It is a little early to be rolling out the floats for the victory parade. Some of the battles here in the US are likely to be quite vicious and bloody. The road to the altar is still strewn with many a legal obstacle for me and my partner, Jimmy.

But in the meantime, it is a better time to be homosexual in the west than it ever has been before. That's not saying much, of course. Matthew Sheppard died not so long ago, remember.

All in all, though, I am proud of us as a culture for beginning to work out this particular neurotic tic in our world view. "Great goshamighty, been a long time comin' on." (Little Richard)

Amen.

DF

Hey Dean,
I liked what you have to say and responded over at Across, Beyond, Through. I didn't notice it pinging you, so I thought I'd let you know.

I take issue with the assertion that "Anyone who thinks the current scandals in the Catholic church are not primarily caused by gay men who like young boys is in deep denial."

Basically, you're assuming that any adult male who molests a boy is gay simply because it's a male-male interaction. However, the research doesn't support your assumption. In fact, most men who molest boys report little or no sexual attraction to adults of either gender. Psychiatrists therefore do not classify them as homosexual, rather, they classify them as primarily pedophiles with no adult sexual orientation. The same is often true of adult men who are attracted exclusively to very young girls. The point is that people don't molest children, even children of their gender, because they are gay; they molest children because they are pedophiles first and foremost. While some pedophiles may claim to be gay and seek protection in the gay community, many of them (I would assume that priests fall into this category) have never had normal interactions or even attractions to adult members of either gender. Blaming gay people for child sexual abuse is merely propagating an unfair stereotype that allows bigots an excuse to keep discriminating.

As a regular 'lurker' to this blog, I rarely post comments.
But this is a subject I can not resist.
I am a bi-sexual female (both the homo and the hetros do not have much respect for the bi's, "pick a side" say they.)

I have two aunts (sisters) who are homosexual, first and formost they are people and family. I love them unconditionally, and have always known they were gay. I am very pleased they are able to be more open in their lifestyle, and feel that they and all people have the right to be who they are, without fear of repercussions.

Not long ago I had a discussion with my children, who saw two men locked in a loving embrace (loving...not sexual), at which point one of my boys exclaimed, "Ew, those men are hugging." (later we had to have a dicussion concerning two women kissing) I made it very clear to my children, that even though they may not find another boy attractive, that some do, and it was the choice of those individuals. If they didn't like seeing it, they were free to look away. (This also came up concerning relationships between different races)
If it were intended for all humans to be alike, then we would be. But we aren't, and I would love to see more people accept that fact.
Once I had these talks with my boys, they came to understand that these are individuals with the right to choose. (They initially picked up the neg. conotations from classmates, from what they told me)
Acceptance, and at the very least tolerence, begins in the home.

My opinion concerning the Priests, alligns with Amy's.

Thanks for the space and the topic of merit.

When the focus of your civil rights efforts is on reinventing the concept of "marriage" ... instead of protecting yourself from harassment and intimidation, you've come an awfully long way, haven't you?

Marriage is the hot topic right now, but there's still a lot of work ongoing and to be done on the general topic of anti-discrimination. I couldn't say if it's more important to address one over the other, as both are things that can/should be accomplished.

I have long wondered if the discomfort many hetero people have over gays may be related to a lack of acceptance of their own sexuality? I have met very few men who are comfortable talking about their own sexual behavior so most men, and it is generally men, are uncomfortable at accepting alternate attitudes about sex.
As far as a redefinition of what marriage is most conservatives forget that for most of history marriage was mostly a business deal between men over the ownership of a woman. It is only over the last millenium that the emotional factors have gradually crept into becoming cultural norms. It is only in the last century that women have gained the right to divorce a husband. It is only in the last few decades that women have obtained legal equality in the workplace in a handful of countries.
Perhaps it is time that we redefine marriage as a legally binding agreement between two adults, not just one man and one woman, to provide exclusive rights to the sharing of sexual pleasures along with a well defined set of property rights. I say this as a husband and a father for the last 26 years.

Sorry Tom, but you have made a few historical errors. For one thing, women could get a divorce in ancient Egypt over 3,000 years ago. To say that marriage is just a "purchase of a woman" is a feminist myth. Look carefully at the culture of the Egyptians, Scythians, and American Indians before you make such a statement. Also, consider that the "law" of a society may have said one thing, but how did that actually work at home?
Personnaly, having had the privilege of knowing my female ancestors for three generations back, I don't believe that women were so cowardly and slavish as to submit to being treated like lapdogs for thousands of years. I know that my great-grandmother damn sure wouldn't have! That dear lady (and she was a dear lady) would have snatched your head off and dumped in the hole if you jacked with her.
An aside. Having known a few of the women who were part of the "Greatest Generation", and the one before, I don't think that the current crop of females are fit to polish their grandmothers pumps!

melanie-- i applaud your efforts to encourage your children to be more accepting of those different from themselves. still - i cannot help but wonder if framing sexuality as a "choice" is really the best way in which to accomplish this goal.

most of the people that i have met in my life - gay or straight - appear to NOT choose their sexuality. it's just "there" - and there from quite a young age.

it seems that it's the mantra of the homophobes that gays should "choose" the moral and proper way to be. but isn't part of the point that for most - it isn't a choice at all?

perhaps others disagree with me. but this is my overwhelming life experience.

I'll stand by my comments until I can read the linked article, but I'll just say that I already know there are dissenters from the view presented. Psychology, as a profession, has been polluted with a lot of politicization over the last couple of decades in many areas, especially ones like this. Many no longer even regard psychology as a science, it's gotten so bad.

However, it would be wrong to suggest that my assertion that there is a subset of gay men who like boys--which I quite believe is true--into an accusation that gay men are sexual predators toward children. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort, and I certainly don't believe it.

There is also something rather troubling to me about the "it's not a choice" position. Having read a very great deal of the science behind this, I know that this can only be said definitively about one subset of gay people. By suggesting that it is an unalterable biological characteristic in all cases--which it may be, but has not yet been proven--one opens up a Pandora's Box of issues that I don't think the gay community has even started to confront. It will probably have to do so eventually, as it comes to the dawning realization that most straight people have come to view it as a biological error.

I can, to an extent, understand why this choice in rhetoric has been made. The "it's not a choice" mindset has been very effective politically. People become less afraid of homosexuality when they believe that it's a harmless biological issue like being born with webbed toes or eyes of two different colors--and when they come to realize that (A) it's not something that can be changed in most cases, and (B) it's not a behavior that they or their children are likely to "accidentally learn."

But, having watched the vicious (and often anti-semitic) attacks on Dr. Laura from some in the gay community for her perfectly defensible and rational comments in this regard, I'm always afraid to even venture into these waters. I've been treated in unbelievably vicious ways by self-righteous gay activists. Including some I once considered my friends. This is all the more painful for me because I've had gay friends most of my life, and have come to their defense many times, including during times when it was not at all politically acceptable to do so.

i honestly have never met anyone gay in my life who was "coerced" or "indoctrinated" into being gay. while evidence doesn't seem conclusive that everyone who is gay was "born" that way ... both current science and the experiences of the majority of people seems to weigh on the side of a biological predilection. (how many reading this ever gave a lot of thought as to whether they ought to be gay or straight?)

if this is, for the most part, true, it seems not to be evidence that being gay is a biological "error." people have a number of traits that range from common to unusual - but are not considered deformities.

after all - if it's true that each of us does go through some period of testing and judging as to what sexuality we should choose - doesn't it then make more sense for interest groups to try to advocate for one "lifestyle" or another?

1. There are priests who molest little boys. They are pedophiles. There are priests who molest teen boys. They are homosexuals. There are priests who molest nuns. There are nuns who molest small children, they are pedophiles. There are nuns who molets teen girls. They are lesbians. You don't hear much about the nuns because the church doesn't shield them, it expels them.

2. Gays and straights who tell bisexuals to "pick one" are idiots. Both gays and straights are perversions, God meant us all to be bi.

3. I don't have a problem with gays. I'll have sex with anything that gets me horny. Women, men, domestic livestock, household appliances, geographical features, vegitation....

Except that the only man I ever met who made me horny was in a committed relationship. (sigh) And now I'm busy being faithful to my wife of 28 years...

Clearly, my attitude is the only REASONABLE attitude, and anyone who doesn't share it is just misguided. (And no, I'm NOT trying to be funny.)

I attempted to make a point similar to Goldberg's on MetaFilter recently and promptly got piled on, as I knew I would. "Tell that to Matthew Shepard," was one rejoinder; "People were outraged by Shepard's murder, and his killers will spend the rest of their lives in jail; that's something you certainly couldn't have been assured of even twenty years ago," was my reply.

True social change usually takes generations, because the people who are old and set in their ways have to die off, but gays have accomplished an awful lot in basically just one. Of course, they had a head start, because gay rights was in some respects an extension of the civil rights movement, but still, it's impressive. We openly mock people who don't accept gays (as Dean has pointed out, that's not always fair either, but I think it's an improvement over the previous status quo). So I think the gays are over the hump, so to speak, but not quite finished.

In fact, gay activists may be on the verge of pushing things too hard and inadvertently doing damage to their cause. There's a fairly prevalent attitude in some circles that if you're gay, you owe it to your fellow gays to come out. My argument in the MetaFilter thread was that there are enough "out" gays now that most people who are willing to be open-minded know at least one and are aware that gays don't have horns and a tail, which makes coming out less a moral imperative and more of a personal choice about how much of a deal one wants to make about one's sexuality, particularly if one is a public figure, like, say, a member of Congress. Pressuring people to come out for the good of the community runs the risk of causing them to reject that community entirely. Activists are also openly and harshly critical of gays who choose to join the Republican Party, which, given how strong the GOP is these days, is like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. If gays become a major part of the Republican Party -- by which I mean they contribute financially with that above-average wealth they have -- then the Republican Party will be obliged to court them, which might well require throwing the far-right wackos out of the party. But no, being gay and Republican is wrong, you're not a real homosexual unless you vote Democratic.

Dean: I was going to take a pass on this one until I read some of the comments. Interesting stuff.

It was my impression that at least some researchers believe that there is some correlation between single-sex institutions and greater frequencies of homosexuality (here used to indicate both men and women). All-male or all-female schools have been cited in evidence.

According to this theory, those priests (a distinction that, I think, has been lost lately) who have molested boys do so because this is their only outlet. In other words, they lack access to young girls.

The other theory I've encountered is that the Catholic policy of sexual abstinence drives abusing priests to boys. They have no other adult sexual outlet, so they focus on boys.

I suppose this may relate to the first theory in that priests don't have much access to girls. I admit that I am not Catholic, and there is much of which I am not aware.

So I wonder: is that particular issue gay men seeking access to boys entering the clergy , or straight men who can't deal with their high sexual drives entering the clergy?

One way to test that would, I suppose compare the frequency of same-sex abuse within the Catholic priesthood with the frequency of same-sex abuse among Protestant clergy. If the frequency is higher among Catholics than Protestants, this suggests the policy of sexual abstinence may be a stronger factor than the sexual orientation of the clergy.

But this is just me ruminating...

Re: the question of "choice." I don't think I've ever met,or heard of any homosexual (again, I am using this term for both men and women) or heterosexual who claimed to have gotten up one morning, and said to themselves: "Self, it's a great day! I think I'll try the other side for a while. What the heck!"

No, Every discussion of someone's realization (telling word) of their sexuality has been just that: a realization, not a choice. So it irks me that some political pressure groups advertise the difference as a choice of no more consequence than clothes, drugs, or music. According to them it's a lifestyle thing.

So if it is a lifestyle thing, how can they claim to be an oppressed minority? People don't get beat up for being Deadheads, Parrotheads, or mimes (well, not usually anyway). So why should they get beat up for this lifestyle choice? Unless it may not be a choice... Hmmm...

Those people who cite "homosexual" behavior in wild animals miss the point. Studies (at least the ones I've heard of) show that there is no parallel to the competition for females among "straight" males among so-called "gay" male animals. These studies also show little or no post-coital behavior parallels among "gay" animals.

The key seems to be that the animals studied generally used mounting as a form of status determination. The alpha male mounted other males to reinforce his dominant position, not through sexual desire.

Among humans, it's different. Men don't need to bugger other men to establish a pecking order (excuse the pun), although the behavior has been known. One of the less-talked-about results of a military defeat during the pre-industrial days is the sodomizing of prisoners. I believe this reinforces the idea of a need for dominance, as opposed to sexual desire. As an aside, this also tends to explain why so many professional soldiers are resistant to women as infantry; they are familiar with some of the nastier, generally un-mentioned habits of many armies around the world.

I've thought for a while now that non-standard sexual preference has a parallel to imprinting in many animals. Take the classic example of a duck born among chickens; the poor thing thinks it's a chicken... Perhaps there is a parallel among humans. Partly inherent, and partly environmental, as with many other elements of the human condition. This would tend to explain why some homosexuals have absolutely no interest in the opposite sex, some may have flashes of interest, and some have successfully undergone therapy to become heterosexual.

Just as a post-script, I should differentiate the above from truly bi-sexual people. Oddly enough I've met a fair number of admittedly bisexual women, but no men. Hmmm...

But, as I said above, this is just me ruminating.. :)

I'm not particularly interested in changing anyone's mind about homosexuality or gay relationships. If they have personal and/or religious beliefs that it's wrong or undesirable, so be it.

What I do want, however, is a government structure in which I will not be unjustly discriminated against because of being gay (i.e., choose not to be my friend, fine, but don't deny me a job, voting rights, etc.). That way, people can believe what they want to believe and live their lives, and I can do the same.

I think it's inaccurate to consider gay marriage the pinnacle or end of the gay rights struggle. It's actually the beginning. Lots of people think that being gay is all about sex. Well, I'm gay and in a long-term committed relationship, and sex is the last thing we have time for. It's mostly working, taking out the garbage, helping our downstairs neighbors hook up the DVD players, etc.

By making it possible for committed, legal gay relationships to exist, the foundation is laid for us to have a proper place in American society. Do some people still disagree with inter-racial marriage? Yes, but it's legal. I'm interested in seeing the same thing happen with gay marriage.

As for concerns about pedophilia -- as you said, there are gay guys who have a thing for little boys. Same with straight men and little boys, and straight men with little girls. If you look at the real story of sexual abuse, the sexuality of the abuser is often hetero or difficult to define because of the pathologies involved.

If gay relationships were to destabilize society, society would already be destabilized. Unwed mothers are far more of a problem than gay marriage -- in fact, gay marriage isn't a problem. We *are* getting married. We're just asking the government to recognize it.

I don't want to shove my lifestyle down someone's throat, and having a husband doesn't do that, anymore than straight people being married shoves their sexuality down my throat. It's about fairness, and unfortunately some people have such strong negative feelings about homosexuality that fairness never comes into play.

We aren't at the end of the struggle. This is the milestone that suggests the struggle can really begin.

Also, the numbers that indicate gay and lesbian Americans have more disposable income are rather hazy -- so many of us are in the closet (many of us in heterosexual marriages) that the numbers can't be trusted. Not until each and every one of us can live openly can any real statistics be gathered.

"Many states still have Sodomy laws on the books.....But those laws are still there, and occasionally some local sheriff or D.A. gets a bug up his ass and decides to try to enforce it."

If a local sheriff/D.A. gets a bug up his ass...that should be considered sodomy and the sheriff/D.A. should be arrested and prosecuted for sodomy.

I don't mean to make light of the topic. But, really, when you examine the type of person who decides to prosecute (read: persecute) another because of what the other person does in private, don't you start to wonder if they have a sense of humor? They obviously over-value their sense of decency.

regarding the discussion of "trying out" other sexual preferences, I knew several members of the theatre department during my undergrad days who were "trying out" homosexuality. Most went back to being hetero, although some remained on the other side of the fence.

"marketing statistics show that the average gay person makes more money than the average straight person, and has more disposable income. "

This isn't true of lesbians, only gay men. Income patterns among gays follow gender patterns in general - women still make less than men, so 2 men or 2 women . . . you do the math.

Gary, very good point about orientation that echos what a friend of mine has said: his take is that we're all sexual beings, and are turned on by what happens to turn us on. And that a man who normally is turned on by women who happens to find a particular man attractive doesn't make him 'gay', it just makes him turned on by that man.

So I'm in perfect agreement that totally straight or gay people are actually an aberration, and my experiences in life bear this out. I've known many straight and gay people who found their sexual identity threatened when they had an 'abberational' attraction to someone they "shouldn't" find attractive.

I think it's a statistical preference based partly on each of the following: genetics, pre-natal conditions in the womb (recent research indicates that this may be the strongest factor), and imprinting experiences.

So Casey, you've probably met a number of genuinely bi men (by that I mean they've batted for both teams), you just didn't know it. In my experience, in this day and age, bi's are more likely to be in the closet than gay men.

Perhaps I should have mentioned this before, but the vast majority of the pedophiles I know (and after 20 years with the police, I know quite a few) are straight.

Someone said it up above, but it bears repeating that pedophelia is NOT a crime that is related to homosexuality.

It is also a crime that is grossly under reported. Most pedophelia is within the family and there is the obvious disincentive to report it to the authorities.

The current scandal revolving around the Catholic church does not actually represent a huge problem, in terms of numbers. (Yes, yes, I understand that the crime itself is a tragedy, that's not the point.)

Pedophelia in the Church is sensational, and receives a lot of coverage, but I would bet, if/when accurate statistics are ever compiled, that the percentage of this within the Church pretty closely matches the percentage within the family.

(And I could make a case that, for a priest, the congregation IS his family, but that's mostly irrelevant.)