Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: The homosexual agenda
Gay-marriage opponents claim that we gay folk are trying to influence your children. In one sense, they are quite right.
We are not trying to “recruit” your children, if by that you mean “turn them gay.” As gay people, we understand enough about how sexual orientation works to know that you can’t turn people gay—or straight, for that matter—by some act of will.Rather, we’re trying to do just what those scary “protect marriage” ads say we’re trying to do. We’re trying to teach them about same-sex marriage. In school.
There—I said it. The secret’s out. The gay agenda has been leaked. Call the Maine Yes-on-1 campaign and tell them there’s new material for Frank Schubert and company to quote out of context.
Meanwhile, let’s talk about that campaign—specifically, the ads warning that if Maine keeps marriage for gays and lesbians, Maine schoolchildren will be taught about homosexual marriage.
Put this way, the claim is extremely misleading. Maine (unlike California, which micromanages everything) does not dictate teaching about marriage. Maine curriculum is controlled locally, and individual schools can teach about same-sex marriage (or not) whether or not Maine has marriage equality.
To put the point another way: just because something’s legal, that doesn’t mean it must be taught in Maine schools (or vice-versa).
But whatever happens with Maine’s Question 1, I want Maine schools to teach about gays getting married. Other states’ schools, too.
Part of my reason for wanting this has nothing whatsoever to do with my support for marriage equality. I also want schools to teach about genocide, and I’m pretty staunchly anti-genocide. Schools are supposed to inform students about what’s happening in the world. For better or worse, same-sex marriage is happening in the world. Even if it is taken away in Maine, it will keep happening elsewhere. Indeed, even if it were somehow eliminated everywhere, it would remain part of our history. Students need to know this.
Of course, when we teach about genocide, we make it clear that genocide is a Very Bad Thing. By contrast, responsible teaching about same-sex marriage would have to acknowledge that it is a controversial thing, with sane and decent people on different sides of the issue.
And that is doubtless one reason why you, dear parent, fear teaching about same-sex marriage in schools. You’d rather that your children not know that there are some sane and decent people who deny that same-sex marriage is a Very Bad Thing. Indeed, that there some who think it is a Perfectly Fine Thing. You want to shelter them from such diversity. I don’t.
I want them to know that there are people with different views on marriage, and that gay people are getting legally married in parts of the United States and elsewhere. I want them to know it because any informed citizen ought to know it. But I also want them to know it because some of them might themselves be gay.
That’s right: there’s a small but statistically significant chance that your child might be gay. Ignoring the issue won’t make it go away. And isolating him from the fact of other gay people won’t make it go away, either. It will just make him…well, isolated.
Now, your child might not be gay, and if that’s so, learning about gay marriage isn’t going to make him gay. Sexual orientation doesn’t work that way. (If it did, I’d be straight.) If your child is straight, he will remain straight, regardless of what happens in Maine, California, Massachusetts and elsewhere.
But let’s suppose he’s gay. If so, and if I’m right that he can’t willfully change that fact, then his best chance for a happy, fulfilling life is probably in a relationship with someone of the same sex. (I say “probably” because some people—a very rare subset—are happier single; let’s assume he’s not one of those.) Realistically, his choice is not between a gay relationship and a straight relationship; it’s between a gay relationship and none at all.
Now I don’t expect you simply to take my word for any of this. You want your child to be happy, and you can’t imagine his happiness as a gay person. Maybe you’re deeply convinced that he’d be better off alone than with someone of the same sex.
I don’t doubt that you sincerely believe this. But I sincerely believe that you are wrong—badly wrong, wrong in a way that does needless harm to your gay child.
I want your child to know that his love is a good thing. I want him to know that he deserves a chance at romantic bliss. I want him to know that, regardless of sexual orientation, he can seek someone to have and to hold, for better or for worse, until death do they part.
I want him at least to have that option.
And that, to be very frank, is the bigger part of my reason for wanting schools to teach about gay marriage. I want all kids, including gay kids, to have a fair shot at happiness.
That’s my homosexual agenda in a nutshell.
******
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
His upcoming speaking appearances include:
November 10: Central Washington University (debate with Glenn Stanton)
November 11: Colorado State University, Pueblo (debate with Glenn Stanton)
November 12: Miami University of Ohio
November 16: Bergen Community College (NJ)
Check school websites for rooms and times.
@Yhitzak–the argument against gay equality has evolved beyond overt morality. As with institutionalized race discrimination by the late 1950s, there was no argument other than the existence of discrimination was in and of itself justification for its existence and its continuation. It should exist because it exists.
I would think you’d be embarrassed to make such an argument, not least because it confers a certain legitimacy on clearly codified discrimination. In short, apartheid and the Nuremburg Laws and Jim Crow reflect a legal argument of the innate inferiority of a targeted group–and somehow the chop-logic of any of these bodies of law should be respected just because somebody thought it up and wrote it down. No matter that each presented at least some direct conflict with the written law of the respective state. Not only does it carry a legitimacy because it exists, but somehow the act of discrimination requires the targets of discrimination to hold no anger and carry at least partial responsibility for their legally diminished state? How about a NO. It’s not 1977 and Anita Bryant, and the current argument against gay equality has to do with clearly-stated religious bigotry and with “because I said so.” That’s it. Our opponents don’t rely on pictures of drag queens or Dykes on Bikes or leathermen threesomes anymore, because they know that it won’t get them anywhere–and unfortunately and ironically for them, the constant tease of graphic sexual and violent imagery of the Fox TV network (and its influence on other broadcast networks) is a major factor in that erosion. Gays want to join the military and get married–in any other setting, those would be considered *conservative* impulses. Yhitzak, the inevitable consequence of your position is that we somehow have to accept that churches have a legitimate place in determining American civil law–directly against our Constitution. Your argument has already been used to justify discrimination which has been routinely struck down by Republican-appointed judges in the last 20 years. Even our opponents have given up on it, so why do you seem so compelled to dredge it back up?
Wow, Drewski. I never said that homophobia didn’t have many points of origin, I’m just sick of the amount of people on this site who seem willing to qualify it as a strictly religious idea. And I will be among those willing to admit that fundamentalism tends to breed intolerance. That being said, I can’t jump on the anti-religion bandwagon. Just can’t do it. I don’t approve of discrimination, especially on the basis of sexual orientation. I, however, also value the separation of church and state (for whatever that’s worth), and never even so much as implied that I think that it is in any way appropriate for a religious institution to lobby any government for any reason.
Why do I bring up discrimination, however it should be justified? Because it happens, it exists, and ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. People being uncomfortable with the mechanics of sex is -in my humble opinion- a huge part of sexual preference, whether a person be gay or straight or both or neither. So I’m not suggesting we legalize discrimination because of some level of discomfort (and if you interpreted my remark that way, that is your own fault), but I am suggesting that we as communities and as a society at large talk about that. How else can we as a society hope to solve our problems when we patently refuse to talk about what we honestly think about things?
Any religious institution that lobbies period should lose their tax exempt status. Essentially they are taking that saved money and putting it into passing legislation…whether for or against a populus. Religion has no place in the legal system in this country, and that also goes for urging their members to vote this way or that. They just have no place. If the members of that religion wanted to meet at one anothers homes and loby from there, and use their OWN money not the religions, then so be it. But a Church has no right to do so when MY tax dollars are higher because they don’t pay a blessed thing (yes, I realize my taxes are higher by like .05 cents, its the principle).
Unfortunately tho, religion is the start of bigotry. It has been for at least 100 years. Racial bigotry, ethnic bigotry, homophobia. Homophobia was not all too prevelant in this country prior to the Civil War and the Victorian era. For some reason they got a hair across their ass that Homosexuality was a sin and was against nature and against proper societal laws and blink…mass homophobia for 100+ years. To the extent of sending us to nut houses, and extermination, and lobotomies and experiments, etc. Look at Nazi Germany. Religion killed how many? Millions?
Religion is Evil. It is. It is the root of all evil, not money.
Prior to Christianity, the mass religion was Paganism which was the worship of things nature. That goddamn book was wrtten by men in the pursuit of power and money. Its ALL made up, and until I see clear scientific proof…its all phoney.
Religion = Hate.
Religion has been a self inflicted scourge on human progress for thousands of years. In order to ‘believe’ all the Xtian nonsense, one has to suspend all rational thought, or be dimwitted and delusional. You cannot reason with unreasonable people. A religiously insane bigot,
is just that. We need overwhelming support to defend our legal rights; nutjobs be damned to their make believe hell where I hear Satan has a well lubed treat for them.
An interesting column, Mr Corvino, however, I don’t think opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with decency or sanity. You’re absolutely right – there are people on both sides of the debate who are both sane and decent, but you are forgetting that it is entirely possible to be sane, decent and completely irrational.
There are a handful of issues which, when confronted with them, sane and decent people become completely irrational. Abortion is one such issue. Gay marriage rights is another. And sadly when people become irrational, sanity and decency go right out the window.
As I have said on this site many times before, marriage is not a religious concept, but rather is a concept co-opted by religions. It is a contract which, in one form or another, pre-dates most modern religions. If a particular religious group chooses to prohibit same sex marriage, refuses to perform marriage unions for same-sex couples, that is absolutely their right and that right is, and should continue to be, protected by law.
Every religion has the right to defend their concept of marriage as they understand it. They do not, however, have the right to dictate that their idea of marriage, their concept of marriage, can be the only form of marriage that exists.
There is a big difference in the traditional marriage ceremony in the Islamic and Jewish faiths. There is a big difference in what is expected of both parties to a marriage in the Christian and Hindu faiths. Every religion has a different idea of what marriage should be, what it should mean, and these ideas can often be conflicting. Yet these conflicts, these differences, are conveniently ignored when there is any suggestion of a same-sex couple marrying. Suddenly marriage becomes a sacred union that can only exist between a man and a woman.
Irrational.
Indeed, if you consider each and every argument against gay marriage, you will find each and every one of them is entirely irrational. If someone could present me with an argument against gay marriage, a reason why same-sex unions should not be allowed, that is not completely and utterly irrational, I would support that argument. Trouble is, no such argument exists.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman only because when the various mainstream religions co-opted the concept into their faiths they decided it should be so. Good for them – but it is irrational of them to believe that they have any right to impose their religious beliefs on others.
And it’s not just the religious arguments that are irrational. So too are the philosophical arguments, those without religious foundation. And yet these sane (and not so sane) and decent (and not so decent) people cannot see the irrationality underlying their arguments. They are blind to it, and in many cases they are completely incapable of opening their eyes.
Now, I can completely understand that some parents have concerns about what their children are exposed to at school. I have no children, yet, but when I do I imagine I will share their concern, though obviously I will be worried about my children being exposed to rather different things, like prejudice, hatred and blind religious bullshit.
That said, I firmly believe it is the responsibility of schools to present children with a balanced viewpoint on a variety of issues, including gay marriage. Do I want my children exposed to the irrational religious and philosophical arguments against gay marriage? No, but I would rather they learned about these things and developed their own opinions than became mini-clones of me.
It is entirely natural for a parent to want to protect their child. It is entirely natural for a parent to be concerned about what their child is exposed to. However, it is entirely irrational to think that you can control everything your child sees, hears, thinks and feels.
What these parents fear is not so much that their children will learn about gay marriage and decide to be gay, but more that they will hear opinions other than their own and actually start to think for themselves – and maybe in the process realise that blind hatred is neither in keeping with their religious/moral values, nor even remotely rational.
Our only agenda is to be treated as human beings. I love how the religious right loves to paint us in such a negative light. Looking back on the history of world religions they have been used as a force of evil, not good. They preach being close to the source of life whatever anyone wants to call it but those in positions of power use it to shame, punish, and ultimately destroy those who do not follow it. Let me be clear…you can believe in God and have a spiritual life without being under the spell of organizational mind control. You can have a moral core and set of ethics without reading a bible that tells you the views of a select few and accepting it as the word of God. As human beings we are given our own mind to make our own judgements and to live our lives as we see fit. This is a universal truth and in the end it will reign supreme as it always does.
I get so tired of the religious right and the so called gay agenda. Where does it say schools must teach gay sex? Or we our out to recuit more straights to be come gay?
As former teacher I remember that back in the 1920’s the religious right at time forced upon the American Public Prohibition of Liquor as way to solve all the ills and problems of American Society.