Wherever it has been established that it is shameful to be involved with sexual relationships with men, that is due to evil on the part of the rulers, and to cowardice on the part of the governed.
--Plato
It has been some time since I posted my first article detailing the obfuscation and outright mendacity of the religious right concerning the GLBT community. I recommend that you read it for yourself. I’m grateful for the perfusion of comments thanking me for my time in taking on these day to day misconceptions. While my last post only dealt with a handful of these myths and lies, I have opted to continue on in this endeavor. So let’s take a stroll down the lane of bad arguments and see what we can drudge up. As always feedback is not only welcome but appreciated.
Myth: People are homosexual due to sexual abuse.
My first encounter with this statement was shocking; as my reaction was that the man making the statement was thoroughly insane. Yet much to my surprise I have continued to encounter this sentiment among men and women whose exposure to gays and lesbians is minimal at best. Perhaps it began innocently enough with the simple fallacy of equating the experience of one person with the experience of all persons who happen to be gay or lesbian. A relatively simple “ad hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy has somehow ballooned into a quotation amongst the ultra-conservative lobby.
In my last post I pointed out that there is cutting edge research regarding the origin of homosexuality that points to a biological cause. Even among gay rights advocates, medical researchers, and biologists there is a consensus that at least some of homosexuality’s origin is biological. So where does this idea of an abusive origin spring from? As I stated earlier, I can imagine how a person could leap to this conclusion if they knew only one or two homosexual persons that were victims of childhood sexual abuse. However, it takes but a modicum of research to divine that this is incorrect. Yet somehow this theme continues.
Another possible source for this confusion is a study conducted in 1991 by Gari Remafedi (et al.) that stated that homosexual men experience a 34% sexual abuse rate in their pre-adolescent and adolescent years. However this study is flawed in it’s sample size and primarily because it does not separate whether the individual was abused after they began to self-identify as homosexual or before. Other studies (such as the studies by Debra Boyer in 1989 and Matt Mutchler in 2000) have examined the question and show that the majority of homosexual male sexual abuse takes place in their later adolescence after thye have begun self-identifying as homosexuals.
Rather than an indictment of homosexuality, this demonstrates the need for more sexual education among adolescence, particularly in helping them understand rape. Women are taught this regardless of their sexual orientation, which may account for the rate of female homosexual sexual abuse during adolescence being substantially lower. In the end we have scant hard data on the rates of pre-adolescent sexual abuse among homosexual men and women. So without a both a direct show of correlation and a peer reviewed demonstration of causation, there is no case to be made.
Why would you suppose that a person must have been subject to abuse in order to “become” homosexual? Obviously we are dealing with a social movement that tries their very best to demonize homosexuality. Many so called family groups go as far as to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. The opinion that one’s sexual orientation is born out of abuse is an opinion bred of ignorance and bigotry. In the eyes of the conservative right gay men and women are seen as less than, as sub-human. Personally I view this reasoning as nothing more than a step up from citing demon possession as an origin for sexual orientation. I invite anyone who has a question to ask not just their neighborhood gay man or lesbian woman, but go to the online community and you will quickly see that there is no direct correlation between being a homosexual and having suffered sexual abuse in pre-adolescence.
Lie: Homosexuals are more likely to sexually assault children.
This is one of the most insidious and heinous accusations lobbed against the gay community. It is also, fortunately the most easily combated. Since the 1970s here in the united states the GLBT rights community has been involved in a massive campaign of education. Popular prejudice and religious fundamentalism had, and still, create a shadow of ignorance. Under this shadow of ignorance fear finds a place to grow, for it is only natural that we fear the unknown. Yet we needn’t fear our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. And still the radical social conservatives have made abuse the banner under which they trample our civil rights. An issue so emotional and heart wrenching, it seems almost callous to some to point at cold and distant statistics. Yet it is by virtue of their cold and impartial stance that these issues can be understood.
Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts of sexually abused children in 1992. From these findings she determined that the molester was homosexual only 1% of the time, when identification was possible. That is only two cases out of a total of 269 [1]. The official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics [2] has been host to a number of peer reviewed studies concerning homosexuality and child molestation. One such study was concerning convicted child molesters. In this study it was discovered that less than one percent of the convicted predators of pre-adolescent boys was homosexual.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, another peer reviewed journal, found that of 172 child predators in the state of Massachusetts there were none among them that were homosexual. The Journal of the American Medical Association has one study showing that 90% of pedophiles are male and that 98% are heterosexual. These are only a few of several studies into convicted child molesters that have shown that homosexual men and women are actually far less likely to molest a child than a heterosexual [3]. Pediatrics Journal also states that a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a relative’s heterosexual partner than by a homosexual person [4].
This issue can also be viewed from a much simpler perspective. Homosexual men and women are, by definition, adults who are aroused by and seek consensual sex with other adults of the same gender. Pedophilia is defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [5] as the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent children. Homosexuality simply does not encompass the idea of sexual arousal by or around children. These are two almost mutually exclusive concepts and combined with the above data it is no contest to see that these claims against gay men and lesbian women have no foundation in reality.
Lie: Homosexuals want special rights.
One of the most pervasive lies spread by the religious right concerning gay men and lesbian women is that they seek special rights of which heterosexuals are not eligible. In a sea of ridiculous notions, this always manages to float to the top. It is simply an emotional appeal to Americans that the GLBT community wants something they haven’t earned, or seek to somehow elevate themselves above straight America. Nothing could be further from the truth. What rights then, do straight couples have that same-sex couples are denied? Marriage is an obvious one, but it is important. Homosexual men and women are denied from entering into this basic social contract. To date I have not seen one good secular argument in opposition. Without being able to legally declare the other person as a dependant a homosexual couple cannot benefit from one another’s health insurance. In some states laws have been passed that ban same-sex partner benefits [6]. The list goes one.
Without lawful recognition of gay couples a child cannot inherit from their biological parent’s same-sex partner. A gay or lesbian couple can be legally denied housing in many states [7] [8]. A same sex partner has no legal standing to sue for wrongful death, make arrangements for their partner’s funeral, or visit their partner in the hospital [9] [10]. A gay or lesbian couple cannot adopt in many states [11]. In others a person in a same sex relationship cannot even file domestic abuse charges [12]. According to the law two men or women who love each other and lived together for years are just strangers. And this institutionalized discrimination does not end with just a couple. The anti-gay stance of the united states military and state department are fine examples of a place where heterosexuals have rights that are denied to homosexuals. One of the most heinous and egregious violations of a homosexual man or woman’s civil rights is that in many states it is perfectly legal to fire someone, simply for being gay [13] [14]. So how does anyone think that gay and lesbian americans have the same rights as heterosexuals? All homosexual Americans want is simply equal protection under the law.
Myth: Marriage is a religious institution
This particular misconception is often stated as a counter argument to same-sex marriage. While it is true that the majority of wedding take place in religious context, that does not make the institution a religious one. As a minister I once knew was fond of say, ‘sitting in a garage does not make you a car’. Let’s look at what is actually required for two people to get married. First the couple must apply for a marriage license with the state. Now here is the first clue that marriage is not in religion’s court. Now the specifics of obtaining a marriage license vary slightly from state to state, but the process is basically the same. Next the couple must take the marriage certificate to an “officiator”. This officiator must be licensed by the state to solemnize marriages. Again, the details of who can be an officiator vary from state to state but almost all states state that ministers, community leaders, judges/justices, and retired judges/justices can all be licensed [15]. Let’s recap, first the couple has to procure a license to wed from their state government and then have that license signed by an officiator, who is licensed by the state. If a minister who is not registered as an officiator performs a marriage ceremony, or if a couple does not obtain a marriage license that marriage is not legally binding. What along this course makes one believe that marriage is a religious institution outside the realm of the government?
While it is simple to dismiss this argument on a factual basis, lets look at what this argument really means. Those who make this point are usually trying to demonstrate that the state cannot approve same-sex marriage because the church (I’ll get to fallacy here in a moment) does not support same-sex marriage. This position is preposterous on a number of grounds including the ones above. First of all, most who make this argument state that “the church” does not support same-sex marriage. What church? Does this include all the liberal Christian churches who openly accept gay congregants? Does this include all religions? Of course not, this is a myopic assumption based on the conservative Christian viewpoint of the GLBT community. Secondly we can see that even in opposite sex marriage a church is under no obligation to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. A church is free to reject someone on the basis of doctrine, there are already legal protections in place from discrimination lawsuits. So if a catholic church is free to turn away a protestant couple, so any church is free to decline officiating a same-sex marriage. Finally there is one simple reason why a religious objection is ludicrous, we allow atheists to get married.
