Darkside Rainbow

You know and I both know what people love to say about those Navy boys (and I do so love a man in uniform). Months out at sea with hardly a woman in sight? It’d take a lot more than military discipline to stop a few antics that would make a night in Vegas seem tame, and no doubt hundreds of Navy men have been guilty of uttering “I’m not gay, I was just…” …well. You fill in the blanks there, Jolly Roger. “What happens at sea stays at sea,” indeed.

Only this time, it didn’t.

Navy Doctor’s Sex Tape Trial Begins - Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Navy doctor accused of secretly videotaping Naval Academy midshipmen engaged in sexual acts committed a “flagrant violation of trust,” military prosecutors said Monday as the doctor’s court martial began.

Cmdr. Kevin J. Ronan is accused of using a video camera hidden in an air purifier in his home to tape midshipmen he hosted at his house last year. He is charged with seven counts of conduct unbecoming an officer, three counts of illegal wiretapping and one count of obstruction of justice.

The Navy began its investigation in January after two men, one a midshipman the other a former student at the academy, turned over to authorities recordings they said they found in Ronan’s home.

In his opening statement, Navy prosecutor Lt. Justin Henderson said Ronan recorded midshipmen either with partners or alone in his spare bedrooms, edited them down to the sexually explicit content and transferred them to DVDs. He said thousands of gay pornographic images were found on Ronan’s home computer.

Ronan “violated the trust of his midshipman sponsorees,” Henderson told the jury of six Navy officers hearing the case at the Washington Navy Yard.

Well, that just blows the lid off “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” doesn’t it? You know, I’ve always wondered where those porn videos of bona-fide military boys getting it on came from. I always just assumed they were actors (and despite what you’re thinking, no, I’ve never watched one to determine for myself, get your minds out of the gutter - and as an aside, yes, I did find it necessary and relevant to link the word “porn” to a site about Paris Hilton).

As stringent as the military is about ejecting anyone accused of homosexuality, it would be a little self-defeating to knowingly allow oneself to be videotaped in pornographic materials intended for commercial distribution. Such media could could be seen by just about anyone. Of course if a commanding officer happened to catch one of his privates (no pun intended) putting on a performance on a Grunts Gone Wild DVD, he’d then have to explain what he was doing watching said DVD…

Snark aside, I really have to wonder what kind of setup Ronan was running that he even had the opportunity to make so many tapes of midshipmen gettin’ down and dirty. Is it common for sponsoring commanders to say “Here; as your sponsor I give all you pretty little students permission to get your boots good and knocked while you’re weekending in my home”?

Now technically, my prior silliness aside, the AP article doesn’t say the tapes themselves were of gay sexual activity; just that there were images of gay porn on Ronan’s hard drive. That doesn’t mean that the images were necessarily taken from the tapes, although 365gay.com puts their own spin on it by taking the same article and titling it “Navy Doctor’s Gay Sex Tape Trial Begins“. Still…I doubt it was standard procedure to allow the men staying with him to bring women home - although I’m sure a few made it in anyway. It’s the weekend, guys are on reprieve, and they’re going to head into town to pick up women. But no doubt a few of the tapes - just by the law of averages - involved a few of those midshipmen getting it on with each other or with men they brought back to Ronan’s home. Who knows whether or not they ended up sold under titles like Military Maneuvers #3.

Regardless of the sexuality involved in the encounters, Ronan’s behavior still constituted gross misconduct unbecoming of a member of the U.S. Military (or at least unbecoming of the ideal of a member of the U.S. Military, as I think we’ve all heard plenty of horror stories about how military men can behave in certain situations). No matter what jokes I might make about the setup of the situation and the irony behind it…I do feel bad for those who were secretly taped. Many would likely be humiliated to discover that their sexual exploits had been published in such a way, and in some cases discovery of what took place on those tapes could cause problems in their everyday lives. I don’t quite buy the blackmail theory, and hope Ronan is prosecuted appropriately.

I’m done. Until tomorrow - happy Halloween, and anchors aweigh.

Maybe I’ll get myself a cute little sailor costume…

gays in the military, navy doctor sex tapes trial, kevin j. ronan, don’t ask don’t tell, gay servicemembers

I admit to being charmed by Barack Obama. His charm is one of his many assets, and it’s the reason he’s been pegged as the next John F. Kennedy. Part of that charm, however, is a certain boyish naivete that, while endearing, does little to reassure the shrewd voter that he knows what he’s doing, has a solid and well-grounded foundation, and will be able to lead with a clear and calm head. His statements give one cause to wonder if he even knows where he stands on certain issues, but it’s his actions in regards to the GBLTQ community right now that give me pause for concern.

Ex-Gay Gospel Singer a Hit at Obama Event Despite Controversy - GayWired.com

To many gays and lesbians, ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin was one of the last entertainers they would have liked to see headlining Barack Obama’s “Embrace the Change” concert tour of the South.

Those who attended last night’s stop in Columbia, S.C., however, must have thought the complete opposite, as they reportedly leaped from their seats when McClurkin strode on stage.

“We’re here,” the singer told the crowd, estimated to be 2,000-strong, according to the Associated Press. “We’re here and we’re glad we’re here.”

McClurkin got through the evening without mentioning the controversy he brought to the event and to Obama’s campaign. That is, until the concert’s final 60 minutes.

According to the Washington Post, McClurkin approached the subject subtly before launching into a full-on plea to those in the crowd.

“I just said yes,” he said of the invitation he received from the Obama campaign. “I didn’t know so much was going to happen,” the Washington Post reported. “I didn’t know my yes was going to mean I was misunderstood and vilified. .. . Sometimes people can take your words and do this with them,” he said while making a twisting motion with his hands.

Mr. Obama, do you know what the phrase “birds of a feather flock together” means? I can assure you that millions of voting Americans do, and that assumption will carry more weight with the general populace than your half-hearted protests. Even if you have your reasons for including an ex-gay minister in your gospel tour, you are a public figure and your image is, unfortunately, very important to your presidential campaign. For you to ignore that displays an astonishing lack of foresight. Were you making a stand on something unpopular and controversial and sticking to your guns despite what it might do to your reputation, I might understand making a move that might alienate many of your otherwise supportive voters while gaining the vote of many more.

This isn’t such an issue, though. This is a muddled middle ground in which you seemed more concerned with courting the votes of your African-American supporters with the inclusion of a gospel minister than you were with alienating your GBLTQ supporters by your association with an ex-gay minister. Being the unimportant smaller margin doesn’t feel good, Mr. Obama. It doesn’t win votes. And it can’t be appeased by a perfunctory conciliatory statement made by bland, impersonal press release; if it could, we wouldn’t be actively protesting your involvement with McClurkin, no matter how incidental.

Is this political suicide? Hardly. It’s an issue, and an uncomfortable one, but not so grievous an error as to cause a scandal.

But has it tarnished the lustre of Barack Obama’s boyish charm? Most certainly. The boy scout’s halo is slipping just a little, and while this slur might be set aside for the day, it won’t be easily forgotten.

democratic presidential candidate barack obama, ex-gay minister donnie mcclurkin, embrace the change gospel tour

Passing out for a while…really didn’t make me feel any better, unfortunately. I’m really not feeling up to one of my usual dissertations today, so I’m just going to leave you guys with some links to a few points of interest for the day. Sorry, guys. Hopefully a weekend’s rest will fix everything.

Song Links Saggy Pants to Being Gay: Although this is horribly homophobic and of course assumes that being identified as gay because your arse is hanging out (and apparently on offer), this still cracks me up. It’s part of a citywide campaign to stop “saggin’”, a fashion faux paus that’s been around for years: wearing your pants practically around your knees. The whole thing’s just ridiculous, honestly - that anyone would wear their pants that way, and that anyone would use slurs on sexuality to try to get them to stop.

Florida Prison Guards Disciplined for Allowing “Gay Wedding”: Officiate a fake lesbian inmate wedding that is in no way legally binding, and lose your job. No, I’m serious. Just because two lesbian inmates staged a fake wedding, the guards who allowed and witnessed it were either fired, resigned, or suspended. Not only that, but the women were separated, with one sent to another facility. Am I the only one who thinks that’s a little much? It’s not like they staged a riot, and prisons put on various inmate performances all the time, such as plays and talent shows (and reenactments of Thriller…). If they wanted, they could look at this as another inmate group activity, rather than flipping their sh*t and punishing people so broadly for something that basically has no effect anyway and didn’t place those gathered at any more risk than other group activities. Last I checked, few prison guards had the power of ordained priests anyway.

Gay Baby Creates Controversy in Italy: This one is my favorite out of the lot for today. I don’t know if you remember when Sihaya sent in an Ask Adri question regarding shock advertising and some interesting ad campaigns shown in Europe, but this is the latest in one such campaign: a newborn child with “HOMOSEXUAL” stamped on its wristband instead of the usual birth information. The poster was widely circulated in Tuscany, Italy as an effort to promote activism and awareness of discrimination. Personally, I love it. I think it’s striking, compelling, and gets a very clear point across. The people of Tuscany…not so impressed. Even gay activists there think it’s over the top. What do you think?

More Toddlers Infected With HIV In Kyrgyzstan Scandal: On a more serious front…the latest in the mess in Kyrgyzstan involving hospital staff accidentally infecting people with HIV has gone so far as to affect 2-and-3-year-old children with the disease, by transfusing them with tainted blood or injecting them with tainted needles. People have been fired over this, but that’s not going to fix anything for those children. Maybe they can be among the first to receive ready treatment from the latest HIV miracle therapy…but they’ll still be on medication for the rest of their lives.

Update on the comments contest

We are currently at 757 out 1,000 comments, leaving 243 to go. C’mon, guys, you can do better than that. (Or did I just offer crappy prizes? Maybe I should do another survey; that gets you guys talking…)

Oogh. Okay, sitting upright is getting to be problematic; I think it’s time to go curl up in bed with the rest of the day’s workload for my other job, try to plow through that, and then read my new book (hush, it’s a recaptured piece of my childhood) until I fall asleep. I’ll see you guys with a new comic on Monday; have a good weekend.

Ciao,
~Adri

Guys? I…feel approximately like a few pounds of roasted, fine-ground and filtered arse right now, and will be crawling my exhausted bum back into bed in very short order. I’ll post a real update later today, most likely around midafternoon CST. Sorry for the delay.

You all know I’m not a big fan of political correctness. (Or if you don’t, you haven’t been hanging around here long enough.) Sure, I believe in respecting others and not going out of your way to insult them without good cause, but I also believe in keeping a sense of humor and letting things roll off your back. I suppose I’m a bit of a middle-grounder in everything, from politics to behavior. I don’t really have much use for political correctness when it forces me to hedge and say things other than exactly what I mean, but at the same time I do know when to restrain myself for the sake of tact and courtesy.

So why am I rambling about my thoughts on political correctness? To set the stage for discussion of this:

‘DANCE LAWYER’ GAY FLAP - NYPost.com
SLAPS BACK AT ‘PHOBIC’ JUDGE

October 24, 2007 — A boisterously eccentric defense attorney yesterday accused a Bronx Supreme Court judge of being “homophobic” after the jurist told him to stop “dancing” around “in a flamboyant nature” in his courtroom.

“I know making reference to your, what appeared to be dancing as part of your cross-examination and your flamboyant nature as I addressed it, I hope it won’t happen again,” Justice Richard Lee Price told Robert Feldman. [...] “Just try to control yourself,”

The openly gay Feldman, 52, [...] said, “With all due respect, I mind your characterization of my nature of dancing around and being flamboyant as homophobic.”

The judge said, “If you think that I have done anything improper, you may certainly level a charge wherever it is appropriate . . . You’re certainly free to do that.”

Feldman said later he had no plans to file an official complaint against the judge.

“I give him the benefit of the doubt,” Feldman said. “I happen to think he’s actually a top-notch, top-drawer, intelligent judge . . . I don’t think he really meant to offend. But I do think it’s subconscious homophobia.”

Price, who is chairman of the court’s gender-fairness committee, said in a statement, “I do not know or care about Mr. Feldman’s sexual preference. His allegations are outrageous. My responsibility is to see that the jury is not distracted by his conduct.”

This is one of those situations where I can’t help but think they were both wrong, and at the same time, both right. The courtroom is a place for sobriety, and unless your less-than-decorous behavior serves to illustrate a point in your case, acting with less than the proper decorum can irritate and even offend a judge that you want on your side. I don’t know if Feldman acts “flamboyantly” in daily life and I don’t care. That’s his business, and his life.

I do know that when you go before the judge, you calm it down, period. That doesn’t just mean “acting straight”. It has nothing to do with sexuality at all. This applies in any case in which your natural form of expression involves anything other than a suit, tie, rigid shoulders, even tone, and quietly respectful behavior. If you normally have a mohawk and a nose ring, you comb that bastard down and take the ring out. If you’re covered in tattoos, cover them with something. If you’re normally prone to cursing every other word (…who, me?), you check yourself and filter every word that enters your mind before you say it. Judges have evicted lawyers, defendants, and plaintiffs from the courtroom for less. When the judge’s decision affects you, you don’t run the risk of alienating him or her. It may be too annoyingly conformist for your tastes, but it’s also smart. Sometimes you have to work with the system to get it to work for you.

At the same time, let’s say that Feldman is a naturally…we’ll say effete person. Let’s say he wasn’t acting in any way that was out of the ordinary for him, or in any way that was particularly offensive; just a little less than Marlboro Man masculine. It’s really hard to be sure from the context of the full article, as it’s presented in a rather biased slant. But in that case, was the judge wrong in calling Feldman out for his behavior? It’s quite possible the judge was personally offended by Feldman’s sexuality and let his personal feelings tint his perceptions of Feldman’s courtroom behavior, resulting in an unnecessary and unjust rebuke. If Feldman wasn’t going out of his way to “dance” and behave “flamboyantly”, as the article says, then the judge apparently just had a problem with the fact that not all of us are butcher than butch. There are some straight men who behave more flamboyantly than gay men, though. Would the judge have called a straight man out for the same behavior, knowing he was straight?

You can’t really know, can you? I do think Feldman’s accusations just exacerbated an issue that shouldn’t have been an issue to start with. Going so far as to accuse a judge of homophobia for demanding sober courtroom behavior was, in my eyes, a little too politically correct, and jumping the gun - but the judge jumped the gun as well, and wasn’t politically correct (or at least tactful) enough.

So in my eyes they were both wrong, and both right. Feldman should have done his best to maintain a proper air of respect in the courtroom, regardless of the basis for his behavior, but at the same time had the right to be offended by the judge’s commentary even if he probably shouldn’t have pulled the homophobia card so quickly. At the same time, the judge had the right to be annoyed if Feldman’s behavior was causing a distraction from the key points of the case, but should have found a more polite, tactful way to say so that didn’t involve any slurs on Feldman’s sexuality. In short, Feldman’s behavior was inappropriate, but so were the judge’s comments.

In the end, though, after spending several paragraphs considering this and seeking a final resolution, I can only roll my eyes and come to one conclusive thought:

Why is this news, and why did I just waste this much time on it?

justice richard lee price, robert feldman, courtroom behavior, gay lawyer, nicholas martin

Remember the discussions of ENDA and GENDA? Well, now there’s a new contender in the ring: DUMBARSE. That’s not really an acronym for anything, but in my current mood it was intensely satisfying to type that in all caps.

White House Warns Of ENDA Veto - 365Gay.com

(Washington) In its first statement on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would protect gays and lesbians in the workforce the White House said Tuesday the bill is likely unconstitutional and that if it passes in Congress the president’s senior aides would recommend vetoing it.

“[The bill] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” the White House said in a statement.

The House is expected to vote on ENDA, along with an amendment that would extend protections to include gender identity on Wednesday.

The White House raised what it called two examples of how ENDA would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685. A second concern is H.R. 3685’s authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

The administration also said that ENDA was result in unnecessary litigation.

“For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on ‘perceived’ sexual orientation, or ‘association’ with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.”

In addition the White House said that provisions of ENDA “give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.”

[...] “It is shameful that the President’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto landmark legislation to end workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Fully qualified, capable Americans should never be denied a job or fired from a job for non-work related reasons,” Miller said.

“Basing employment decisions on prejudice and not on merit is un-American and should have no place in our society. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an historic civil rights bill and if the President opposes it he will be on the wrong side of history.”

[...]ENDA, as currently worded, would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee.

There are, however, some notable exceptions. It does not cover small businesses, churches and the uniformed members of the armed forces. The White House concerns suggest that ENDA could be used against faith-based agencies and to seek domestic partner benefits from employers. The threatened veto is the second against LGBT legislation before Congress. The other is the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act.

[deep breath] Buckle in, kids; this is going to be a long one. I’m pissed, and I’m going to ramble. There are so many things in there that set me off that I don’t even know where to start, but I’ll try to pick and choose my points rather than going off on every little tangent.

“[The bill] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” the White House said in a statement.

Here we run into a dilemma, my friends, and the very first thing in this article that raised my hackles. Despite being a full-blown atheist, a walking and talking godless heathen, I believe strongly in the freedom of religion. Hell, it’s part of what this nation was founded on. I believe in freedom of religion as part of every person’s personal freedoms, a right that should not be taken away from anyone as long as it isn’t harmful to other people.

But I don’t believe in exercising one’s religious freedoms in order to encourage discrimination. Freedom of religion should never come before basic human rights. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; we’ve lost sight of the separation of church and state in this nation, and all other human rights take a back seat to upholding religion. Neither faith nor religious institution should come before the protection of basic civil rights. Yes, religious freedom should be protected. But it should come second to civil rights for the GBLTQ community, or civil rights for any group that is discriminated against based on race, gender, sexuality, or other traits that are one’s birthright, not one’s choice. To say protecting the rights of our community is unconstitutional is like saying equal rights for African Americans is unconstitutional, or that the right for women to vote is unconstitutional.

Faith is a choice, people. People constantly label homosexuality as a lifestyle; it’s not. It’s a trait. Faith is a lifestyle. Faith is an adopted set of beliefs and a way of life that you choose to follow. So don’t discriminate against people for what they are because you’re trying to protect people for what they choose. Protect both, but get your freakin’ priorities straight.

The administration also said that ENDA was result in unnecessary litigation.

“For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on ‘perceived’ sexual orientation, or ‘association’ with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.”

That, right there, is the only valid argument I can see against passing ENDA - from their stance, anyway. If the language is ambiguous enough it’ll create more problems than it solves, and open up ground for frivolous lawsuits in absolute droves, from both sides of the spectrum. If that was the only reason for the threatened veto, I’d say “Fine, you’ve got a point. Go fix the thing and then run it through the wringer again, damn it.” But it’s not. Oh, no, it’s not, and here comes the one that got me really steaming.

In addition the White House said that provisions of ENDA “give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.”

….

…….

…………

Wave that torch a little higher, Shrubby.

“Sanctity of marriage”, my tarty little brown arse.

I loathe the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. I always have. I think it’s an outdated, antiquated piece of filth that basically forces the religious views of a particular sector onto an entire nation, shielded by federal law. It goes against everything that “separation of church and state” stands for, by abusing the power of the state to enforce the power of the church, and it never should have been introduced in a modern age. It should not in any way be used as an argument against ENDA.

You know what? Maybe ENDA should be used against faith-based agencies that way. Maybe employers should be forced to recognize domestic partner benefits regardless of whether they’re a faith-based agency or not. I’m normally not a fan of aggression over diplomacy, but this is getting ridiculously out of hand. We’re constantly told that we should put aside our sexuality in the workplace, and therefore equal rights in the workplace and discrimination based on faith vs. sexuality shouldn’t affect us. Stay in the closet, pretty much.

Why don’t the people who protest our very existence get in their own damned closet? Why don’t they put their faith aside in the workplace in the same way they tell us to put our sexuality aside? If we don’t deserve equal consideration for who we are, why should they deserve equal consideration for their choices? Either we both win, or we both lose.

Or they can suck it up, we can come to a compromise, and we can have our basic human right to equality before they exercise their freedom in their choice of religion. It’s entirely unfair of them to wage their religious wars over our civil liberties.

Something’s got to give here.

And I’m getting damned sick of it being us.

ENDA, ENDA veto, employment non-discrimination act, GENDA, workplace protections, house of representatives, house speaker nancy pelosi, religious freedom restoration act, rfra, federal defense of marriage act, transgender, transvestite, transsexual, crossdresser, crossdressing, mtf, ftm, m2f, f2m, male-to-female, female-to-male, gender identity, gender dysphoria, transition, transitioning, sex change

[facepalm] I’m so not into Harry Potter. Don’t ask me why; I don’t have a problem with J.K. Rowling, I respect her talents and her accomplishments, I think she wrote a very good series with engaging characters…that somehow failed to engage me anyway. I guess it’s just not my thing. However, I just couldn’t pass this up. Half of my fandom-enamored friends are just about wetting themselves over the news that apparently, Rowling has announced that Albus Dumbledore is/was gay. (Is? Was? Series is over, so I guess “was” is appropriate.)

That’s right, the revered headmaster of Hogwarts was gay - and now it’s canon. As someone who adores seeing strong gay characters in fiction who aren’t wholly defined by their sexuality and whose sole point in the story isn’t just to be gay, I love this revelation. I also understand why Rowling would wait until the end of the series to make this announcement; I doubt Dumbledore’s sexuality had anything to do with the story, and if it had been known before he end of the series, he might have been seen as the token gay character. (…it might also have encouraged even more Dumbeldore/Harry fanfic than there already is, although I shudder to think that there may be a sudden upsurgence in such fics now that fandomers have this to work with. Scary.)

Now as someone who doesn’t quite get the obsessive nature of fandom…I’m just staring in wonder as certain corners of the internet practically explode with the buzz. Hell, I had to skip reading half of my LiveJournal friendslist because all they were talking about was this.

So there. If you’re a Potter fan, now you know, and I’ve done my duty by reporting on gay news in an one of my areas of personal interest: popular fiction. Incidentally, no, Richard Harris (pictured above) - the actor who played Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films - was not gay.

Everything’s news to someone, I guess.

harry potter, j.k. rowling, hogwarts, dumbledore is gay, gay characters in fiction

Sorry I’m so late updating today, kids. In a little personal (and yet at least topical to this site) TMI, I spent my early morning sending the boyfriend the dreaded Breakup Letter, making him the ex again for the second time in four years, even if I’m not quite sure he’s aware of it yet. I? I am going to happily enjoy being single for a long time. I go through about a man a year (better than a man a month), and I’m tired of it; besides, all I want is a normal guy, and it’s practically impossible to find one of those in the gay community. Trust me. I’ve tried. Anyway, I rather fancy the artful image of myself as the solitary, cynical writer, clove in one hand, drink in the other, and a stack of dog-eared manuscript pages on the desk in front of me while my glasses try to fall off my nose.

See? No such thing as a normal gay guy. [snrk]

Anyway. So I’m sure you’re not the slightest bit surprised to find out that hey, I wasn’t much in the mood for updating this morning. And I’m still not in the mood to go digging through the news for something to sermonize about. Instead, I feel like snarking on something a little.

Lately I’m noticing a growing trend in my site metrics: search strings that show that users are looking for a “gay quiz”. Not my Diva Quiz, but a quiz that will somehow analyze their personal habits, personality traits, and dress styles to tell them if they’re gay or lesbian. As if we somehow all share some uniform in style, habit, and personality. Really, a gay quiz should be horribly easy. And so now, without further ado, I present to you:

The Gay Quiz

1. Are you turned on by/attracted to members of the same sex, but not particularly affected by members of the opposite sex?
     (a) No
     (b) Yes
     (c) I like both.

Answers Explained

If you answered (a): You’re straight.
If you answered (b): You’re gay/lesbian. Wow, that was easy, wasn’t it?
If you answered (c): You’re either bi or gifted with a strong libido that doesn’t care whose leg you hump as long as you find satisfaction.

Now was that really so bloody hard? No? Then why does anyone need a multi-question quiz for that? Hell, it even works if you’re transgendered, as I know the gender questions can get confusing because some people don’t quite get that you define your sexuality after you define your gender identity. If you’re FtM and you’re attracted to guys, you’re gay; attracted to girls, you’re straight (and woe on the person who calls you a lesbian). If you’re MtF and you’re attracted to women, you’re a lesbian; attracted to guys, you’re straight (and hell will befall the person who calls you a gay man). Still easy.

Now if you’re androgynous/genderqueer/asexual…um…you just are what you are. Have fun.

I’m gone. I’m thinking this is a weekend to curl up with a martini, the cat, and a good book. Enjoy your weekend, kiddos.

gay quiz, boyfriends, gay and lesbian quiz, are you gay, are you a lesbian

That’s right, today’s post deserves a cat-macro-ish title.

Del posted a link in a comment to yesterday’s post that was OT for the post, but perfect for a new post today. While I already discussed my take on it in the comments, I’d like to bring it up here for general discussion to get everyone else’s views on it as well as elaborate further myself now that I’ve had time to reread the article and think more on it. Here’s an excerpt:

Principal bans parents from pro-’gay’ seminar - WorldNetDaily
Public district students offered guidance on being homosexual

Administrators at North Newton High School in Newton, Mass., have held a seminar for students that explained how to know they are homosexual, but banned parents from attending.

“It’s absolutely insane,” parent Brian Camenker, who also is chief of the Mass Resistance organization, said. “I met with the principal. She told me no parents are allowed. She said only by invitation. I asked, ‘Can I be invited.’ She said, ‘No.’”

The event, called “ToBeGlad Day,” was the school’s “Transgender Bisexual Gay Lesbian Awareness Day,” and students were given a pamphlet that explains what it means to be “gay,” tells students how they are supposed to know if they are “gay,” and responds to the question, “Will I ever have sex?”

News of the event comes just a day after WND reported on a case at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., where school officials ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

“This is very, very scary stuff,” Camenker said. “The pamphlet also lists places kids can go to meet homosexuals. How would something like this affect a kid who might be going through a confused and vulnerable time in his life? Well … the school isn’t interested in what YOU think.”

The Newton principal, Jennifer Price, didn’t return a message WND left seeking a comment on the event.

Now, WND has a reputation for right-wing sensationalism and craziness on the levels of Fred Phelps, right down to the same wild speculation and biased accusations.

That said…there’s something wrong when I actually understand a little of where they’re coming from - even if I doubt the accuracy of their reported facts.

I don’t have any children of my own, but I’ve been in the role of the parent. I have a half-brother eighteen years my junior, from my father’s second marriage; I stayed with my father for a short while after university while I found a job so I could move out on my own, and during that time guess who took on the full-time role of parent while my father was at work and my stepmother was being useless parked in front of the Home Shopping Network? That’s right, me. Hell, to this day I’m the only one who can get the kid to clean his room, even if I have to do it long-distance.

If my little brother came home and told me that the school had him attend a mandatory seminar on homosexuality without my prior knowledge or told me they were holding a seminar but I wasn’t allowed to attend unless invited (I’m not going to get into the whole “deliberately hiding it from the parents” thing, as I doubt the accuracy of that), I’d be righteously pissed - and I’m gay.

It’s not the subject matter. It’s that the school would be choosing to educate a child that I helped raised on their view of sexuality without my prior notice, and without me knowing what’s being taught. It’s almost impossible to teach anything regarding human sexuality without bias in today’s political and social climate. Even worse, anything involving “no parents allowed” is going to make me nervous, because…well, what are they trying to hide? I don’t know if the children are being told that homosexuality is wrong, that it’s right, or that it’s a figment of their imaginations. Parents are very protective of their children, and are going to get their hackles in a bunch if you start taking control out of their hands that way. Showing an educational video in class is one thing; this is something wholly different.

I prefer to treat situations like this the way sex ed was treated in my high school. Parents were notified about the sex ed portion of the school year ahead of time, given pamphlets explaining the material that would be covered, and given permission slips granting their child permission to take the class. Most parents sign the permission slip and say “Go on, son, go learn about safe sex and STDs and the reproductive cycle. If you have any questions later, ask me, we’ll sort it out.” Some people don’t agree with what’s taught, or would rather teach their children themselves. They don’t sign the permission slip, and the kids sit out in study hall. The choice is there, giving parents control over how their children are raised.

It’s a noble idea to try to indoctrinate children into understanding and accepting homosexuality in themselves and in others. But if even a fraction of that article is true, then the schools mentioned went about it in entirely the wrong way. It’s basically taking advantage of a captive audience to push your agenda, and how the hell does that set a good example? This is the wrong political climate for that. Give us a decade or more of progress and tolerance and such educational assemblies might even become a mandatory standard, something I’d actually like to see. But right now? It doesn’t take a genius to see that taking that route is just asking for trouble and adding to the negative publicity we already get. How much common sense does it take to understand the concepts of tact, consideration, subtlety, and the old “slow and steady” adage?

Ur doin it rong.

And thanks for the link, Del.

sex education, homosexuality, education on homosexuality, newton north high school, newton massachussets

After the heaviness of yesterday, let’s lean towards something a little less serious but no less thought-provoking. For a little side tangent on the geek front first, the other day Lyndsey sent me an article about human/robot relationships that makes me wonder if it’ll be legal to marry a robot before it’ll be legal to marry a member of the same sex.

Second, the NY Times provides a short-but-sweet article that strains the bounds of credibility:

Vatican City: Priest in Gay Sting an ‘Exception’ - NY Times

A leading cardinal described as an “isolated case” a 60-year-old Vatican official caught on a hidden television camera declaring himself gay and making sexual advances to a younger man. The cardinal, Julián Herranz, head of the Vatican’s disciplinary committee, told the newspaper La Repubblica that such cases cause “sadness, assuredly, but we are aware that these cases are exceptions.” The Vatican official, Msgr. Tommaso Stenico of the Congregation of the Clergy, was suspended last week after being filmed for a program shown on Italian television. He denied that he was gay, called the filming “a trap” and said he was only pretending to be gay to gather information about “those who damage the image of the church with homosexual activity.”

I don’t think anyone’s buying yet another tired old “I’m not gay, really, I was just pretending, it was a trap!” excuse. We’ve heard it all, from “I was trying to see if someone else is gay!” to “I’m not gay, I’m just scared of black people!” My interest in this involves the spin people can put on it. What we have is an elderly man making inappropriate advances on someone who’s likely a parishioner, not only abusing his position but also - depending on the age of the “younger man” - attempting to make sexual contact with a minor. This is obviously a rather flawed individual. In your gut reaction - your very first knee-jerk response, not your later chosen response - how do you perceive his flaws?

(a.) Solely a part of him and his own responsibility;
(b.) Reflecting on his Church and its doctrines;
(c.) Reflecting on homosexuality and the nature of homosexuals.

I’m going to be honest and admit a flaw of my own here: my first thoughtless, biased, instinctive reaction was b, and I’m not proud of that. I’ve let the actions of certain branches of the Christian church towards the homosexual community taint my perception of their Church as a whole, and my immediate response was that his immoral behavior was a direct result of hypocrisy running rampant in the Christian church. Someone else equally tainted by the actions of a few less-than-stellar representatives of the gay community might say that his immoral behavior was a result of the immorality of homosexuality overall.

It’s hard to admit that you have those kind of prejudices when you’re supposed to be an advocate of tolerance. I’m human. I’m flawed. I’m subjective by nature, objective by choice, and I can’t always be the latter. I am not, however, using that as an excuse. I made myself stop and look at the situation again, and push my prejudices aside to recognize that the actions of one man, whether immoral or simply unfortunate, were the responsibility of no one but that single man - just as my own inherent prejudices are no one’s responsibility but my own.

It’s a little disturbing, the things that make you realize that you aren’t quite as open-minded as you’d like to think, even if you’re working on it. I think sometimes those of us who stand on this side of things often don’t quite realize that we’re turning the prejudices and hatred thrown at us around and flinging it right back, often unfairly and unjustly. We like to point the finger, but we don’t always point it in the right direction.

So which way was your finger pointing?

human-robot relationships, tommaso stenico, julian herranz, gay clergy, gay priest, vatican

I just read something that wholly sickened me; the only reason I’m not crying right now is because I don’t want to become the next Chris Crocker. I need to stop and take a deep breath before I say anything else. While I do that, I’ll let the article I read speak for itself. I can promise you that it speaks loudly, and quite clearly.

Uganda Cleric Calls for Annihilation of Gays - 365Gay.com

Uganda’s leading Muslim cleric has proposed to President Yoweri Museveni that gays be rounded up and marooned on an island in Lake Victoria until they die.

Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje told reporters of his plan following a much publicized meeting with Museveni.

“I asked President Museveni to get us an island on Lake Victoria and we take these homosexuals and they die out there,” Mubajje told a news conference.

“If they die there then we shall have no more homosexuals in the country.”

Others at the meeting reportedly said that the president did not respond to the suggestion.

Uganda outlaws male homosexuality, under laws originally imposed by the British colonizers in the nineteenth century. Offenders can face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment

Mubajje’s remarks follow similar threats by other Islamic leaders.

Recently, Muslim Tabliqh youth announced a plan to form an ‘Anti-Gay Squad’ to fight homosexuality in Uganda.

Before we invoke Godwin’s law, I want you to stop. I want you to read that again. Go read the full article. Read about the possibility that the Bush administration has even been funding groups that advocate violence against gays and and lesbians. And then I want you to put another demographic in the place of gays. If you, dear reader, are against gay rights, stumbling by here by some accident or here by purpose and by choice, then pick something else. Pick something that you love. Pick something that you feel strongly about. Pick something that you would fight for, damn you, and then say it again.

Pick women’s rights. Conservative values. Separation of church and state. Hispanic rights. African-American rights. Ending world hunger and poverty. Transgender rights. Breast cancer. HIV/AIDs. Freedom of speech. Pick anything you want, anyone who’s ever had someone speak out against them. Pick someone that you’ve spoken out against, perhaps violently, perhaps quietly.

Say it again.

Say it about the inalienable human right that you hold nearest and dearest to your heart, and then tell me - tell me how you feel.

“If they die there then we shall have no more homosexuals in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more feminists in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more of the terminally ill in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more Hispanics in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more blacks in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more Jews in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more impoverished in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more atheists in the country.”

“If they die there then we shall have no more Christians in the country.”

Do you feel that? That clenching in your chest, that sickness in your throat? Can you say those words out loud and remain unaffected? And so - is it then acceptable to say this of homosexuals, as if we’re somehow animals to be dragged out into the street and shot? How would Mubajje feel if we said this about his sect, if we treated him the same way?

You can say I shouldn’t care about this because I don’t live in Uganda. His fanaticism, his hatred cannot harm me. I’m in no danger of being left to die on an island in Lake Victoria simply for who I am, who I love. But I understand something that Mubajje apparently doesn’t: we are all connected. Even more, we are all people, all human, with the same needs and rights - and that ties us irrevocably together. Every prejudice that you have can be turned back on you in some way. We are all diverse parts of a whole and that whole is always in contention with itself. When you turn your hatred on others, you blind yourself in your righteousness. When you turn your hatred on others, you turn your hatred on that whole, and thus turn your hatred on yourself.

For that reason, I wish I could speak to Mubajje. I wish I could ask him to stop, and place himself in those words.

“If they die there then we shall have no more Muslims in the country.”

You don’t know a man until you walk a mile in his shoes.

So how would Mubajje feel about that?

Uganda, Muslim cleric Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, Muslim extremists, Muslim Tabliqh youth

Hooo…kaaaaay. My bad-news moratorium? Broken. I can’t keep quiet about this. I’ve been trying, for days. Days. It’s not working. I’m biting my tongue so hard it’s about to start bleeding.

Gays Banned But Military Recruits Increased Number Of Convicted Criminals - 365gay.com

(Washington) The Army last year again increased the number of its recruits who have prior criminal records by granting them special exceptions.

The Pentagon’s top personnel official defended the policy, saying it’s so stringent that many in Congress would have difficulty getting into the military today, too, because of things they did in their youth.

The military routinely grants waivers to recruits with past criminal behavior, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service.

In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 18 percent of recruits needed waivers for problems with the law - up from 15 percent the previous year, Maj. Gen. Thomas Bostick, commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, told a Pentagon news conference. He said 87 percent of those were for misdemeanors such as joy riding or violating curfew. [...] [D]efense personnel head David S.C. Chu said the waiver policy, taken as a whole, is a tough one and takes into consideration the whole person and his or her future abilities, not just mistakes the person may have made in the past.

One question they are asked, he said, is whether they have ever used marijuana, even once. “If you answer ‘yes’ about one use … it requires a waiver. [...] That’s a pretty tough standard,” he said. “Not to be cheeky about this, but (if) we apply that standard to our legislative overseers, a significant fraction would need waivers to join the United States military.”

Think about that last statement. Think about it really hard. I think that should bloody tell you something, genius.

Right now I’m seeing two obvious interpretations on this, from my (admittedly annoyed and prone to snarly speculation) perspective:

1. “Even a barely-functioning idiot or convicted sex offender is better than one of those stinking fags; we don’t want those types in our armed forces.”
2. “Take the criminals and the ill first and use ‘em as cannon fodder. Best way to get ‘em out of the breeding population and if the military doesn’t straighten ‘em up and set ‘em right, then at least it’ll get rid of ‘em so they’re not a problem anymore.”

Either option? Not acceptable.

(You know, later when I stop fuming, I’m going to end up rolling my eyes at myself for framing those interpretations in such sensationalist language. Y’know, just so you know I’m aware of how bad I’m being. I’m starting to think sensationalism is a job requirement for working in news media, though so hey - I’m on the right track, right?)

How much more ridiculous is this going to get? If you have a criminal record, you get a special exception and you’re in. Hey, we do it for politicians, might as well do it for soldiers, right? And if you’re too stupid to follow orders and so clumsy you trip over your own bare feet, that’s fine, we’ll just put you on the front line and push you in the right direction. You’ll make a great shield for the other soldiers. Oh, what’s that, you’ve got a heart condition? Don’t worry, a stray bullet will kill you before your heart condition does. You’re in.

Not you, though. Yeah, you, over there. The guy in great shape who takes care of himself and doesn’t have a single medical condition. The brilliant engineer who can probably put his skills to good use keeping people alive on the front line. The guy with the spotless record who doesn’t even have a DUI. Yeah, you? You’re out. I saw you eyeing that other recruit’s butt. We don’t stand for that in our armed forces, buddy.

I’m starting to think the people who make these policies were given a few of those special exceptions for low aptitude scores.

Don’t get me wrong, I wholly approve of forgiving past mistakes for the sake of future potential; I made a lot of screwups in my younger years, and I’m still paying for them and dealing with their consequences. I’ve learned to be a more responsible person because of it. People grow up, people change, people get their sh*t straight and move on to do some great things. My problem is that potential hazards are being forgiven for the sake of meeting recruitment quotas, but harmless homosexuality is still an offense that will get you booted from the military.

Unbalanced? Yes. Idiotic?

Hell bloody yes.

On a closing tangent, the man I ranted about in the killing of Michael J. Sandy has been convicted of a hate crime despite his dubious plea that he, too, is gay. I only have one thing to say to that:

Damn straight, baby.

No pun intended, naturally.

Since it’s Friday I hate to end with a down note, so for a little humor I present you with something I yanked off my site metrics: the strangest term anyone has ever Googled to get to this site.

“New Jersey transsexual husband lesbian bread.”

That’s so weird it bears repeating.

“New Jersey transsexual husband lesbian…bread.”

Makes you wonder what they were really looking for, eh?

I’ll see you monsters and marvels on Monday with a new No Style, but for now it’s off to get through one more day of work so I can enjoy my weekend; hope you enjoy yours as well. Say it with me now: na-na-na-na-na-na-na, tequila!

gays in the military, gay servicemembers, anti-gay discrimination, don’t ask don’t tell, military recruitment, service exceptions, michael j. sandy, hate crimes, hate crime legislation, murder, john fox, ilya shurov, anthony fortunato, seth lieberman, gerald di chiara, homophobia

Continuing my “I refuse to rant about the news because I don’t want to spoil my mood” trend this week, I’d like to tell you guys the little story that I mentioned in yesterday’s post. Yesterday we talked about Chelsea’s father; today we’re going to talk about mine. I’m going to get a bit personal, but I’ve done that before. I’m probably going to embarrass the hell out of my family, but I’ve done that before, too. And I’m going to embarrass myself a little, but…well…that’s definitely nothing new.

I love my father dearly; I really do. I love both my parents; I’ve just always had problems getting along with my mother, and went through a period where we didn’t speak for almost five years until Hurricane Katrina scared my butt silly and had me thinking she might be dead. We’re only now starting to deal with each other as adults, rather than snarling at each other like twelve-year-old girls fighting over a Hello Kitty handbag.

My Dad, though…we’ve always gotten along. He’s the quiet type, says little but thinks a hell of a lot, has a bit of an obsession with Billy Bob Thornton (Slingblade) and sometimes acts a little too much like him. He’s the kind of guy you can sit on a back porch with for hours, drinking a beer or two and quite comfortably not saying a damned word to each other. Just watching the mosquitos, watching the bayou, watching the Louisiana sky fade from a hard blue-white shell to a soft, deep rose that bleeds into twilight like watercolors running together.

It’s probably no big surprise that when I had The Talk with my parents about my sexuality, I was more comfortable telling my father than my mother. Even so, it wasn’t easy; first I had to get them to actually listen to me because they really didn’t want to know and deal with the whole “having a gay child” problem, and it was a long time before things settled down and my mother stopped nitpicking at me and making me feel like crap about it. My mother and I still have some small tiffs about it, though overall she tries to be supportive now. My father, in the end, took the news the same way he takes everything: quietly and calmly, thinking it over for a while before saying anything. In the end he told me if that’s what makes me happy then it’s my life, and I’m still his son and he loves me - and that’s been his stance ever since. I was and still am grateful.

Nonetheless, even now they still have those talks with each other. Those talks where they talk about me and my sexuality and ask where they went wrong, not really understanding that my sexuality has nothing to do with them or how they raised me, and I’d have been gay whether they abused me (they didn’t) or if we were the bloody effin’ Cleaver family - or even the bloody effin’ Addams family. They also can’t get this “wrong” concept out of their heads, but…they’re trying. [deep sigh] They’re trying as best they can, bless their nappy little heads.

Still, I wasn’t really surprised when, during a phone conversation with my mother the other day, she mentioned that she and Dad recently had another one of their little talks about “where did we go wrong with Adrian?”. In between making a few comments about my sexuality that set my teeth on edge (not out of malice, just unfamiliarity/ignorance), she started to tell me something that my father had said while a few beers under - then abruptly cut herself off. As blunt as my mother is, I should have taken that as a sign that no, I really didn’t want to know what my father said. She even said that I didn’t want to know.

In hindsight, I think she was right.

I finally pried it out of her, and when I did, I couldn’t believe that those words had come out of my quiet, slow-speaking, even-tempered father’s mouth.

“The only reason that boy’s gay is ’cause he ain’t had a good f***.”

…

Um.

Dad?

No.

I don’t think I’d ever really realized just how old-fashioned my father is, until that moment.

And I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted with my father in my life.

At first I was horribly angry when I heard that. One, I didn’t think my father was the kind of person to think like that even when drunk (that’s a Mel Gibson cop-out anyway, and we’ve all heard variations on the adage that alcohol makes a man honest), so I was horribly disappointed in him. Two, what does he know about my sex life and my experiences? I don’t talk about sex with my parents, unless my mother’s asking me uncomfortable probing questions and I give her just a touch too much detail to get her to shut up. It’s just not done, not where I come from. Talking about your sexual exploits and experimentations with your parents? Totally not on.

So my mother and father don’t know that yes, I experimented a little trying to get myself sorted out. Yes, I even tried being with girls to see if I liked it, and maybe I was just confused. And yes, Dad, I have in fact had many absolutely stellar f***s.

They just haven’t been with women.

I’m not attracted to women, and sex with a woman isn’t going to change that. It horrifies and hurts me to think my father would even think that way. Last I checked (now granted, I don’t spend much time rooting around down there), labia don’t secrete magical straight-making pixie dust that causes all men who come into contact with them to suddenly crave women - just like sampling a little cock can’t automatically make a lesbian want men. (Actually, it’s probably just going to make her want women even more. A lot of things come out of the tip of a cock, but they’re quite a bit messier and not nearly as pretty as pixie dust, and I doubt a lesbian’s going to find those things particularly enticing.)

To me, my father sounded just like your average chauvanistic straight male who will happily leer at a lesbian and tell her that the only reason she likes women is because she hasn’t met the right man to make her feel like a real woman, nudge-nudge wink-wink.

Yyyeah. Ha. No. I really don’t think so. Ladies? You want to chime in on that one?

I’ve never dealt with that sort of thing from a male perspective before, and to have it come from my own father just left me flabbergasted; apparently he thinks that I need the right woman to make me feel like a real man. I laughed when my mother told me, even if some of the laughter was sheer incredulity; more, I didn’t want her to know how angry I was.

I’m not so angry now, but I am at a loss, and deeply hurt. The worst part is that I know I’ll never bring it up to my father. My parents don’t really read this column; my mother glances at it now and then, but my father’s barely computer-literate enough to check his e-mail once a year, and I don’t think he knows I even write this thing. (He knows I’m “a writer” and I can support myself; that’s good enough for him.) The fact that I have a different last name from most of my family even preserves their anonymity, which is why I don’t feel so bad openly discussing these things here.

But I will feel bad if I confront my father about what he said. I love him too much to start a fight by telling him that I was angered, hurt, and deeply disappointed in discovering this side of a man that I’ve looked up to and adored for my entire life. It’s all he-said, she-said anyway, hearing it secondhand through my mother. You know family politics; if you act on something you heard from one family member about another family member then suddenly all three of you are in a mess, and drama comes raining down.

So I’m stuck with this. I’m stuck with the knowledge that one simple statement has changed my perception of my father so deeply, and it’s going to take a lot to change it back and make me believe that he really is the man I thought he was and the man that I, in a few small ways, wanted to be. Even worse, I’m stuck feeling as if his sentiment is somehow my fault, even though I know better and I’m not even the slightest bit ashamed of being gay. It’s one of those annoying, irrational guilt things that comes with family, and with love.

And you know what?

It absolutely sucks.

coming out, sex and sexuality, gay life, parents of gay children, mother, father

Thanks to everyone who participated in yesterday’s survey. The results were about as (welcomely) diverse as I expected, even though a largely female sample demographic may have slanted things a little.

I’m really not in the mood to trawl the headlines looking for something to get pissed off about today; I’ve been in a good mood all week and I’d like to keep it that way, so in the tradition of Dear Abby, I’m going to pull a letter out of the Ask Adri bag today.

Dear Adri,

My name is Chelsea, and I’m 18. I am fairly sure I’m bisexual. My I’ve talked to my father, with whom I’ve always been very open and who has always been very open with me. I am lucky to have someone so accepting to support me, however, I’m afraid it’s made our already strange relationship stranger. The dynamic of our relationship has always been different from most father/daugther relationships because my mom passed away before I was two years old. Gradually I’ve taken over, in some sense, the role of the woman of the house. I’ve also always reminded my father of his late wife, my late mother. He supports me and doesn’t seem to be upset about my sexuality, but he seems, at times, to feel betrayed. I only wonder if it is normal for a parent to feel betrayed or if it has to do with my rather odd role in his life. Was I wrong to say anything? Any opinions or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Yours truly,
Chelsea

In my opinion, it’s never wrong to be honest about your sexuality. Now as to whether or not it’s actually wise? That’s another matter.

In this case, though, I don’t think it was particularly unwise. Parents are funny things (and on that note, I’ve got a story to tell you kids about mine, but that can wait until tomorrow), but they’re also the people we turn to first for acceptance and understanding, and often those upon whom the most hinges. Regardless of what kind of relationship you have with your parents, reactions can and will vary vastly.

Your father may be less betrayed than confused. Nine times out of ten, a parent’s first question on discovering that their child is gay, bisexual, or anything other than straight is “where did I go wrong?” Hell, my parents are still asking each other that, and I’ve been out for years. It takes a while for them to get past that hurdle, and there are many more hurdles still to follow.

You need to understand that what’s been obvious to you all this time as you worked it out for yourself may not have been obvious to him, and he’s probably puzzled and thinking back over the years looking for signs that he missed - and probably kicking himself and thinking that he should have known. He’ll be studying you with a touch of bemusement, rethinking his perceptions of your mannerisms and habits. He might even be wondering why you didn’t tell him sooner, if you have such a close relationship and he’s openly supportive; and that may be contributing to that sense of betrayal that you’re picking up.

Even more, he’s having to reevaluate your relationship, and this is where your current role in the house may have some influence on how he responded to your coming out. Discussing your sexuality with him places him in the firm role of a parent, rather than a platonic companion. You’re suddenly his little girl again, turning to her father for acceptance. That’s going to upset the comfortable daily routine for a little bit until he gets settled with bisexuality as a part of your identity, realizes that nothing’s really changed, and things drift back to normal. He may also have questions, but not be sure how to ask them or if it’s even appropriate to ask them.

The best thing to do is just ask him about it. Since I don’t know what kind of person your father is, I don’t know if he’d take the direct approach best or if you should build up to it subtly, but I’m sure you can work out the best path. Just find a way to ask him, “Hey, Dad? Is there anything about my sexuality that makes you uncomfortable? Were there any questions you wanted to ask me? I’d be happy to talk about it and clear up anything that’s bothering you.”

Hope that was at least a tiny bit helpful.

Taking a stab in the dark,
~Adri

ask adri, gay advice column, bisexuality, coming out, coming out to your parents

A brief bit of discussion on the delurking post from last week regarding an apparent minority of gay Republicans (who seemed surprised to discover each other here) made me start wondering about political orientation, sexuality, and how much the former is affected by the latter. There is a general assumption that most homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders will be far-left, very liberal, definitely Democrats whose major political hot button is always GBLTQ rights - but is that really true?

Out of curiosity I put together this quick ten-question survey for my readers here. I like learning about you guys (and gals, and everything outside and in between), and hearing about varying viewpoints from all over the rainbow spectrum – so if you could take just a minute to take this survey, I’d really appreciate it. You can answer with just the letters, or you can add your expanded views on each question; it’s up to you how much or how little you want to say.

Now I’m aware, due to the type of site that this is, that the general reader base is going to be a bit slanted in a certain direction - so the survey is more a sample of the general feelings of the GBLTQ community and its supporters. If, however, you have friends that don’t quite agree with you on GBLTQ issues and you think they’d be interested in the survey, feel free to send ‘em this way; I’d love to hear from them as well.

Enough out of me; on with the survey!

1. I am:
     (a) gay/lesbian
     (b) straight
     (c) bisexual
     (d) transgender
     (e) questioning/not really sure
     (f) asexual

2. My gender:
     (a) female (biological or MtF)
     (b) male (biological or FtM)
     (c) biologically intersexed
     (d) androgynous/genderqueer

3. My age:
     (a) Under 13 (what are you doing on this site, kiddo?)
     (b) 13-17
     (c) 18-25
     (d) 26-35
     (e) 36-45
     (f) 46 or older

4. My “out” status:
     (a) completely out of the closet
     (b) only out to some people
     (c) totally closeted
     (d) I already told you I’m straight, you daffy blighter.

5. My political affiliation is:
     (a) Republican
     (b) Democrat
     (c) Independent
     (d) Other (please specify)
     (e) Pointedly Disinterested (which gets caps because it’s a large
     enough faction to be its own party)

6. I consider myself:
     (a) very conservative
     (b) moderately conservative
     (c) a fence-straddler
     (d) moderately liberal
     (e) very liberal
     (f) I really can’t stand the terms “liberal” and “conservative”.

7. I plan to vote in the 2008 US Presidential election:
     (a) yes
     (b) no
     (c) only if a candidate I can really endorse is on the ballot
     (d) I’m not old enough to vote
     (e) I’m not a US citizen and don’t much care for your elections, aside
     from hoping you don’t do anything silly. Again.

8. I feel that my sexuality affects my political leanings:
     (a) only a little
     (b) only a lot
     (c) not at all

9. A candidate’s stance on GLBTQ issues affects my view of them:
     (a) very strongly
     (b) moderately
     (c) only a teensy bit
     (d) not at all

10. The political issue that I feel the most strongly about is ___________________. (No, this one’s not multiple choice. Fill in the blank, hm? I’m not going to assume what your issues might be. Feel free to elaborate as much as you want.)

---

If you don’t want to discuss your political views and sexuality openly, you can post anonymously; in the section of the comments field that asks for your name, just fill in “Anonymous” or “None of Your Business” or anything you want other than your own name or the name you use most commonly on the site. Also, if I left an answer off that you feel better applies to you than any of the options available, then write it in; if you want to address a related question that I didn’t ask, such as “Do you think party platforms make them more attractive to people of a certain sexuality?” or anything else, knock yourselves out. Feel free to discuss your responses with each other, or ask me any questions about mine. And if you’re wondering what my answers are:

 

1. a; 2. b; 3. d; 4. a; 5. c; 6. f; 7. a; 8. a; 9. b; 10. separation of church and state.

And I’m done for now. I may post again later today; I haven’t skimmed the news yet, so I don’t know if there’s anything in current events/gay life that I might find rant-worthy - though on an off-topic slant, some people might find this just a little infuriating (although I’ll leave any ranting on that to more qualified people, such as my various readers or April over at Her Daily News). In case I don’t post again, though…see ya’ll (yes, ya’ll, so shoot me for being Southern - at least I don’t have the accent) tomorrow.

~Adri

Edit: It’s been brought to my attention that in my sleepy thoughtlessness, I left “asexual” off the choices for sexuality. It’s on there now. Sorry for the oversight.

gbltq politics, lgbt politics, gay and lesbian politics, gay republicans, gay democrats, 2008 presidential elections, sexuality and politics