Just stop talking about how gay gay people are. Comedian Daniel-Ryan Spaulding turns the tables and talks to a straight guy the way straight people talk to gay people. It’s hilarious in the oh-my-god-I’ve-actually-been-that-obnoxious-and-clueless kind of way.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Gay Stuff: That Happened

Is the NFL Really that Homophobic? Because Michael Sam and Being Gay are not the Issues

Strangers Kissing is So Last Week: How About Homophobes Hugging Gay People? [Video]

The post This is How You Sound When You Talk to Gay People [Video] appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnThat Happened gets back to one of its core causes: gay stuff! This week in homophobia…

Meet South Dakota State Rep. Steve Hickey — the leader in the campaign to educate people about the dangers of gay anal sex.

Hickey wrote a letter to his local paper called, “A One Way Alley for the Garbage Truck.” Now, I’m no poet, but I think the alley is a butthole and the garbage truck is poop.

We are left to assume the “alley” belongs to a dude, but he didn’t specify in this homophobic tirade against anal sex, so we can’t be sure.

One new thing I learned from Hickey is that gay men are the only people into buttsex — despite all pornographic and living in the modern world evidence to the contrary.

But, he’s just not being homophobic. He has genuine concerns about medical issues associated with homosexuality (which he seems to equate directly with anal sex) and he’s asking for input from doctors:

South Dakota docs, it’s time for you to come out of the closet and give your professional opinion on this matter like you capably and responsibly do on all the others. Somehow the message we are presently getting from the medical community is that eating at McDonalds [sic] will kill us but the gay lifestyle has no side effects. Truth be told it seems self-evident the list of side effects would read far longer than anything we hear on a Cialis commercial.

Woof.

One of his health concerns? Trans kids attempting suicide because of buttsex.

Linking his rant to the the South Dakota High School Activities Association’s consideration of altering rules to accommodate trans-identified students, he sites a stat: “41% of those who struggle with Gender Dysphoria attempt suicide, that’s twenty-five times the rate of the general population.”

He’s attempting to connect mental health issues and man-on-man anal sex, which is sort of confusing because that certainly doesn’t cover everyone who identifies somewhere other than strictly male or female on the gender identity scale.

Additionally, it 100 percent ignores the fact that suicide rates among kids dealing with gender identity could have a lot more to do with isolation, confusion and hateful bigots like Hickey than it does with what they do in their alleys.

What an asshole.

More from the mouths of the GOP

Don’t you love it when hypocrites are revealed? I do!

As Wonkette reports, it turns out that North Carolina State Senate candidate Steve Wiles, who ran in Tuesday’s primary and has been a vocal supporter for the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, used to be a drag queen. Yay.

Of course not every drag queen is gay, but Wiles did work in drag in a gay bar and numerous gay friends from back in the day have said some version of, “Girl, she was G.A.Y” in response to this story.

Wiles has tried to explain the gay away by saying that his anti-marriage equality stance doesn’t make him anti-gay because of god and stuff.

There’s a lot of flip-flopping here, but the story probably won’t matter much in the long run (or next week) because his career is going to suffer a blow.

That Happened is Libby Lowe’s weekly column for EcoSalon analyzing media, news and pop culture through a feminist lens. Keep in touch with Libby @LibbyLowe.

Related on EcoSalon

North Carolina Pastor Advises Fencing Gays In to Watch Them Die

Strangers Kissing is So Last Week: How About Homophobes Hugging Gay People

Gay Marriage Passes in IL

Image: Kenny Louie

The post Gay Stuff: That Happened appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnIn Arizona, a bunch of lawmakers agreed that a “No Gays Allowed” sign would be totally cool.

You guys, breaking news: Legislators in Arizona have worked out time travel! They have dubbed their new machine: SB 1062. There are a few kinks to be worked out. First, it only goes back in time. Second, it lands just before civil rights existed.

Earlier this week, legislators in Arizona passed SB 1062, a bill that would allow business owners to refuse to serve gays, lesbians and other individuals for “religious reasons.”

All jokes aside, if the bill had passed, this could have been really scary in terms of civil rights. And, when SB 1062 made it to the desk of Governor Jan Brewer, it looked like this could actually happen.

The Governor posted this on Facebook on Tuesday, February 25: “I can assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the State of Arizona.”

She was given until Saturday to decide what to do. If she didn’t sign or veto the legislation by the end of the day Saturday, it would have automatically become law. On Wednesday evening, she vetoed—but no one felt sure that she would.

Allowing a “No Gays Served” sign above the counter or on a store window is legalized discrimination. There’s no other way to look at this issue. None.

Logistically, this “turn away the gay” bill would have been hard to implement. What about bisexual people? Trans people? And worse: people who might look straight—but totally aren’t.

How, exactly, would business owners identify a gay person who tries to sneak into their establishments to spend money because, as well all know, gay people have zero self-control. Especially the men.

Oh. Duh. If he’s a gay man, it’s likely that he’s shopping while simultaneously engaging in a sex act—because gay men are slutty. So that’ll be easy.

The ladies could be more difficult to identify. Hmmm. . . a neighborhood watch dedicated to mullet-reporting? Maybe just don’t serve any woman who might hate men—you’ll be able to tell because she will not have at least one baby with her and will be wearing pants. Also look for flaming brassieres!

This sounds like a lot of work—but would have created jobs in Arizona, which is definitely something Brewer is interested in.

In a televised address on Wednesday evening, Brewer said that she hadn’t heard of one case of a business owner’s religious freedom being violated and went on to say, “Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non-discrimination.”

I would like to think she vetoed this bill because it is disgusting and wrong, but given her focus in the speech on Arizona’s economic Comeback (with a capital C in the text released to the public) and the pressure from huge corporations, including the Arizona Superbowl Committee—the big game is scheduled to be played in Phoenix in 2015—it’s not hard to be cynical.

The good news is that so many people, and corporations, stood up and said, “No, this is wrong; this cannot happen.” And those who fought for the bill? They will be remembered for who they truly are and that will be their punishment.

Related on EcoSalon

The Bachelor is a Homophobe

No Gays Here

North Carolina Pastor Advises Fencing Gays In to watch them Die

Image: Human Rights Campaign

The post Legalizing Hate in Arizona: That Happened appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnThe Bachelor’s hateful comments about gay people are just one more example of the power of words—and the danger of hate speech.

You know what I’m not doing right now? Watching “The Bachelor.” As some of you know, I love the terrible franchise and have spent way too many Monday nights gleefully hate-watching “The Bachelorette”, “The Bachelor” and — I cringe just writing this — “Bachelor Pad.”

I thought about giving it up last year, but ABC’s Juan-uary promos combined with Chicago’s polar vortex left me on the couch, ready to commit to season number 18,657 of this wretched shitshow.

Then, last week, a reporter asked our newest Bachelor, Juan Pablo Galavis, what he thought about a gay version of the show.

“I don’t think it’s a good example for kids,” he said, adding that a gay version of the show would be “confusing” and that gay people are “more pervert in a sense.” If you’re dying to hear more Bachelor stupidity, here’s the full interview.

There’s definitely nothing “pervert” about going on a reality show and banging a bunch of women on TV. Or nothing that will instill a sense of the sanctity of marriage in the mind of his own daughter better than seeing her nearly-nude dad take to TV to look for her new mama. It’s a journey, right!?

The Bachelor has since apologized for his homophobic comments (Jaun Pablo’s excuse is a combination of “English is my second language” and “some of my best friends are gay!”) and agreed to meet with GLAAD.

That’s nice and all. But the real problem isn’t simply that one more ignorant person has a platform for his views. The problem isn’t that kids might see gay people on a dating show, it’s that they will hear — over and over — that gay people are perverts.

A far more important story about the power of hate speech was also in the news recently — though fewer people paid attention. Daisy Coleman, one of the Maryville rape survivors, tried to commit suicide for the third time early this year.

Her mom, Melinda Coleman, wrote a moving (and Daisy-approved) piece for xoJane. She writes that Daisy (who is now home from the hospital) went to a party in an attempt to be a normal teenager. She stayed just an hour and, her mom writes, the online bullying started immediately. “She has been called a slut and a liar and told that she deserves to die.”

If you hear something enough, it starts to sound true.

“Daisy wishes that she could write back every single person who has reached out to her, but I have told her to focus on doing what she needs to do so that she is taking care of herself and her life,” writes her mom.

Whether it’s one jerk’s stupid comment about a whole group of people, or a group of bullies terrorizing an individual, hate speech is dangerous.

We can’t, and shouldn’t, try to stop people from speaking their minds. But we can, and should, make sure that the victims of hate speech hear our voices just as loudly. Even though they may not respond, they are listening.

Image: ABC

Related on EcoSalon

The Maryville Rape: That Happened

My Final Rose: Saying Goodbye to Reality TV?

Gay Rights in Aisle 3? Walmart to Support Same-Sex Partnerships (But Not Higher Wages)

The post The Bachelor Is a Homophobe: That Happened appeared first on EcoSalon.

But she’s a cheerleader! What to make of Kaitlyn Hunt.

Three years ago, the people of the internet—and more importantly, the ACLU—rallied in support of a teen named Constance McMillen who wanted to take her girlfriend to the prom.

Things ended well for Constance. Her school agreed to create a policy protecting students from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, pay her $35,000, pay her attorneys’ fees and expenses and have the court enter a judgment against the school. If she had lost, she may have missed out on the prom, which could be a “my life is over” moment for some high schoolers. But her life would have gone on.

The same cannot be said for Kaitlyn Hunt, the 18-year-old at the center of the most recent story about two teenage girls in a relationship. In February, the Florida teen was expelled from school, arrested and charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery of a child 12 to 16 years of age as a result of her relationship with her 14-year-old classmate.

By all accounts, the relationship was consensual—these girls were basketball teammates and friends. It also seems both sets of parents knew about the girls’ relationship. Hunt’s parents are accusing the younger girl’s parents of discrimination, claiming that they never would have reacted this way if Kaitlyn was a boy. The younger girl’s parents deny that charge.

The what ifs in this case are huge—and so are the stakes. If she is found guilty of the second-degree felony charges she faces, Hunt could spend up to 15 years in prison and be required to register as a sex offender.

This CNN report about this case is, well, weird. This clip starts with a reporter’s voiceover about Hunt’s life being ruined, and goes on to lament how she should be getting ready for college cheerleading tryouts in the fall (I thought she played basketball but whatever), but instead is getting ready for court. The message: This girl is normal. With blond hair and candy-colored fingernails, surrounded by her family, we are to understand that she’s not your typical predator. And she’s not. Unless you ask her girlfriend’s parents.

They have said they told Kaitlyn the relationship was wrong. So, they warned her to stay away from their daughter. I mean, I know it’s been a while since I was in high school, but since when do teenagers listen to parents about relationships?

The coverage ends with a reference to “her mistake.” Was it a mistake? I’m not saying girls will be girls, but let’s look at the facts as we know them. Two classmates were friends. Two classmates started dating. One was 18, one was 14. In Florida, no one under the age of 16 can legally consent to sex. But these are teenagers, and the 14-year-old is not saying Hunt pushed her into a relationship. And most teenagers don’t look up their state’s consent laws when they start dating a peer.

Let’s go back to the question everyone seems to be asking: What if Kaitlyn Hunt was male? Assuming the parents reacted the same way and the same charges were pending—which I doubt they would have—I think the case, in the media at least, would be clearer because people could spread the usual message: Girls are victims and boys want sex. Well, newsflash: Anyone can be a victim, and girls want sex too.

Last week, Hunt rejected a plea deal that would have allowed her to avoid registering as a sex offender if she pleaded guilty to lesser charges of child abuse. State Attorney Bruce Colton had said he would recommend two years of house arrest followed by one year probation if she took the deal.

I get that this is a tricky area. Like many teenagers, Hunt met someone at school that she liked, they started dating and things got messy. But a consensual high school relationship shouldn’t end in jail time, and the ACLU agrees and has released an official statement: “The ACLU of Florida condemns the prosecution of 18-year-old Kaitlyn Hunt. The facts as we understand them suggest that the state is prosecuting Kaitlyn for engaging in behavior that is both fairly innocuous and extremely common … This prosecution does nothing to protect Florida’s young people but instead causes a great deal of harm.”

Teenagers in same sex relationships have enough pressure from society, friends and, sometimes, parents. I’d like to applaud Hunt’s family for sticking by her and calling out the other parents involved for what seems to be a case of homophobia, not girls gone wild.

Image: Examiner

The post That Happened: Kaitlyn Hunt’s “Mistake” appeared first on EcoSalon.

A weekly look at sex and culture, by the numbers.

Fear not, sex-havers of EcoSalon, for if you don’t get the chance to attend Sex Trivia Night at Harvard this year, there’s still plenty of time to get tickets for this summer’s Air Sex Championships. We’ve got you covered.

10,000,000,000: Comparisons made between Lena Dunham’s new HBO series Girls and Sex and the City in the last month

160: participants in a recent study suggesting that homophobia and same-sex desire may be linked, officially surprising nobody

3500: number of sex offenders booted from Xbox Live and other gaming services in New York

23%: men who reported having “2 to 5” sex partners over the course of their lives to Esquire

9: number of cities on the upcoming 2012 Air Sex Championship tour

18: Age at which sex is now legal between a teacher and student in Arkansas, after a law banning that type of sexual relationship was reversed

7: days Harvard is dedicating to its first annual Sex Week, with programming like “What What (In the Butt): Anal Pleasure 101”

2002: Year that Yale first hosted its own Sex Week

The post Sex by Numbers: Ivy League Edition appeared first on EcoSalon.

Be pure. Be sexy. Be a nurturer. Don’t breastfeed in public. Messages to women are more conflicted than ever.

We live in an advanced era of cloud computing, virtual personal assistants and cars that can parallel park themselves. So why is it that women so often feel like we’re still living in the dark ages? The question of whether we should even have access to birth control is still a part of our everyday political discourse. Fathers are symbolically claiming their daughters’ virginity. We’re slammed with objectifying ads that tell us to be more sexy, then shamed for claiming our sexual identities. And perhaps the saddest part of all is that it isn’t just men who are forcing these forms of suppression and control onto women’s bodies; the pressure comes from other women, too.

Purity pledges

Young girls are such delicate, corruptible little flowers that their wise, protective fathers must not only rule their sexuality with an iron fist, but demand that their daughters pledge their virginity to them. So goes the rationale of the Purity Ball movement, engineered largely by Christian fathers as a means of control over their progeny’s blossoming bodies.

What makes this even more disturbing is the fact that these girls are not making this decision for themselves at puberty (and even then, they’re too young to realize just what their fathers are asking of them.) Girls are brought to their first Purity Ball at the age of five, where they prance around in white dresses, listen to sermons about living a “pure life” and pledge themselves to their fathers. Throughout childhood and adolescence, the girls are given ominous warnings of the “terrible consequences” of losing their virginity, and essentially told that they have no input on their own burgeoning sexual identities at all. Many girls receive lock charms on necklaces, the keys held by their fathers, who will pass them over to their husbands on their wedding day in a transfer of male power.

Of course, there’s no equivalent movement that attempts to force young men into pledging their virginity to their mothers. Because that would just be weird.

Virginity tests

Taking control over young women’s vaginas to a far greater extreme, virginity tests are the literal examination of a woman’s hymen to be sure that she hasn’t had sex before marriage. These tests are illegal in many countries, and Amnesty International classifies them as torture. That doesn’t stop them from happening all over the world, both in institutional and private settings. Some cultures require that brides-to-be undergo such a test before their wedding day. Last year in Egypt, female protesters were subjected to them by military authorities; an official explained “We didn’t want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren’t virgins in the first place.”

Because if they aren’t virgins, clearly they’re asking for it.

Think this practice is long gone in the west? The British government used virginity testing for young female immigrants until 1979, believing that if they were virgins, they were more likely to be telling the truth about moving to Britain for marriage.

Gender segregation

Women are told to sit at the back of the bus – in Brooklyn. In Israel’s Beit Shemesh, a growing sect of powerful ultra-Orthodox extremists are fighting to keep women separate from men in nearly all public settings, even preventing women from going to the podium to accept their rightfully earned prizes at an awards ceremony. In many other areas of the world, the segregation of men and women has been going on for so long, and is so deeply entrenched in local culture, that changing it seems like an impossible task. The problem is particularly troubling in Islamic cultures, where fundamentalists place strict limits on interaction between women and men who aren’t their relatives.

In many cases, the reasoning behind segregating women from men is preserving the “virtue” of women and the “honor” of men, the idea being that women are not only helpless against the temptation of jumping on any random men who cross their paths, but that the mere sight of women could corrupt and distract men who are supposed to be focusing on more important things. It also reinforces the idea of women as property, who must be governed by male overlords.

Reproductive rights

Our supposedly progressive president refused to relax restrictions on Plan B, preventing women of all ages from accessing the morning-after pill directly off drugstore and supermarket shelves. Our legislators threaten to cave to fringe groups that want to redefine life as beginning at the moment of fertilization, which would outlaw all contraceptives, including birth control pills. One of our Republican presidential nominees, Rick Santorum, not only believes that birth control damages society, but wants to make all abortions illegal, even in the case of rape or incest, saying women should “make the best of a bad situation.” A bill in Georgia proposed the persecution of women who couldn’t prove that they didn’t cause their own miscarriages.

In other nations around the world, women’s ability to make choices about their own bodies and lives are in even more desperate straits. Women are all too often seen as passive baby-making machines, essentially existing only to further the continuation of the species.

Breastfeeding brouhaha

Breasts are so sexy – except when you’re feeding your baby. Then, they’re just gross. So gross that people will go out of their way to yell at mothers trying to provide her infant with the best sustenance in the world, and shame them into hiding. The problem is, society at large only wants to think of breasts in a sexual context; we’re so far removed from the biological realities of our species that many people feel disturbed by the sight of a baby suckling. Some honestly believe that women only breastfeed in public because they’re exhibitionists or trying to make a statement, not because their babies are hungry. Some even view it as pornographic. It’s a sad state of affairs when a mother is told that a dirty public restroom is a more appropriate place to feed her baby than a table at a restaurant.

The great cover-up

In Saudi Arabia, women who are already shrouded from head to toe in impenetrable layers of cloth, even in the harsh heat of the desert, are being told to cover up their sexy eyes. If a man decides that a certain woman has eyes that are too “tempting,” he has the right to order her to cover them immediately lest she face fines or public lashings. In Israel, the same extremists segregating the sexes are spitting on little girls who are dressed “too provocatively” as they walk to school. There are even movements within America to return to some misguided Victorian celebration of modesty. Women have come a long way since the days when they could be institutionalized just for having a bad reputation, but they’re still treated as if their bodies are weapons with which they might accidentally (or intentionally) bring ruin upon themselves and the men who look their way.

Slut shaming and rape blaming

Well, if you don’t cover up, don’t expect anyone to feel sorry for you when you get raped. That’s the message that’s foisted upon us by modesty advocates and other groups who argue that showing virtually any skin equates to inviting violent sexual assault. And if you dare to claim your own identity as a sexual being, you should be ashamed of yourself. Slut-shaming has everything to do with patriarchal directives for women – how we should dress, how we should act, how we should conduct our sex lives. If we don’t conform, and especially if we dare to be aggressive about our sexuality, we’re ridiculed. Men, on the other hand, get a free pass – the more frequent and public their conquests, the more admiration and approval they gain.

Objectification

On the other side of the coin is the duality of expectations on female roles in society, specifically the wife versus the mistress, the modest and nurturing woman who is practically asexual versus the sex object that only exists for the pleasure of others. Both roles objectify women by removing their personalities and individuality. Sexual objectification is much more in-your-face, pushed on women every day by the mass media, treating women like commodities to be ogled and traded. For all of the pressure to be chaste there’s an equal opposing force pressuring women to be vapid, fleshly blow-up dolls. A prime example is a t-shirt offered by Abercrombie and Fitch (the same store hawking push-up bras for kids) emblazoned with the slogan, “With These, Who Needs Brains?”

Lesbian torture clinics

It’s no secret that homosexuality, another basic biological reality of our species, is seen by certain groups as something to be “cured.” But your jaw might just drop in horror when you learn that some of these “cure clinics” use physical torture and psychological abuse in an attempt to “straighten out” queer women. Ecuadorian activists are speaking out about 200 torture clinics operating under the guise of rehabilitation centers where both men and women are shackled, starved and sexually abused. Thankfully, a Change.org petition has brought about the beginning of the end to this practice in Ecuador, but we’re all too aware that there are still plenty of other groups across the globe that want to dictate who you can and can’t have sex with.

Female genital mutilation

Circumcision is a touchy issue, even here in America where it’s routinely performed on baby boys. Delve into the sticky cultural context of female circumcision as it’s practiced in Africa, and you’re opening a whole other can of worms. Some African feminists maintain that female genital mutilation is part of their cultural heritage, and one that “first world feminists” have no right to condemn – just as Jewish and Muslim traditions dictate that circumcision is a must for boys. But many woomen can’t help but feel that these practices were designed to control women by robbing them of sexual pleasure. Can you imagine a cut to your unanesthetized clitoris as anything other than torture? This is controlling other people’s bodies to the extreme, and truth be told, maybe we should leave everybody’s genitals alone and let them decide what they want to do with them once they reach adulthood.

Photos: progress ohio, tim & selena middleton, rutlo

The post 10 Ways the World Still Tries to Rule Women’s Bodies appeared first on EcoSalon.

Dear Editor,

My name is Leslie Hicks, and as a blogger in the eco-friendly sphere, I have read and enjoyed many of your columns, most recently the piece on AT&T vs. Verizon and their respective environmentally-conscious efforts. Most of the time, I find your columns to be interesting, informative, and I reference them often in my own tweets (@LeslieJHicks). Because I do read your posts often, I felt, as a reader, both qualified and compelled to inform you that the article by Libby Lowe, titled “Jesus, Enough with the Chicken,” is not only inaccurate in several respects, it’s embarrassingly misrepresentative, and reads more as a tantrum, which I’m sure was not Ms. Lowe’s goal.

Firstly, the title of the piece is not only blasphemous in a thoughtless effort to employ a pun, it’s insensitive. I don’t know how much of the Bible or how much about Christianity any of you have actually read with an open mind or with a desire to truly understand what you’re attacking so carelessly, so I’ll explain exactly what I mean. Blasphemy is defined as “1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable,” which is exactly what your title does (except for claiming attributes of deity). In case you’re unaware of why exactly invoking Jesus’s name in such a way is blasphemous, and thus, offensive, allow me to direct you to the place in the Bible which clearly spells it out—this site lists the Exodus 20:7 passage in many different translations, which is sure to get the point across. You may want to pay strict attention to the NIV, The Living Bible, and Revised Berkeley translations. The sentiment is paralleled in the New Testament as well (Ephesians 4:29, Colossians 4:6). At the very least, the piece’s title is unfortunately negligent of professionalism, and at worst, blatantly disrespectful to a figure Christians recognize as Lord. Do you want to take that stance as a publication?

A second issue I take with this article is that it grossly misrepresents Christian values. For one thing, the term “Christian values” links to another obviously slanted article on a religiously-themed amusement park, as if to conveniently, albeit ignorantly, sum up Christian values in that post. Could someone please do me the favor of pointing out one Christian value in that article (and I don’t mean what you think or have heard from anti-Christian, misinformed activists are Christian values, I mean values that actually exist, substantiated by Biblical evidence)? Also, no one is “hiding” behind Christian values to fuel “bigotry,” sorry. In fact, most Christians, Christians who adhere to the principles and commands outlined in the New Testament, (as most educated Biblical scholars know to be the standard by which we’re to live our lives, not the Old Testament, which is present and still useful for prophetic examples, for historical records, and useful accounts of actions), will not shy from telling anyone that being homosexual is an abomination (also repeated in the New Testament, not just in Leviticus, as some confused reader argued in a comment).

Since true Christian values appear to be unknown or disregarded by your writers, I’m happy to share some that apply to this column/social conflict: God created us male and female to be husband and wife—Genesis 2: 18-24, Matthew 19: 4-5; engaging in homosexuality is an abomination and gross repudiation of God’s law—Romans 1: 18-32, 1 Timothy 1: 5-11; homosexuality is a sin, yet can be forgiven like any other—Romans 3:23, Acts 26: 17-18; Christians are to love all people (John 13:34-35, Romans 13:8) but to not take part in or support sin (Ephesians 5:11, 1 Timothy 5:22); God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but will not tolerate sinful behavior (see Romans passage). True Christians, on the basis of Biblical doctrine, do not seek to dehumanize or mistreat homosexuals—we love them as fellow human beings, and will be the first to agree that bullying is never acceptable. However, a belief system is not synonymous with bullying. We simply do not accept a homosexual relationship as legitimate or recognizable on the level of marriage. As long as you’re entitled to support same-sex marriage, we’re entitled not to. A truly non-bigoted organization cannot argue that, especially if the organization it opposes is a privately-owned company with the same rights to religious freedom and freedom of speech. Not agreeing with the company’s mission statement is one thing—maligning that company as “bigoted” is entirely another.

Of course, I cannot speak for every individual that claims to be a Christian, I can only speak for myself and for what the Bible says or logically implies. I certainly do not condone each and every group or organization that claims to be Christian or to be upholding Christian values—indeed, some are indisputably racists, child molesters, bigamists, etc. However, an honest and critical thinker will hesitate to apply the word “Christian” to any that eschew Biblical doctrine but instead construct their own religion and ordinances.

I’m fully aware that very few people actually consider the Bible to be a true, reliable, and revelatory guide for living, but rather regard it as a simple collection of stories. You’re entitled, as free agents, to believe whatever validates and serves you the best—and, I’m sure, you do. However, it’s not just the Bible that says homosexuality is unnatural—science refutes many of the propagandist claims for its inherent nature and inevitable expression. Of course, the strongly suggestive lack of evidence for genetic inheritance of homosexuality has been largely ignored by the homosexual and advocating community. Please also note in the above article the mention of the inaccurate compound word “homophobia,” which, intended to describe one who is discriminatorily averse to the homosexual lifestyle, literally means an irrational fear of homosexuals, which is not the same as the lack of acceptance based on principle, and is likely nonexistent entirely.

Homophobia is not the only misnomer being employed among the homosexual-rights activist community. So too is “bigot” and “bigotry,” which is specifically used by your own Libby Lowe (and in your publication’s flurry of tweets as well). She describes bigotry as a deplorable mindset against the homosexual community. However, a cursory search of the etymology of the word “bigot” clearly reveals that the word was initially used as a snub of religion by the French. Curiously, that original use and context would in fact put you and anyone else who expresses contempt for and intolerance of religious ideology (“we won’t coddle,” as your tweet says) in the line of fire for being actual bigots. Bigotry isn’t confined to Christianity, as you allege—it applies to anyone who is obstinately devoted to their own prejudices, beliefs, opinions, politics, etc., and intolerant of others’. You could be accused of the same mindset you blindly accuse Christians of. Plus, the earliest English use carried with it the connotation of a religious hypocrite, which also doesn’t apply here, since any sincere, practicing member of the Christian religion which condemns homosexuality is hardly a hypocrite—he or she is a strict adherent.  No one who reads and lives by the Bible can credibly also say that being a homosexual is perfectly acceptable.  Too, bigotry has also been historically applied to those who harbor prejudice against a certain creed or racial/ethnic group—and, since homosexuality is not a religion, race, nor is it inherent, it’s not on par with the preceding categories and thus is (conveniently) misused as a term for the strong conviction that homosexuality is wrong. And let’s not forget that prejudice means the uninformed, preconceived adverse opinion of someone or something. One would be hard pressed in light of another’s Biblical study and scientific knowledge to correctly say that anyone who is opposed to homosexuality is uninformed or ignorant.

The bottom line is Ms. Lowe and whoever else rallies behind her article are fundamentally wrong—the article’s claims are uninformed, unsubstantiated, and lack depth. And, it’s clear that this piece isn’t really about the food chain at all, but rather just another seized opportunity to picket for unquestioning acceptance of a lifestyle just because it’s allegedly widespread (homosexuals make up a very small percentage of the American population, contrary to pop culture portrayal, as the NHSLS found) and popular to do so. The folks who seem the most uncomfortable, actually, are Ms. Lowe and her enablers—uncomfortable with companies that exercise their religious freedom, which Ms. Lowe claims to like, yet…puzzlingly does not like when it allows those who are opposed to homosexuality to promote their beliefs. That’s ironically, inconsistently intolerant if you’re honest with yourselves.

In closing, I’d like to again state that I respect you as columnists, and I will likely continue to enjoy reading some of your articles. If you truly value your readership and are truly non-discriminatory as your attack on “discriminators” would imply you to be, I’m confident you’ll not only respect and honor my arguments, beliefs, and opinions, you’ll have the courage to publish them. Courage is, after all, part of having a heart, isn’t it?

Sincerely,
Leslie Hicks

From the author, Libby Lowe:

Leslie,

I appreciate that you took the time to share your views, but I think you missed the point of my piece. You say that I misrepresented Christian values. I wasn’t trying to represent Christian values, I was representing my values.

I am suspect of anyone stepping up to explain or represent the beliefs of an entire group – be it a religious, political or otherwise collection of like-minded (not single-minded) people – no matter how many quotes you have to try to support your points.

I’m not going to get into a debate with you about homosexuality in the bible or whether sexuality is genetic. I assume agreeing to disagree will be the result of any debate we might have, but I will say that being informed doesn’t get you off the hook. Your statements about homosexuality, no matter how you couch them in niceties about loving them as fellow human beings, make your position clear. Call it intolerance, call it bigotry, use whatever word you like, but homophobia is homophobia and it hurts people.

You say that it’s clear my story isn’t really about the food chain, but “rather another seized opportunity to picket for unquestioning acceptance of a lifestyle.” I say that your letter isn’t really about my story, but a seized opportunity to promote intolerance in a far
more transparent way than a little text on a sandwich wrapper.

Yes, I am uncomfortable with Chick-fil-A’s corporate belief system. But I do believe the organization has every right to put those beliefs out there. In fact, I am glad to know where they stand so that I can make an informed choice as a consumer.

Libby Lowe

From the editor:

Leslie,

The EcoSalon motto, “Have a heart,” does indeed stand for courage, including in the face of discrimination, which is why we would no sooner have a “heart” for homophobia than we would for pollution. Chick-Fil-A’s environmentally negligent fast food business model, coupled with the organization’s activism against civil rights, is a perfect example of the kind of unenlightened, unsustainable activity we find indefensible.

I must take issue with your interpretation of our motto, as if embracing a life lived from the heart – that is, bravely, generously and consciously – would cover all opinions and beliefs simply because they exist, regardless of their validity. EcoSalon is no more obligated to “honor” intolerance of an adult individual’s consenting habits in the bedroom than it would be to honor creationism as a debate, sexism as a precedent, or racism as mere prejudice.

While religious belief is a fundamental right and one we clearly support in this piece, there is simply nothing morally courageous about homophobia, however gently it is applied. Therefore, we appreciate you expressing your views, but remain unapologetic in our criticism.

The heart of EcoSalon beats for progress.

Sara Ost

Have something to say? Speak up! Letters to the editor can be sent to editor@ecosalon.com. Submission is no guarantee of publication. Letters may be copy edited for grammar and clarity.

Last month’s letter: Flowery Feminists

The post Letter to the Editor: To Parse, Perchance to Judge appeared first on EcoSalon.