And no religion, too

More good news:

President Obama plans to sign an executive order on Monday that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees from discrimination by companies that do federal government work, fulfilling a promise to a crucial Democratic constituency, White House officials said on Friday. But the directive will not exempt religious groups, as many of them had sought.

It's that last bit in bold that's the super good news. I am so sick of religious gits attacking gay people and using their god for cover. God wants them to be cruel to gay and transgender people. It's their duty.

Screw your duty. You're just hateful loons. Kudos to Obama for not letting contractors discriminate against gays by using a religious back-door. Let's get rid of all those back doors. Hate is hate. And if your religion tells you to hate gays and transgender people, your religion is scum.

About "choosing" to be gay

We gay people have been trying to clarify this issue for ages. But it's not working.

Bigots love to talk about how sexual orientation is different from race because we chose to be gay. Uh-huh, just like they chose to be straight. But this obvious retort doesn't seem to have diminished the vast number of people who rely on this senseless "argument" to put us down.

I used to harangue people who use the term "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation". Preference pretty much puts it right out there. The message packaged with the phrase is that we "chose" to be gay because we "prefer" it. In the old days, I'd try to fight this by saying that the term "sexual preference" is incorrect since it implies that we stayed up late one night and decided to go gay.

But the astute observer will notice that my efforts and those of others have had virtually no effect on the bigots. Because they're stupid, they don't even understand the distinction. It seems we need a new move -- and I've got just the thing.

From now on, let's call ourselves The Chosen. This has several bonuses. First, it positively reeks of religion and let's face it, religion is our primary enemy in this fight. If people didn't believe in fairytale gods, gays might be fine. But no, teh bible and all.

But the phrase also screams the truth, that we did not "choose" this orientation. We were, in fact, "chosen". BTW, I think we should use the upper case T and C, to make it sing. We're not the chosen, we're "The Chosen". Okay, kids. You know what to do. Spread this far and wide.

Choice, my ass. We are and always will be The Chosen.

Never "make an issue" of your sexuality

I trolled the wingnut sites today to see what they're saying about the Boy Scouts of America changing its rules to allow gay Scouts. It was weird because I kept running into the same argument. I guess Wingnut Central commanded its minions to parrot this idea. Here it is, in all its glory.

Many homosexual Scouts have participated in Boy Scouts programs under the old policy (i.e., no gays allowed), and did so without making an issue of their sexual orientation.

Isn't that sweet? Gays mustn't "make an issue" of their sexuality. I guess that would be in keeping with how straights mask their sexuality at all times, never having public weddings or going out for a walk with their wives. And heaven knows they never admit to having children. They don't even wear wedding bands, lest it tip people off and reveal their sexual orientation. It's all kept mum; no tell, no harm. 

Right. Straights proclaim their sexuality loudly, often from the rooftops, using a megaphone. They can't stop telling you that they're straight. It's like an addiction. In fact, their arguments against gays in scouting are yet another announcement of their sexuality. It's all one big, brassy announcement that they're straight -- and aren't they marvelous for having chosen such a special, god-approved sexual orientation? It just makes you want to rush over and hug them.

But dog forbid a Scout lets anyone know that he's gay. That would be a sin -- and it would make the baby Jesus cry.

Conflicting messages on gay players and pro sports

So on the same day that an NBA player comes out, and the NFL distributes a flyer to players, reiterating its "anti-discrimination policy on sexual orientation", it seems Kris Kluwe might lose his NFL job.

He's the very outspoken punter who always stands up for gay rights, like a lion protecting its young. I love the guy because he's wildly intelligent and writes in a wonderful, slashing way. This guy can tear you into ribbons if he wants to. And if you're anti-gay, he wants to. He really, really wants to.

Seriously, on the same day all this happens, they're going to can a guy for his support for gay rights? Here's an outtake from an article about it:

“It’s a shame that in a league with players given multiple second chances after arrests, including felony arrests, that speaking out on human rights has a chance of getting you cut,” Kluwe reportedly told Pro Football Talk via a text message.

You see why I like him. He's never at a loss for words. Let's hope the aura of a good day for gay people in sports will prevail, and Kluwe will keep his job. I think of him as the Dan Choi of the NFL. We have to protect our allies. It's not like we've got a ton of them in pro sports.

“It’s a shame that in a league with players given multiple second chances after arrests, including felony arrests, that speaking out on human rights has a chance of getting you cut,” Kluwe reportedly told Pro Football Talk via a text message.

Read more at: http://nesn.com/2013/04/chris-kluwe-reportedly-blames-social-activism-for-vikings-drafting-of-potential-replacemen

Now they're all talking about it

As soon as I wrote about the Vatican hating gay men much more than lesbians, the world began to talk about this very subject. (And no, of course I don't think I had anything to do with it. Wingnuts think like that, not liberals.) Though they don't mention the Vatican, the idea being put forward in these articles is that gay men face discrimination more often than lesbians. This is true. Ask any gay man or lesbian and they'll confirm it.

The question is "why". I don't think it's mysterious. It's because straight men (and a huge number of women) think having a penis and being "manly" is what life is all about. Women are hangers-on, according to these folks. They're just not important when compared with the ever-popular, let's-all-sing-songs-about-him straight man, the creature to whom god gifted the universe.

Hatred enters the equation because a gay man, particularly an effeminate gay man, is seen as throwing away this "god-given gift" of straight manhood. How dare they?!

Of course, being gay isn't a choice any more than heterosexuality is. It's just the way you were born. But it's also true that a gay man who is comfortable with his sexuality doesn't care about being a straight man. It's not appealing in any way. Again, how dare they not want to be straight?!

The bad reactions are all about male privilege and a misunderstanding of sexual orientation -- that it's a choice rather than a fact. Straight men believe they are the only important creatures on this planet -- and deserving of respect simply for being straight men. To think that any males throw this gift away causes a testosterone rage to explode in their heads. "He doesn't want to be like me?! How dare this gay guy insult me like that?" Sigh.

So that's why gay men suffer discrimination: because our gayness is seen as purposely pissing raining on the fabulous, straight male parade. Oy.

Justice in a tiny town

Vicco, KY, with a population of 335 people, just voted to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. There's a pretty cool story about it in the NYT. I mean, this is a bunch of coal-miner types who voted for fairness. How could you not love a story like that?

From Tristero? Can't be.

I was surprised to see Tristero's post at Hullabaloo this morning. It uses outmoded, misleading terminology.

Not saying that there isn't a heritable component to sexual preference and gender identity, just saying that the way this is reported sounds way too schematic to be believable.

Sexual preference? C'mon, he really didn't say that, right? The only acceptable (and accurate) terminology is sexual orientation. The term "sexual preference" makes it sound like we stayed up late one night and decided to go gay.

However, I hedge my criticism. He may be echoing the terminology used in the strange report that he's knocking. Mind you, that's no excuse. Preference indeed! Bah, humbug!

Note: It seems impossible to link to an individual post on Digby's blog. Same with Joe.My.God. If anyone can tell me how to get around this, I'd love to learn the trick.

The collapse of the ex-gay movement

There's a story in the New York Times about a change of heart by the president of Exodus International. That's the organization that up till now was seen as a leading force in the "ex-gay" movement -- the ludicrous notion that people can change their sexuality. Doesn't happen, kids.

Alan Chambers, the president of EI, now says that it's impossible to change one's sexual orientation -- and the wingnuts are very upset about this. If they can't make believe gay people have the ability to "change", then their argument against giving us "special rights" (i.e., the same rights others have) falls apart. And if sexual orientation isn't a choice, then it can't be a sin. That sound you hear is wingnut heads exploding.

I'm always intrigued by the nature of the comments by religious wingnuts. Their priorities are so strange. For instance, for this guy, it's all about who gets to share heaven. I don't think he wants icky gays up there:

Robert Gagnon, an associate professor at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of books on homosexuality and the Bible, last week issued a public call for Mr. Chambers to resign. “My greatest concern has to do with Alan’s repeated assurances to homosexually active ‘gay Christians’ that they will be with him in heaven,” he said in an e-mail. 

I have news for him. Without gay people to spruce the place up, heaven is going to look quite dull. In any case, Chambers' remarks are a positive development. The days of straights looking down on gays in this country are just about over.

Steve King (R): Deep Thinker

King is wrong about everything. Here is he on sexual orientation.

If colleagues never know an employee’s sexuality, there’s no opportunity to discriminate, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told Think Progress this week.

“If you don’t know anybody’s sexuality you can’t discriminate against them,” King said in a discussion about sexual orientation in the workplace. Private businesses need the freedom to operate, King said. “I would think that, unless somebody makes their sexuality public it’s nobody’s business. Neither is it our business to tell an employer who to hire,” he added.

So I guess this means all the straight folks will stop wearing their wedding bands to work, right, Steve? And they'll never mention dating, marriage plans, babies, spouses or family life while in the office. And no more office bridal showers. Nuh-uh.

If we admit we're gay, we're flaunting it. Yet straights douse themselves in straight memorabilia and wear it everywhere they go. So you're promising an end to all that, Steve? Way to go!

It ain't a choice

Today,  John Suntan Boehner said that being gay is a matter of choice. Well, I guess it's settled then.

When I hear people say this -- and it's almost always a guy -- I can't help but wonder. Could it be they want to have sex with men but "choose" not to? And therefore they see gayness as a choice? It's bumble-headed to think like this but it sort of makes (bumble-headed) sense. Dog knows, these guys aren't deep thinkers.

It's not a choice. I've was always gay, even when I was a kid. I think pretty much all gay and lesbian people can confirm this perception: we were always gay or lesbian. It's not like it's a difficult thing to figure out: you find men or women sexy -- either or, usually. And no matter what, if you are minimally conscious you know which sex attracts you. It ain't rocket science. Closet cases (and "ex-gays") may hide from themselves for a long time but that's just a sick game. And it doesn't change the essential truth: they're gay and they were always gay.

Who knows? Maybe a lot of these "straight" guys who spend enormous amounts of their time attacking gay people will "go gay" at some point. I wouldn't be surprised. But if this happens, they were always gay. Choice has nothing to do with sexual orientation and I think everyone with a head on their shoulders knows this by now.