Talking to Gay People... Is Not That Difficult

So I ran across this article from the unintentionally hilariously named magazine "Relevant." I'm almost hesitant to mock it, as it is just so earnest. I think it is coming from a genuinely good place, but horrible, horrible ideology leads to some really awful advice.

"I Don't Know How to Talk to Gay People"

Dude, it's not that difficult. You just blow air from your lungs through your vocal cords while moving your mouth, and you've achieved it. On the subject of subject, well chances are whatever you happen to be interested in, there are gay people also interested in it. My particular postage stamp of interests covers almost every nerdy thing possible from horror to superheroes to comedy. But if you're a sports guy you can always find gay sports guys. If you happen to be really into music, you can find those, it's not difficult.

But then again no matter how many times this article attempts to frame this as talking to gay people, it's really more about talking at them.

Over the summer, a friend of mine took a job as a waiter in a local eatery in a major city. He kept in contact with me by email most of the summer, and in one of those emails he shared that he was being challenged—the reason being that the majority of the wait staff he worked with belonged to the GLBT community.

"Challenged" is a vague evangelicalesse term. It doesn't actually mean "challenged" in the way those jerks at the dictionary define it, where the person is being opposed in some way. No, his friend is not being tempted, he's not forced to rethink his ideology. Instead what it means is that he's in a situation where he's unsure how to proceed with being that annoying co-worker obsessed with converting you. As we will see repeatedly in this article nothing is being called into question here, just how to best tell someone they're a hell-bound sinner.

Actually, six of the 10 wait staff considered themselves GLBT.

Seriously? Considered themselves GLBT? Yes, that's right, in the "How to talk to gay people" article, the first paragraph presupposes there aren't actually gay people in the first place, that it is merely an opinion that gay people have about themselves. "Hi, I'm The Black Goat, and I consider myself a fan of Community, a serviceable writer, and gay."

Yet, my friend did not express the typical Christian response to his challenge. Instead, he talked about how he was able to develop relationships with his coworkers by first laying down disagreements and looking for elements of common ground.

I find it hard to believe that your friend was not openly hated, because he seems like a complete jackass. The very first thing when developing a relationship is usually not "laying down disagreements." It's normally sharing small bits of personal information, often agreements. But "laying down disagreements" seems like a pretty typical Christian response to gay people to me.

Amazingly, some of that common ground happened to be issues of faith and God.

Apparently the fact that some gay people have some sort of religion, and even some are Christian is a fact that warrants amazement. Scroll back up to where I talked about how there are gay people interested in just about any subject.

He quickly found himself in respectful conversations and building relationships of mutual trust.

I really doubt this fact. Most likely he found himself in conversations where his presence was tolerated because he was a coworker.

Not only did he learn the first principles of relationship, he also demonstrated a positive method of communication with people different than he.

Why yes, making a huge jackass out of yourself, and then having awkward conversations personal conversations where you are merely tolerated IS a positive method of communication.

Sooner or later, we all personally face the GLBT lifestyle in some vein—whether it is a relative, friend, coworker or in ourselves.

Be prepared, the word "lifestyle" is going to appear nine times in this article. So let's just deal with it right now. Bob Henry, the author of this article, does not believe being gay is a lifestyle, no one does. It's just a clever fiction that people say, but don't mean, most of the time because they haven't thought about it.

It goes back to the entire line of thinking that spawned the "considers themselves" quote. There is a huge ideological investment in this particular flavor of Christianity in the fact that gay people can become straight people. That's why identity is minimized while behavior is maximized in their rhetoric. A "lifestyle" is how a person lives their life, hence why it is the perfect word choice, it's entirely about behavior and devoid of identity.

But ask Bob Henry or anyone else who uses "lifestyle" to actually defend it upon those terms and they will be unable to. Gay people are far too varied in how they choose to live to ever describe it as a "lifestyle." A gay virgin can not fit into any sort of "gay lifestyle" rhetoric, and most people do not doubt the existence of gay virgins.

Side Note: in an effort to get around the "gay virgin" conundrum, the habitual liars at places like Exodus International have claimed that all gay people were molested as children. Yep. Words fail.

Some within Christendom would assume because my friend has a more “free thinking” view of the GLBT lifestyle that the world has broken him down or that “the media has influenced him” over the years.

Wait... your friend doesn't have a "free thinking view." That was the entire point of the previous paragraph. Unless "free thinking" means "willing to engage in conversation." In which case, just ugh.

But my friend is not a member of the GLBT community and is not an advocate of a gay lifestyle; rather, he is what I would consider a fairly conservative Christian.

Which was a point made in the previous paragraph. I like how anything less than Westburo Baptist style animosity is considered ambiguous enough that we needed a clarifying sentence.

He has helped me see the necessity of opening my arms with a loving embrace toward people who may not have my same perspective on sexuality, especially those for whom the concern is not an abstraction but a matter that impacts their daily lives.

Which is exactly what you are not going to do, and what you are going to encourage anyone reading this not to do.

As Christians, we should aspire to welcome and create opportunities for dialogue with people who hold differing views on sexuality. Instead of talking so much about the people who consider themselves GLBT, we need to talk with them.

This is actually really good advice. It's just too bad it is preceded with two paragraphs of poorly-reasoned stereotyping and is going to be followed with advice for how to do the exact opposite.

If we end up with differing beliefs about this explosive issue, it should be after we have heard others speak and respectfully talked about our disagreements.

Uhh, it's not an "explosive issue." It's not even an issue. An actual explosive issue is one that impacts many people in many different ways, in which there can be rational disagreements. For example a chemical plant that would create jobs, but might do ecological harm is an explosive issue. Who some individual wants to date is not even an issue, let alone an explosive one.

I also like how beliefs are supposed to have some relevancy to all this. Beliefs are trumped by facts. Fact: sometimes gay people exist. From that basis a whole slew of logical conclusions arise, hence why people like the author of this article are so obsessed with making gay people not exist in the first place. Once you accept that fact as true, it's increasingly difficult to have "differing beliefs" and rational "disagreements."

German theologian Johan Howard Yoder said, “… the truth about a given matter often emerges slowly, as a gift, as we make ourselves vulnerable through ongoing conversation with one another.”

Another brilliant statement which is going to be immediately undermined...

Christians do not always present ourselves as a gift to our neighbors, especially those who differ from us in belief, lifestyle, denomination, etc.

Well that's a fun switch. We went from generic truth being a gift, to Christians themselves are the gift. He's actually encouraging the exact opposite of what Yoder said. Christians are not supposed to make themselves vulnerable, because making themselves vulnerable would be allowing for the possibility that Christians might be wrong. A theme that's going to run through the back half of this article.

Too often I have seen well-meaning Christians, young and old, close the door on people who are different. They take opportunities to preach or teach against those who are different in safe environments like church services or small groups. Or in passing, they stare and tell inappropriate jokes about them behind their backs. Still some simply ignore “different” people as if they were less than human. Wasn’t it Jesus who took His relationships with people of different lifestyles so far as to visit the tax collector’s home, allowed the prostitute to touch His feet and shared parables where the despised of society ended up being the good guy (or should I say, Samaritan)?

Yes, and Bob Henry is going to do something completely different. Instead of preaching and teaching against those who are different in safe environments, he wants to preach and teach against those who are different to their faces. Ignore the fact that that's closing the door on people who are different just as much as locking them out.

Over the past couple of months, I have found myself asking a multitude of questions regarding the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and lifestyle.

I find it doubtful these are the correct questions like, "who are these people?" or "how can I understand them better?"

Whether the questions came from concerned parents, experimenting youth or activists on both sides of the issue, I have had to do a great deal of listening.

But not a particularly large amount of learning as we're about to see...

My goal is not to present a biblical case for or against the GLBT lifestyle.

Yep. No learning at all. I also like in the "How To Talk To Gay People" article, he actually has to clarify that he's not going to present the clobber passages.

Rather I want to share some real-life insights I have learned in discussing how to approach this sensitive topic:

While I appreciate the effort, they're not particularly good insights.

Show humility.

Excuse me? Two paragraphs ago you called Christians a "gift." That's not humility, that's arrogance. I've known quite a few gay people (and more than a few Christians) who have received the "gift" of Christians and returned it for store credit.

But that's why virtually the entire rest of this article is going to be little more than a marketing seminar.

Showing humility is not compromise.

No, it's not. But he doesn't want anyone to actually show humility. Humility means admitting you might not actually have all the answers, which is the exact opposite of this entire article.

In respectful conversation, we seek to express our commitment to certain “truths” with clarity.

Why no, no we don't. In respectful conversation we create a dialog between two people to come to a mutual understanding and communication. Presupposing that one side is right and the other side is not, is not conversation, it's debate.

But we must be open to the possibility that our understanding needs fine-tuning.

Again, the exact opposite of humility. It's hubris and overweening pride to assume that your "understanding" just needs slight adjustments in phrasing, instead of listening to actual gay people and their actual experiences being gay.

My friend’s eyes were opened to relationships that could meet under common issues of faith and God—that spiritual formation could continue in the midst of trying to understand a person’s gay lifestyle.

Which, if true, would be well and good. Unfortunately that's not what it sounds like happened at all.

We need to ask ourselves as Christians how we can be more aware of this conversation and the balance it takes to be effective.

AKA: How can we win this debate. Seriously? "Effective?" The entire point of conversation is not to be effective, it is to share understanding and create communication.

Show patience.

Somehow I do not think this is going to be the kind of patience that actual dialogging with real people requires.

Patience is the hope that through ongoing respectful conversations, a greater understanding will gradually emerge as a gift.

Why yes! This is true.

It is just like when we give a loved one a gift for Christmas. We have put thought into the gift because we know the person. We know their likes and dislikes. We have spent time with them—maybe over several years.

You and I cannot give a “special” gift to someone we just met.

Way to ruin it. "Patience" in this paragraph means do enough market research until you can craft an effective marketing strategy. And again, there isn't the talking and learning that is supposed to lead to truth like Yoder claimed, but rather one side has a monopoly on it and all the failures to convince people of that truth are merely failures of proper advertising strategy.

My friend found common ground and slowly, patiently, began making in-roads. It obviously will take time and patience, but how can we work with and give space for people struggling with their sexual identity?

I like how all gay people are considered "struggling with their sexual identity."

Show love.

Hey! Remember how I kept calling this article a "marketing strategy?" Well, here's the number one strategy!

Patience and humility need to be further complemented by love.

Of course "love" here means something completely different from how people would normally use it.

Love is caring deeply for other persons, which must start by allowing them to express their views and their story.

Which is true. Note, however, he does not mention listening to or attempting to understand their views or story. That's because this is strategy, not actual communication.

Ahh love. Love without sympathy, empathy, understanding, or actual communication!

My friend still communicates on a regular basis with that wait staff from the summer. He prays for and even with some of them.

Oy vey. Again, this is not communication. Praying for someone is not communication, nor is praying with someone. It's certainly can be supportive, but I'm willing to bet he is not being supportive in his prayers.

He has broken down barriers and misconceptions and has been able to share his faith and differing beliefs with the GLBT community—and they are listening and dialoguing.

I am 100% certain this is not true. I would find it doubtful that there is a gay person in this nation that hasn't had considerable contact with religious people. They know his faith, they know his beliefs. Gay people in 21st Century America are not 16th Century Chinese people who have had no cultural contact with Christians and know nothing about them. If there is anyone with barriers and misconceptions it would be the anonymous friend. And as has been repeatedly stated throughout this article, there was no actual dialoguing going on, nor was there even the attempt to dialogue.

As with all these stories about this "friend," I think it is highly suspect and most likely entirely a product of the friend's mind and does not reflect even slightly the reality from the gay waitsaff's perspective. I would love to hear this story from the other waiters' perspectives. Most gay people have dealt with an over eager evangelical acquaintance in their lives, and it usually involves a considerable degree of charity from the gay person.

Are we listening, allowing people different than us to share their views, wrestle with their questions and tell their stories?

No, you're not. The entire article is advice on how best not to do this. Because...

It takes patience, but it’s worth it to think through the issues, engage the people around us and seek to find better ways to share the gift of Truth with our community—no matter their lifestyles, beliefs or backgrounds.

This all is a marketing strategy. You actually couldn't care less about issues, or engagement, this is all about an invisible score card. This reminds me of Alec Baldwin's speech in Glengarry Glen Ross, "ABC, always be closing."

I suppose it is a symptom of believing you have "Truth" (with a capital "T"), which grants you greater insight into gay people's lives than actual gay people.

I really think this article is coming from a good place, but overweening pride absolutely cripples it, and then spirituality-as-marketing swoops in to shoot it in the head. I could give plenty of advice for how to talk to gay people, and I might just do that in a latter post, but this, this is just terrible, terrible guidance.

Stupid Questions, Very Stupid Questions

So, some quite stupid people decided to create a list of 28 quite stupid questions about gay people, in the hopes that somehow they are so unanswerable that everyone would instantly convert to their ideology simply because they can't answer those questions.

Before I answer their unanswerable questions, let me point out that science actually determined that homosexuality was biologically based...

In 1972. Dr. Ingebog Ward was doing testing on pregnant rats, and discovered, quite by accident that pregnant rats when placed under stress would produce male rats that would then have sex with the other male rats, and not the female rats. In fact, let's quote Dr. Ward's study all the way from the distant seventies:

"Abstract: Male rats were exposed to prenatal (i.e. before they were born) or postnatal (after they were born) stress, or both. The prenatally stressed males showed low levels of male copulatory behavior and high rates of female lordotic responding (i.e. "lordotic" refers to mounting behavior which usually occurs during mating). Postnatal stress had no effect. The modifications are attributed to stress-mediated alterations in the ratio of adrenal to gonadal androgens during critical stages of sexual differentiation. Specifically, it appears that stress causes an increase in the weak adrenal androgen, androstendione, from the maternal fetal adrenal cortices, or both, and a concurrent decrease in the potent gonadal androgen, testosterone."

~ "Parental Stress Feminizes and Demasculizes the Behavior of Males", Science, January 7, 1972 (83-84).

If you really want to, you can go in your garage and make all sorts of gay little animals. In fact, I'm friends with one psychologist who has.

When scientists say they haven't discovered the "cause" of homosexuality, they mean exactly that. They haven't figured out the exact series of trigger mechanisms, although they are quite close (specifically it seems that pre-natal hormones cause epigenetic modification on the fetus, the same process that causes identical twins to have different finger prints). It does not mean they don't think it is biologically based.

With that out of the way... let's get to some stupidity.

1. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through natural selection?

This is based on a serious misunderstanding of how evolution works. Most people have the idea that evolution works in such a manner that whatever helps a individual pass on its genes will drive the process. This could not be more false, and to prove it is false, all one has to look at is an anthill.

Over 99% of ants born do not pass on their genetic material. That's because evolution could not give crap-all about individuals. The driving force behind evolution is the mother, and whatever is in the best interests of the mother will warp both the children and the males, often in ways that are against their evolutionary interests. Hence why mothers will eat their young, why entire colonies of insects will not produce offspring except for one, and why foolishly ostentatious male birds like the peacock exist.

If being gay had no affect on the mother's chances of reproducing, it would get passed down generation after generation after generation without so much as a care in the world. And there are some indications that is what happened. The sisters of gay men often are what is considered hyper-fertile, and thus what lowers the evolutionary fitness of the boy children increases the evolutionary fitness of the female ones, something quite common in evolution.

2. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If sexual orientation is a genetic predisposition and the homosexual community wants cultural and social support since, as they say, “they are born that way,” then shouldn’t they also support “homophobia” since it could be legitimately argued that homophobes are born with heterosexual-orientation and possess a natural aversion to homosexuality?

No, it can't be legitimately argued that there is a natural aversion to homosexuality. Humans feel a natural aversion to a very small number of things. All of them because it indicates poison or disease. And we're not talking subtle things, in order to kick in our natural disgust reflex, something has to be pretty rotten.

Most of what we feel an aversion to involves things that we learn via our culture. For instance in Morocco they use the left hand for certain bathroom cleanliness activities, and so they have a "natural aversion" to eating with the left hand. Unless you can prove that gay sex falls into the 30-day-old rotting meat category, it's pretty obvious it is in the eating with your left hand category.

3. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then doesn’t it make sense to say that homosexuality is a learned behavior since the implication is that pro-homosexual genes would have been wiped out generations ago?

Repeat question! Failure to understand evolution!

4. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If this is not the case, can you please explain the mechanism by which “homosexual genes” aid in survivability and are then passed on to descendants?

Look at the assumptions! The simplified genes aspect allows for your simplified view of evolution. What if it isn't strictly genetic, and instead is, much like autism, handedness, and finger prints a combination of factors?

Going back to Dr. Ward, the two most common causes of stress for animals are a lack of food and over crowding. That situation would indicate that the best way to preserve the family genetic line (for the mother, remember this is all about the mother) would be to have unattached males aid in hunting and gathering, protecting resources, and raising children. In black swan communities, fully 25% of all pairings are male/male for this reason. They successfully raise almost ten times as many chicks because two males can secure a larger territory with better resources, and neither of them are exhausted from giving birth.

Having more children that die of starvation is much less preferable than having a smaller number of children that thrive while everyone else's children die of starvation.

5. GENETIC PEDOPHILIA: If genetic predisposition is used as a support for stating that homosexual behavior is morally okay (because they are born that way), then shouldn’t pedophilia behavior also be considered morally okay since they claim they were born that way?

Pedophilia is having sex with children. Whether it is okay or not has nothing to do with being born that way.

This is one of those weird "end runs" around the actual language of the Bible that certain Christians preform. The conversation often goes something like this:

AGC (anti-gay christian): Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore it is a sin.
Me: No, it's not unnatural. It's found in nature all the time.
AGC: So? Animals kill their children in nature. Are you saying that's okay?
Me: Infanticide's morality has nothing to do with it being natural or not. No one's arguing, nor has anyone ever argued that infanticide okay because it happens in nature. But you were the one who staked you objection to gay people based on it being natural or not, that's your basis, not mine.

6. GENETIC PEDOPHILIA: If pedophiles are morally wrong because they violate the wishes and will of the younger individuals, then at what age is a person too young to engage in sexual activity in accordance with his or her natural predisposition (i.e., being born that way)?

Historically it has depended upon the culture. 18 works as a nice point at which psychological development reaches a critical stage where it can be considered more like adulthood than childhood, if we must pin down a specific point.

7. CONSENT: In light of being born with a sexual orientation (like homosexuality, frotteurism1, voyeurism2), if pedophiles are morally wrong because they are acting out their sexual orientation upon minors who are not mature enough to consent, then what do you do when minors become mature enough to consent and also claim they are born wanting a sexual relationship with an older person?

Neither frotteruism nor voyeurism are sexual orientations. Both frotteurism and voyeurism are paraphilias. Paraphilias are more commonly known as "fetishes" and they are just things that, due to psychological development, resulted in sexual arousal in certain people. One of the most odious things the anti-gays have done lately is to claim that paraphilias are sexual orientations, they're not and they never will be. Sexual orientation is specifically and only who you experience sexual and romantic attachment to. Hence why people with shoe fetishes don't want to marry shoes, they still want to marry women...who happen to ware the type of shoe they love.

With that out of the way, this question is unbelievably stupid. Clearing up the needlessly opaque language designed to occlude just how stupid it is, the question is asking "what if a person reaches the age of consent and decides to have sex with someone older than they are." Well, that's pretty obvious, they can go have sex with that person.

8. CONSENT: If what is sexually permissible is what is based on consent, then what do you do with with younger-than-18 adolescents who consent to having sex with much older people? Is it okay?

In some places it is considered "okay," including some places in the United States. Following the law is generally the way to go.

9. MORAL STANDARD: From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?

It's called "harm." When something causes objective, measurable, unwanted harm to someone else, that's where you draw the line between right and wrong.

10. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?

I don't. I don't know anyone who does. If gay people derived their standard of morality from society, then all gay people would consider being gay immoral. Because society for the last 2,000 years (and especially the last 100) that being gay is immoral. As they don't consider it immoral, obviously they don't derive their standard of morality from society.

This question is so stupid even a second of thought would falsify it.

11. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system if it contradicts another?

Again, based on a faulty premise. Although I do love how a group of people who absolutely believe they have the "right moral system" would think to bring up the impossibility of deciding which society has the right moral system.

12. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?

Still based on a mindbogglingly faulty premise.

13. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what gives them the moral right to change society’s morals when the majority condemn homosexuality as morally wrong?

In this question you literally falsify your entire line of argument for the past four questions. You openly admit that you know this, and yet you chose to ask them anyways. Why?

14. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, including those who disagree with them?

See "harm" above. Yes, they do have that right. If you are causing objective, verifiable harm, they have every right to judge.

15. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to condemn those whom they label “homophobes” when they are just expressing their personal moral preference?

See "harm" above.

You do realize that those who are "just expressing their personal moral preference" have resulted in at least a dozen suicides over the past couple of years? That behavior deserves to be condemned.

Again, see "harm" above.

16. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals say that “homophobes” are wrong because they want to restrict homosexuals’ rights and impose their values on them, then what gives the homosexuals the right to impose their sexual values on others?

Please offer an explanation of how any gay person has imposed his or her "sexual values" on anyone else.

Think about it like this:

If the anti-gays have their way: they are still free to marry the opposite sex, gay people can't marry the same sex.
If gay people have their way: they are free to marry the same sex, while anti-gays are still free to marry the opposite sex.

Gay rights are not an imposition on you, unless you believe an imposition consists of someone, somewhere in the universe doing something you disapprove of. And that's not an imposition.

17. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences?

Again, this question invalidates itself. If gay people derived their standard of morality from themselves, they would have a moral imperative to try to change society to their own moral preferences. Seriously, did you not notice that when you wrote it?

18. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, and they also believe they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences, then how is that not arrogant?

What the hell does arrogance have to do with anything? This whole thing has always been ridiculous, but this really crosses a line. This question is just a snippy "Take That" over how you perceive gay people sounding. Which, of course, is just projection. You were the one who claimed that someone, somewhere doing something you disagreed with was an imposition to you. That's arrogance.

19. CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation (i.e., sexual behavior), then shouldn’t equal civil rights be granted to those of Alternate Sexual Orientations (ASO) such as pedophilia, incest, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, fetishes, frotteurism, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, etc.? If not, why not?

This is really descending into every single stupid rhetorical line that has ever been uncritically said. No, sexual orientation is not sexual behavior. No one thinks that. If you thought that, it would mean that you think believe gay people are straight except for when they are physically having sex with another member of the same sex, and afterwards they would be straight again. You would beleive that there can't be such a thing as a gay virgin. You don't believe that. You don't at all.

Again, see my discussion of paraphilia above. None of those are sexual orientations.

20. CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior), then shouldn’t equal civil rights also be granted to heterosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior)? If not, why not?

Again, you don't believe being gay is a behavior, you believe it is an identity, quit lying about that fact.

What, exactly and precisely, civil rights do straight people not have that gay people do? I'm going to assume this is based off a misunderstanding of how hate crime legislation works. Hate crime legislation only lists "Sexual orientation" as a category where a crime can be considered a hate crime. Therefore it protects straight people from anti-straight crimes just as much as it protects gay people from anti-gay crimes.

21. CIVIL RIGHTS: If equal civil rights should not be granted to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (excluding homosexual behavior), then what is it about homosexuality that deserves special status protection where other sexual behaviors do not?

You actually might be stupid enough to believe that paraphalias are "alternate sexual orientations" but I doubt that fact. I suspect you are openly lying on this point. You certainly do not believe it is a sexual behavior. So either way, this question is premised on something you believe to be a lie, and thus invalid.

22. CIVIL RIGHTS: If homosexuals are granted privileges due to civil unions and domestic partnerships, shouldn’t the same be offered to heterosexuals?

In many cases such as France, the Low Countries, and Scandinavia they are. This, of course, has lowered the number of marriages in those countries since more people opt for the Civil Union contract than the marriage one. If this was a legitimate concern for you, you'd be fighting for full marriage equality, instead of making stupid lists of questions you don't believe are valid.

23. FAIRNESS: Shouldn’t an equal amount of sexual-orientation-promotion be offered to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (i.e., pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation) such that they are also promoted in parades, schools, movies, sitcoms, magazines, schools, etc.? If not, why not?

Paraphalias aren't sexual orientations.

24. FAIRNESS: Would you, if you are pro-homosexual in practice and/or ideology, promote and support heterosexual parades, heterosexual oriented TV, and overt heterosexual appreciation and promotions in school classrooms – the same as is occurring with homosexuality? If not, why not?

All those things already happen. Like all the time:

Heterosexual parades: What, exactly, do you think Mardi Gras in New Orleans is, if not a heterosexual parade?
Heterosexual oriented TV: GLAAD actually watches every single hour of primetime TV for the networks and the top ten cable networks, and complies what percentage of those hours feature gay characters. As of the current season 2.9% of all scripted series regular characters are gay. So what, exactly do you think the other 97.1% of characters are?
Heterosexual appreciation and promotion in school: When I was in school, I learned about George and Martha Washington, Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain. We also had Sex Education which only taught about diseases and how babies are made. That's pretty much heterosexual appreciation and promotion.

25. FAIRNESS: If being intolerant of homosexuality is somehow wrong, then why are the homosexuals not wrong when they express their intolerance of those who disapprove of homosexuality?

Oy vey. This BS again. You can be intolerant of gay people all you want, as long as you in no way impose your intolerance upon them.

26. FAIRNESS: Isn’t it hypocritical to say that homosexuals want tolerance for everyone, but at the same time they practice intolerance of the those who disagree with their behavior?

See above.

27. FAIRNESS: If homosexuals want tolerance, then when they try and change the rest of society’s views about homosexuality, aren’t they demonstrating their intolerance of the majority position?

See above.

28. FAIRNESS: If you affirm that it is okay for homosexuals to show their intolerance for the majority view against homosexuality by trying to change the rest of society’s view to conform to their own, then shouldn’t it be okay for the majority to try and change the moral view of the homosexuals and have them conform to the majority?

See back to our "harm" discussion.

Frak, this was one exceedingly long, incredibly stupid post.

From a Guy's Perspective...

So let's pretend you are a fundamentalist, Christian teenage girl. What would you want to do with your spare time? Well that sort of depends. When asked that question you'd probably say something about "praising Jesus until I'm raptured," but we all know what you're really thinking is "BOYS! BOOOOOOOOOOOYS! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYS!" unless it is "GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS!"

Fortunately for all those young ladies out there a nice teen Christian blogger has taken it upon herself to interview her fellow teens about the vast mystery that is being a man. Being the snarky bastard that I am, I decided I should probably answer her asinine questions and see how I matched up.

1) What are your thoughts on modesty?

I don't think about modesty. I don't know anyone who does think about modesty. I suppose if I were to actually sit down and formulate an opinion about this topic, it would be, "do whatever the hell you want, it doesn't affect me."

2) Some of us feel that we either give too much effort, or not enough, in worrying about the way we dress. What is your suggestion to how you wish girls would dress? What do you like to see girls wearing?

I like to see them wearing whatever they want to wear. I'm sorry, but I can't possibly muster up enough care to actually have an opinion on this, as any friend who has attempted to go clothes shopping with me has found out.

3) How do you feel about girls wearing makeup?

Why would I possibly care about this?

4) A lot of girls worry about looking chic around guys…but what do you consider pretty?

I consider it pretty when girls don't use words like "chic." Yep, that's the most beautiful thing: an interesting personality.

5) Do guys ever notice changes in girls? Hair styles, clothes, etc.?

Sometimes, sometimes I don't. Although if I do, there's at least a 50% chance it is because the woman in question did something unintentionally hilarious.

6) What is something that you want/look for, the most, in your future wife?

I wasn't planning on having a future wife, or a present wife. As far as that something I'm looking for in a future partner? Well, its this thing called a "personality."

7) Do you often feel peer pressure from your friends? In any way, but mostly in the standards that you have set for your life.

No. My friends are all a collection of eccentrics and freaks, we tend to just accept people as they are, rather than attempt to change them. But I'm reasonably certain you've applied peer pressure on people, Miss Raquel.

8) What do you consider flirting and what do you think of a girl when she flirts with you?

Flirting is like pornography, you can't define it, but you know it when you see it... because it turns you on. And I love it when people flirt with me. It's called having fun.

9) How do you feel about dating?

It's super awkward. Like when you find yourself on a date with a guy who looks exactly like Count Orlok from Nosferatu...

10) If you agree w/ courting, how much involvement from YOUR parents do you believe is appropriate in helping you make a final choice in your future wife?

The idea of my parents having any involvement in my choice of partner runs from hilarious to sickening.

11) When you’re interested in a girl, do you focus on her family too? Do you make it a point to get to know them as much as you want to get to know her?

If it is important to my partner that I get to know his family, I would. But I have no inherent desire to involve myself in another family.

12) What is your view on college for girls?

I'm in a class entitled 20th Century North American Female Writers where I am the only guy. I'm reasonably certain you can tell my opinion on college for woman from that fact. Also, last class we discussed Margaret Atwood's short story "Rape Fantasies" a class which I'm certain would cause your brain to explode.

13) What is your dream job? And why?

I'd love to write for TV. I'm currently working on a science-fiction pitch that homages Greek and Roman mythology.

14) What do you think the man’s role is in the home – compared to the woman’s?

The roles are determined by which partner cares the most about whatever it is that needs done.

15) How many kids would you like to have?

One.

16) A lot of guys like using sarcasm around girls…do you know why that is?

Because my generation was raised by Mystery Science Theater 3000 and so we all have very well developed senses of irony and sarcasm.

17) Do guys like it when girls are tomboyish or more girlie?

I'd be quite hard pressed to care about this point.

18) Is there anything that you would appreciate girls doing differently in order to help you maintain your purity?

Why is my purity a concern for anyone other than myself? Also why should I care about maintaining my purity?

19) What do you think about guys and girls hugging?

Really? Really? This is actually something that requires thought and analysis? What a sad, pathetic, and small life that this is a topic of concern.

20) When do you plan to have your first kiss?

This is actually a good (albeit sad) story. So, I'm sitting at the computer one day, and this guy messages me saying that he saw my profile and thinks I'm super hot and wants to meet me. I wasn't doing anything that night so we met up at the student center. Well after talking for an hour, we went back to my place where we watched some episodes of "Married With Children." During which, he leaned over and said "Wanna make out?" and I said, "Okay." So we did. Then he asked me if I wanted a blow job, but I said "no."

And that's how I had my first kiss.

21) How will you respond if God's plan is out of sync with your own?

How would it be possible to even check this out? My response would probably be to not worry about it in the second place since I could never know in the first place.

22) What do you think of girls posting pictures of guys on their blog?

It could be rather creepy and stalkerish.

23) Do you guys sometimes get weirded out by being friends with girls?

When I pick my friends, I never ask "do you have a penis?" That's just not a consideration I'm going to make.

24) What is one thing that girls do that you hate?

Well I rather hate those girls who have some sort of pre-conceived notion of what a friendship with a gay guy is actually like. But I haven't run into that in years. I think the more appropriate question would be "What on Earth do all women have in common enough to hate?"

25) To what degree should a guy and girl just 'be friends'? To what degree should they be betrothed?

I'm sorry, "Betrothed?" This is one of those things like "Courting" earlier, isn't it? You know how you are friends with someone that you don't want to fuck? That's the degree that a guy and a girl should just be friends. I'm not sure anyone should be betrothed.