The Public Policy Debate

(Part Four of a Six-Part Series)

by Justin VanLeeuwen

Read Part One     Read Part Two    Read Part Three     Read Part Five     Read Part Six

Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.

 — Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia dissenting

Leaders in the opposition to marriage equality have used this debate (posed as a matter of public policy) as a platform to launch what pass for practical arguments against allowing gays, lesbians, and transgender people to marry.¹ While I would argue that these proffered supports are ultimately merely incidental to opponents’ only real concern (their religious beliefs), they do have the added benefit (from the opponents’ perspective) of persuading others with no such ideological disposition.² Thus I find it necessary to reveal the more pernicious of them for the half-truths and outright lies that they are.

In many of the more insidious attacks against LGBT+ people, sexualization plays a prominent role, and by that I mean that we are “viewed as essentially sexual, and [our relationships are] not seen to be about commitment, communication, or love.”³ Paraded as a lurid spectacle of so many sex acts (in all of which many heterosexuals also participate), LGBT+ people simultaneously shrivel into a simplistic, albeit sinister, caricature and balloon into a grotesque prop with which to scandalize and titillate the unfamiliar public in a prurient manner. Just to mention two examples, in his pamphlet entitled “Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do” (in which he actually focuses almost exclusively on gay males), not only does Paul Cameron completely assume his implied thesis (that homosexual men and women are defined by our sexual activity rather than by an orientation that encompasses psychological and emotional attractions along with the physical), but he also compiles a graphic list of almost every imaginable sexual activity and presents it as common practice among all gay people.⁴ A small book entitled Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida (also known as the Purple Pamphlet) published by that state’s government in the 1960s portrays homosexual males in particular as almost incapable of stable, committed relationships, claiming that they “are notoriously few and far between . . . [and that] fleeting relationships are the order of the day.” The book almost exclusively frames discussion of homosexual interaction in the language of prostitution (using the word “trade”) and domination.⁵ A ten page glossary (constituting 20% of the book) represents one of the several resources provided “for the guidance of the uninitiated” and concerned reader. Most of the terms are sexual in nature, and many of them having nothing whatever to do with sexual orientation (kleptomania or libido, for example), but together and by nature of juxtaposition they paint a picture full of unwanted implications.

Subsumed in this pattern of sexualization is the assertion that gay men and women are sexually broken, that our sexual orientation comes as a result of abuse or misguided sexual energy. Rather than present several examples of this point with which I’m sure most readers are already familiar, I’ll just share a recent anecdote from the chapel platform of Bob Jones University. On March 14, 2011, Jason Ormiston, a member of the Bible faculty, delivered a sermon entitled “The Way of Escape: A Gospel-Centered Approach to Homosexuality,” in which he implies through the rhetorical question, “You think this is beyond you?” that everyone is potentially susceptible to the presumed sin of homosexuality. He proceeds to list his “cycle of digression” developed from personal observation:

• “It begins with a warped view of sex because perhaps you were exposed to pornography either by choice or someone introduced you to it. You have experienced sexual abuse or trauma of some sort, or you have engaged in premarital sex.” ⁶
• “There is a poor relationship with your father” [note the implied exclusively male perspective].
• “The other aspect — and this is one that is a huge problem — it is the justification of the act of self gratification. . . . That is selfish. It is not God’s intended way. And as you engage in that practice, you open up the doors for homosexuality.” ⁷
• “It [sex] produces this lack of fulfillment. You’re just left going, ‘Man, that wasn’t what I thought it would be.’ Many who have engaged in homosexual encounters say, ‘I don’t know if I actually am homosexual. Maybe I’m bisexual.’ Why? Because you’re left saying, ‘Boy, this really didn’t do what i thought it would do for me.’ The reason why there’s a lack of fulfillment? It’s not God’s best for you; it’s not God’s way.”

Of his four reasons, three are directly sexual in nature, and the fourth is psycho-sexual (specifically related to a male’s relationship to his father — very Oedipal).⁶ Furthermore, he paints the sexual mindset of LGBT+ people as one that is self-absorbed and, unlike that of a heterosexual, incapable of seeking to satisfy the needs of another person. ⁸

Such treatment would be rather banal though still disingenuous (there are worse things than being thought of as sexually liberated or even promiscuous) if not for the fact that this pattern of thought fuels the arguments that LGBT+ people are more likely to molest children. This single argument probably constitutes the most heinous and most damaging lie that the religious right has launched against us. The Purple Pamphlet to which I just referred states adamantly that “‘we must do everything in our power to create one thing in the mind of every homosexual, and that is ‘Keep your hands off our children!’”; and it ends by offering several “stern penalties . . . as a deterrent to the homosexual hungry for youth.” In fact, the pamphlet goes so far as to imply that homosexuals represent a far greater menace than the standard pedophile.⁹ Anita Bryant called her campaign Save Our Children, clearly invoking the presumed threat that we represent.¹⁰ In what can only be most generously referred to as a public service announcement entitled Boys Beware (1961), the narrator proceeds to caution young boys about the commonly understood dangers of getting into cars with strangers or of taking a disused, isolated shortcut home. While these warnings protect against kidnappers and pedophiles, they are offered as a defense against homosexuals. In what is probably the most striking line of the script, the narrator explains to the viewer that “what Jimmy didn’t know was that Ralph was sick, a sickness that was not visible like smallpox but no less dangerous and contagious, a sickness of the mind. You see, Ralph was a homosexual, a person who demands an intimate relationship with members of their own sex.”¹¹ Passing over the obvious, notice how the word “demand” communicates the idea of a rapacious sexual drive that taints even the consensual adult relationships that this film completely ignores. And this argument still crops up today as in the example of Bishop James Robinson who on September 24 of this year released this filmed statement in which he equates marriage for same sex couples with releasing pedophiles in public parks. He then proceeds to sexualize gay people in the pattern I have just discussed by characterizing us as “being controlled by out of control appetites and desires.”

As for the argument itself that gay men and women (though mostly men) pose an inherent threat to children, I will again invoke Paul Cameron along with the Family Research Council as the two major proponents of this idea. The essence of the issue lies in sources. The Family Research Council has not conducted any studies on this topic, and Cameron’s “research” mainly addresses other issues, most famously relative mortality rates, and his studies are notoriously flawed in methodology; both largely base their assertions on the research of others. And as a rule, they misconstrue, misrepresent, and lie about these sources.¹² To return to Cameron’s delicious comment on the use of gerbils in sex (which I refer to in endnote four), to corroborate his point he cites an article from Cecil Adams’ The Straight Dope that actually concludes the whole thing to be an urban myth without a single documented case. Of the other studies Cameron cites, the authors themselves make statements such as “[we] do not claim to have a scientific or representative sample of lesbians and gay men”;¹³ “obtaining a true random sample of homosexual men to serve as controls did not appear feasible”;¹⁴ “the participants were specifically selected as to their life-style and were unlikely to be representative of the general homosexual community of either city”;¹⁵ and more such statements abound.¹⁶ Despite such clear caveats not to use the data of these studies as generalizations for all LGBT+ people, Cameron proceeds to do so without even warning his readers of what he is doing. And these are the ethical violations that make him completely untrustworthy. The same could be said of the FRC’s piece titled “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse” though it at least acknowledges on occasion when studies are conducted in prison populations (i.e. when the sample in no way reflects on the general population).

The problem inherent in assessing child abuse lies in the overly simplistic perspective the general populace takes. They assume that if a man molests a boy, the man is a homosexual, and if he molests a girl, he is a heterosexual. However, while that seems intuitive, it is inaccurate. To start, allow me to clarify terms. I am going to speak about pedophilia clinically, which means that I’m referring specifically to sexual relations with prepubescent children (for children who have passed through puberty but are still protected by age of consent laws, the word hebephilia would be correct). Also, psychologists categorize pedophiles in two ways: those who are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children (often times regardless of gender), and those who generally maintain functional relationships with adults but sometimes under stress or other conditions revert to attraction to prepubescent children. The former group cannot be said to be either heterosexual or homosexual because their attractions do not relate to gender. The fact that a male of this type may abuse a young boy is tragic, and it has no bearing on the issues of homosexuals and pedophilia. Of the second group, a large number of the men are solely attracted to female adults, and while being married to a woman does not necessarily indicate heterosexual attraction, it is datum to consider (Jerry Sandusky comes to mind). When these factors are brought to bear, the percentage of gay men who abuse young boys fall roughly where you would expect to find it — in proportion to the relative prevalence of gay men in the population.

Defense of family presents a powerful rallying cry for any cause, and even more distinctly, the defense of children. No matter what the issue (e.g. fluoridating water in Portland, Oregon), the moment someone makes the claim that it harms the children, people who had no prior interest race to take up arms against the threat, real or imagined. And while I think this response natural and appropriate as an instinctive defense mechanism, once imagined threats are revealed as such, persisting in that mode can be dangerous and unjust.

Closely linked to the accusation of pedophilia is the claim that we seek to convert young, impressionable children. Setting the issue of age aside for the moment, a reality reflected here lies very close to the heart of the gay experience, albeit twisted almost beyond recognition. It is a reality of numbers.

Estimates for the percentage of gays and lesbians among the general population defy accuracy thanks to the societal pressure that keeps many from admitting their orientation publicly or even to themselves, but the figures range from roughly two percent to ten percent.¹⁷ This fact means that any gay man or woman has a severely limited dating pool in comparison with his or her straight peers. Conversely the likelihood of a gay man or woman meeting a straight individual whom he or she finds attractive both in body and personality is quite high. And in situations such as these in which all gay people discover themselves at one point, we find it very easy to say wistfully, “If only he or she were gay.” And in moments of self-indulgence, we might even imagine a fairy tale world in which our wish comes true. However, despite how we might express this hope, we do not truly want to change the other person’s identity. Ultimately our wish boils down to a longing for reciprocation – we want the person to whom we are drawn to be drawn to us in return. And this experience is actually incredibly human, common among gay and straight people alike; poetically, we call it unrequited love.

To take this truly relatable reality of the human condition and warp it into the monstrous claim that we seek to convert children insults our decency and the struggle we underwent to claim our own identity. We know by experience that no amount of wishing or persuasion can change someone’s orientation. We also know deeply the indignity of being told that we ought to change it. So we are the last people on earth who would try to do so to someone else. In a cruel irony, the guilt actually lies with the other party. Those who believe in our moral inferiority seek to convert us. The ex-gay therapy groups abound despite being decried by every major professional and scientific organization related to the field. We on the other hand seek merely to support and validate everyone, gay, straight, bisexual, and transgender alike. We celebrate every individual’s acceptance of his or her own identity.

Author’s Note: I apologize for the delay in continuing this series. I have been working steadily, I assure you. I intended this post to be self-contained, but I’ve found it to be much larger than I can manage in one part, so I’ll be continuing this section next week, thus expanding the series to six parts.

Tweet

Read Part Three   Read Part Five

¹ In Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010), to which I have already referred, Hak-Shing William Tam was called as a hostile witness by the Plaintiffs. One of the leading organizers on the campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California, Tam had originally intervened as a defendant in the case, but later sought to be excused – his testimony ultimately injured the defense’s case. In his testimony he revealed that he had “encouraged voters to support Prop. 8 because homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest children” (here he cited NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality); because homosexuals have as part of their “agenda” “legaliz[ing] hav[ing] sex with children” (a claim prominently put forth by the Family Research Council in a document titled “Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia” in which they assert that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order”); and because losing on Prop. 8 would mean that “one by one, other states would fall into Satan’s hands.” He also “identified ‘the internet’ as the source of information connecting same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest.”

² I’ll refer again to Perry v. Schwarzenegger and it’s findings on the campaign for Prop. 8 as it reveals so well how clearly opponents of marriage equality recognize that their religious belief in the inherent immorality of same-sex relationships prove insufficient in motivating the general populace to support their views and how they thus tailor their arguments to provoke their desired response: opposition to marriage equality. From the case’s vast findings of fact come the following quotations from organizers of the Prop. 8 campaign:

• “[P]assing Proposition 8 would depend on our ability to convince voters that same-sex marriage had broader implications for Californians and was not only about the two individuals involved in a committed gay relationship.”
• “We strongly believed that a campaign in favor of traditional marriage would not be enough to prevail.”
• “We probed long and hard in countless focus groups and surveys to explore reactions to a variety of consequences our issue experts identified” and they decided to create campaign messaging focusing on “how this new ‘fundamental right’ would be inculcated in young children through public schools.”
• “[T]here were limits to the degree of tolerance Californians would afford the gay community. They would entertain allowing gay marriage, but not if doing so had significant implications for the rest of society.”
• “The Prop 8 victory proves something that readers of Politics magazine know very well: campaigns matter.”

³ Ross, Josephine. “The Sexualization of Difference: A Comparison of Mixed-Race and Same-Gender Marriage” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 37, 2002. 255-288.

⁴ I don’t wish to offend people’s sensibilities, but I do feel that the only way to address an accusation is to face it, so I will use some explicit quotes from Cameron’s pamphlet, for though the title makes it seem reasonable for him to spend the majority of the pamphlet discussing presumed sex acts of homosexuals, it is the language he uses that reveals how he designed it to horrify and shock. When discussing sex toys, a subject common to heterosexual sex, not only does he pretend he has to define the term because of its “homosexual lingo,” but he ignores common toys and instead gives examples such as “bottles, carrots, even gerbils.” No educated individual would suggest or advocate use of these objects in the manner he is implying. Even more disturbing, he refers to the practice of “eat[ing] or wallow[ing] in [fecal matter],” an idea as revolting to the majority of homosexuals as it is to the majority of heterosexuals, which is not to deny that a miniscule minority of both homosexuals and heterosexuals do participate in scatalogical sexual activity. I will address later the supposed statistical support for these claims.

⁵ When not selecting anecdotes of abuse, the book puts forward the claim that homosexual relationships occur only between older men and younger men, the older men being dominant, with the younger men simply biding their time as passive partners until “Today’s Trade [becomes] Tomorrow’s Competition” as one consulted “veteran investigator of homosexual activities” expressed himself.

⁶ According to American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on Sexual Orientation and Adolescence, “there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.”

⁷ Ormiston has merely refurbished arguments as old as the famous second century physician, Galen, who asserted that epileptic seizures found their source in “untimely sexual activity.” These arguments survived well into the 19th century, where masturbation was cited as causing acne as well as epilepsy. Chastity belts for boys (basically metal cages, some equipped with spikes to deter any form of excitement) were devised to prevent masturbation, though I don’t know how widely they were used. And “when a reason was offered about why excessive sexuality caused seizures, a frequent one was that it was irreligious and sinful. When a more physiological explanation was sought, a common one, using an 1892 quotation, was that there was an inordinate ‘expenditure of nerve force,’ or, as in a 1902 explanation, of ‘cerebral exhaustion.’ Walter J. Friedlander, The History of Modern Epilepsy: The Beginning, 1865-1914; 2001. And of course, he overlooks the obvious logical problem he creates: if all people are susceptible to homosexuality, and if masturbation is a “huge problem” in that regard, why do homosexuals represent such a small minority of the population when the vast majority of men masturbate?

⁸ Though the following comment is primarily addressed toward masturbation, his whole point is that what he views as the selfish nature of masturbation leads to homosexuality, so he is ultimately coloring all LGBT+ people with this brush: “Ultimately the physical relationship is a beautiful thing within the context of marriage, intended not for you to fulfill your needs but to meet the needs of another.”

⁹ The following brief paragraphs almost dismisses child abuse in order to better demonize gay men:

There is a tendency to lump together the homosexuals who seek out youth and the child molesters. To most people the child molester seems to pose the greatest threat to society.

The child molester attacks, but seldom kills or physically cripples his victim. The outlook for the victim of molestation is generally good for recovery from the mental and physical shocks involved and for the enjoyment of a normal life.

The homosexual, on the other hand, prefers to reach out for the child at the time of normal sexual awakening and to conduct a psychological preliminary to the physical contact. The homosexual’s goal and part of his satisfaction is to “bring over” the young person, to hook him for homosexuality.

Note the phrasing “hook him for homosexuality.” Even from the perspective of homosexuality as a pathological behavior, it would make more sense to say “hook him on homosexuality.” That is the language construction of behavior and choice. The selected wording, however, communicates a scheme, goal, or crusade. It echoes religious phrases like Warriors for Jesus or political phrases like Americans for Prosperity; it is the language of organized causes, which in this context implies the existence of a cabal of homosexuals out to rape young boys.

¹⁰ “However Bryant’s increasing media exposure had drawbacks. Although a talented entertainer, she was no political debater. In a three-way exchange with Ruth Shack and Bob Kunst on the prime-time CBS news magazine Who’s Who, her comments rarely went beyond biblical condemnations and claims of homosexual recruitment. At one point, when asked about incidents of heterosexual child molestation, she began praying. In a local Miami magazine she claimed that California’s drought that year was a form of God’s punishment for the state’s tolerance of homosexuality and that homosexual men were murderers because they eat each other’s sperm.” Fejes, Fred. Gay Rights and Moral Panic: The Origins of America’s Debate on Homosexuality, Palgrave (2008), 122.

¹¹ The man who produced this film, Sid Davis, made numerous such educational films and did so on notoriously low budgets because he did not hire any experts or consultants to verify or evaluate his material. Additional notable quotes include:

• “But all homosexuals are not passive. Some resort to violence.”
• “He probably never realized until too late that he was riding in the shadow of death, but sometime that evening, Mike Merrick [fictional character of the film] traded his life for a newspaper headline.”
• “One never knows when the homosexual is about. He may appear normal, and it may be too late when you discover he is mentally ill.”

¹² Depending on which story you believe, Paul Cameron either resigned or was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 pending an “investigation into charges of his unethical conduct as a psychologist.  The charges of unethical conduct against Dr. Cameron included his continuing misrepresentation of Kinsey data and other research sources on homosexuality; inflammatory and inaccurate public statements about homosexuals; and his fabrications to a Nebraska newspaper about the supposed sexual mutilation of a four year old boy by a homosexual.  See Psychology, Homosexuality, and Human Rights in Lincoln, Nebraska, by Dr. James K. Cole; Affidavit of Dr. William Simon.” Baker v. Wade

¹³ Jay, Karla; Young, Allen. The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (New York: Summit. 1977): 789.

¹⁴ Jaffee, H. et al. “National case-control study of Kaposi’s sarcoma.” Annals Of Internal Medicine, 1983.

¹⁵ Biggar, R. J. “Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men.” Journal Of The American Medical Association, 1984

¹⁶ “It should be pointed out that reaching any consensus about the number of homosexual men or women exhibiting this or that characteristic is not the aim of the present study. The non-representative nature of other investigators’ sample as well as our own precludes any generalization about the incidence of a particular phenomenon even to persons living in the locale where the interviews were conducted, much less to homosexuals in general. … We cannot stress too much that ours is not a representative sample.”
— Bell, Alan P.; Weinberg, Martin S. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978): 22.

When the authors of this study learned the manner in which Cameron had presented their study, they roundly condemned him: “For him to use our figures to estimate differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals across the board in the general population is ludicrous.”
— Walter, David. “Paul Cameron”. The Advocate (October 29, 1985)

¹⁷ Barbara L. Frankowski, and Committee on Adolescence. “Sexual Orientation and Adolescents.” Pediatrics 2004 113:1827-1832; doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827