Letter From a Confused Heterosexual

I have a dear friend, much younger than I, and also a blogger.  We exchange ideas frequently and find that in most cases we are on the same page, or screen.  He recently sent the following letter:



Dear Eileen,

I grow increasingly disturbed and confused.  Will you please allow me to bounce some ideas off you and respond if you would be so kind?  I am not comfortable posting this on my own blog as it may be too revealing, so I am copping out and sending it to you.

I am so glad I am not a homosexual.  There was no conscious choice in my childhood to be sexually attracted to women and only to women.  I think I recognize attractive males, but I am not attracted to them.  So?

When in college I remember thinking I was so glad that I was not African-American or Hispanic or female.  I knew that had I been born to a race other than Anglo and a gender other than male I would be a militant for the equal rights of my race and gender.  I am liberal enough as it is without taking to the streets for equality.  My protest is rational, not personal.

So, when I awoke to the alarm at 5:30 while dreaming about the similarities between Uganda and Arizona I almost laughed out loud.  Who in the world would have linked an ultra-conservative state in the US with a small Black nation in Africa?  They are literally worlds apart, save for their agreement that homosexuals are disgusting.  Arizona’s legislature wrote a bill empowering retailers to discriminate against homosexuals.  Uganda has passed similar laws and is publishing the names of known homosexuals.  Russia is no better and it is equally funny that they now have common ground with Arizona.  All are blatant acts of discrimination that I cannot fathom, much less tolerate.

And, my beloved Presbyterian church is splitting into two factions over this issue.  The conservatives oppose gay clergy.  The traditional do not.  First Presbyterian Houston barely voted to stay with the traditional church, but the required 2/3 vote almost happened.  That means a majority still want to split.   How can this be?

What is so scary about homosexuality?  What merits persecution of this private issue of attraction, affection and taste?  Are we subjected to public viewing of homosexual acts?  Is it contagious?  Are young children likely to decide to become gay if they see a gay person?  I do not get it.  Haven’t all gay people seen heterosexuals and remain gay?  

I know in my heart of hearts that there is no way I could have a gay sexual encounter.  Just would not happen.  My equipment would not work and I would be repulsed.  But I am shocked that we are more supportive and comforting and tolerant of folks with HIV than we are of folks who are gay.  We should be supportive of HIV folks.   The same for gay folks.  I do not mean to imply that being gay is an illness.  Far from it.  HIV is an illness that is transmitted by human interaction.  If we can tolerate such an illness, why can’t we tolerate a birth characteristic?

Or is that it?  Do the homophobes believe homosexuality is a disease of choice?  If we believe that being gay is a “sin” rather than a state of being, would it not make more sense to legalize the marital union of gays to reduce the sinful nature?  A gay couple by definition cannot have children so there is no risk of increasing the number of gays by allowing them to marry.  Do we think the adopted children of gay couples grow up gay?  As you would say, poppycock and balderdash.

I recall studying behaviorism in college where I read all the works of B.F. Skinner.  I remember in Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Skinner said sex is just pleasurable friction and culture decides with whom and with what and when and where this friction is acceptable.  I am not a behaviorist, but a lot of that statement makes sense to me.  We have wrapped sexual encounters with such mystique, such emotional baggage that it is amazing we ever produce another generation.  Mammals have a sex drive.  We have a sex drive.  Mammals exhibit homosexual behavior; or to be more accurate, bi-sexual behavior and masturbatory behavior.  Is sex with yourself homosexual? How could you argue otherwise?

Our western civilization is grounded in Greek and Roman notions.  Both cultures blatantly accepted not only homosexuals but bisexuals.  Perhaps it is the Judeo-Christian influence that raises such ire.

Is all of this anti-gay stuff Biblical?  I am not an expert, but if memory serves it is the Old Testament where we find all the rules and laws including those regarding sexuality.  Paul probably said something about it, but Paul is a psychiatrist’s dream patient flipping from one belief extreme to another and clearly anti-sexual in general.  I do not care much for the letters of Paul.  I prefer Jesus’ commandment to love thy neighbor as thy self.  Even if the neighbor is a transgender, cross-dressing homosexual.

Am I nuts?

I would so appreciate your thoughts on this.

As Always, Bob

How shall I respond?

Does Wealth Determine Value?

While I ponder and worry about the fate of our countrymen and countrywomen after the snow storm, especially the poor, the homeless, the powerless, I turn to the CNN website for updates.  Once there I browse the news, click buttons on topics of interest, and catch up with events.  I did not know there was a controversy surrounding our Olympic athletes’ uniforms.  I did not know the Japanese have developed a bra that only un-hooks if the wearer is in love.  I did not know the earth swallowed historic Corvettes.  These and other buttons lead me to articles of interest and I know I am better prepared to play “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me”, the hysterical NPR weekly news quiz show.  I browse and click again.

Billionaire Tom Peters suggested, perhaps tongue in cheek, that the wealthy should get more votes than other people.  He said if you pay a million dollars in taxes you should get a million votes.  He further said that if you do not pay taxes you should not be allowed to vote.

Clicking another button I read that the top 1% of income earners is mad as hell.  They feel like they are being persecuted.  They feel like they will be asked to pay more in taxes.  They feel like there is a conspiratorial war against them that may harvest more money from their personal wealth for public coffers.  Meanwhile, they continue to do very well and the gap between what they earn and the rest of us earn grows annually.

I click another button and learn that the billionaire Koch brothers are pouring money into the races where it appears Democrats have a chance to unseat Republicans.

I click another button and learn that Bill Gates continues to subscribe to the notion of alternative choices to public schools and continues to fund those schools of choice despite the fact he is not an educator and lacks a college degree.  He is just rich.

I am at first outraged.  I rage.  I throw crochet hook, doily and yarn across the room.  I swear.  (Yes, little old ladies may swear when they are alone and not in the company of others.  The words chosen, however, must be suitable, applicable words and not typical generic street cussing.  Typically only “hells” and “damns” are appropriate.)  While I am worried about poor folks under a bridge, families shivering in the cold without electricity, and folks imprisoned in their vehicles these wealthy men are worrying about how to preserve their wealth and how to use their wealth to impact public policy. 

Taking a deep breath it comes to me that this is absolutely nothing new.  Despite thousands of years of human civilization and an amazing accumulation of technology and knowledge, we remain subject to the most banal of human wants, wishes and needs.  The rich do not want to share.  The rich do not think they should share.  The rich perceive themselves as superior human beings.  The rich believe they should make the rules by which all others play.  The rich do not like Democracy and yearn for a ruling aristocracy.  The billionaires of today are no different than feudal lords.  Other humans exist only to serve their will and meet their needs.  They should rule because they have more value than other humans because they have more money than other humans.  Wealth equals human value.

I totally disagree.

Harsh?  I do not think so.  I believe the human condition is capable of evolving.  I believe we can and ought to pursue more lofty goals than promoting the accumulation of wealth by a few at the expense of the many.  I believe some of our most powerful myths, beliefs, legends and folk lore have depicted this evolution to a higher plane:  The Midas Touch, the Emperor’s New Clothes, the Miser, the Goose with the Golden Eggs, the Rich Young Ruler, the Camel Through the Eye of the Needle, the Widow’s Offering, the Good Samaritan, and on and on.  Humans who serve others, especially those less fortunate, are honored and valued.  Humans who are self-serving, greedy and misers are despicable and not to be honored or valued.

In other words, the billionaires have it backwards.  When it comes to public policy such men should have less voice than others while they promote the accumulation and protection of their own wealth.  Simply because they have the wherewithal to implement their will does not make them right, superior, better, or of higher value than the poorest of the poor.  In fact, our morality plays imply just the opposite.

Sadly, the Peters, Koch brothers, Gates, Broad, etc. do not get this.  They do not want to get this.  Sadder is the fact that there are millionaires in the Senate and House who seek to protect the billionaires.  Beyond sad to the point of tragedy are the middle class, blue collar, working poor who have bought into the notion that wealth determines value. 

Not I. 

As human beings we are of equal value.  We are created equal.  Rich and poor; Red, Yellow, Black and White; God does not make junk.  Our mission is to help the poor and the needy.  It is not to protect the wealthy and empower them further.  That is why I am an educator.

 
And when seeing first hand those of deep needs and daily suffering I am humbled knowing that there but for the grace of God go I.