Got Milk?

Sean Penn used to be one of those people that … well, I’d cringe whenever I’d hear his name. There were all those “bad boys” movies in the 1980s and that whole Madonna thing and … I remember a few times over the years that someone would start talking about him … and to tell the truth, I just sort of stopped listening. Then, several years after the movie came out, I finally convinced myself to watch Dead Man Walking, a movie that totally took me by surprise, although it wasn’t until he’d done I am sam and Mystic River that I started to think that maybe he wasn’t going to be so bad after all.

Now, granted – I haven’t seen the movie yet, but from what I am hearing – one of his next movies may just prove me wrong again. I’m talking about a movie, currently set to release in November called Milk.

Milk is the latest movie from Director Gus Van Sant (the same guy who brought us Good Will Hunting, Even Cowgirls Get The Blues, and My Own Private Idaho, just to name a few) and tells the story of San Francisco’s first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk.

If you don’t know about Harvey Milk, go rent the excellent documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk.

On November 27, 1978, then city supervisor of San Francisco, California, Harvey Milk was assassinated by the recently resigned city supervisor, Dan White. White was convicted of his crime, but only received a seven year sentence because his legal defense team claimed junk food made him temporarily incompetent. Yes, this was the original “Twinkie Defense”. San Francisco erupted in riots over this – and the Milk assassination became one of the crucial turning points in the fight for gay civil rights.

Even this early in the game, Sean Penn is already starting to receive adoration from the way he is portraying Harvey Milk, leaving some to start to wonder if a second Oscar Award is coming soon. (His first was for Mystic River.)

Me? I just wonder what Barbra Streisand is thinking right now?

Her Son-In-Law, Josh Brolin, who recently finished filming Milk – where he plays Milk’s assassinator Dan White, has just started filming Oliver Stone’s W. where he plays George W. Bush – Two totally opposite (yet strangely similar) real-life characters I’m sure The Funny Girl has some pretty strong feelings about…

And from the recent cover of Entertainment Weekly – he appears to have a pretty good likeness…

…although this is now starting to lead into a topic for another, later, blog post!

The Latest HIV News…

The world of HIV research is often ignored by the mainstream media. And what does come is often confusing, and without knowing the full scope of what’s going on, that might just be for the best anyway. But, even the smallest news story has major implications.

Germen researchers recently found that there is a protein in semen that enhances the ability of HIV to spread.

This little bit of information can help explain a lot of the things we’ve known all along. With a few minor exceptions, HIV is normally spread one of two ways - sexually, or through drug use. The vast majority of which is transmitted sexually, and men who have sex with men are still one of the largest number of people testing HIV Positive.

Before now, each of these factors had their own explanations. For example, more people put themselves at risk through sexual activity than drug use. The first cases of HIV were reported in the gay community, and if you live with the delusion that men who have sex with men never have sex with women… well, let’s just say that all this sounds good in theory, but…

Yes. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but I’m trying to keep it fairly simple. For example, HIV lives primarily in the blood, but that’s not to say that it isn’t found in other areas of the body either (vaginal fluids, breast milk, semen). Most HIV treatments concentrate on what’s in the blood… see, I’m afraid I am losing you already.

So, what does this mean for all of us non-scientists?

First off, I think stories like this should remind us that HIV is a sexually transmitted disease. While we’ve always known HIV can be transmitted via semen, perhaps we ought to be paying more attention to that.

Secondly, this story might help point the way to new treatments. It’s important to remember that in the grand scheme of things, HIV is fairly new to the scene, and new treatment ideas are still big news.

Up until recently, all HIV medications fit into one of only a small handful of categories. But, they all seem to work along the same lines - interrupting the way that HIV attacks the immune system by making more copies of itself in the bloodstream. The process has many steps, and each category of HIV medication we have now interrupts this process in their own way, somewhere in that process.

As I said before, the medications we have now work primarily in the bloodstream, but most (one report I recently read said approximately 80%) new cases of HIV were transmitted through (unprotected) sexual contact. So, what do you think would happen if we interrupted that process?

Yes. I know. There are a lot of “If’s”…

If there is a protein in semen that helps HIV infect new cells (which appears to be true) … if most cases of HIV are transmitted sexually (which, again, appears to be true) … then … would it be possible to think that if science could come up with a way of fighting HIV from blocking the protein found in semen from interacting with HIV, would it be safe to assume the HIV Infection rate would go way down?

Just … something to think about. Keep in mind that it takes an awful lot of time to go from scientific discovery to working everything out and coming up with a new treatment (let alone getting it approved by the FDA.)

Tammy Fae …

To be honest with you - I never thought all that highly about Tammy Fae Messner. Although, to me, she always was Tammy Fae Baker…

Growing up isn’t all that easy for a gay boy in an Evangelical Christian household. After my parents learned I was gay, I spent a lot of time in church where I was prayed over, went through religious “therapy”, and was constantly reminded that gay people were sinners with no hope of salvation.

I got that message loud and clear at home as well - and not just from my parents - but, on the TV too. We watched our fair share of televangelists (more so at my Grandma’s house as my parents preferred religious figures who could shake your hand after the service) and yes, we watched PTL with Jim & Tammy Fae Baker. So, when Jim Baker would talk about the shameful “Sin” of homosexuality with his wife standing by his side - I figured they were all alike.

At this point in my life, I was struggling enough already to accept my own gay feelings. Those who know my coming out story (which I’ll post at a later time) know that I had started to figure out I was gay at an early age - and knew all too well that there were people out there who thought homosexuality was ok, but there were even more out there who thought that it was not. I tried to not let those who were anti-gay influence me too much. But, still, it was a lot for a young teen to deal with. It wasn’t like we had a lot of gay-positive role models back in the mid-1980s…

I just always assumed Tammy Fae was one of those anti-gay people, and dismissed her whenever I heard her name. Unfortunately, with her, and all that makeup, the air-conditioned dog houses - it wasn’t all that hard.

Somewhere along the way, Tammy Fae taught me something rather important about myself. I, who had put in so much hard work breaking down stereotypes and fighting prejudice, should have taken a long hard look at myself a long time before I did. Yep. I stereotyped her. Yep. I was somewhat prejudiced against those gay hating homophobic evangelical types.

And when I found out she was going to be on The Surreal Life, even though I hate “reality television” I thought to myself - “oh, that’s bound to be interesting.” When I found out who she was going to be living with - namely, porn-star Ron Jeremy - I decided to watch. Just one episode. I’m no Ron Jeremy fan. I’m no Vanilla Ice fan. (Far from it, actually.) I wasn’t an Eric Estrada fan either - although he was part of the reason I discovered I had a uniform fetish - but that’s besides the point. I just knew the former televangelist was going say something, and I was waiting for it … waiting for it … and … damn.

She not only seemed to mind sharing a house with a porn star - she actually seemed to make him her friend.

What The Fudge-sickle? Where’s the lady who used to stand by her husband while he talked about (among other things) the evils of pornography? (After all porn was just as bad as being gay.)

After that - the more I learned about Tammy Fae - the worse I started to feel. I totally misjudged her.

While it’s true that she never said anything on television while I was growing up in defense of the shameful homosexuals her husband would pray for on national television for - she, herself, never said anything like that. Not even close. She never seemed to have a bad word to say about anyone. She seemed to love and respect everyone.

I have often said that most of the Evangelicals I have ever met (or even heard about) seemed to forget a couple of Jesus’ most important messages: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” or even that whole “Love your neighbor” thing. Tammy Fae, I guess, was actually all about that.

Somehow I missed some of her accomplishments. I missed it when, back in the 80s, she talked with a person dying of AIDS on her Christian show. (Keep in mind it was a HUGE taboo back then.) I missed it in 1996 when she hosted the “Jm J and Tammy Fae Show” with Jm J. Bullock (a - gasp - homosexual). I missed it when she told Larry King that she always admired the gay community. I missed it when she said that “God loves everyone.”

I am sorry, Tammy Fae.

I hope you rest in peace.

Thank you.

Remembering Loving v. Virginia

June 12^th marked the anniversary of a landmark legal case known as Loving v. Virginia.

The plaintiffs, a black woman named Mildred Loving and her white husband Richard Perry Loving were arrested in 1958 when they returned to their Virginia home after being married in the District of Columbia. Because Virginia law prevented interracial couples from being married, they were arrested, pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to a year in prison. However, the trial judge suspended the sentence for 25 years, as long as the Lovings left the state of Virginia and didn’t come back for 25 years.

The Trial judge, Leon Bazile issued the following statement:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

The Lovings moved to Washington D.C. where they began a series of lawsuits claiming that Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which caused their marriage to be considered a criminal act, was a direct violation of the 14^th amendment to the Constitution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned their convictions and declared the Racial Integrity Act unconstitutional. The opinion of the court stated:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

It is interesting to note, however, that while this decision declared that laws which prevented interracial couples from getting married was unconstitutional, it still took around 30 years for some states (such as Alabama) to take those laws off the books.

When doing research on this topic – it surprised me (in a way) to read what people had been saying at the times about interracial marriages – like the quote from Leon Bazile above. They started to sound very similar to what some people are saying about gay marriage.

Ok. I understand it. Kind of. When you feel very strongly about a subject, you are going to find whatever you can to justify it – especially if it conflicts with your other beliefs. Some people do turn to philosophy or religion. For example – you think prejudice is wrong. However, you don’t like gay people. So, you have two options. Either change the way you think, or find a way to make it acceptable. Now, many people think the Bible says homosexual behavior is immoral. Therefore, it’s ok to be prejudiced against gay people. After all, if God says it’s ok, it’s not prejudice, right?

There used to be a lot more people who thought that interracial marriages were disgraceful, immoral, and an abomination. Interracial couples were often the target of violent attacks, pranks, name calling, etc… They justified their hated by saying God didn’t want people of different races getting together. They said it wasn’t natural. They said it was abomination against God’s will.

At some point in history, we all went through a paradigm shift. It started with interracial couples standing up for themselves. It started with a few brave individuals who would speak out against the injustice of it all. And today, when we look back at those brave souls, we consider them visionaries – we consider them heroes.

Because their paradigm shifted before other people’s? Maybe. Or, maybe it was because they said something about it.

What Am I Missing Here?

In all honesty, it didn’t surprise me that much when I heard the story on the nightly news – basketball player Tim Hardaway doesn’t like gay people:

Well, you know — you know, I hate gay people. So, you know, I let it be known. I don’t like gay people. I don’t like to be around gay people. I don’t — you know, I’m homophobic.

What surprises me is how much talk there is about Hardaway. He’s been on the news and in the newspapers … so many blog posts, I don’t know where to begin … it’s starting to seem like every time I turn around – whoops – there’s Tim Hardaway again.

You can see Tim Hardaway naked on YouTube, with not one, not two, not three, but four separate videos (and probably more than that, too)…

The openly gay mayor of North Miami, Kevin Burns, has openly reached out to Hardaway, inviting him to spend some time with his family…

Charles Berkley has said some public words to Hardaway…

There are people who think that Hardaway is up for the Asshole-Of-The-Year Award – and there are those too who are proud of Hardaway’s homophobia.

But, I get the feeling we’re missing something here. Let’s see … how did all this start? Oh, yeah – some basketball player said he was gay, and Hardaway said he hates gay people. And then … Oh. Wait. That’s it! Someone came out of the closet. Who was that? Why can’t we hear half as much about him as we have from Hardaway? (Oh, yeah…)

John Amaechi is that gay basketball player. He’s been blogged about and had a few news reports about him. (Just not all that many.) And, it seems that most of what I’ve seen (so far) has been more about Amaechi’s response to Hardaway than his original comment. Amaechi was reported to have said:

”His words pollute the atmosphere,” Amaechi said. ”It creates an atmosphere that allows young gays and lesbians to be harassed in school, creates an atmosphere where in 33 states you can lose your job, and where anti-gay and lesbian issues are used for political gain. It’s an atmosphere that hurts all of us, not just gay people.”

Please don’t get me wrong here. I think his response was great and well-said.

I just think we need to support John Amaechi a little more!

Film Ratings…

As an avid DVD collector and movie buff - I have always been just a little intrigued about the whole movie rating thing. It’s … just … confusing!

Like most people I know - film ratings don’t mean all that much to me. I can see how they can be useful to some people - especially those with children - but when it comes to movies I either rent or buy for myself … those ratings have little (if anything) to do with what I walk away with.

Personally, I usually find that the “unrated” or “NC-17″ version of movies are better than the R-rated versions, although I don’t see this as much of a “ratings” issue as it is a “director’s cut” issue. For example - Fatal Attraction’s Theatrical Release is ok… but, the director’s cut is so much better. The only big difference is the ending… that whole ‘He kills her, then she comes back to life so his wife can kill her too’ … what the heck was THAT about? The original ending was, believe me, much better!

Now - this isn’t always true… Alexander is one of those movies where I enjoyed the Theatrical Version more than I did the Director’s Cut. (Due to political pressure from right wing groups, some of the gay-related themes were taken out of the movie.)

But, lately a bunch of movies have come up with both the Theatrical Version as well as an Unrated (NC-17) Version. Usually, the Unrated Version is just a bit more graphic (either nudity/sex or violence). It’s not that rare to compare the movie run times and see that only a minute or two of added footage has been added. I think this is more about censorship than anything else. (And, censorship is a completely different issue all together.) The Unrated version of American Psycho is merely five seconds longer.

I know that not all Unrated movies would have recieved an NC-17 rating… sometimes the films would have recieved an R Rating while the Theatrical Release was rated PG-13. Charlie’s Angles: Full Throttle is a good example of this.

Comparing Rated and Unrated versions of films can be kind of fun and interesting. Sometimes, it is just silly. (Dare I mention Team America: World Police? The only difference is some pretty absurd sexual acts between two puppets…)

Sometimes, though - it doesn’t make any sense.

One of the R-rated scenes removed from Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (but put back into the Unrated Version) was cut because it showed Dylan (Drew Barrymore) being hit in the face and spraying blood from the force of the impact. And yet, there are other movies where that happens frequently, yet still manages to keep a PG rating. (Not PG-13 … PG!) Rocky, for instance. So, why does one scene get an R-Rating, while the other gets away with PG?

When it comes to nudity or sex, however - the confusion runs more rampant. According to the MMPA, all movies are based on the same criteria, regardless of gender, race, or even sexual orientation of the characters involved. Yet gay themed movies are held to a different standard than heterosexual themed movies. A gay movie could not have two naked men wrestling each other - but a straight movie could. (Women In Love)

Last year, I wrote a blog post “Outrage Over Film Rating???” about a group of Evangelicals who were outraged that a movie they produced received a PG rating rather than a G rating (even though the movie deals with some pretty adult things like teen sex and pregnancy). Had the movie dealt with teenage homosexuality, I wonder what the movie would have been rated? I also wonder if the right-wing pundits who lobbied for a change in legislation regarding film ratings made any difference at all? I wonder what that means for me…

I started writing this blog post a few days ago, but last night I watched the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated, that amazingly dealt with many of the topics I covered in this film, plus a lot of others. If any of this has made any sense to you - you ought to check this movie out too. Although, personally I would have liked to see the faces of those on the ratings board when this movie was submitted for rating…(wink)

The Year In The Rear-View Mirror (2006)

In some ways, 2006 was a great year… In other ways, it kind of sucked.

We saw Britney Spears Crotch shot by the paparazzi … We heard what Mel Gibson thinks of the Jews … We heard what Michael Richards (who played Kramer on Seinfield) thought about hecklers. No wonder the Jib Jab people think we’ve gone Nucking Futs!

Sigh. Thank god 2006 is over! But, you have to admit - we’ve been through a lot this past year…

It is easy to point the finger at some of worst cases of blatant intolerance - such as James Dobson’s attack on Mary Cheney or Ann Coulter’s many many many anti-gay statements or Don Imus’ and Chris Matthews homophobic review of Brokeback Mountain… But, the truth is that we still live in a time when public “fag-bashing” is still, somewhat, socially acceptable.

Several celebrities came out of the closet this year… Neil Patrick Harris, Lance Bass, and T.R. Knight, for example. Oprah Winfrey, on the other hand, came out as heterosexual.

Two of the most (shockingly) successful movies this year included Brokeback Mountain and Transamerica. The NBC comedy Will and Grace aired their final episode.

Gay Marriage was, off and on, a hot topic - especially in areas like New Jersey.

Chicago (where I live) was host to the Gay Games… and I got to be a part of that.

The 25th Anniversary of AIDS occurred this year as well, and it was published that gays were not the origin of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS.)

Yes - this is just a small reminder of a few of the events that took place over the past year … it serves to remind us not only how far the gay community (in general) has come … but also serve as a reminder about how far we still have to go.

Chicago Takes (It All) Off … For Charity

I rarely get excited over charities … but this time I am going to make an exception.

The fine folks at TPAN (Test Positive Aware Network) are getting ready for a special event called Chicago Takes Off - a strip show … for charity!

Under the artistic direction of Dance for Life founders Keith Elliott and Todd Kiech, Chicago Takes Off promises to over-expose the best assets of Chicago’s dance community, elevating the “Strip-tease” to an art form. Chicago’s dance and performing arts community will donate their time and “many” talents to create this sexy celebration of life.

It looks like it’s going to be an awesome show. (Check out the pictures from the kickoff party!)

Chicago Takes Off will be held on Saturday, February 10 at the Park West. Tickets range in price from $50 to $250 and are available online.

All money raised will go to benefit Test Positive Aware Network, and be used for HIV and AIDS education. TPAN is a unique, peer based service organization that provides support services to clients with HIV or AIDS as well as providing HIV/AIDS educational services as well. TPAN also publishes Positively Aware magazine.

This year (2006) the agency received a major setback, losing over a hundred thousand dollars in government funding. So, this new fundraiser will hopefully go to help eliminate some of the strain the agency has faced this year.

I am often amazed when I hear about HIV Services or Programs from other cities. New York is one of those cities that has, quite often, really amazed me. I usually end up thinking, “Why can’t we do something like that in Chicago?”

One such example is Broadway Bares - a yearly fundraiser in New York. I’ve always wanted to go … but, New York is so far away. Why couldn’t they do something like that here? Well … now, I guess they are.

Stay tuned for further updates!

Hate Crimes…

Today, I received the following comment from my blog post: 2005 Hate Crime Statistics -

I still dont get the hate crime thing. If you take away the violence/crime part you end up with thought crime. do we really want to go there? a crime is a crime.did someone intend to kill you.. that is a crime..
WHY they wanted to? who cares.. if they DO kill you.. you are dead… and all murdered people should be avenged EQUALLY. gays do not get MORE rights. I rarely hear about gay on gay crime but from what i have read its even MORE heinous crime than straight on gay. why is that?have a nice day go straights! Comment by kent j — December 11, 2006 @ 9:49 am

Hate crimes are about more than just someone beating someone else up, or someone killing another person. Hate Crimes, by their very nature, effect more than just the victims - they effect entire groups of people. The physical and emotional damage caused by hate crimes impacts entire communities, races, genders, or ethnic groups (or whatever group to which the victim(s) belong. Hate crimes are about more than just interpersonal violence - they are about intimidation - they’re about power - and they’re about disrupting communities and violating civility.

As to the notion of “thought crimes” … yes, I do want to go there. If you take the violence and crime away from a thought - you’re left with just a thought. (Not a thought crime.) Nobody is talking about getting arrested because they thought something. That’s just downright silly.

The reasoning (or, the motives) behind crimes has always been an important factor to consider:

Suppose Person A has just killed Person B - Person A is guilty of first degree murder, right? Well … no. In order to figure out the answer to that question, other factors need to be taken into consideration. What if Person B was trying to kill Person A and was killed in self-defense? That’s not even a crime. What if Person A killed Person B accidentally? That might be a manslaughter charge, or in some cases, a crime-less accidental death.

The degree of violence has so little to do with it - it is barely worth mentioning. Does a person who stabs someone five times get a lesser sentence than someone who stabs someone ten times, under the same circumstances? Nope. It doesn’t work that way.

What none of this, so far, has taken into consideration is the impact hate crimes have on society in general or the group to which the victim(s) belonged. If someone’s actions terrorizes a group of people, why should that not be taken into consideration? More social resources (provided by politicians, law enforcement agencies, social service agencies, etc) are needed to deal with the aftermath and implications of hate crimes - why should these issues not be taken into consideration either?

Another silly notion if you really think about it is the comment about how gays shouldn’t have any more rights than anyone else. First off, homosexuals aren’t the only victims of hate crimes. Hate Crimes also effect people of various nationalities, genders, races, and religions. I have a feeling people would look at you funny if you said, “No special rights for blacks!” hunh? Or, “Jewish people don’t deserve more legal protection than gentiles.” So, why does it make it ok to say that about homosexuals?

Secondly - nobody is saying that anyone has any more rights than anyone else. It’s about saying what’s right or wrong in the eyes of the law - and victimizing someone solely because of certain factors (such as sexual orientation) is wrong. Trust me, it’s just as much of a hate crime if a heterosexual was assaulted because he was straight than a homosexual who was beaten up because he was gay. They’re both the same.  Nobody has any more or less rights than anyone else.

Anyway, kent - I hope you have a great day too. Not sure what to make of that “go straights!” comment, but … that’s ok. I don’t have to know where you want to go, but if you need help setting up a car-pool, just let me know - ok?

Neil Patrick Harris Comes Out…

Actor Neil Patrick Harris told People Magazine this week that he is “proud” to be a gay man.

The actor, who is currently playing Barney on NBC’s How I Met Your Mother, might be better known as the infamous Doogie Houser, MD.

Harris says that there has been some recent speculation about his sexual orientation and chose to dispel any rumors publicly.

Kind of makes you wonder was exactly was going on in that Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle movie, hunh?

Anyhow…

It seems like … as more and more celebrities come out of the closet … it’s starting to lose its impact. Sure … there was a time, not all that long ago, that coming out as a gay man in hollywood reduced your chances of ever getting a job again.

After all … look what happened a few years ago when Ellen DeGeneres’ character came out in prime time…

So, yeah, we’ve come a long way.

In July, when Lance Bass came out - I posted some thoughts about the serious lack of role models for gays and lesbians. I still think that’s just as true today as it was back then. Especially in light of things like the Mark Foley scandal or the Reverend Haggard thing. And it’s times like these that I start to realize we haven’t come nearly as far as we thought we had.

Evangelicals v. Rev. Ted Haggard

At first, I wasn’t wanting to post on the Reverend Ted Haggard thing … what more is there to say? Rev. Ted Haggard went to see a gay male prostitute for a “massage”. He bought some methamphetamine while he was there. He got caught … oops. So now, he admits to buying drugs but he didn’t have sex with that guy.

Why does this ALMOST sound familiar? Oh, yeah … almost sounds like Bill Clinton. Smoked dope but didn’t inhale and oh, yeah, he didn’t have sex with that woman. Yep. Sounds close. But, no cigar.

What could I possibly add to this?

But, then this morning, I was watching the Sunday Morning News and they featured a major story on this guy. The news segment this morning told the story of how the Evangelical Minister had been forced to resign and lose his position at his Church. But then they continued to show the reaction of several members of his congregation who wanted to stand behind him (no puns, please) and support him through all this.

One gentleman even started talking about how a Church is more than just a building - it’s a “family” and “families” stick together in times of crisis.

My inner child really wanted to start throwing a temper tantrum. Throughout my entire life, I’ve heard (from Evangelicals, and to be fair, others too) about how doing drugs will mess up your life and make you go to Hell. But, at least through a lifetime membership in a 12-Step Program, you can be saved as long as you admit you’re powerless over drugs and make a decision to turn your life back over to God. But, if you’re gay … forget it. All bets are off. You’re a bad person. You will always be a bad person.

Heck - look at how Pat Robertson likes to blame the gays and lesbians for everything from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina. Yeah, I know … a lot of evangelicals don’t support those views, and yet they keep supporting him. Go figure…

And you wonder why I don’t give my inner child his own blog?

After working hard to shut my inner child up - my inner adult wanted to throw his own two cents in.

Seeing those people rally behind Reverend Ted really got me thinking. Here’s a guy they all trusted. Here’s a guy they all turned to for advise on moral and ethical issues. Here’s a guy they accepted and welcomed with everything they had…

He goes out and buys Meth during a “massage” from a “gay escort” …

He says he didn’t engage in sexual relations, but I think that’s a bit hard to believe. If you want a legitimate massage, you go to a licenced and-or certified masseur … someone who has had training in massage. If you want to get your rocks off while you get touched, you call an escort. Normally, I would think everyone would know this, but…

Maybe those standing behind Haggard are starting to realize that homosexuality isn’t necessairily as evil as they previously thought, and maybe the evangelical paradigm is starting to shift … just a little.

Or, maybe not. We’ll see.

Religious Objections…

After a Minneapolis Bus Driver complained about a gay-themed advertisement on a bus she was driving, she asked to be allowed to drive another bus because the ad offended her religious values. The transit authorities considered this to be a reasonable accommodation to her religious beliefs.

I read about this story shortly after I read about the Minneapolis Cab Drivers who, because of their Muslim beliefs, were refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol.

And these aren’t the only examples of people who are supposed to deal with the public in general but refuse to do something because of their religious beliefs. From time to time we hear about others too: pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions because of religious objections (such as the birth control pill) … or, how about doctors who refuse medical treatments because of religious objections?

I just wonder if things are being pushed too far?

When it comes to the Minneapolis bus driver - according to the Amalgamated Transit Unit Local 1005 - bus drivers have never been excused from driving buses with ads that they object to for religious reasons, including political based messages and endorsements of political candidates.

So, then why start precedent with gay-themed ads?

Legally speaking, most businesses must accommodate its employees religious beliefs unless it brings undue business hardship. However, once you start drawing lines between what diverse groups of people find appropriate or inappropriate, someone is surely guaranteed to feel left uncomfortable or worse. By letting drivers refuse to drive buses with pro-gay ads on them, homosexual employees are left feeling uncomfortable and rejected. And yet, both religion and sexual orientation are supposedly protected by the company’s policies.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that if you deal with the public, you may just have to interact with people you normally wouldn’t associate with or look at things you’d rather not see. If you do not like to deal with people who are different than you - then maybe getting a job in the public sector isn’t such a bright idea.  “The Public” is made up of a wide mixture of people from various political lines of thoughts to religions to sexual orientation to national origins to skin color … and if you would rather not deal with the public - it should be up to you to find a career or job more suited to you.

While this may be a minor blip on the radar - it concerns me because I wonder what could happen next?

When it comes to medical care, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath which states, amongst other things, that they heal their patients to the best of their ability and not deliberately cause anyone harm. When it comes to times of war, battlefield doctors (remember that old show, MASH?) tend to overlook who’se side of the conflict someone was fighting for - and they’re labelled heroes because they healed the sick, even if they were the enemy. But, when it comes to treating someone who has a disease like AIDS, can a doctor refuse treatment because he has a religious objection to the type of person she or he is healing?

I must have forgotten about that part of the Hippocratic Oath where it states it’s ok to refuse medical treatment to someone who needed it just because you disagree with his lifestyle, political views, or sexual orientation.

And in those cases of rape or incest where a woman may want to choose to terminate pregnancy? Or, in times when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother - how do you legislate the idea that one person’s life is worth more than anyone else’s? And why wouldn’t that be unethical?

Or, what if I turned it all around.

What if I refused you when you needed it because I had religious objections to your religious views?

2005 Hate Crime Statistics

The Federal Bureau of Investigations has recently released the 2005 Hate Crimes Statistics. Already, there have been quite a few blog posts stating things like how gays are the third largest hate crime group. I have also seen a few posts which question that finding.

One important thing to keep in mind is that these statistics include the number of reported hate crimes. The statistic that gays are the third largest hate crime group sounds like an impressive statistic. But, how accurate is this? There may be much room for potential errors.

One important fact to keep in mind is that many states do not allow crimes based on sexual orientation to be legally considered (or reported as) hate crimes. If identical crimes were perpetrated in two locations where one was allowed to be considered a hate crime while the other legally can’t - how will this effect the statistics?

A similar thing to keep in mind is that gays and lesbians often do not report crimes against them out of fear from being outed, facing rejection from friends, family, or co-workers, amongst a number of other reasons as well. If many gays and lesbians try to suppress knowledge of their crimes, how will this effect the statistics?

In some ways, there are a lot of similarities between hate crimes based on sexual orientation and hate crimes based on other factors, such as religion, race, or national origin. However, in a lot of ways they are very different. For example, hate crimes are often so emotionally charged, the degree of violence involved with assaults is often much greater than that of a simple assault. Race, National Origin, or Sexual Orientation tends to have little impact on the degree of violence.

Gays and lesbians are sometimes referred to as an invisible minority group because unlike groups of people that can be identified by the color of their skin or other racial features, it’s often less obvious who is gay or who is not. There have also been a number of reported crimes against heterosexuals who were victimized because someone perceived them to be gay - and often these crimes go unreported or downplayed.

There are also differences in the way society, in general, tends to respond to crimes against various different groups. When one encounters anti-Jewish graffiti, the response tends to often be outrage. Anti-gay graffiti, if it gets a reaction, is likely to be much different.  Let me ask you? How would you respond if you saw the word “nigger” spray-painted on the back of someone’s car? How would you respond if you saw the word “faggot” spray painted on the back of someone’s car? Any difference? (I hope I did not offend anyone by my use of the “n” and “f” words.)
Another interesting factor deals with the number of agencies that report data. For example, the State of Alabama (a state with 32 agencies that report hate crimes) did not report a single hate crime. Why? Are we supposed to believe that a state with a history of racial tension did not have a single hate crime in all of 2005? Alabama reported 19,678 cases of violent crime, 374 murders or non-negligent manslaughters, 1,564 rapes, and 11,293 aggravated assaults. But, not a single hate crime?

Still, this does not undermine the importance of finding these statistics. That was not my intention. It is my firm belief that it doesn’t matter which group comes in first, second, or third place … hate crimes - no matter who commits them against whom - are completely and totally unacceptable. Does it really matter all that much which group got hit hardest?

Homosexuality and Pedophilia (And Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla)

It figures on the very day I post about Homosexuality and Pedophilia, A friend of mine alerts me to a news article about Mark Foley.

There are so many issues here, I don’t know where to start.

In the past 24 hours, there have been many news articles written about the Republican Congressman (Florida) Mark Foley. Many of those articles called Mark Foley a pedophile. He is not. But, I suppose to answer that question, one must look at the definition of Pedophilia.

Pedophilia has been defined by Law Enforcement as well as the Medical and Psychological field as a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is no cut off age for pedophilia interest, as puberty can hit different children at different ages. Having an attraction to young, post-pubescent children is what is called Ephebophilia. Pederasty is an ephebophiliac attraction to young males, while attraction to postpubscent females is referred to as the “Lolita Syndrome” - a reference to the 1962 Stanley Kubrick film Lolita based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov.

Legally, psychologically, and mentally, there are more differences between pedophilia and ephebophilia than there are similarities. However, there are many people and groups out there trying to blur the lines between the two, usually stating something along the lines of “sexual attraction to children is sexual attraction to children and it is bad, no matter what you call it.”

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with either pedophilia or ephebophilia. So, then why is it that we are more outraged when Congressman Mark Foley sends inappropriate text messages to a sixteen year old boy than we were when Mary Kay Laterno gets pregnant by her teenage lover and student? What about Sandra “Beth” Geisel? In fact, there have been quite a few female teachers getting caught in inappropriate relationships with their male students since Laterno. In fact, it almost seems like the world loves Laterno - we can’t stop talking about her, and did you see that movie they did on Lifetime? Or, did you see the episode of Law and Order: SVU that was ripped out of the Laterno Headlines?

So, why does Laterno get celebrity status while Mark Foley gets labeled a dangerous pedophile?

Another issue that was raised in several of the articles I read about Mark Foley was on the Republican response to learning about Foley’s indiscretions. The

One of my biggest questions is this: What if Mark Foley was a Democrat and not a Republican? Would they have sat on their asses for awhile doing nothing until the story finally went public, or would they have been there starting another round of the war they raise with the Democrats? And dare I mention anything like “Family Values”?

Homosexuality and Pedophilia (and Child Predators)

One topic I am actually surprised I haven’t focused on (on this blog) yet is that of child predators. When NBC’s Dateline started doing it’s To Catch A Predator series, I started watching. Part of me was afraid that homosexuals were about to get a bad rap. I knew that all that was needed would be for one gay person to appear on the show and change the focus of everything. Before long, homosexuality and pedophilia would be, once again, linked. So far, thank Goodness, that hasn’t happened.

In fact, Dateline: To Catch A Predator has almost had the opposite effect. Through this show, we have seen how just about any kind of person can be a child predator. Those featured on the show have included military men, the average Joe next door, and even church leaders and other highly religious people.

One of the myths that have stuck around (even long after it has been debunked) is how homosexuals are pedophiles or child predators. Sure, such things do happen occasionally - however it is far from the norm. In fact, by far the greatest number of pedophiles are heterosexuals - or, at least people living in heterosexual relationships or at least reflecting the heterosexual lifestyle.

And yet, someone always manages to twist the facts to suit their own wants and needs. One recent example of this is from a group calling themselves Americans For Truth. They recently wrote an article about a recent episode of the Oprah Show that focused on pedophilia and child predators. The article starts out by saying:

One of the questions I have regarding any linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia is why such a disproportionate number of child molestation victims are boys—if (openly) homosexual men comprise such a small percentage of society? We doubt that Oprah Winfrey, who is very pro-”gay,” will pursue the answer to that question, but at least she is exposing the notorious group NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), which once marched in homosexual “pride” parades in the early days of American “gay liberation.”

While Oprah may not pursue the answer to that question - let me address it now. There is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. None. What-so-ever.

The writer of this highly prejudicial and misleading article fails to take a number of facts into consideration. For example, most of the convicted pedophiles and child predators are heterosexuals. Most are married, living the heterosexual lifestyle. Sure, occasionally one identifies himself as homosexual, but this is far from the norm.

Another way in which this article tries to mislead you is by throwing up the notorious group NAMBLA, and pointing out one aspect of gay history that we’re not very proud about. Because the article cannot say (and be truthful) that NAMBLA is a group of gay men (because supposedly most of its members are blatantly straight) they point out that in the early days of the gay rights movements, they were allowed to march in the Gay Pride Parades. What the article doesn’t say is that the gay community, in general, can’t stand NAMBLA or what they represent either. We’re just as repulsed by them as Americans For Truth is.

(And, since when does marching in a gay pride parade mean you’re a homosexual? Tell that to the countless politicians who march every year in local gay pride parades. Tell that to the members of PFLAG, a wonderful organizations for the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Tell that to … ok, you get the idea.)

The Americans For Truth article contains very little truth, and whatever truth it does contain is both prejudicial and misleading, like the Nambla statement. Even the headline isn’t true. “Oprah Exposes NAMBLA:Homosexual Pedophiles Online”… Oprah did no such thing. In fact, Oprah never even focused on homosexual pedophiles at all. The article also names Todd Calvin, NAMBLA member and convicted pedophile. It is presented in a way that makes you think the guy is gay - even though, on Oprah, we heard from his ex-wife, and the only suggestion of homosexuality is the fact that he was convicted of molesting a young boy.

I also think it is highly suspect in the way they single groups, such as NAMBLA, while ignoring other groups entirely. Why was there no mention in this article about all those Catholic Priests who molested young boys? (And why were those Catholic Priests not labeled homosexual and kicked from the Church, but rather often promoted or moved to different areas?) While it’s true that most “pedophilia groups” are not organized the way NAMBLA was, that doesn’t mean they do not exist. Many such groups do exist, nameless, recruiting through friends of friends - getting together to share ideas about how to seduce the innocent and not get caught.

The Oprah Show did expose a lot of topics that need a lot of focus and attention. Or, maybe what we need is another slight paradigm shift? The Internet has been, and is still, used for illegal purposes - and that does include child porn, that does include groups of pedophiles, and countless other illegal activities. I am not blaming the Internet, far from it. But, when we get onto the Internet, we need to be aware that such things do happen around here. More importantly, law enforcement needs to be aware of it.  (And, more and more every day, they are.)