The White Peril 白禍

So, is it the United Nations International Week of the Cad and no one told me? Am I the only one who didn't get his coloring book with "Well, honey, I'm here and your boyfriend's not" and "Why must you be such a stuck-up bitch?" translated into Swahili, Hindi, Maori, and other world languages? Did I miss the CNN broadcast of the kick-off statement by the chairman of the World Health Organization? 'Cause I swear, I had my own run-in a few days ago, Michael had one this morning, and in between, I heard from two or three friends on various major land masses that they'd practically had to punch guys out to get 'em to knock it off with the won't-take-no-for-an-answer come-ons. No, there's never a horndog shortage in urban gay life, but it really isn't the case (at least among people I know) that you have so many colorful encounters to dish about all at once. Cheese and crackers.

I have a few younger readers, so I think--if I don't sound too obnoxiously avuncular here--it's worth pointing out that there's a much more general lesson here. There's a little technique we fusty types call PAYING ATTENTION TO SIGNALS, and people who don't know how to do it end up getting themselves into all kinds of trouble, whether they're trying to make friends, establish business contacts, or realize whatever other designs they may have on people.

If your approach is failing, you need to change it. The number of people who don't get this is truly startling, and you can tell they don't get it because they keep repeating the same unsuccessful tactic, only more loudly/emphatically/insistently. Not everyone likes to give his phone number out to someone he's just met, or have rousing political discussions with strangers at dinner parties, or participate in impromptu sing-alongs. People who don't are unlikely to warm to you if you try to force such things on them, but they may be perfectly willing to get to know you if you settle for an e-mail address or talk about non-controversial interests the first few times you meet them. (I can't think of a good substitute for the sing-along except getting the hell out of there.)

Along with that, you have to make sure your opening gambit allows you to retreat gracefully if it doesn't succeed. If you launch into a political tirade under the assumption that your partner in conversation's views coincide with yours, you'll have a terrible time trying to backpedal into giving him a respectful hearing if they do not. Or (this example may drive the point home more memorably--thanks, Michael's neighbor!) if you show up on someone's doorstep drunk, naked, and tumescent, you'll find it difficult to save face with the pretense that you were just seeking a nice chat and some warm evening air.

What Michael said:

While the outcome would be right if marriage were enacted in CT, the method is clearly wrong. If the state refused to do anything for gay couples, that would be one thing. Yet here we have a state that democratically gave gay couples most, if not all, of the rights of marriage. Why not let that sink in for a few years, then petition the legislature for marriage?

Here’s the thing: Civil Unions give you all the rights of marriage in Connecticut. What are you accomplishing by pushing for marriage rights? Answer: Nothing. Because any rights beyond what you have are Federal. And there is nothing that state can do about that. In effect, what these gay couples are doing is ruining it for the rest of us. They are ensuring that state legislatures will remain queazy about enacting civil union legislation in the future.

He's talking about the news that there are eight gay couples in Connecticut using the state's recent passage of a civil unions bill to sue for the ability to marry. I'm not sure that even breaking the argument down into the shortest possible clauses, as Michael obligingly did, will make people get it. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure his prediction is correct.

BTW, he didn't quote the most unpalatable part of the article:

"We really believe marriage best reflects what we've had together. We have a deep love and commitment, and civil unions don't reflect that," said Janet Peck of Colchester. She and her partner, Carol Conklin, will celebrate their 30th anniversary later this year.

"Civil unions just kind of feel like you're not good enough," Conklin added.

Other couples, such as Jeffrey Busch and Stephen Davis of Wilton, will apply for a civil union reluctantly. They feel they cannot pass up the legal protections the arrangement will provide--such as the right to sue for wrongful death and the ability to file taxes jointly--but they do not plan a celebration.

"Civil unions are humiliating. We're embarrassed by it," Busch said. "We will in essence be agreeing to be officially marginalized. I'm very hopeful that is a temporary step on our way to being considered a full family deserving the same respect as other families."

Sometimes I would love to break my own rule about not using any but the mildest four-letter words here. Would everyone be so kind as to imagine my letting fly with a stream of loud and hideous profanities right now?

Argh.

Early last month, a Love in Action administrator said that two male teens in the program were both enrolled for six-week stints in the "ex-gay" camp, and last week in an interview broadcast on the Christian Broadcasting Network, Zach’s father, Joe Stark confirmed his son's identity as one of Love in Action's clients.

"We felt good about Zach coming here ... to let him see for himself the destructive lifestyle, what he has to face in the future, and to give him some options that society doesn't give him today," Stark said.

"Until he turns 18 and he's an adult in the state of Tennessee, I'm responsible for him, and I'm going to see to it that he has all options available to him." [These are the statements to CBN that were quoted a week or two ago.--SRK]

A Los Angeles-based psychologist [Ruh-roh!--SRK] took issue with the father's statement.

"It appears that both Mr. Stark and the LIA director's public comments are highly defensive and indicate that their concern is less for the child's well-being and more for their own purposes," said Paul Chimubulo said via e-mail.

"The sort of homophobia they espouse has been shown to be rooted in anxiety and a feeling of threat. ... The gay child's expressions are recognized and interpreted as injurious to the parent's sense of self. With the publicity this has gathered, the father's internal anxiety and feelings of threat over his son's gay identity must really be ratcheted up."

I have no doubt that Joe Stark is doing quite a bit of hard thinking about his own performance as a father and how it might have "made" Zach gay, but can we please remember that people have convictions, too? It is perfectly possible--likely, as far as I'm concerned--that the Starks, at least, are genuinely acting as they think is best for their son, based on religious and other beliefs. That those beliefs are fed by factoids that play on confirmation bias doesn't make them less real, though it should make them easier to argue against.

My sense is that the wording Joe Stark used is probably the result of heavy-duty coaching--the focus on Zach's coming adult independence and the characterizing of LIA as showing "options" distract attention from the coercion involved so shrewdly that I find it hard to imagine their coming spontaneously from a distraught parent. But that doesn't mean he can be dismissed as acting out of a neurotic attempt to preserve his "sense of self." The word homophobia, paradoxically enough, could conceivably be justified here--for once, we're not just talking about anti-gay sentiment but about a real attempt to erase homosexuality in someone. But it's not a judgment call we can really make, and crappy reasoning is just as bad coming from our side as from the opposition. Couldn't the Washington Blade have found someone more level-headed to cite as an authority?

Joe has his thoughts up on Jon Stewart's Rick Santorum interview last night:

My belief is that we can win the debate, we don't have to denigrate. So that's what Sanotrum believes and I don't agree. I don't believe that good parenting requires one man and one woman and I find that the studies back me up.

I also don't agree that the only societal interest in marriage is children. It's one interest, even a primary interest, not the only interest. Stable relationships are themselves an interest. They foster a stable society, public health and safety, and better economics, which are all in our societal interest.

Joe also links to a transcript of the interview at Towleroad. I thought the infamous man-on-dog comparison from a few years ago was just silly--not only insulting but also poorly judged because it gave shrieky political activists an excuse to excoriate Santorum without paying the slightest attention to any distinctions he actually did make usefully.

Some people may find their brain fried at this segment of the interview:

Santorum: I would say that certainly people who are homosexuals can be virtuous and very often are. The problem is that when you talk about the institution of marriage as the foundation and building block of society which I say the family is, and the marriage is the glue that holds the family together. We need to do things to make sure that that institution stays stable for the benefit of children.

Joe disagrees in specific ways with Santorum that I do not, but his comments are, as always, respectful and worth reading.

Would everyone please keep the following in mind:

1. No one is ethically obliged to sleep with you just because you invited him to.
   
2. If you've flattered someone incessantly and he still won't sleep with you, refer to item 1.
   
3. If you've pointed out that you think someone's refusal to sleep with you constitutes a rejection of your shared gay heritage and is a manifestation of buried shame, self-loathing, and pathetic hetero-imitating...and he still won't sleep with you, study item 1 REAL HARD.
   
4. If you've pointed out that his refusal to sleep with you is, when you stop and think about it, a repudiation of the very principles of personal liberty and autonomy that make our civilization great...and he still won't sleep with you--hello? Item 1.
   
5. By this point, the poor guy may be laughing so hard as to need CPR. If you take this opportunity to put the moves on him yet again, you risk getting decked. *

Via Ace (Happy birthday!), this post Jason Kuznicki is a must-read...uh, must-view. It's both moving and understatedly hilarious. Ace points out something that cannot be repeated too often:

If there are folks who cannot accept themselves as homosexuals, or reconcile their faith with their orientation, then I support their desire for a heterosexual life and wish them happiness, however they have to accomplish that. However, I am beginning to notice a trend amongst "ex-gays." Just like Rev. Grace Harley, the testimonials at PFOX and Exodus, most of them had other problems: unhealthy sexual addictions, drug abuse, physical or sexual abuse, infidelity, mistrust. Remove these factors - ones that will cause discord in any relationship, gay or straight - and find that there are more and more gay people out there living happy, healthy, productive, emotionally and spiritually satisfying lives. Sometimes I wonder if the ex-gays' problems are not who they are, but what they were doing. They might actually agree with me on that statement since the program teaches you to view being gay as something you do, not something you are. I see the gay as who they are/were and the bad habits as what they were doing to bring them down.

You know it, girlfriend. When people claim to have found the key to beatific happiness, my suspicions are immediately aroused if they go on to insist desperately that no one living differently could ever anyway anyhow possibly be happy. It always sounds to me (when from ex-gays) like a need to seal off their own unvanquished need to find a same-sex mate lest it erupt again at any moment.

To Ace's suggestion that the ex-gays find a new marketing strategy, I would add this: Knock it off with the moist-eyed, unctuous, quivering-with-sympathy, soppy, sappy, sodden tone of patronizing helpfulness. (Jason Kuznicki captures it with truly frightening proficiency.) To even-keeled gays with a healthy sense of mischievous humor about the realities of life, it's like Lee Press-ons across the world's largest chalkboard. No one who truly feels he's found the path to rectitude needs to talk that way.

Thanks, Eric. I can understand why everyone wanted to jump on this story so quickly, but there are so many possible variables--the chief ones being Persian culture and the opportunistic thuggishness of the Islamic Republic in Iran. It made me wonder--the Iranian government is notorious for bringing sex-related offenses into cases in which its real motivations lie with other behavior.

"Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi"
To: "Eric Scheie"
Subject: Re: Photos of public execution of two youngsters in the city of Mash'had
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:08:00 -0400

The story does not change...the info that the Mullahs gave out first was one thing and then activists outside Iran were informed that there was more to it than those two boys being hung for theft. ALSO, please note that they were not gay in the way people in the west would think of "gay" 'cause people in our part of the world have sex with men and women and in that part of the world, it's common for men to sleep with men and women...but to us, it's all sexuality and sexuality in and of itself, to the Mullahs is not acceptable. There are many dichotomies that one cannot properly explain for westerners; like the Eunuchs in our part of the world, etc. To people in the west, they're disgusting and bizarre...to us, they're wonderful and we love our Eunuchs! However, un P.C. that may be in this part of the world.

These two poor boys did have sex with each other but that was never what they were officially charged with and that is a fact. The reason WHY in fact they were executed, underneath it all was because the Mullahs often make an example of youngsters who are unruly and apparently these two had been also raped and sodomized by a local Mullah whom they wanted to expose. Like those two innocent 16 year old and 19 year old girls they executed last Oct. and Dec...Atefeh Rajabi and Leila Mo'aafi...they said that they were whores but it turned out that they had both been molested by the local Mullahs and
when these two poor girls had come to expose them, they got executed.

I hope this explains it. I cannot explain any more than this because if you aren't from that part of the world you will NEVER understand or grasp the height of the Islmo-Fascist mentality. Their psychosis is something HITLER could not even imagine and yet no matter what we dissidents try to explain to westerners...people refuse to believe what we impart...simply because your part of the world is not ancient (or the archaic'ness' was shed many moons ago) and your values entirely different AND at odds with what those people over there, do, say and think.

Actually, I think I do come closer to understanding this issue than many Westerners. I have heard about Muslim mullahs raping young men they've sentenced to death for "sodomy." And clearly Iran today is a country run largely by such sociopaths.

As to sexuality, we in the West have a different way of processing these things, and as I have said many times, in my opinion we have come up with unnecessary divisions based on "sexualities" which are as varied as the individuals. But the bottom line here should not whether anyone is homosexual or heterosexual, or should be labeled "gay" as we do in this country. It's the human freedom to be left alone in matters of one's bedroom.

Japan has normal relations with Iran, and you meet Iranian businessmen in the bars here occasionally. Eric's right about unnecessary divisions, but I think it's important to point out that there really are homosexuals as we think of them in Iran, too. As one (drop-dead gorgeous--good grief, was that man beautiful) guy put it to me a few years ago, "In Iran, it's not uncommon for men to marry and be bound to their wives while also being attracted to men or boys, but [conspiratorial smile] I'm like you." Also, setting artificial but meaningful boundaries is one of the most important things an advanced civilization does.

None of this means that I don't think we should protest against laws on the books that allow teenagers to be executed for sodomy. Nor do I think that gay leftists shouldn't be clobbered hard for the way they constantly make excuses for illiberal non-Western regimes and treat the Bush administration as the greatest threat to liberty for gays and lesbians. (Of course, given their own tendency to mewl that all their problems are everyone else's fault, their affinity for the Palestinians, at least, is pretty understandable.) It's just that in all the point-scoring, something gets lost: these people hate imagination and free thought and idiosyncrasy in all forms. Their hatred of homosexuality may be sincere, but in practice, they frequently invoke it as a means to the end of maintaining power and strongarming people back in line. Ms. Zand-Bonazzi has a final point to make:

The west is hugely to blame and in my opinion not so much the U.S. (though the U.S. has managed to make a mess of a few things big time), EUROPE...those European plutocrats are the ones at fault and though I hate the idea of those innocent people dying (there were also Iranians among the people who died on the bus on 7/7 in London), I'm sorry but I believe the U.K. government brought it all onto themselves...and NOT by backing the war on Iraq but by NOT backing off from doing business with CORRUPT Islamists, LIKE, the Mullahs for all these years. They were warned that the Islamo-Fascists have no good intention to ANYONE in the west...but the Euro bastards like to act like it's only the U.S. and Israel.

Well, the US could stand to be less cozy with the al-Sauds, but point taken.

Congratulations, Canada:

Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed the legislation making it law, hours after it was approved by the Senate late Tuesday night despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

...

Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled to perform same sex ceremonies. The legislation, however, states that the bill only covers civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies unless they choose to do so.

Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, said he was "very sad that the state has invaded the church, breached separation of church and state and redefined a religious word."

Well, buddy, this is what you get when the religious word in question is closely tied to a government goodie bag. I still think there's reason for caution about a blanket extension of the legally designated category of marriage to cover gay relationships, but not all the opportunism in argument has been on the pro-gay side. And the sense of entitlement that has animated many gays in this debate is something that's been picked up from the general culture, not invented by our team and foisted on it.

Joe Stark, father of Zach of Love in Action fame, has spoken to the press (or at least CBN):

The father of a gay teenager who wrote in a Web log that he was being sent against his will to a camp run by a group called “Love in Action International” to "cure" him of his homosexuality is defending his actions.

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network Joe Stark says he did the right thing when he sent his 16 year old son Zach to the camp near Memphis, Tennessee.

“We felt very good about Zach coming here because… to let him see for himself the destructive lifestyle, what he has to face in the future, and to give him some options that society doesn't give him today,” Stark told CBN. “Knowing that your son... statistics say that by the age of 30 he could either have AIDS or be dead.”

Stark also said that he did nothing wrong in sending the teen to the camp against his will.

"But until he turns 18 and he's an adult in the state of Tennessee, I'm responsible for him. And I’m going to see to it that he has all options available to him.”

Stark told CBN that when Zack is an adult he can make his own life choices.

Fair enough on that last part. I won't pretend to like it one bit, but we can't call in CFS for every parenting decision some of us don't like.

At the same time, anti-gays, can you please stop yanking statistics out of your asses? Of course a gay guy could be dead by 30. Anyone could be dead by 30, from a variety of diseases and misadventures. I'm trying to think of gay bloggers I read--just bloggers--who aren't over 30, and I can't dredge up anyone but Law Dork. And even he may have turned 30 when I wasn't looking. Let alone that most of my friends are over 30, in America as well as here. By all means, rail against promiscuity and the attendant physical and psychological costs. But don't insult people's intelligence to score cheap points.

Of course, Stark sounds like a PFLAG chapter chairman compared to this miscreant:

Ronnie Paris Jr. went on trial for his own life this week in a Tampa courtroom. The toddler's mother, Nysheerah Paris, testified that her husband thought the boy might be gay and would force him to box.

Nysheerah Paris told the court that Paris would make the boy fight with him, slapping the child in the head until he cried or wet himself. She said that on one occasion Paris slammed the child against a wall because he was vomiting.

The court was told there had been a history of abuse by Paris. Prosecutor Jalal Harb said that in 2002, the Florida Department of Children & Families placed the child in protective custody after he had been admitted to the hospital several times for vomiting.

He was returned to his parents Dec. 14. A month later he went into a coma and was rushed to hospital. Six days later he was removed from life support and died. An autopsy showed there was swelling on both sides of his brain.

Who knows whether the child had a predisposition toward homosexuality or was already gay? Gay, straight, or whatever, he won't have a chance to blossom into it, thanks to Dad.

Added later: Mike at Ex-Gay Watch has commented. He notes a few interesting things. One is that CBN's report cagily excises part of Zach's blog entry. The other is that, of course, this is not about "see[ing] to it that he has all options available to him" (Zach's father's words). A program that attempts to erase your existing expressions of self and replace them with different ones is shoving you down one path, not showing you options. As Mike says on a different topic, I wonder whether he's mouthing phrases he was told by Love in Action people to use or he just can't bring himself to articulate, in direct terms, what he's actually signed his own son up for.

Shocking news: there's a gay guy working in PR.

Well, okay, the shock is that he's Rick Santorum's communications director. Michael says he must be getting paid very well. I don't know; not being a supporter of the current campaign for gay marriage myself, I can certainly imagine that he might support Santorum's policy position. (Just to be clear, I don't. That is, I don't support the FMA.) You do have to wonder what he thinks of Santorum's remarks that, in essence, decriminalizing homosexuality logically commits you to decriminalizing bestiality and polygamy.

I understand that PR people are responsible for representing their employers. In that sense, you can't fault Robert Traynham for staying on-message. It would be nice, though, if these gays working for anti-gay politicians were willing to explain, with clarity and point, why they don't think there's any conflict there. Surely if you have the courage of your convictions, you should be able to articulate them. But Traynham wiffs:

When asked how a gay man could speak for one of the nation's most notorious homophobes, Traynham, left, protested that has "been with the Senator for eight years." Traynham went on to say "Senator Santorum is a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in, I strongly do support Senator Santorum."

When pressed on whether he supported the Senator's stands on lesbian and gay issues, Mr. Traynham abruptly ended the phone call by saying "Senator Santorum is a family man with "I have been with Senator Santorum for eight years and I am very proud to be with him."

An attempt to follow-up with a question was met with Mr. Traynham hanging up the phone.

Uh, honey? As his bleedin' communications director, surely you know that Senator Santorum himself is not afraid to discuss his stance on homosexuality. "I support the senator's positions on gay and lesbian issues" is not a sentence that should be all that hard to choke out if it's what you believe.

I think it's great that conservative gays can thrive in jobs with conservative politicians. I'm against outing them or declaring them a priori traitorous to other gays. But it's worth noting that always being able to respond to sticky questions with "I'm representing my boss's opinion, not my own" and other I'm-just-doing-my-job vagaries is a very convenient way to avoid taking your own stand.

Via Ace via Michael, yet another baffled soul whose reasoning goes something like, "Homosexuality must be a choice; after all, the guys who were hitting on me in college thought so." Ace takes care of things ably and politely, but let me just add for those who've managed not to figure this out: We males are goal-oriented. A horny guy who's hitting on you will say anything if he thinks it will get you into bed. ANYTHING. "You're gay and just haven't figured it out yet (ergo, you should sleep with me)." "I want you, I need you, I love you (ergo, you should sleep with me)." "Fascinating! We're both at the same bar drinking the same brand of beer (ergo, you should sleep with me)." "The moon is made of green cheese (ergo, you should sleep with me)." The idea that the line some aroused guy feeds you in order to get into your pants can be taken as his sincere, fully-worked-out belief about the nature of his own sexuality is a very naive one.

Added later: Okay, so I thought better of the wording above and changed it. The writer of the original article probably isn't a garden-variety dum-dum; there are a lot of otherwise smart people who think that logic isn't really necessary when arguing against homosexuality.

Happy anniversary, Michael and Robert. (Touching picture, too.)

I don't want to give anyone a heart attack, but I think Andrew Sullivan's post about gay marriage yesterday was pretty temperate and mostly well-reasoned.

There, I've said it.

Christianist Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said of the Canadian decision, supported by a majority in the polls: "Similar to tactics here in the U.S., the move for gay 'marriage' in Canada was driven by a small minority and liberal activist judges." And a parliamentary and popular majority, Mr Perkins. And please refrain from those scare quotes around the term "marriage." Whether Perkins likes it or not, there are now no differences between gay and straight marriages in Spain, Canada, Holland, Belgium and Massachusetts. His scare quotes - and those routinely used by the Washington Times - apply to heterosexual couples as well. Are their marriages now phony, according to the religious right?

In Canada (where the bill still needs Senate approval) and in Spain, gay citizens and their sympathizers have been able to get a majority of legislators on their side to effect changes in legislation. Who was originally "driving" the movement doesn't alter that. And as for "activist judges," I believe the decision that was reached a few months ago was that gay marriage would not itself violate the Canadian constitution--not that denying marriage to gay couples was unconstitutional. The part about scare quotes is shakier, but the point that the law routinely and legitimately defines words in ways that are different from their ordinary usage is a good one.

I'm still skeptical about gay marriage as policy--for reasons that include those Sullivan raises at the end of his post, which are never far from my mind because of the kind of household I live in. But I'm unreservedly happy that barriers to our being able to form enforceable bonds with our partners are being removed. Neither piece of legislation affects Atsushi and me, of course, but they make a nice lead-in to the weekend. (He's coming home tomorrow morning.)

I get the sense that I have few readers who are interested in both gay stuff and Japan stuff, but for those interested in the brief Nikkei article on the Spain vote, it's here. The Yomiuri's is here, and it also has a report up about the Canada vote. Congratulations on Canada Day, BTW.