A child left out in the cold, no older than twelve years, shivering, crying and lonely; no love to fill the hole that permeates their shattered heart. Why is this poor child left out in the cold? Why won’t a shelter take him in and care for him? Where are his parents? Who is at fault?
This child was abandoned to the frigid wasteland simply for admitting that they can only love a member of the same sex. Simply for being honest to those they thought they could trust… their parents. Parents, who have discarded their children simply because of the ideals that society has placed upon LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons, ideals such as hatred, bigotry, and dissent towards them. These are ideals that do not hold true with the facts, but simply are nothing more than misconceptions and misunderstandings of these innocent and loving individuals.
The tragic scenario above is a gruesome reality that plagues our country. These innocent children are homeless for no other reason except for the fact that they were born different. A difference so undeniably hated, so venomously despised that a further analysis seems only to provoke conviction and dispute amongst individuals, when, in actuality, it is merely addressing the simple facts. This epidemic not only curtails homeless LGBT youth who make up nearly 40 percent of all homeless youth (PDF document), but also exemplifies how LGBT people are discarded and hated by society. By just addressing the situation we can witness not only the depravity that haunts LGBT people, but also see their humanity through the hardships and despotism they face from a country and its people that refuse to allow them to live as who they are born as; free, equal, and accepted.
If the parents of these children knew and understood that one cannot choose or change their sexual orientation; could they live with the guilt of abandoning their child? Any decent person would hope not. What makes this situation worse, for real LGBT homeless youth, or, more general, displaced LGBT, is the fact that more shelters today are run off of George W. Bush’ faith-based-organization funding program (a program started that allowed religious institutions to receive more funding for charity measures, like shelters, soup kitchens, adoption and foster agencies), many of the people, who now own shelters, are faith based, and have supported measures of legal and social discrimination against LGBT persons. These include supporting ballot measures to strip LGBT people of their marriage rights, halting discrimination protection clauses in both job security and housing, and measures that forbid LGBT persons from adopting their spouse’ child.
Many of these homeless shelters not only refuse to accept these LGBT persons but some actively engage in discrimination against these innocent individuals. In Michigan, a shelter forced youth perceived to be LGBT to wear orange jumpsuits to distinguish them from the other children (NGLTF PDF report). These children were often harassed and ridiculed on a daily basis because of this. A person could say that forcing already traumatized children to wear brightly colored jumpsuits is eerily similar to how LGBT, in the concentration camps, were forced to wear the inverted pink triangle so they can be identified, separated and slaughtered from the rest of the camp. While we are far beyond the demonic clutches of Nazi Germany, our government allows these religious conservative groups to discriminate. The reason: “their actions and words are not discriminatory but simply practicing their ‘religious values and beliefs’: a practice which is to be protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.” This is quite alarming for the fact that the Declaration of Independence clearly states that life, liberty, and/or the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. These institutions that believe they are justified in their mistreatment of LGBT people clearly violate historic precedent.
It should be known that only a select few of religions actually perceive homosexuality in a negative light (the Abrahamic dogmas: Christianity, Islam, Judaism). In the United States however, those religions that do discriminate against LGBT persons have far reaching networks, extensive political power, and almost unlimited amounts of resources to spread their doctrine across the globe where they have a prodigious number of followers. A good example of this is the International Transformation Networks, an evangelical Christian conservative association with close ties to the Ugandan leadership, Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and Exodus International.
For many, who are religious conservatives (mainly Christian conservatives), it is common knowledge, to them, that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin, that is ungodly, unnatural and, to some, “evil.” Others simply see it as: love the sinner, hate the sin; in which love the person but despise who and what they are; who and what they are born as. This is the basis that creates this social disconnect in people who cannot see that their mistreatment of LGBT people is directly affecting persons, and not what people describe as “sexual behavior.” However, this disconnection of behavior and being was the sole reason why such atrocities, like the Holocaust of Nazi Germany, happened and how people believed what they were doing was just, when in fact it was severely unjust. Such ideology, however, can be countered by moderate forms of the same religion, which does not hold views that homosexuality is, per se, a sin. This rhetoric fosters the image that these LGBT people seem more like an item, a useless, valueless object, and less like a “human being.” With this given evidence and seeing the hardships that LGBT people face, especially youth, one can logically assert, “Who would choose this?” The argument, however, is not “who,” but “why must homosexuality be a choice.”
It is also a person’ own education of misinformation that taught them to believe LGBT are simply behaviors; not human beings. It is much easier to condemn a behavior and act harshly towards it, rather than harshly condemn the person; the being. Therefore, separating the being from the behavior allows individuals to accept and self justify their discrimination because they do not believe they are targeting a person, but just a small behavior they engage in. Almost similar to yelling at a child, who happily and ignorantly runs out into the street unaware of the danger of being hit by a car – these individuals feel they are doing the same but against LGBT and their behavior (although the behavior and being are one in the same).
We now understand the sin argument, which explains separation of being and behavior; however, another rhetoric often used in conjunction with the sin argument is the Creation argument: “God didn’t intend for homosexuality to exist” or simply put: “God didn’t create “homosexuals.’” Considering that many of these people believe that human life was created in the image of God, a person could logically denounce such a statement. I.E. “If God didn’t intent, nor create LGBT people, and at the same time all human beings are created in “God” image, then why do LGBT exist?” Case and point: if God created humans wouldn’t he have made provisions to make sure there were no LGBT people? Of course Rev. Rick Warren believed he had a perfect argument against the previous quote saying: “Well, God gave people free will to choose or not to choose to act on their behaviors and desires, like murder, thieves, rapist and pedophiles.” Despite Warren relating homosexuality to practices that cause immense harm to innocent individuals, do loving, committed, consensual adults wishing to live their lives by who they are hurt anyone as his examples do? No. Another thing to consider is that while a person can choose to act on their feelings, in the case of LGBT people, LGBT people never chose to have those feelings.
For those individuals who feel LGBT people should not be totally accepted, let us just look at Massachusetts, where gay marriage have been recognized and legal since 2004. Yet, despite being completely accepting of LGBT people, Massachusetts has yet to have been swallowed up by the clutches of hell, as was prophesied by opponents. Aside from Massachusetts, the nation, itself, did not falter any more than it has. The passages of Sodom and Gomorrah did not come to horrific life as was predicted; in fact quite the opposite. Massachusetts enjoys one of the lowest divorce rates in the nation: even lower than they were in the 1940s. While this seems like a simply distraction from the topic it is merely addressing that the bigotry against LGBT people is completely unwarranted and entirely unethical.
Besides the unethical nature of the bigotry, when a person is a religious conservative, they seem generally compassionate, altruistic, and loving individuals; they will attest to this in most situations. However, interject about the topic of homosexuality, and you discover a monster far more demonic and horrifying than any beast, out of any mythology, arise with torrents of contempt and condemnation against LGBT. Far stranger is that this degrading and dehumanizing rhetoric is often in the guise of a smile, a giggle, and a wink. I.E. “I don’t hate “homosexuals’ but they need to know that they will suffer an eternity in hell for their sin” or “I love “homosexuals’ but they need to understand they are living in sin.”
Due to spreading the idea of homosexuality as a “sin,” and a “choice,” religious conservatives have also led Uganda on a path that has created a Bill that will now execute LGBT persons, and jail family, friends, and coworkers who do not turn them in (3). Another thing to consider is that these same organizations, responsible for this genocide, falsely explain that homosexuality is a mental disorder — a contention that was birthed directly from the United States. This is not only false but brings up the question: “Why would these individuals wish to push the idea that homosexuality is a western idea, negating and denying the evidence that it is a person’ being that is seen all over the world?” LGBT people can be found far and wide across all continents, in all groups and in all cultures. Despite this, these religious organizations refuse to understand and accept that evidence. Another valid question to consider: “In a country like Uganda where homosexuality is looked down upon very harshly, who would choose to be homosexual?” It just doesn’t seem logical, nor does it seem real to conclude it is a choice, when there are many gay people living in fear of execution in Uganda. Of course the counter argument often brought up by Focus on the Family and Exodus international is that “homosexuality is a very hard addiction to cure.” However, it has been established in science and by many religions that homosexual orientation is not something that can be cured because it is not a sickness, an addiction, a “lifestyle” or a sin.
In light of all this rhetoric, it has been proven and documented by all mainstream medical and psychological associations in the United States, Canada, and Europe, that asking or demanding LGBT people to ignore who they are or to be something they are not, is extremely unhealthy to such people; even inherently dangerous; as well as completely unethical (6). Today most medical institution in the world has come to the consensus that, while we do not know for certain what is the cause of homosexuality, or more broadly: sexual orientation, we know from studies done, such as the twin studies by J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard that the basis of sexual orientation is mainly biological and not environmental (environmental meaning effects from upbringing, experience, or trauma). These institutions have documented and done multiple experiments that conclude sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. All of these test and studies have been completely repeatable. For homosexuality, these medical institutions find it to be, as the American Psychological Association says, “a normal, natural and positive variant of sexual orientation that is not a mental disorder.”
Insofar as to say, if who you are causes no harm to yourself, to the person you are with and society, and fulfills the crucial parts of a person life, like compassion, love, sacrifice, family, etc, is it not only brazen and disingenuous, but also mean-spirited, to demand that people throw that knowledge away because it is slightly different from what is considered normal? To also throw a person’ right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness away simply because a few individuals’ love seems different, when it is not? Those who discriminate against LGBT often pool their wealth into campaigns to defeat legal measures which would have ensured that LGBT people are respected as full equal citizens.
So this breaks down to the simple analysis, why must it be a choice? We looked at how LGBT youth face dire consequences for being honest with their parents. We looked at arguments and their concessions about the beliefs some individuals have against LGBT. We looked at how much effort and destruction is put forth, by those who we can now safely call “anti-gay.” There is no logical, communicable, or even a “loving” approach to telling a whole segment of society that they “choose” the hardships and despotism they must face on a daily basis. So “Why must homosexuality be a choice?” It is simply because, those who are anti-gay, wish to justify their bigotry and devalue the humanity of LGBT. One could ask themselves: “If everyone finally accepted that fact that homosexuality is not chosen nor can be changed, what would that say about the people who constantly opposed that view point and the evidence that supports it?” That is something you as the reader must conclude on your own. However, if history is a marker for conventional wisdom, it would be known that such individuals “would be” regarded with the utmost contempt and condemnation by society, as were the KKK and the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, once they were shown under the microscope of public scrutiny.
The surface of the first layer, that delves into the many hardships LGBT people face from this perception of sexual orientation being a choice, has yet to be scuffed, let alone scratched. While some of this information seems hard to believe, it is just a small fraction of what LGBT people face from society and government in the United States. A crucial argument has been brought forth in this essay: that there is value and a human element in the lives of LGBT, but to also point out that there is no “value” in the words and rhetoric of those who willfully and ignorantly discriminate.
Chris Marshall is a student at NMC college in Traverse City, Mich. His main field of study is cognitive psychology, studying sexual orientation, and pathology. He has extensive knowledge of the Abrahamic faiths, as well as 25 other religions. He works in the community mentoring troubled LGBT teens who are mainly hurt by the religious conservatives that plague the city and just so happen to be their parents. As a survivor of ex-gay therapy, Chris helps dispel myths and misconceptions about gay people and fight against the dangerous and deadly ex-gay fraud.
For more information:
Department of Health and Human Services, and Ruth Ellis Center. Issue: Runaway and Homeless LGBTQ Youth. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2009.
Crary, David, and Associated Press. “More Help Urged for Homeless Gay Youth.” The Task Force. 2010 National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation., 30 Jan. 2007.
Wilson, Bruce. “Movement Behind Uganda’s ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill Organizing in Newark.” Editorial. Talk To Action. Rabow Law, 10 Jan. 2010.
J. M. Bailey & R. C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): Pages 1089 to 1096.
J. M. Bailey & R. C. Pillard, et al., “Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women,” Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993), Page 217 to 223.
American Psychological Association. “Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts.” apa.org. American Psychological Association.
Coffey, Megan, Sonoma County Civil Rights Examiner. “Low Massachusetts divorce rate another defeat for same-sex marriage opponents.” Examiner.com. 2009 Clarity Digital Group LLC, 8 Sept. 2009.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 57, Number 19 Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2008. Atlanta, GA: USA.gov, 29 July 2009.
“Why Must Homosexuality Be A Choice?”
Because it allows the bigots to absolve themselves of any guilt or responsibility when they deny us rights and/or harm us. They can do as they please to us and say it’s our fault. If we’d only stop being gay they wouldn’t have to keep doing (ABC, XYZ) to us.
Parents who abandon their children with no means of support are committing a CRIME.
When their child is at risk for that abandonment it’s called CHILD ENDANGERMENT and DEPRAVED indifference.
Young people are required to be taken from parents who neglect or abuse them. Parents who make no arrangements for that child by another adult family member or friend, can and should be brought up on charges.
These gay children are essentially GOOD kids. They are not using drugs, they are not violent, they are not endangering any members of the family or their material comforts.
So it’s especially egregious that the ONLY motive that makes these parents abandon their children is their sexual orientation because it’s not a factor that the child is uncontrollable or hurting anyone or themselves.
I don’t have a problem with reporting parents who abuse their gay child and being forced into PFLAG style counseling, instead of making the gay child responsible for changing into something they can’t be and never will be.
After all, when parents have children that are different. Such as a genius, a lefty, a prodigy in something like sports or the arts, their first impulse isn’t to KEEP them from being that way or punish them for it.
It’s the same with being gay and the sooner they are educated in how to respond to a gay child CORRECTLY, the less likelihood they will bury that child in a cemetery.
Who tells these parents their child is suddenly not worthy of their love and support over something that they should EXPECT in the first place?
Most parents complain that children don’t come with instructions. The point is there ARE instructions, but some instructions are WRONG. Such as what comes from religious doctrine and not personal experience with their own child.
Besides, how DUMB do you have to be that you can have ONE or two gay kids out of a handful of them and believe that what you’ve done as a parent has ANY bearing on the child choosing to be gay when they didn’t ALL turn out that way?
DUH.
More often than not, being homosexual is not a choice, but a way of being.
Reading this article reminded me of a very disturbing book I had to read in an Ethics class in college, called The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosinski. If I remember correctly (I read this in about 1975), the story takes place in eastern Europe during the nazi occupation and is basically a litany of gut wrenching atrocities, not only committed by the nazis, but between civilians as well. The title comes from a ‘sport’ where they would take a bird and paint it different colors, release it, and then watch as the other birds of the same species would attack and kill it as an ‘outsider’. Making glbt youth wear orange jumpsuits (yellow stars!) is what triggered my memory of the book.
I am glad to see the comments here on this page. While this paper is hard to digest for some, we all know the gravity of the situation. The next essay is about how the ex-gay fraud has hurt children. It will also cover Lance Carol, and Zack Stark. While I know this essay and the ones to come are quite formal, I would like to know if you enjoy this type of writing, or prefer a more informal approach.
I am glad to be writing for TWO and I look forward to bringing you more essays and blogs. Take care and thank you everyone.
Chris said “we know from studies done, such as the twin studies by J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard that the basis of sexual orientation is mainly biological and not environmental (environmental meaning effects from upbringing, experience, or trauma).”.
Environmental causes aren’t solely effects from upbringing, experience, or trauma. Environmental causes can be biological as well, such as hormone baths in utero, contact with viruses or chemicals in the natural environment and so on. What you refere to as environmental effects are best referred to as sociological causes.
Yes Thank you Lynn for your concern and critique. However, in this case when I explained environmental to the professor and to previous classes, they perceive “environmental” as to be outside the womb, conditioned and chosen. As you mentioned they see it only in a “sociological” viewpoint. Having to explain what and how we as scientist label things only took away from the paper. As for what you mentioned was in the early rough draft.
This common annoyance is similar to how some scientist say “fact of evolution,” rather than “theory of evolution” when speaking to the public. Semantics is a powerful way to kill a speech and confuse an audience. If this paper had to be for my constituents in the APA I would have included what you have stated. Again, for all intent and purpose doing so for a class that doesn’t fully understand the basic principles and ethics of science, not to mention vocabulary, it is best left explaining it as what they perceive to be true about scientific vocabulary, not what we scientist know to be true.
Again thank you for your critique, and did you enjoy the paper and found it to be a good arguing reference others can use?
Good Evening,
Attempting to find various responses to questions I have myself or have heard from others which I feel deserve merit.
This article reminded me of one of them. In the article, you state that studies on twins confirms that being born homosexual is biological.
If that is the case, how come the rate is only 50% chance of being homosexual if one identical twin was homosexual?
Identical twins are almost always the same sex. Excerpt from an article I found on google as I don’t have my previous research links on this handy.
“Monozygotic twins are genetically identical (unless there has been a mutation during development) and they are almost always the same sex. On rare occasions, monozygotic twins may express different phenotypes (normally due to an environmental factor or the deactivation of different X chromosomes in monozygotic female twins), and in some extremely rare cases, due to aneuploidy, twins may express different sexual phenotypes, normally due to an XXY Klinefelter’s syndrome zygote splitting unevenly”
source: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Twin (further sources at bottom of that link)
With that being said, I ask again, how does that study clearly show that being born homosexual is biological? It does not seem that conclusive based on the fact that identical twins are almost always the same sex outside of environmental factors or the deactivation of different X chromosomes. That would lead me to believe the roughly the same percentage would be shown in the twin study when they are genetically identical. Please explain in more depth why it is so conclusive given the information I presented.
Also, I think you should note that you seem to be discussing Christianity beliefs wrong (and I fully understand why as most Christians have no idea what the true religion preaches these days…it saddens me). What you discuss as Christianity is more of an extremist group. Keep in mind, their are roughly 2-3 new Christian religions born everyday because people pick and choose what they want to believe to adhere to their lifestyle. Loving a person, regardless of sex, is not wrong, in any way, according to Christianity. It is encouraged as one of the main points of Christianity even though many Christians are truly poor examples. However, it is the lustful act of same sex intercourse which is considered wrong and sinful. Please, in any future articles, refer to that correctly. While most Christians may not understand that difference, some of us do. Unfortunately, the ones who typically speak out the most about Christianity tend to know the least about it.
I hope this encourages a fruitful discussion even though our views seem to differ.
@”inquisitive”
First off let me post the part of my article here so people can see what I wrote:
“Today most medical institution in the world has come to the consensus that, while we do not know for certain what is the cause of homosexuality, or more broadly: sexual orientation, we know from studies done, such as the twin studies by J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard that the basis of sexual orientation is mainly biological and not environmental (environmental meaning effects from upbringing, experience, or trauma). These institutions have documented and done multiple experiments that conclude sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. All of these test and studies have been completely repeatable. For homosexuality, these medical institutions find it to be, as the American Psychological Association says, “a normal, natural and positive variant of sexual orientation that is not a mental disorder.” ”
Ok first off the study done did not show 50% it talked about 55% and that was just one study done. There has been multiple studies done on “homozygous twins” (not monozygoous) that show a range of 55% to 75%. Now what is conclusive is that if homosexuality was not biological and genetically based these numbers wouldn’t even be a quarter as close. We have multiple studies done within the US and within the Europe that prove that sociological environments play no factor in a persons sexual development. We also know that birth order, in-utero environments, and hormones also play into the fact that can contribute to ones sexual orientation.
As for genetics I am not an expert on genetics; my field is in psychology. I am not completely prepared to answer such questions because I do not know enough to give you a fair, and accurate evaluation of the the whole entire field of genetics. Another thing you should consider is that just because you read one thing off the internet does not make you an expert either. I had studied the many different twin studies for over a year before I decided to even write about them. I chose this twin study because it is well known and links others to the many other studies done throughout Europe. You can certainly have your doubts, however discrediting scientific inquiry and fact simply because you read one small thing about genetics as compared to understanding the whole field is arrogant. The only piece of genetics outside of these studies that I vaguely know about is that when it comes to the study of sexual orientation in genetics with flies, certain codons can be activated or changed that can alter the sexual orientation of the subject.
Your post is somewhat bias to a degree because I state that “sexual orientation is biological” you classify is down to only one sexual orientation while opting out of all others in your conversation. That is not how it works. Homosexuality, and bisexuality, are no different than heterosexuality. All three are normal, natural, and positive variants of sexual orientation. The only difference is who the person is attracted to. That is it. To pull one out of the group is inaccurate as well as condescending. By doing so you are asking one aspect of the whole to explain itself when there is no reason for it to do so.
I do not know your entire motives but they seem more bent on discrediting my person based off of my knowledge of fundamentalist Christians and the beliefs they hold true and share, regardless of the consequence of their actions. You state: “However, it is the lustful act of same sex intercourse which is considered wrong and sinful.” In psychology we do not view all sex as “lustful.” While some sex can be only “lustful” not all sexual intercourse is. It is more appropriate that we view sex as an expression of love when in the confines of a relationship; an expression of intimacy. Which is what happens in the case with many same sex couples. To call an expression of love “wrong and sinful” simply because it is different than what your beliefs state and then force that opinion onto a researcher and scientist, is, for lack of a better term, passing judgment on something you know little about a core break in the tenets of your faith. Similar to how you state I know little about Christianity even though I read all 13 different bibles, an studied ancient Hebrew culture, traditions, and ideologies. I also studied how the Abrahamic faiths have been used throughout history to wage massive wars, crusades, and genocides against other nations, races, ethnicity, other religions, and in modern times (within the last 40 years) those who are not heterosexual. Back to the point, by trying to force a single and narrow minded, religious orientated opinion onto a person who does not even remotely share your beliefs is severely distasteful and in many ways discredits yourself entirely. To continue on and then tell me how to write because it doesn’t agree with what you want, finishes that job completely. The idiom “digging your own grave” is a proper analogy of your final paragraph towards me.
If you wish to go into a religious debate about which churches are responsible for the death of millions of innocent LGBT throughout the decades, and the millions of homeless LGBT youth on the streets right now a this very moment, I am more than willing to do so outside of this site, at a university, in front of an audience. We can happily debate the merits of the facts verses what you wish to believe to be true. Thank you and take care.
Well said Chris.
In response to your March 13th question to me, I did enjoy the paper and feel it will be useful as a reference when arguments come up.