Let's Not "Thank" Rick Warren

I had very mixed emotions a while back when I read that some gay/LGBT organizations were offering praise to homophobic pastor Rick Warren.

Some months ago, in an interview on ABC, Warren [pictured] -- claiming he had gay friends [no self-respecting gay person would want Warren for a friend] -- basically confirmed that he thought homosexuality was immoral and that "decent" homosexuals should abstain from any gay relations or relationships. He said that even though he was attracted to other women at times, he "abstained" from affairs out of decency. Similarly -- to his way of thinking -- a "decent" gay person should abstain his or her entire life from having homosexual relationships! "It's all about character," he said.

In other words, it was better to be a closet case, an "ex-gay," or be in a sham relationship with a member of the opposite sex than to be Out and Proud and in a happy relationship with a member of your own sex! Those of us who are not ashamed or guilt-wracked over being gay are of low character.

Okay, I get why some LGBT activists recently applauded Warren when he spoke out against a anti-homosexual Ugandan hate bill, saying it was "extreme, unjust and unchristian toward homosexuals." I get that some gay activists feel that the more "Christians" who speak out against hate bills, the better it will be for the gay community in the long run.

But at the same time -- just look at who they're praising!!!

True, Rick Warren may not want gay people to be put to death, but he wants us to lead lives of self-denial and self-hatred -- which is more or less the same.

So he spoke out against the Ugandan hate bill on youtube. Good for him -- and big deal! It's essentially attitudes like Warren's that lead directly to the extreme measures taken against gays in other nations, and the prejudice and hatred that still exists in the good ol' USA.

So, we can say that Warren may be doing the right thing here, but praising him, acting like he's an ally?

That is just ridiculous!

This illustrates my problem with the comparative weak-tea approach of gay activism today. Can you imagine New York's militant Gay Activists Alliance praising Rick Warren? We may have said he was doing the right thing for a change, but we would never have let it pass that he himself was a homophobe of the first rank, negatively influencing millions of Americans about gay men and lesbians. It's his attitude that keeps many gay people in the closet, creates self-hatred in innumerable gay men and lesbians, and leads to suicides among gay teens, especially in the bible belt.

Praise?

Indeed!

Of Priests and Pedophiles

I confess I'm getting awfully tired of child abuse among the Catholic clergy being blamed on homosexual priests and on celibacy. Homophobic Catholics want to blame all the "fags" who somehow managed to get into the priesthood, and -- to my surprise -- there are gay activists who claim the celibacy rule is responsible for the abuse. Say what?

By this thinking, the vow of celibacy is responsible for priests molesting little boys [and on occasion little girls]. But think about it: if a priest is going to break his vow of celibacy anyway, why do it with a child? There have been plenty of cases of priests having affairs with women and other adult males -- I remember one news program did a report on a priest who'd fathered about a dozen children! -- which seems to prove that even priests will go with their instincts. A hetero priest [all two or three of them] wants sex with women; a gay priest wants sex with men ...

And a pedophile priest wants sex with children.

Because, apparently, there have been more cases of abuse among boys than girls, the gay priests have been blamed for the epidemic of abuse. But any sensible person knows that there is a big difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, and that supposedly homosexually-inclined individuals are no more likely to molest a child than their heterosexual equivalents. There have even been cases where some men have had sex with boys but have no interest in having sex with adult males. And cases where men are attracted to both boys and girls, the youth being of more importance than the gender.

I firmly believe that most of the priests doing the abuse are pedophiles first and priests second. They are attracted to the priesthood the way other child molesters are attracted to other vocations because they know they will have access to young people and will also be in a position of trust. Child molesters are sexual predators, and we all know -- or should know -- the lengths to which sexual predators will go to claim a victim. On the surface it may seem absurd that a man would become a priest just to have access to children, but sexual predators are consumed with thoughts of their prey and how they can get their hands on them. Many of them seek jobs which would place them in close proximity to the very ones they want to victimize.

In any case, these priests are not gay men [hardly Out and Proud gay men in any case]. They are pedophiles. And even if they were allowed to marry or didn't have to take a vow of celibacy, they would still spend most of their waking hours scheming how to get their hands on their victims. Even the ones who honestly -- if that's the word for it -- felt the "calling" to the priesthood did so because they knew their sexual desires were verboten and placed them outside the norm. They had no problem taking a vow of celibacy because they had no real desire either for men or women. And they probably fool themselves into thinking that their actions with children don't constitute true "sex" -- in that they're right, as molestation/rape etc are not healthy sexual acts -- so they haven't broken their vows.

Moving from pedophile priests to homosexual ones, these are men who are so full of self-hatred, so ashamed of their natural desires, that they'd rather have no sex for the rest of their lives than have sex with another man. They not only have no problem taking a vow of celibacy, but indeed hope that it will help keep them "pure" for the rest of their lives -- while they go about like capons making sympathetic noises to troubled members of the parish and doing whatever it is priests do. Including denouncing the gay lifestyle and spreading homophobia.

But when they do break their vows and have sex, it isn't with children -- it's with grown-up guys.

Gay Teens Coming Out in the New York Times

The September 27th 2009 New York Times Magazine section had an interesting article entitled "Coming Out in Middle School" by Benoit Denizet-Lewis. [I believe he's the same guy who wrote the piece about young gay couples a few months ago, the one with the weird photos that made the guys sort of look like Stepford Wives.]

According to this piece young people are coming out earlier and earlier these days, at 13, 14 or 15. These are not even high schoolers, but junior high schoolers. Most of the boys at that age identify as gay; many of the girls as bisexual. [Are there no lesbians anymore? Of course there are!]

A good point is made that it's offensive to ask a gay kid if he's sure he's gay when nobody ever asks a young person who identifies as straight if they're sure they're straight. No one tells straight-identified kids that they're just going through a phase, so why should anyone say it to gay kids?

Now it was awhile ago -- don't laugh, and you know who you are! -- but I recall having an attraction to men not long after reaching puberty, although by no means did I identify as gay. That didn't happen until I was in my early twenties.

I rigidly repressed my attraction to men all through high school and through most of college. I did not have sexual fantasies about any of my college roommates. It wasn't until I was 19 or 20 that I got a full-fledged "crush" on another male classmate. [Joey, what ever became of ye? He was a hot little guy. What is there about hot little guys?]

If these kids can avoid all the angst and drama and have a secure sexual identity when they're younger, so much the better. And for those who ask if they're "boxing themselves in" with a gay identity, what's the problem if they are? What's wrong with a gay identity? What's wrong with being gay? [Frankly I've had enough of this "sexual fluidity" bullshit.]

According to this article, some of these kids knew they were attracted to their own sex as early as age ten! Now I have on occasion met gay men who say they knew they had homosexual feelings as early as nine or ten, but it does seem a little remarkable as most people don't reach puberty until 12 or 13. Perhaps the "attraction" they felt wasn't exactly sexual in nature -- until the hormones kicked in. As for me, who remembers that far back?

As for the "how do you know you're really gay if you don't try it with women?" -- well, just try saying that in reverse. I tried it with women, and it was no big deal. Definitely not my cup of java. And please don't send me emails insisting I'm really bisexual just because I fucked a few women in my younger days. It certainly doesn't make me more of a man than gay guys who've never slept with a gal. But in our macho American society if you don't fuck women you ain't a stud, which is why so many guys who are -- if they're honest with themselves -- gay keep insisting that they're bi. Get real!

The article was hopeful in many ways. For instance: "Many parents just don't assume anymore that their kids will have a sad, difficult life just because they're gay."

And: "This is the first generation of gay kids who have the great joy of being able to argue with their parents about dating, just like their straight peers do."

Now, more than ever, self-hating homos just seem so ludicrously out of date.

Seriously In Denial

While surfing the net I came across an article in the online edition of U.K.'s New Statesman. A guy who called himself "Howard Lake" told of "My Night in a Gay Sauna." He sort of describes himself as being what we might call "bi curious," but comes off more as bisexual or gay. He'd always had these feelings apparently, and one night "after six pints" he went to explore them in a gay bath house. He had sex with a man, enjoyed it, but is convinced that he is, after all, straight, and will "probably" never go back to the bath house. "I know one less question to ask in my next relationship -- with a girl," he writes. Well... his next relationship may well be with a "girl" but that doesn't mean this guy is straight. "Straight" guys don't go to saunas looking for men to have sex with.

I'm not quite certain why the New Statesman even published this article. What was the point of it? Who was it written for? Conflicted "straight" guys? Gay men who are wondering about straights? Straights who wonder about gays? There's nothing particularly edifying or informative about the piece, and I can't figure out why the editors of the New Statesman would even think anyone would find it that interesting, or see any real value in it. It just comes off like a chance for this sad guy to supposedly prove to himself and the world that he's really hetero, when all he manages to do is pretty much indicate the opposite.

The responses to the article were predictable. His heterosexuality was, wisely, called into question by one correspondent. Another -- a female, I believe -- felt he really was straight, because apparently her boyfriend is, too, "85 days out of 100." She writes that "she wouldn't have it any other way." I think this gal is in as much denial as Howard is.

Now it's possible that the person with the 85% straight/15% gay boyfriend is a man. Oy vey! For the life of me I can't figure out or relate to these guys [a dying breed, I hope] who even after they have sex with a particular man still think of him as "straight." This is sheer idiocy. It smacks of these horribly old-fashioned "queens" who think "straight guys" are the ultimate treat -- an attitude that can best be described as pre-Stonewall, to say the least.

Of course, someone brought up the notion of bisexuality, and while I've been cynical on the subject, I have to say that he or she was right in that Howard should at least consider the notion that it's not always an "either/or" situation, that he could be bisexual. But if Howard is genuinely bisexual -- a big if in my opinion -- he sounds like the kind of conflicted bi who may want, even prefer, sex with men but will need to have that girlfriend or wife to show to the world. [I could devote a whole column to this kind of person -- there are so damn many of them -- and in the near future I will.]

What did I have to say. Here it is:

I think that "Howard" -- and the gal who thinks her boyfriend is only gay 15 nights out of 100 -- are in serious denial. First of all, I don't find Howard very "brave" -- he didn't use his real name, post a picture, and I feel he wasn't even that honest about what happened at the sauna -- assuming this story is even true. 100% hetero men have no desire to go to bath houses and have sex with other men. Sorry -- it just doesn't work that way. I agree that "Howard" is at the very least a "bisexual" man with serious self-esteem issues. The fact that he didn't act on his feelings for years -- and only did so under the influence of alcohol -- also indicates that he suffers from a bad case of internalized homophobia. Even today there is a great deal of homophobia and hence a stigma attached to being openly gay (openly gay people are the "brave" ones in my opinion) but not to being "straight." Many people who are basically gay but have some attraction to the opposite sex (whether you want to call this true bisexuality or not is debatable) fool themselves into thinking that they're really totally straight because they can't accept their homosexuality; they think life will be easier if they're straight. Sadly, this never turns out to be the case. Howard may feel that having sex with a man only convinced him he was straight, but he admits that he enjoyed it -- something that would not be true of a genuinely straight fellow. I have a feeling Howard will be having many more homosexual experiences in his future and will hopefully feel good about his sexual identity, and even be "out and proud," some day. And while it's not "politically correct" to say it, many "bisexual" people are really gays who haven't quite come to terms with their real sexuality. As for the gal who says her boyfriend is straight 85% of the time -- maybe her boyfriend is Howard! Or more likely another guy who hasn't quite accepted his true sexual orientation. Lots of bi (and often totally gay) men have girlfriends (even wives and children) until they reach some kind of self-acceptance in regards to their homosexuality. The wives and girlfriends ALWAYS think the husband or boyfriend is totally or mostly straight -- and most of the time they're wrong. Believe me, I know (having dated many men who turned out to have wives and girlfriends).

One last point. I have often said that a gay man can occasionally have sex with a woman and still be essentially gay (not even bisexual). Some might ask -- doesn't that work in reverse? Can't a straight man have sex once or on occasion with a guy and still be essentially straight? Nope. The reason for this is that stigma I referred to before, plus the fact that society drives us -- all of us -- towards heterosexuality not homosexuality. A man who actually goes out with the purpose of finding a man to have sex with -- as our Howard did -- is NOT straight. Even a man who winds up in bed or fooling around with another guy under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not straight. A guy can wind up in bed with the wrong woman because he's drunk -- a woman he may not normally find attractive, or his sister-in-law, say -- but no amount of beer will change a person's sexual orientation. In the gay community we laugh at guys who have sex with other guys and then the next day say "Boy, was I drunk last night!" Drunk, yes, Straight, no!