I don’t officially speak for anybody. Nonetheless my views are
reasonably representative, and when I think they are, I will often
toss in a “we”.

Marty: “Knowing that you only speak for yourself, I will remind you
that for some people sexual orientation IS a choice.”

It depends on what you mean by “sexual orientation”. The standard
meaning is in terms of attraction, e.g., “Sexual orientation is an
enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward
others.” ( http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31 )
In that sense, it’s certainly _not_ a choice for many people, and I’m
unaware of credible evidence that it’s a choice for anybody. Other
people use it to refer to behaviour or identity. In such senses I’m
sure it’s a choice – I just refuse to cooperate with that usage
because it’s non-standard and introduces serious confusion to the
whole debate.

Marty: “Most gay people know this privately, even if they deny it
publicly.”

No, there’s no conspiracy or guilty secret. As far as I can tell,
everybody’s public claims reflect their private beliefs when you
account for how they use language:

- Most gay people do not experience sexual attraction as a choice,
have not heard any credible claims of people changing their pattern of
sexual attraction and express this by saying sexual orientation is
_not_ a choice. I certainly count myself in that group.

- Some gay people, especially those stuck in or just emerging from
conservative (usually Protestant) religious traditions, use sexual
orientation to refer to behaviour, which is a choice, and they express
this by saying that sexual orientation _is_ a choice.

- Many “ex-gay” ministries define homosexuality/sexual orientation
exclusively or primarily in terms of behaviour ( http://exodus.to/content/view/43/25/
), and are really mostly attempts to help gay (same-sex attracted)
people give up gay sex (a perfectly worthwhile service from a
conservative religious point of view if a perfectly pointless and
cruel one in the view of sensible people). Gay people who try ex-gay
ministries expecting to have their same-sex attractions cured often
feel defrauded afterwards because in standard usage the ministries are
not even trying to make people “ex-gay”.

- Moreover, to the modest extent ex-gay ministries do talk about same-
sex attraction or offer to cure it, you often find they’re playing
another level of word games: trying to get the client to talk about
perfectly standard same-sex attraction as something else like
adulation (as in that of a straight kid to sports star) and something
else like ordinary friendship as opposite-sex attraction. This
produces plausible testimonials (“Oh, I’m totally in love with my
wife. It doesn’t have the same zing that relationships with guys did,
but that was unhealthy idealization.”) but is close to fraud and often
ends unhappily.

My income from the sale of Q Syndicate subsidized my work as a freelance writer for several years after I sold the company. I should add that I made a major contribution to the gay press and thus the gay community that cost much more than it ever took in, and is still going strong: Press Pass Q (presspassq.com), which is a highly praised newsletter for gay press professionals now celebrating its 10th year in publication. Along with Q Syndicate editor Rawley Grau, I envisioned, named, designed, organized, and helped write the first several years of that publication, before selling it to Rivendell Marketing in 2000.

I don’t understand your “moral stance” comment. Are you suggesting that if one makes money off a given community (New York City, smokers, wealthy pregnant women) one cannot then criticize that community for any reason? I fail to follow.

What is your moral stance on profitting from the gay community, and yet now are currently criticizing the same community you made a living off of for 8 years?

To those folk who truly consider being ‘gay’ as a choice, I suspect that many of them have actually considered, even fantasized same sex encounters, but often tend to stick with heterosexist standards.

After spending over 5 years working with teens in teen pregnancy prevention programs and providing sexual health curriculum, the basic message of abstinence was on the top of the list.

The primary abstinence message of:
“Postponing sexual activity and intimate contact until a mutually monogomous relationship (as in marriage) has been established and agreed upon by both parties.”

It is important to impart the benefits of postponing sexual activity until establishing a mutually faithful monogamous relationship to youth and young adults.

MB: Who says we want straight teens to experiment? We don’t. At the same time, we don’t want them not to.

Mark, do you speak for all gay people? If not, why the “we”?

Knowing that you only speak for yourself, I will remind you that for some people sexual orientation IS a choice. Most gay people know this privately, even if they deny it publicly. So I beleive there is a strong desire for youth to experiment which should ultimately increase the ranks of people who self-identify as homosexual. Hence the “Q” (questioning) we often find in youth oriented GLBT”Q” organizations.

I can see that it would be more _surprising_. But given the amount of gay sex you’re prepared to not just tolerate but facilitate, I don’t see how it could be more _disturbing_.

DB: “I incorrectly used the word “unjustly” when I should have said “I see my gay friends suffer when it comes to hospital visitiation….”

Same difference. Relieving some suffering is aiding and abetting immoral actions. When you see a thief suffering because he’s unable to break into a house, do you help?

I incorrectly used the word “unjustly” when I should have said “I see my gay friends suffer when it comes to hospital visitiation….” Thanks for helping me catch that.

Who says we want straight teens to experiment? We don’t. At the same time, we don’t want them not to. We just don’t care one way or the other. If they’re really straight, they’ll very quickly realize it’s not for them. You however apparently _do_ care, rather more so than for gay kids, so I asked, and I ask again, why?

DB: “I see my gay friends treated unjustly on things like hospital visitation and inheritance, and I want to seek a solution which isn’t gay marriage.”

That’s the bit that makes no sense: how can there be injustice with respect to the fruits of a supposedly immoral enterprise? You might as well argue that it’s unjust to the thief for the property owner to receive his property back.

I think it’s equally immoral to have gay sex if one is gay or one is straight. But I can understand gay people wanting gay teens to experiment with gay sex while growing up. But why would gay people want straight teens to do so as well?

My attitude toward civil unions and domestic partnerships is as follows:

1. I see my gay friends treated unjustly on things like hospital visitation and inheritance, and I want to seek a solution which isn’t gay marriage.

2. The Salt Lake City solution helps them, but also other couples not recognized in law. I like the SLC solution both as a conservative (let individuals decide who can visit them in the hospital, not the government) and as a single person (why should I have nobody I can designate my social security benefits to?) I also value them as an Orthodox Jew, because they protect same-sex and other couples without giving special status to anyone because of their “alternative” bedroom lives.

3. I would rather have the SLC plan than nothing, I would rather have the SLC plan than civil unions/domestic partnerships, I would rather have nothing than gay marriage, and whether I would have nothing rather than CU/DP I’m conflicted about – I guess it would depend on the details of the plan and the political situation (i.e. if it’s necessary to avert gay marriage).

I know perfectly well what tolerate means. My point is that he doesn’t tolerate gay lifestyles when straight kids flirt with them – he gets all “disturbed” and starts casting about for discouragements that he couldn’t be bothered with when it was gay (same-sex attracted?) kids. And I’m wondering why.

Moreover, the mystery is heightened when you realize he says he tolerates gay-lifestyles but on the contrary, he positively encourages them. He’s always offering the gay community helpful advice on how to get domestic partnerships or civil unions to protect our relationships. He protests he’s not a concern troll, so I suppose we have to believe that he really does value our relationships and want to protect them.