He Says - I've been monogamous all my life .  The most important thing in my life is my family.  In all, I consider myself a pretty productive and reasonable member of society.  But, regardless of the person I am, I'm often faced with the necessity to defend myself from lies and presumptions about how I live my life.  So I thought I'd use some of my web to calmly answer some of the more common arguments of the anti-gay movement, in the hope something said will help our opponents see our side, and that others facing the same problems might better defend themselves.

Homosexuality is a choice.

The debate here can be summed up by Webster's.

Homosexual -- 1.  Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same-sex.  2.  Of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same-sex.  

The most popular usage defines it as a state of being, and is the one typically used by homosexuals.  The second usage defines it as purely an action, and is generally used by homosexual opponents.  Thus the first is not a choice--it's an impulse, a "tendency", like thirst--but the second is a choice (almost nobody would argue sex to be an action which could happen by accident).  This is the crux of this issue of choice: homosexuality is either in the instinctual drive or the actual action.

I would argue that the only reasonable definition for homosexuality is found in the "tendency", the attraction, not action.

To say that sexual acts are what make a person one orientation or another, is like saying that eating food is what makes a person hungry.  The thinking is 100% backwards.  Just as a person can eat without being hungry, a heterosexual can choose homosexual acts without psychologically switching orientation (for example, when the reasons for choosing such actions are such things as duress or a lack of other options, such as the situations in prisons).

If we do define homosexuals by actions, what then do we call a person born with same-sex attractions but who has never acted on them?  Does this mean I wasn't really a homosexual until two years after I told everyone I was?  If a person chooses to perform a homosexual act under duress, are they then a homosexual?  No, a homosexual is more precisely defined as a person who experiences sexual attraction to the same-sex than as the odd consequence of the mechanical actions of two bodies.  In other terms, consider it like handedness; A left-handed person is left-handed whether or not they choose to unnaturally force themselves to write with their right hand.

It's this attraction that is not a choice; you're either attracted to one sex or you're not.  If you are heterosexual, try to imagine having a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex. . . .  That same knee-jerk gut feeling of disinterest (or, for some, aversion) is what I feel when applied to the opposite sex (although minus the moral disgust).  Going against my orientation feels just as unnatural to me as it would for anyone else, and, if homosexuality did not feel right, I would not be a homosexual.  A great way to get this across is to point out how poor a choice it is to be a homosexual; you would stupidly be choosing to make your life much more challenging and painful.

Homosexuality is nurture not nature; it's not natural.

Although it seems relatively unimportant to me, great debate has focused on whether or not homosexuality is congenital.  Why should it matter?  What if someone did masochistically choose homosexuality, like most people have chosen a religion?  Like every human, I should be as free as possible to do as I please, while I am not hurting others.

But still, let's first look at the supposed nurture causes of homosexuality.

Anecdotally, I remember having gay crushes around the age of 12.  I can't think of anything in my upbringing that I've heard anyone point to as a contributing factor to homosexuality.  My mother wasn't domineering and my father wasn't distant.  Neither was my father domineering and my mother distant (isn't it odd that both one thing and its opposite are claimed to have the same effect?).  They're both wonderful parents, and, if we were giving out grades on achieving traditional gender roles, I think they’d deserved an A- (and I'm known as a very tough grader).  I was never molested, and sex was never demonized nor glorified in my youth.  I was never weak or effeminate; my early play activities were far from Barbies and dress up.  I spent a good deal of my playtime on the back of a 3-wheeler with a homemade pvc bottle-rocket gun in hand.  Indoors, I was more a robot-legos-computer kid, which points to my eventual love of science more than anything else. 

In short, if there was something in my upbringing which "made" me gay, I'm at a loss as to what it might be.  I do know no heterosexual spends as much time as I do thinking about such things.  I remember, at first I couldn't figure out what orientation I was.  I knew I had homosexual attractions.  But, as far as I could tell from the TV, all gay men lived in San Francisco endlessly parading about in drag or leather, which was something in which I never developed an interest.  Turns out being gay had nothing to do with that.

To be completely honest and thorough, I couldn't say that no homosexual was ever influenced by some event in their upbringing.  I personally don’t know anyone who thinks they were pushed by some experience into their sexuality.  But I’ve seen websites, which showcase gays who’ve “changed”, and they have testimonials from people who sincerely feel they were made gay by one or more of the causes listed above.  Is it an after-the-fact explanation?  I would expect a homosexual, who thought homosexuality was wrong, to explain their orientation as a result of something someone did to them, instead of something they simply were by biology.  It would seem more reparable I’d guess, and the “blame” would be less theirs.  But, in the end, I don't honestly know.  I don't know how some of the traumatic events they describe could alter a person.  I would be interested in seeing some good, as blind and unbiased as possible, research on the matter even if it didn’t pertain to myself, and honestly wouldn’t be surprised if a person could be homosexual for many reasons, as is the case for most any human characteristic. 

__________

Before I make the transition from nurture to nature, I want to point out how fuzzy the transition is.  What is the practical difference between an event which causes a person’s sexuality occurring one week before birth, and one occurring one week after?  Why is it important to this debate if the cause is in the genes, prenatal hormone exposure, the actions of the parents, the birth order, family size, or any other event in a person's life?  An infinite web of actions come together to make a person who they are, from their eye color to their religion, but there is no real need to segregate these events into post and pre-birth slots.  A hormone or gene combination, for example, can be just as valid an effect on a person as being orphaned.

Let's now look at the question of "naturalness".  Personally I find the question very odd; how can a thing be unnatural if it occurred?  But, I think in most cases what is meant is that homosexuality is solely a human social phenomenon, which defies the “purpose” of life as defined by the perceived laws of nature (e.g. survival of the fittest).  It is this argument I will address here.

Firstly, homosexuality is nothing new to humanity.  It is mentioned in our oldest writings, from the Old Testament where it's punishable by death, to the Kama Sutra where it's treated as an interesting minor aspect of sexuality.  Classical mythology has a number of stories about homosexuality (both Zeus and Apollo fell in love with mortal men at one time or another).  Thus, we know homosexuality has been around for a longtime, but we also know it has shown up in most every culture.  For example, many Native American tribes and Indians (from India) have regarded, and in some cases still regard homosexuals as blessed and capable of bringing good fortune (flattering, but assuredly not true).  Ancient Greeks openly accepted some forms of homosexuality, even to the point of promoting it within military units in order to increase camaraderie.  And, although most cultures have not reacted as positively to homosexuality, it seems to occur in approximately the same percentage (around 5 percent of the population) throughout the world, suggesting homosexuality is independent of cultural values.

Homosexuality is ubiquitous throughout human culture, but that's not the end of it.  It's all over nature.  Bonobo monkeys, genetically and anatomically a very close relation to humans, are well known for their free-love mentality, and commonly engage in homosexuality.  Another often cited example is gulls, which have a high occurrence of lesbianism.  My own male dog seems solely interested in mounting other male dogs (of course many would blame that on being raised by gay parents).  In the news recently, a man in the rurals of Texas shot his male poodle for its flamboyant gayness.  What did he expect from a male Poodle? And why did such a violently bigoted man own such a frilly dog? 

Anyway, from insects to mammals homosexuality exists and thus it is, barring some odd conspiracy of interspecies homosexual recruitment, as natural as purple mountains majesty and amber waves of grain.  For much more on many different homosexual events in nature see Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl.  He has compiled a 751 page book sighting example after example of homosexuality in almost any species you can think of, using excellent references and photographic evidence.  I wonder if our opponents would actually claim a homosexual stag deer has consciously chosen a sinful life of debauchery?

But still the question remains: why is it natural?  Many would suggest it's simply a biological error; the sex drive of the female is, by some genetic or hormonal mishap, turned on in the male or vice versa.  But such an error, which halts reproduction, should seemingly not show up in the proportions and scope that homosexuality does. 

In truth we aren't certain, but we have some ideas.  Firstly, reproduction is not the end all of nature.  Of course it's a very necessary part, but it is no secret that nature restricts reproduction in many ways (e.g. delayed maturation, dominance hierarchies, long menstrual cycles, sex and mating classes, etc.).  So, if nature is willing to use infertility as a tool in some cases, why can't the same be said for homosexuality?  When resources are dwindling and populations high it may make sense to have nonreproducing members which are old and able enough to bring in food but don't add extra mouths to feed (possibly explaining the relationship of homosexuality to birth order).  In this sense, homosexuality may be one of the many ways nature tries to curb overpopulation.  Homosexual acts are used as a means to decrease tension in some primate species between same-sex group members.  Some species resort to homosexuality if a parent is negligent or missing.  Perhaps for many of the same reasons homosexuality exists in our species.  For example: I could naturally have no children, and so I have a lot of time in which to create resources, but I also have 31 nieces and nephews who, if times were hard, I would happily help out.  Thus, although I never pass on my genes directly, their copies are given a greater chance of success than if those kids had no gay uncle at all, and that is all the machinery of evolution cares about.

To sum up, concluding that homosexuality is not natural simply because gays don't usually have offspring, is similar to concluding that the majority of ants, which never have offspring, are not natural.

------------

Of course, even if homosexuality was an error from the perspective of "nature", there is no rational reason to see it as an error from a humane perspective.  Many are born with a combination of sexual traits, like testicular feminization (male genes with a female anatomy), or even some with one ovary and one testicle, just as some are born with extra fingers.  Such people, of course, deserve to be treated just as anyone else (I wonder how the anti-homosexual movement would answer the question of such obviously natural cases of mixed sexuality, when it's so difficult to argue with the anatomy).

Furthermore, what's so special about the popular concept of nature anyway?  With few exceptions, it's brutal, amoral, and arbitrary, handing out fortunes with all the compassion of a random number generator.

Homosexuality, like every other event in the living world, is natural and perhaps useful in small portions.  Many people will still simply insist that "if the parts don't fit then it was never meant to be", but arguing against homosexuality on the basis of the geometry of reproductive organs is a silly oversimplification of such a complex subject as sexuality.

Expanding on this topic let's look at the genetics.

Homosexuality is not genetic, or biological.

Well, our opponents have a bit of a point here.  If one identical twin is gay, the other is not necessarily also gay (though they have a significantly greater chance than the general public).  So, homosexuality is definitely, in part, genetic, but it is not 100% genetic.  Still, a trait may be congenital, not a matter of choice, and not necessarily genetic.

The ultimate congenital cause has to be the genes we were given at the dice toss of conception.  Identical twins should have the same genes (not necessarily 100% but practically); they should have similar womb experiences (though one may get the lion's share of nutrients or may be positioned "better"); they should have similar upbringing.  All this adds up to make two people who are abnormally alike, compared to two strangers, but they are nowhere near the same.  Handedness, for example, if one twin is left-handed there is only about a 12% chance the other is as well.  While this is greater than the 8% chance for fraternal twins, it's still surprisingly small considering the shared events which make up identical twins. 

No one chooses their handedness, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a nurture cause for it in one twin which was not present in the other.  So, ignoring for now the emotionally charged issue of homosexuality, let's consider what causes handedness, a congenital effect or childhood experiences and upbringing.  I don't think we exactly know, but I think the evidence points to the sum of many events, the right genes maybe, with the right womb experiences, and maybe some early childhood experiences added in.  Some of these events may at first be very subtle and eventually become magnified into an obvious difference such as handedness, like a micro current in one twin embryo which wasn't in the other.

True, we are not talking about handedness, and no one in this day and age has a moral fit over southpaws (though at one time it was a bad omen).  We are talking about homosexuality, but that trait actually has an identical twin concordance more than double that for handedness.  You could say it's twice as dependent upon genetics as handedness.  So, I think of homosexuality in the same way.  It's not just one thing, like a gene; science has shown us that.  While both twins may have genes which added to their chance of becoming gay, it's very likely that a lot else has to happen to a person, even before birth, which must contribute.  Do some of these contributing events happen after the moment of birth, as "nurture"?  Maybe, but in my case, it would have had to have been incredibly subtle.

One last thing I want to point out is that all sexual attraction has a congenital cause, in a way.  Sexuality is one area where children in general are much less ridiculous than adults; they don't even think about it, let alone make awful decisions because of it.  When I was a child, I never had any sexual thought towards either sex, as I'm sure is the case for most any child raised in a healthy manner (I know many homosexuals report indicative events at a very early age, like cross-dressing and so on, but this was not the case for myself).  What a ridiculous concept sex would've been to my young mind, and when you think about it, all sex is kind of silly (don't get me wrong, it has its place, but, outside a meaningful marriage, it's just a couple of bodies in clumsy motion, each hoping for a moment of endorphins and risking some significant health and emotional damage).  But, come puberty and the new, very natural expression of our once dormant genes, that all changes.  All of a sudden it doesn't sound so silly.  No one would attribute puberty to early childhood upbringing; all sexual attraction, even mine, is and was brought on by the very natural effects of some very well known chemicals.  But when my switch was flipped, I got more of a surprise than most.  At one point in my life sex was nothing, and, after the most obviously natural process to which we can all relate, it's now my defining characteristic in the eyes of the majority.  To me, sex is unimportant compared to the other aspects of my life and my personality, making the stereotypes I face very frustrating!

It's just not normal, and miscellaneous name calling.

If by normal they mean that more than 50 percent of the population is not gay, then of course it's not normal, and neither is red hair, a 150 IQ, or a Christian in Yemen.  Automatically equating abnormal with undesirable is a type of judgment we have probably all been guilty of at one time or another (teens are brutal in this way), and so it's understandable.  Perhaps humans sacrifice the quality of their decisions in such cases for the benefit of speed, but in the long run it's just plain simpleminded and callous.

A wide range of similar name calling could be placed in this category: pervert, abomination, fairy, fag, dyke, queer, sissy and you know the rest.  For such "arguments" there is really little to be done; the accuser typically can't be reasoned with and should probably just as well be ignored.  But some may have simply jumped to a poor conclusion, and with calm discussion they may be able to see their fears and preconceptions are not supported by facts.

On this same topic I'd like to point out how plainly inaccurate it is to call the most out, obvious, and flamboyant homosexuals names like sissy and pansy.  Can you think of anyone more courageous in your high school than the kid who decided to be honest about his or her homosexuality, knowing that it would mean taking on focused physical and mental harassment of their social group?  Most humanity, myself included, spent our teens trying our best to fit in with our peers, but those kids were true to themselves instead.  Simply put, I've never met more brave, formidable, or determined people than the most "effeminate" of gay men; they go far beyond any courage I've ever shown.

I don't agree with the gay lifestyle/agenda.

It's taken a while, but I think I’ve finally figured out what "gay lifestyle" means.  Its code for the whole gamut of mostly negative stereotypes placed on gays, like shallow, promiscuous, diseased, and so on.  Such code words allow civilized but prejudiced people to insults us with a degree of subtlety and a show of civility. 

In truth there is no gay lifestyle, anymore than there is a brunet lifestyle.  I, for example, live a typical American life, and the aspects of my "lifestyle" that could be said to be unique have nothing to do with being homosexual or the associated stereotype.  As I stated above, I've been monogamous all my life, and have only been intimate with my spouse.  So, as my understanding of the term goes, it seems to me that your average heterosexual 20-something male lives more of the "homosexual lifestyle" than I ever have or ever will.  Every time someone uses such phrases I make sure they define what they mean, as the bias should be brought to light. 

As for our "agenda", it's nothing more than the human agenda.  I can't speak for all gays, but as for myself, I want and should morally have equal protection and rights under the law for myself and my marriage, no more, no less.  While politicians and religious leaders have made a living scapegoating and fear mongering, at my expense, they are simply telling lies. I know many think we have some sort of bi-weekly meeting where we discuss feminizing your high school football teams and implementing communist subversive plots, but, if we do, I've never been invited.  

Why do gays have to flaunt their sexuality in our faces? (Live and let live....just don't talk about it)

I wish I could go through life without my sexuality ever being an issue, but the sad fact is that it is an issue, and it's not me who's made it so.  On the front of political issues, a person can't reasonably hope to deny us the legal rights they enjoy and then expect us to quietly take it.  So I am speaking out to get what I feel our constitution guarantee's us all, equal protection.

On the front of everyday life, this argument is simply hypocritical.  Every heterosexual "flaunts" their sexuality in some way or another.  Have you ever mentioned your wife or girlfriend to a coworker? Ever talk with friends about the celebrities you find attractive?  Every show any form of affection to your spouse in public?  I just saw our local news anchor go head over heals for some hunky actor, right on the air, but I doubt anyone will fret over this flaunting of her sexuality.  The only reason normal human living may seem like flaunting to our opponents is because it's a bit rare to encounter a gay person bold enough to live as openly as the heterosexual public.

Now, I do understand that such things as gay pride events can seem like flaunting (I express my problems with my local gay community ).  Personally, I'm as proud about being gay as I'm proud about having brown hair.  I really don't think being gay is anything to either be proud about or ashamed of, and would rather save those qualifiers for my social, occupational and familial accomplishments.  But, what the majority doesn't understand is that the minority is in a vastly different world.

Being a white upper-class gay man, I get to move between both these worlds--my difference is not obvious--and so I've seen both ends.  In the majority's camp, I've often heard this type of argument: "How would they like it if we had a straight pride event?" or "I couldn't get away with wearing a white power shirt".  But that is not nearly the same thing.  When the world is beating you down for no fault of your own, a little pride, even if it may be contrived, feels pretty good and the sentiment is harmless to the majority.  Bravado coming from the majority, though, is clearly a different beast than that coming from a legally and socially weakened minority.  One comes across as a clear threat, while the other, although phrased incorrectly in my opinion, is simply the frustration that comes with any injustice.

We can't allow gays to marry because that would mean we were condoning it or lessening our own vows (Gays want special rights).

I was raised by two loving parents and from them I know what a marriage is, and I know I have a marriage to rival any other.  I'll challenge anyone out there to stack their marriage up to mine.

Gay people get married every day, regardless of what anyone wants to call it.  They stand before a minister and friends and family, exchanging vows just like most everyone else.  There's really nothing anyone can do about that, as long as we live in a free society.  Simply put, as I'm sure it is with most marriages, no one has any say in this union but my spouse and me.  It's between us.  So it's really not a question of allowing gays to get married, but whether married gays are allowed by law the same rights as the rest of the population.   I pay more in taxes and insurance because I'm gay.  If either of us dies, the other has to pay a huge inheritance tax from which straight couples are exempt.  If either my husband is or I am hospitalized, the other could legally be kept from visitation, or making legal or medical decisions.  In some states, gay couples can't get medical insurance for their children because the genetic parent, who is staying home with the kids, is not the legal spouse of the working parent, and so these children are also treated as second-class citizens under the law. 

It comes down to this: My husband is the most important person in my life; we are emotionally, psychologically, socially, and financially as close to each other as two humans can be; but as far as the law is concerned he may as well be a complete stranger.  Not only is such a legal classification logically wrong, it's clearly an example of injustice.

Do gay's want special rights? Perhaps some do, but I don't.  I want my family to be treated with equity by our laws.  I really can understand that, from a gut emotional perspective, many of you don't wish gays, or their families to have the same rights you enjoy--you fear it somehow promotes something which disgusts you.  On the other hand, from that same emotional perspective, I don't feel a person should have the freedoms and rights they would deny others.  So we are in a predicament: many feel I shouldn't have equal rights, and I don't feel those people deserve those same rights.  But we both have to live together civilly, and our law, our constitution, rightly guarantees equal protection for every citizen, even for those who have the minority sexual preference, and those who disagree with the Constitution altogether.

The above argument should really be the end of it -- people should be treated equally by the law -- but our opponents, at this argument, will then try to again confuse the issue with a number of more unjustifiable claims.  I'll address such arguments in the rest of this section. 

Firstly, some say they worry that gay marriage will open up the flood gates to all sorts of marriage.  They say the proverbial slippery slope will lead to forced underage marriage, sometimes even speculating that next a man will want to marry his dog (sheesh!).  Can these people truthfully not see the difference between two adults mutually agreeing to enter into a marriage covenant, and forced or interspecies marriage where one of the participants can't make a conscious choice let alone refrain from peeing on the carpet?  Are they serious?  A marriage in some ways is like a contract, and, like any contract, if you can't or wont agree to enter into it, then it can not come about.

I've also head the fear that allowing gays equal rights somehow promotes homosexuality.  These people think they have to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens or else their kids will feel homosexuality is condoned.  But this too is unreasonable.  For example, I once lived in a town where drinking tea was considered an immoral act by the popular religion, but I never once heard any one argue that the government's allowance of equal rights to the tea industry (or tea drinkers) signifies to the local children that the government promotes the immorality of tea consumption.  Does the government promote Hinduism (an immoral religion by Christian standards) because Hindus are treated equally?  Are our children going to become Marxists because they perceive the government's promotion of it though its protection of Communist free speech?  Of course not.  Clearly, just because something is treated justly by law, doesn't mean it's promoted by government.

Finally, I've heard it said that legalizing gay marriage somehow lessens heterosexual marriages.  This is no more true than the assertion that legal Buddhist marriages diminish the strength of legal Christian marriages.  Marriage is an agreement between two people and, for some, their God.  The religious and philosophical aspects of your vows are not affected by the legal meaning of marriage, and neither should they be.  If the mere existence of legal marriages different from your own seems to you to be a negative factor in your marriage, I don't know how to remedy that.  But it can't be healthy if the strength of your marriage is contingent upon the distant actions of strangers, and I doubt anyone could honestly say it is.

Homosexuals are, or morally equivalent to pedophiles.

It's hard to remain composed when confronting this position, which is probably why it's used.

Firstly let's address the argument that homosexuals are disproportionately pedophiles.  The rhetoric is maddening in this area but it can be basically broken down into two ugly statistics.  Homosexuals say 98% of all acts of pedophilia are perpetrated by heterosexuals and the most extreme homosexual opponents say that it's more like 75%.  Both the statistics come from the same type of studies and, as with most disagreements, this is one of definitions.  The 98% comes from counting the pedophiles that are attracted to adults of the opposite sex as heterosexuals.  Lower percentages typically come from counting every act of pedophilia involving a victim of the same-sex as the perpetrator as an act attributable to a homosexual.  Thus, in our opponent's minds, even though a male pedophile is a raging sex-addicted womanizing heterosexual in his adult life, he could be counted as a homosexual.  Anecdotally, someone I know (a male) was molested by a man while at the same time the pedophile was molesting his five-year-old female friend.  It seems very likely some pedophiles want to hurt and take advantage of children and the gender matters much less than the age, but still, our opponents would count molesters of both sexes as homosexuals.

To take this sham even further some opponents use the lowest estimates of the homosexual population (around 1%) in their calculations.  Even the higher percentages are obtained by questioning people who may not be particularly forthcoming about their homosexuality with themselves, let alone a pollster, and so the actual percentage may be quite a bit higher than the more commonly accepted 5%.  So, they are only counting out-of-the-closet homosexuals in one case, but then counting married traditional family men (even priests) as homosexuals in another case.  By doing this they can make statements like "A homosexual is X times more likely to molest children than a heterosexual", with a ridiculously inflated value of X.  It's plain dishonesty, and it comes from those claiming to be moral watchdogs. 

The crisis in the Catholic church is a particularly good example.  Here these supposed men of God have violated the trust of their parishioners in some of the most hideous ways, yet somehow people are trying to turn it into a homosexual issue.  These men are priests, deeply involved in a religious community, and ideally celibate men; they are not part of a gay community; I have no responsibility for their actions; and they do not have any sort of healthy adult sexual relationship, by any definition.  I'd even think their choice to attempt a life of celibacy may speak to their own suspicion, in the first place, that they were prone to commit acts of destructive sexuality.  Simply put, even if pedophilic priests are more likely to abuse children of their own sex, that in no way means adult oriented homosexuals are more likely to abuse children; they are two very different things.

In the end, even if our opponents were somehow justified in calling these extra pedophiles closeted homosexuals, the statistics still show that, among all groups in these studies, an out of the closet homosexual is about half as likely to molest a child as any heterosexual (though I'd suspect the odds should be nearly the same in reality). 

-----------------------

Now, even if we give a huge and absurd concession, and agreed to count the statistics as our opponents do, it would seem gays were about 6 times as likely to be pedophiles.  That sounds bad, but statistics are damnable things.  How about this:  There is a population of the United States, according to the Department of Justice, that is over 30 times (much greater than 6) more likely to commit a sex crime than any other group.  These dangerous sex-crazed creatures are men, and they account for 97% of all rape.  Shouldn't we have laws to protect us from men, specifically?  What if one is a teacher at your local high school?  Can he hold back the lecherous tide of his base animal urges or will he ravaged your helpless teenage daughters?  What about the Pope?  He's a man.  Can I assume he probably has raped someone or would if he had the chance, just as one might assume homosexuals are pedophiles? 

There is another sinister group I could defame. They account for around 30% of all Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) cases (harming babies to get attention) and this nasty group is health care workers.  Shouldn't we keep nurses from having babies?  Another dangerous group is Mothers, accounting for 99% of all MSPB cases!!  That's statistically incriminating, considering that all other groups represent only 1%, isn't it?  Is it safe for a person to leave their child in the care of a mother?  Sounds ridiculous, right?  But this is the same type of unwarranted, uneducated, and cruel questioning gays face every day.  I am a gay man, I am not a pedophile, and although a small percentage may be both, the vast majority is not.  The vast majority is just like anyone else and like most anyone else we find the crime of pedophilia particularly appalling.

On this same subject, many of our opponents like to point to some obscure publication or web site to "prove" homosexuals support pedophilia (or a number of other dubious causes).  I could likewise point you to a number of sites which likewise "prove" heterosexuals support racism, sadomasochism, Satanism, and so on (even pedophilia I'd bet).  It seems almost silly that it needs to be said, but, just because a person who has a characteristic in common with me supports something, doesn't mean I do as well.  Sure there are evil homosexuals, just as there are evil brunets, but It would be silly of me to assume a person was a Nazi because they shared the same hair color as Hitler. 

____________

Now let's quickly address those who equate the morality of homosexual acts with those of pedophilia.  This type of position is what really frightens me about 100% faith based morality; there is no logical reason for the morals chosen; there's only a superstition.  In this instance, one act involves two consenting adults in an expression of mutual love and the other involves a rapist brutalizing an innocent victim.  Are we really to accept these two as morally equivalent?  Of course not.  I'd hope not.

Equating the horror of child molestation with consenting homosexual acts is simply and morally wrong, and an insult to those who've been so abused.  Our opponents would be equating a situation where an innocent child feels an incredible amount of trauma, terror, and pain, to one where no person is hurt in the slightest and no person has been forced against their will.  By this "equality", they would seem to be saying the trauma felt by the child in sexual abuse is meaningless, as the act is equivalent to any sort of homosexual act.  In short, they would be denigrating the victims of child molestation, and I know for a fact that many victims would be very angry by that.  Their suffering is what means something, yet some of our opponents appear totally blinded by what seems to be a consuming hatred for unrelated and innocuous actions.

I'll speak more to this elsewhere but morality, like everything else, is best developed through reason and not left to the whims of big organizations.

Hate crime laws create special rights for gays and punish for thinking non-politically correct thoughts.

This is one of the clearest examples of the dishonesty in the anti-homosexual movement.  I'm sure you've often heard them say that hate crimes laws give "special rights" to gays.  Think about every hate crimes law you've heard of, and I think you'll realize the deception.  No hate crime law I know of gives exclusive protection to homosexuals or to Hispanics or to any other category.  The laws give protections to sexual orientation, race, sex, and so on, which are categories into which everyone fits.  Thus the heterosexual is equally protected against straight bashing as a homosexual is protected against gay bashing, as it should be.  The fact that the majority doesn't feel as threatened only highlights the need for such laws.

Until about a year ago I was against hate crime laws on the basis that they seemed to punish political or religious positions.  But I have changed my mind.  What is actually being punished is the motive, premeditation, and lasting effects of a crime, which has already occurred.  This is nothing new in the law; the perpetrator’s state of mind and the crime's impact on others have always been a consideration of our laws (e.g. the differences between premeditated murder, manslaughter, and attempted murder).  The reason such considerations are necessary is because they speak to the likelihood of the criminal to involve themselves in future crimes, and their motivation in some cases effects more than just the physical victim. 

A hate crime affects everyone in the targeted group.  It's a mass threat, and, even without the preexistence of a physical crime, threats are not protected speech.  It says that we all better watch our backs and keep out of sight because, no matter our personality or accomplishments, we're in danger, and that limits the way the targeted group can live relative to the general public.  No one should feel threatened if they accidentally grab their spouse's hand in public.  If I were to pick up the phone and make such threats to a specific person, I'd be subjected to litigation, and so should anyone who commits a crime designed to physically threaten an entire group.  A good illustration of this point is to look at the difference between burning a pile of leaves on your Jewish neighbor's lawn, and burning a cross in the same place.  Without hate crime legislation both acts violate the exact same existing laws, but one obviously has a much greater negative effect upon the victim and the entire community, for which the law should account.

   Laws which require hiring quotas for homosexuals promote reverse discrimination.

I can hardly disagree.  I admit I do have knee-jerk reaction that a person should certainly not be fired from their job because of their homosexuality.  On the other hand, I'd rather not make laws forcing private groups or businesses to act morally when I don't need to choose their services; I'd rather not hinder free agency as much as possible.  I think such groups or businesses should be handled by the public through boycotts and the like. 

Any discriminating group should have its right to freedom of association, just as I should, but they should certainly not get a cent of public money.  I pay a great deal in taxes and it would be unjust for my money to go to groups which teach that I am some sort of moral abomination (e.g. I fully agree that Boy Scouts can choose to exclude whoever they want, but I don't think that I should then be forced, under penalty of law, to give them special accommodations with my taxes).

Homosexuality is not moral.

Because a thing is natural or not a choice does not, of course, mean it's moral or just.  The violence of rape as we know it, for instance, would not exist if reproduction was not a part of humanity.  Without the context of biological reproduction and the lust that sometimes accompanies it, it would make just as much sense to violently force your finger into someone else's ear.   Another example: a male with two Y-chromosomes has a statistically higher capacity for violent crime than regular males.  But the obvious involvement of nature in no way detracts from the heinousness of any crime.  So how could we decide upon the morality of homosexuality?

Most people care more that their beliefs give them pleasure than truth, and so never question where they came from.  How are the beliefs in the morality of anything decided?  Is it by a book such as the Bible or Koran?  The Old Testament says that homosexuality is punishable by death (Leviticus 20:13).  But don't light your torches and dust off your pitchforks just yet.  The Bible also prescribes death for rebellious children (Deuteronomy 21:20-21), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), and so on.  Would you or anyone you knew be killed if we followed religious texts verbatim?  The Bible also states homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), but so is eating crab (Leviticus 11:10) and pant wearing women (Deuteronomy 22:5). 

If the "unchanging word of God" is not the origin of your morals then from where did your morality come, and why have gays been singled out while others run wild in an orgy of slacks and crabmeat on Sundays?  Mainly because gay opponents have been taught to oppose homosexuals by their leaders without question--Jesus, for example, never said one word about homosexuality.  I spent a good deal of my youth in Bible study, I still read through the book today, and I really do find it to be an inspiring text, but some of the archaic laws can not be morally applied (another good example is slavery, Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22, and rape Deut 22:23-29).  The Bible is full of barbarism, and obvious contradictions, and remains a human-written and human-compiled religious text, even if you wish to insist it was in part inspired by God.  Although most of the faithful only pick out the nicer parts of their religion by which to live their lives, many still try to incorporate the whole thing without question, leading them to injustice.

A reasonable basis for morality has more to do with treating others with respect, keeping your word in every contract you enter into, and allowing others the same leeway in their freedoms that you expect from them, basically the Golden Rule.  This is the reasonable foundation for all morality, and, I think, somewhere, we all know this.  We can all tell the difference between superstition, and moral law, if we are really after moral law.  Using the Golden Rule, the morality of marginalizing homosexuals for simply following their attraction and creating a loving relationship, just like most everyone else does, should actually be the action in moral question.  I hurt no one by being gay, just as others are harmlessly heterosexual, and so there's no morality to be considered about either case.  But to force another person, through law or more subtle coercion, to live a life without that deep down pure feeling of intimacy, a life you yourself would not want forced upon you, is certainly an immoral action.  That is perversion.

Homosexuality is self-destructive.

This is one of the most ironic arguments of them all.  With some hyperbole, this is like an early Roman calling Christianity self-destructive because its followers had a tendency to get eaten by lions.  I am a firm believer in personal responsibility, but certainly the treatment of a child has a measurable lasting effect.  Many families force their gay children to hide their closest relationships, making them superficial and short by default.  Our opponents somehow can say in the same breath that homosexuals have too much sex outside of marriage, but cannot be allowed to have a legal marriage.    Our opponents can call us emotionally disturbed one day and then disown their gay children the next, and never see the connection.  Complaining about a problem to which you contribute and in some cases cause is nothing less than ridiculous. 

Evidence does show gay teens to be much more likely to commit suicide, and gay men are in general more promiscuous than married straight men (but about as promiscuous as single straight men).  One can only imagine how the world would be if gays were not rejected by those who they love most and stigmatized by the public.

Of course many would site the example of AIDS as a self-destructive consequence of being a male homosexual (Lesbians, in the same way, could call AIDS a self-destructive consequence of being a heterosexual).  Homosexuality, of course, in no way whatsoever increases a person's risk of acquiring AIDS, but having risky forms of promiscuous sex does.  A common trick of propaganda is this type of shell game of causality.  Although one may correlate with the probability of the other, there is no direct cause; many gay men, such as myself, have never even participate in the types of sex that lead to dangerous fluid exchange, contrary to the popular mythology.

Maybe I just don't have a strong libido, but when you think about it, isn't sex a bit of a silly thing?  Why would anyone risk their life over it?  My guess is that the harm of being marginalized by your society and, more importantly, your family, and the anger found in encountering hardhearted ideologues can add up to the point of self-destruction.  The counterfeit love found in casual sex must seem like an appropriate tool to that end.  Just a sad guess...  

    If you are a heterosexual who opposes homosexuality, I hope you would try to imagine what it would be like to live in a predominantly homosexual world.  Imagine your adolescence with a non-stop sickening concern that you had gained a difference through puberty which could turn your entire social group against you, and even make some of them violent towards you.  Every high school dance is an exercise in thinking up excuses as to why you couldn't go.  Maybe your parents, when they found out, would be so disgusted with you that they would say something like "I'd rather have heard that you'd been killed", or maybe they are the more subtle type who would just cry uncontrollably when they thought you couldn't hear them.  Some religious leaders would say you could learn to love your own sex if you only tried hard enough or had enough faith, and, if these leaders had sufficient power in your community, you could be forced to endure brutal "therapy". 

You'd be made the scapegoat of the homosexual religions.  "Did you know that heterosexual men disproportionately commit rape?  How can we let these sodomite perverts get away with it?" they'd rhetorically ask their gay congregations in imagined piousness.  Once you find someone of the opposite sex with whom to build a loving relationship, you're not allowed to have the benefits of marriage given to all homosexual couples, and in some countries your dearest relationship may be the subject of litigation or even imprisonment.  You're faced with the possibility of accidentally grabbing your spouse's hand in public and ending up as the target of violence or at the very least ridicule.   What would you tell your children about the bullying they encounter from the children of militant anti-heterosexuals once they start to attend school themselves?  Really, all you could do is try to remain calm and state your case.

I remember thinking as a kid that if I told myself enough times that I was not gay, it would eventually go away.  Everywhere I'd walk, each step would count off an "I'm not gay" like some sort of ritual.  I knew what it would mean to be outed as homosexual from hearing my classmates label the weaker kids as faggots, and I knew I had to find a way to outmaneuver my instincts.  But it never happened.  As even those who have been "cured" of their homosexuality will admit, they may stop having intimate relationships with the same-sex but they never stop the innate attraction (they like the analogy of alcoholism--a self-destructive habit).  I thought my parents were going to kick me out of their home and I would never see my friends again.  For a year I thought these things, kept them to myself, and made myself physically sick and cynical with worry.  Today, after some hard times, that's all far in the past and I still have the wonderful friends and family which once seemed to be necessary casualties of chance.  I now also have my husband's family.  I consider my life today to be happy and successful, and wish I had back that year before my coming out. 

If you're a young homosexual, just coming out, don't waste your life, time, and health over the threats of bullies posing as moral crusaders.  These opponents of ours, who seem inconsolably worried about what we do in our bed rooms, have the greater problem of a deviant mind than any homosexual I've ever met.  Though each decade the world is becoming a more humane place, I know it's nowhere near pleasant to be homosexual, in itself, but that doesn't mean that you can't make a wonderful life for yourself.  It only means we have to work a bit harder for it.  And, if you haven't yet, you'll reach a point eventually where you'll see the trials of coming out for what they are, and maybe even appreciate, a bit, the ways in which they've made you a better person than you could otherwise have been.