So my boyfriend gets packed off to darkest Kyushu, and I seriously need the sensible, even-keeled advocates of gay acceptance to remind me that all the shit you go through is worth it because we're collectively getting our act together, and they pick this week to be slipshod and waffly.
Their slipshod waffliness is even accessible all in one location:
a day of posts over at Steve Miller's Culture Watch on the Independent Gay Forum. Miller inexplicably approves of Andrew Sullivan's
swipe at Randall Terry, whose adopted son
(1) is a messed-up parasite and (2) is gay. He also implicitly praises Jonathan Rauch's performance in a debate with Bob Enyart, conservative Christian radio host out of Denver.
Sullivan says of Terry
Christian right leader, Randall Terry, has a troubled gay son. Dick Cheney has an untroubled gay daughter. Anti-gay crusader Pete Knight has a gay son. Charles Socarides, the chief proponent of reparative therapy for homosexuals, has a gay son. Phyllis Shlafly has a gay son. When will these people begin to understand that being gay is not a "choice"; it's a fact of human nature?
And Miller adds, linking Sullivan, "Growing up gay in the Terry household, it's no wonder the kid is 'troubled.'" Yeah, sure, that's probably part of it. Maybe not, though. My parents made it clear emphatically and often that they thought homosexuality was disgusting and sinful. But they were also the ones who taught me that each of us has the responsibility to weigh the lessons of history, the counsel of our elders, and the cause-effect relationships we can detect in our own experience to determine what we believe the right path is. My decision to come out didn't thrill them, but they know that I didn't just fall into it because I find it easier to chase orgasms than to live a responsible life. Unless Sullivan or Miller has inside information on what went on in the Terry household, isn't there another more likely environmental factor in his son's behavior? To wit:
In March 1988, my then-wife and I took Jamiel and his younger sister as foster children. He was 8 years old. We adopted them when he was 14. He came to us a wounded boy, from an incredibly troubled home. He was literally born in jail. By age 8 had learned a lifestyle of deceit and been a victim of treacheries that would mar him for life.
[...]
Jamiel was adopted when he was nearly 15, not 5. To gloss over the tragic events of his youth is deceit. Many homosexuals want to ignore the causes of their sexual behavior; they want us to believe it is genetic, not behavioral.
We're not talking about a child who spent all his formative years in Terry's household and ended up screwed up in the head. His mother was jailed (unless her water broke during a visit to her incarcerated husband/boyfriend). Who knows how many foster families he saw before the Terrys? And the delay in adopting him means either protracted proceedings or a wait-and-see position on the Terrys' part. Isn't that a likely enough explanation for why--gay, straight, or hermaphroditic--he's turned out be an untrusting and untrustworthy manipulator? And don't untrustworthy, manipulative, immature people use every weapon at hand to stick it to people they resent? Not all of them have their homosexuality to use against a parent who founded Operation Rescue, but I daresay they all think of something to capitalize on. The Sullivan/Miller line ("Them socially-conservative Christians fucked him up!") strikes me as no less sententious and questionable than the Terry line ("His mental problems are part and parcel with his homosexuality!").
Jonathan Rauch wasn't being sententious in his radio appearance, but he also wasn't answering the questions very well. It frustrated the hell out of me, because just about everything he was challenged on was covered--and covered well--in
Gay Marriage. I can only assume that he figured it was a good idea to stay on message and say over and over that marriage will help keep gays from behaviors that are destructive to themselves and others, but the effect was that he sounded evasive. Sincere and well-intentioned, but evasive. There was a particularly strained point at which Enyart was trotting out the usual figures about suicide rates, mental disorders, crime, and domestic violence among gays. In fact, he didn't even bring up figures; he just pronounced that rates are higher among homosexuals. Rauch didn't point out the self-selecting nature of sample populations when gays are studied. He didn't point out that the urban areas that are more accepting of gays also have higher crime for reasons that may be unrelated. He didn't point out that (given how many gays are still closeted) committing a sex or domestic crime is a great way to pack the books with known homos who are criminals.
When Enyart came up with the bumper sticker-worthy "Heterosexuality produces life; homosexuality produces death," Rauch didn't point out that what produces death is promiscuity, or that what makes us a human civilization is that we have people who are stewards over the production of artifacts, not just new people. Okay, fine, Rauch was giving the interview, not me. Monday morning quarterbacking, and all that. But still: these questions have answers, and Rauch knows them. I wish he'd spoken them as well as, for the most part, he writes them.
