The mere idea is preposterous. If homosexuals could change to being heterosexual, then that means heterosexuals can do the same thing. How many of my heterosexual friends believe they could be persuaded by prayer to be gay? Yeah, that’s what I thought. You can’t wish (or pray) the gay away or into someone. That’s now how it works.

Luckily, Smid also realizes that too. “I used to define homosexuality or heterosexuality in terms describing one’s behavior,” he confessed. “I thought it made sense and through the years often wrote articles and talked from that perspective. Today, I understand why the gay community had such an issue with my writings. My perspective denied so many facets of the homosexual experience. I minimized a person’s life to just their sexuality but homosexuality is much more than sex.”

Precisely. Just as sex is only a small part of a heterosexual person’s identity, sex isn’t the entire portion of a homosexual’s identity either. We are all so much more than who we go to bed with at night. I’m glad Smid finally realizes that and has been enlightened. I applaud him for not only making the change but admitting it.

It takes a lot of strength to admit you have been behaving badly, and I applaud Smid for not only eating crow but for now being a voice for truth.

Rick Santorum Supports Reinstating DADT & Ex-Gay Therapy

Republican Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum once again proved today how un-electable he is.

During an interview this morning on FOX news, Santorum regurgitated his support for the reinstatement of DADT, which he expressed during the GOP debate where a soldier was booed. (Click here to read that post).

Santorum believes that if gays are allowed to serve openly in the military then our “recruitment and retention” will decrease. He makes these claims despite the reports that the majority of service members have no issue working alongside homosexual soldiers. Once again, a candidate chooses to ignore the facts and instead pushes an agenda fueled by hate and prejudice. Most soldiers don’t care who sleeps with who anymore than most people care who their colleague sleeps with at home. Everyone’s private life is just that–private. The government needs to stop caring what happens in the privacy of an individual’s home and refrain from making laws, which attempt to govern any individual’s pursuit of personal happiness.

To add insult to injury, however, Santorum’s rhetoric is strikingly similar to the arguments used in the 1940’s when racial integration became a problem for the military. Candidates against integration worried about “close sleeping quarters” and “showers” just as Santorum does. Homosexuality isn’t a communicable disease anymore than being Black is. If that was the case, I’d be sneezing all over everyone in Washington! Then, those conservative politicians would not only be gay but Latino too! (I bet they’d really hate that!)

Still, Santorum’s frothing at the mouth knows no bounds! For Santorum, homosexuality is a choice, despite the many psychological studies conducted to combat this belief. (Once again, science and cold hard data mean little when faced with ignorance). To make matters worse, Santorum supports ex-gay therapy saying that “There are all sorts of studies out there that suggest just the contrary, and there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore. I don’t think that’s the case with anyone who’s black.”

Apparently, Santorum forgets there was a time when Blacks used to bleach their skin to try and blend in. The hate they felt from the nation drove those American citizens to feel as if they had to change their skin color something that is really unalterable in order to fit in. As ridiculous as trying to lighten one’s skin tone seems to be now, that is the same nonsense ex-gay conversion spouts.

Ex-gay conversion doesn’t work, according to the APA, but once again, who cares about the facts, when an argument is based on hate, fear, and ignorance? All of those are a wonderful platform for a presidential candidacy, aren’t they?

 

Bullying at the Pulpit Equals Child Molestation?

According to Mitchell Gold, founder of the non-profit organization Faith in America, religious leaders, who stand before their congregation and condemn homosexuality, are guilty of mental child molestation.

Here is why Gold believes this (as reported by ThinkProgress): “clergy people who stand at their pulpit and . . . speak about gay people as sinners and an abomination, that is bullying a young kid. That is really — and I know this may sound exaggerated — but that is nothing less than child molestation of a child’s mind. . . . It is devastating to a 14-year-old-kid to hear their rabbi or their imam or their priest or clergy person say that they are a sinner or an abomination…and I’m here to tell them, they are full and whole and wonderful and they will learn as life goes on that there are many, many people who feel that way.”

Watch the full interview below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s73Ut9_pI6M

At a time when homosexuals are attacked by many religious conservatives, it is nice to see a religious man not only publicly support homosexuality but, more importantly, tell the gay youth of America that there is nothing wrong with them.

For these young people, their religious leaders are often next to God. Their words matter, and when the head of their church tells them they are going to hell, it hurts. I know this from personal experience as do many, many, many others.

I wish more religious leaders would keep the children in mind as they are preaching hate and intolerance. Gay children attend church too, and just as you wouldn’t want someone off the street attacking your child and saying he is worthless or she is going to hell, a trusted religious leader should not be allowed to do the same thing in a place for families or in a place about love.

In Tennessee: Two Gay Men Assaulted For Trying to Attend Church Services

If you’re like me, you were raised to believe that God is good, and that His church, His places of worship, (no matter what religious denomination it might be) are where all are welcome—the believers and the sinners, the members of society and those castaway from it, the rich and the poor, and the healthy and the sick.

Churches are safe havens. It’s where we as members of a flock can find solace and unconditional love in times of great distress. After all, God loves every single one of us, and those of us who are Christians believe He sent His only son to us as a gift—to show us what true love really means. That love, that acceptance begins at God’s house—his church.

Apparently, that might no longer be true.

Pittman, Jr and Lee after assault

Pittman, Jr and Lee after assault

Last Wednesday, in an appalling scene at Grace Fellowship Church in Fruitland, Tennessee, two gay men were attacked for simply trying to enter a church to worship.

Jeremy Pittman, Jr. and his boyfriend, Dustin Lee, were barred entry from the church by church leaders. Pittman and Lee were then verbally and physically assaulted by the pastor and deacons. To make matters worse, two of the offenders were Pittman’s father, Jeremy Pittman, Sr. (pastor of Grace Fellowship Church) and Pittman’s uncle, who was one of the deacons. The attack took place in front of the church, where several church goers witnessed the attack and did nothing to help Pittman, Jr. or Lee.

According to WBBJ, the local CBS affiliate, Pittman, Jr. told reporters: “My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad’s request. My uncle smash me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn’t help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back,” said Pittman. He also stated the deacon yelled derogatory homosexual slurs, even after officers arrived, and the officers never attempted to stop the deacons’ verbal assaults.

Even though, the responding deputy reportedly did not allow Pittman, Jr. or Lee to press charges or file a complaint at the time of the assault, all parties are scheduled to appear in court tomorrow.

This story boggles my mind!

How could church leaders—a pastor and three deacons—think in any way that God would have wanted them to not only prevent individuals from worshipping but to assault them? And to do so in His name?  How could these men think God would have wanted them to physically assault a member of their own family?

What infuriates me the most is that these are the same Christian extremists who claim homosexuality destroys the family and causes irreparable damage to God’s children!

Are they really talking about homosexuals or themselves?

The pastor and the deacons at Grace Fellowship Church, and others like them in the nation and the world, are the ones behind these types of attacks, not the homosexuals!

I have yet to hear one story of a group of homosexuals converging on an unsuspecting Christian and beating him or preventing him from entering a Neiman Marcus. I have yet to hear a story of a straight teen committing suicide because a horde of homosexuals taunted him by calling him a breeder. I have yet to hear of a congregation at a Metropolitan Community Church (a church run by and for spiritual homosexuals) banning straight people from attending services or beating them on church grounds.

Homosexuals aren’t the ones creating the violence. We aren’t even responding to violence with violence. In fact, we keep turning the other cheek, we try to show love even when met with violence, and we follow the laws of the land to incite change. We don’t attack others, and we don’t turn our backs on family, even if they turn their backs on us.

This only makes me wonder: just who is following God’s laws again?

Story originally found via Towleroad

Top 5 Most Challenged LGBT Themed Books

Banned Book Week (September 24-October 1 2011) has just concluded, and as an English professor, the concept of banning books baffles my mind. Literature is meant to be an exploration, a journey into worlds, experiences, and ideas we might never experience in our lives. Reading is meant to broaden our horizons, to teach us lessons about love and to inspire growth as a person and as a species.

How can growth be accomplished when groups or organizations exist that constantly attempt to weed out the ideas they don’t want shared with the world?

No one person or group should be allowed that much power, for reading is knowledge and knowledge is power. By attempting to ban books, those groups are endeavoring to keep individuals ignorant, to keep growth stunted to another’s concept of morality. Those people are like a gardner attempting to prune a bonsai tree, to keep it small and weak by clipping this idea or whittling that thought from the collective garden of society.

Libraries are for everyone and should represent the multitudes. When a book is banned, a subset of our societal make up is also lopped off.

Banning books, for any reason, just should not be allowed. If those who ban books had their way, many classics we enjoy, such as The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (challenged because of language and sexual references), The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger (challenged for being “anti-white” and containing vulgarity and sex), or The Color Purple by Alice Walker (challenged for  depictions of race relations, African history, vulgarity, and explicit sexual encounters) would never have found a place among the shelves or in our hearts.

If you look closely as to why books are challenged/banned, it’s because they deal with real life situations–sex, vulgarity, race relations, and minority topics–that make the supposed moral “majority” uncomfortable, that threaten their strangle hold onto power. Consider this: why do you think slave owners didn’t want their slaves to read or be educated? It wasn’t because it was too expensive or not worthwhile. It’s because education is power. It’s because once a group learns of the persecutions being heaped upon them, then they demand and clamor for change. So those who attempt to ban books today, under the guise of protecting their children, are really using the ploy to foster ignorance and keep the down trodden down.

This is why I believe many LGBT-themed books are challenged today. It’s not merely because of the “sex” or “vulgarity.” It’s because LGBT-themed books challenge the status quo. They show gay and/or lesbian characters as real people dealing with difficult situations of coming out, questioning their identity, or overcoming obstacles that are universal in nature. These conflicts make homosexuals more human and more like everyone else and not the other many people would like to see us as.

To prove my point, let’s take a look at some of the most challenged LGBT themed books.

And Tango Makes Three

And Tango Makes Three

#1 And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson, Peter Parnell, and Henry Cole and published by Simon and Schuster.

This children’s book is challenged because it is pro-homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group. Here is what the story is actually about. It’s about two real life penguins from Central Park Zoo in NYC, who nested together and tried to hatch a rock. Zookeepers decided to give the partnered male penguins an egg from a male/female pairing of penguins who had one too many. Had the zoo not done so, one of the eggs would have been sacrificed and would have died. Instead, by giving the extra egg to the two male penguins, the chick hatched and was nurtured and raised by their loving fathers.

This book is hardly anti-family since it is all about family. In fact, the book’s message seems more pro-life to me, and I thought that was one societal issue most conservative Christians supported. Are they saying it’s better for chicks (or children) to die or be cast off than to be raised by homosexual parents? Now, that story seems more anti-family and unsuited for a child’s age group to me!

Daddy's Roommate

Daddy's Roommate

Heather Has Two Mommies

Heather Has Two Mommies

#2 Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite and #3 Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman. Both books published by Alyson Books

These children’s books are challenged because they involve characters engaged in same-sex relationships. These two books depict how two different children are raised by same-gender parents. The lives these families lead are ordinary. They do household chores, they argue, and they spend time as a family–all very typical and mundane aspects of every single family. The only difference is the same-gendered parents. The moral of these stories is to show everyone that a family is a family, no matter what the family dynamics. The only universal tie is the love that brings the family together.

I can’t help but feel as if that is precisely the reason these two books are challenged. Remember my comment earlier about the slave owners keeping their slaves ignorant. Well, the same idea applies here. The conservative Christians don’t want people to realize that homosexuals are not only capable parents but that there is no distinction whatsever between homosexual and heterosexual parents beyond the gender of the adults.

King & King

King & King

#4 King and King by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland and published by Tricyle Press (previously published in the Netherlands)

This young children’s book was also challenged because of its homosexual content. What’s intriguing about this book’s challenge, however, is that the couple who sought to ban it did it to keep children from having to worry about “homosexuality, race, or religion.” Their attempted ban though increased the circulation of the book in their library and in their township. All of this over a twist on the classic fairy tale. The Queen wants her son to marry, so she can retire. The Prince doesn’t like the princesses brought to him until he meets one of the princesses’ brothers. The two fall in love and marry, and the Queen gets to retire while the two Kings take care of the country and the retired Queen.

The homosexual content that is apparently objectionable–since there are no graphic sex scenes or vulgarity–is the love shown between two boys. The boys do nothing wrong in the story. They obey their families, and they get married. They even take care of the grouchy mom, who gets to sit poolside and sun. No one is abandoned, and the responsibilities of the kingdom are met. Unless taking care of family, falling in love, and fulfilling responsibilities are objectionable, I just don’t see how this story differs all that much from “Cinderella” or “Sleeping Beauty.”

Baby Be Bop

Baby Be Bop

#5 Baby Be Bop by Francesca Lia Block and published by HarperCollins

This young adult book is challenged for explicit language and promoting the homosexual agenda. It’s about a young boy’s struggle with his sexual identity, a common theme of today. The protagonist falls in love (which is unrequited), is beaten to near death by bullies, but learns that true love comes to us all.

Obviously, this is a book children, who suffer from extensive bullying in the school system, shouldn’t read! Why should children who might be different not learn that it gets better, that love is waiting in the wings, and that family will (and should) always be there when we need them?

When a rational person, who doesn’t carry the repressive yoke of hate or fear around their necks, looks at these books, he/she can see these books are about love, family, and acceptance–all integral values to a society. These ideas shouldn’t be banned anymore than the Bible or the Koran. All books teach valuable lessons, and it is an individual’s right to choose for him/herself what book to read.

No one should do that for us!

Sally Kern: Gays Still A Bigger Threat than Terrorists

Yesterday, I posted about how we as a country need to move past traditions of hate and violence. Today, I read a post from Queerty, which exemplifies the type of vitriol we as a country and as members of the human race need to steer clear of.

Sally Kern, the Oklahoma State Senator who is infamous for stating that “[homosexuality is] the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam,” attempted (rather miserably) to clarify her statement that garnered her much criticism. In an interview with Peter LaBarbera, president of an anti-LGBT organization called the Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (obviously a fun and lively group), Kern continued to spew inflammatory statements that did nothing to support her claim that her words were “taken out of context” or “distorted.”

Here are Kern’s words “proving” she was the victim of misrepresentation:

“You know if you just look at it in practical terms, which has destroyed and ended the life of more people? Terrorism attack here in America or HIV/AIDS? In the last twenty years, fifteen to twenty years, we’ve had maybe three terrorist attacks on our soil with a little over 5,000 people regrettably losing their lives. In the same time frame, there have been hundreds of thousands who have died because of having AIDS. So which one’s the biggest threat? And you know, every day our young people, adults too, but especially our young people, are bombarded at school, in movies, in music, on TV, in the mall, in magazines, they’re bombarded with ‘homosexuality is normal and natural.’ It’s something they have to deal with every day. Fortunately we don’t have to deal with a terrorist attack every day, and that’s what I mean.

. . .

[Homosexuality is] more dangerous, . . . because it will tear down the moral fiber of this nation. We were founded as a nation upon the principles of religion and morality, if we take those out from under our society we will lose what has made us a great nation, we will no longer be a virtuous people, which we see happening already. And without virtue this nation will not survive.”

Obviously, Senator Kern was misquoted but only if she lived in Bizarro World, where everything is backward. But she doesn’t live on Bizarro World, and neither do we. If she lived on Bizarro World, then her hate speech would be filled with love and acceptance and her snarling face wouldn’t frighten young children either. On this world, her words are filled with venom and her face, well, I’ll be polite and let you draw your own conclusion.

What Senator Kern fails to see is that there are other factors in the world far deadlier than HIV/AIDS or even terrorists. Alcohol is responsible for more than 75,000 deaths a year. Should we return to Prohibition and eliminate this threat because it is far deadlier than either homosexuals and terrorists according to Kern’s reasoning? Additionally, an average of 195,000 people die each year from in hospital deaths that could have been prevented. Should hospitals and health care professionals who spend their lives helping people be treated as criminals worse than terrorists? If we follow Kern’s thoughts, then yes!

Obviously, the only reason Kern speaks such poison about homosexuals is simply because she hates them. Not because they are more dangerous than terrorism. She isn’t really concerned about keeping Americans safe if the only group she regularly attacks is a group of already prejudiced people, who are not solely responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS.

Additionally, Kern also doesn’t understand the driving force behind the founding fathers of this nation. They were not Christians as we know them today. They were religious men (for the most part), but they were Deists. Deism was the belief that God existed but that God didn’t involve himself with the day-to-day lives of humans. The Deists moved away from organized religion and lived according to principles of morality that included acceptance of others, even those that were different from them. Washington accepted the Freemasons while others did not. Adams declared the accomplishments of Jewish people as far surpassing those who persecuted them. Thomas Jefferson thought very little of clergy and organized religion because he felt abuse of power was common among those of faith who wielded absolute control over their flock.

These men, these Founding Fathers, created this country not to exclude but to accept all. After all, the country was made of immigrants who were considered distasteful in the countries they fled.

So to those like Kern who ask us to follow the nation those Founding Fathers envisioned when they drafted the Constitution and created the laws that governed this nation, they were looking to creating a haven for everyone, not a select few.

One day, I hope Sally Kern finally gets it right.