Queer Thinking

• If homosexuality is genetic, then where to gay babies come from? Answer: straight couples. I mean...one of the chief (biblical) arguments against homosexuality is that it "violates" nature's (god's) will; you can't procreate in a union of two women or two men. So the only genetic possibility for gay adults is for a straight couple to give birth to a gay baby. The only possible way out of that conundrum that I can see would be to have a gay man donate sperm to a gay woman for artificial insemination. But, c'mon...that can't happen with enough regularity to account for the millions of gay people in the United States. So, laws against same-sex marriage can't ultimately "prevent" further gayness, because only STRAIGHTS are having gay children.

• If, on the other hand, homosexuality is a choice (despite mounting scientific evidence to the contrary), then I have to ask: who would choose it? Why would anyone chose a more difficult path to walk? Who would choose social stigmatization, restrictive civil laws, a potentially hostile work environment, the expense of separate tax returns, and on & on & on? If you can come up with some solid reasons - hell, ONE solid reason! - why anyone would actively choose that life...I'd love to hear it.

• If homosexuality is genetic, then why are we worried about gay people adopting? If being gay is as much a part of a person's genetic makeup as, say, eye color, then even the most "agenda-driven" couple I could imagine wouldn't be able to "turn" a child gay. No more than they could turn a brown-eyes child's eyes blue by simply advocating it. "Your eyes will be blue, dammit! BLUE!! Blue is better, can't you see that?! MAKE THEM BLUE!!" Uh-uh. Don't work that way.

• If, on the other hand, a child can be "turned gay," then restricting adoption access to gay couples can't possibly restrict all access "agenda-driven" gays might have to children in general. A teacher, a neighbor, a cousin, or aunt, or daycare worker...someone you know is gay. Can you really restrict access to your child so well? Think about this: a "gay-by-choice" man who has a definite desire to "turn" people gay? He's going to really work to have access to children he wants to turn. He'd go out of his way to get that access. By becoming a priest, maybe? A teacher? Someone with enough determination blew up the Murrah Federal Building...I'm guessing it wouldn't take nearly that level of commitment to become a high school boys track coach for the express purpose of trying to turn some of them gay. Does that line of "logic" even begin to make sense?! Man, I hope no one out there is that paranoid! So, it doesn't make sense to try to restrict gayness by restricting adoption access to homosexuals.

Ballot initiatives like the recently-passed Proposal 8 in California are always called something falsely benign, like the "Family Values Protection Act," or the "Defense of Marriage Act." That's because calling your bill the "Jim Crow Separate-But-Equal Act" or the "Let's Show the Fags Who's Boss Act" would never pass. They wouldn't pass because most Americans believe in equal rights for each other. Not special...just equal. But smooth, professional politicians and activists, who really do have an agenda to push, come along and literally put the fear of God into parishoners who otherwise accept that Jesus taught tolerance & love. These professionals talk to decent folk about simpler times with a misty-eyed reverence that belies the fact that every age had its struggles...no time was ever "simple." They scare people into believing that their bond of love will somehow mean less if the same terminology is applied to "different" people. Smooth politicians who ply on fears of "otherness" in order to promote hatred, not love. Intolerance, not acceptance. Inequality, rather than a protection and promotion of equality. When Michelle Obama claimed to be proud of America for the first time...the passage of these kinds of acts is what leads to shame of country in the first place.