Category Archives: GWOG | Blog

Hey, Madonna and Patricia Arquette, The Gays Are With You!


These two amazing women recently sparked controversy when they both separately made comments comparing the gay rights movement and the women’s rights movement. It started initially with Patricia Arquette, who in a recent Oscar acceptance speech stated “People think we have equal rights; we don’t. Until we pass a constitutional amendment, we won’t have anything changed. It’s time for all women in America and all the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.”

This caused people to point out that many women are, in fact, women of color and part of the LGBTQ community. While this point is valid, it shouldn’t overshadow the poignant comments that Ms. Arquette made. We can’t forget that there is currently a website tracking equal pay amongst women in the United States, which can be seen at statusofwomendata.org. Here, you can see that women are marginalized and discriminated against in employment and earnings, and where each state ranks. The site promises to also offer data on female poverty, reproductive rights, opportunity, political participation, among other things. Time Magazine recently reported that if the current trend continues, women will not see equal pay in five US states (West Virginia, Utah, Louisiana, North Dakota and Wyoming) until 2100!

Discrimination against women is very real and and it is the worst for women of color. It is unbelievable, but true, that in 2015, there is still a pay gap. There is still a very strong movement attempting (and in some states, succeeding) to deny women of their basic reproductive rights. People who hold political office still think that women’s reproductive systems shut down during rape to prevent pregnancy. Others just don’t think pregnancy results from rape very often, despite the fact that it happens over 30,000 times a year. Don’t you think women have cause for concern?

Shortly after Patricia Arquette made these comments, Madonna made similar comments that sparked controversy. Keep in mind, Madonna has been a very outspoken ally for the gays for over three decades now, and whatever you think of her… It seems to me that the gay community owes Madonna an awful lot. There is actually a Wikipedia article titled “Madonna As A Gay Icon,” and she is considered by LGBT magazine “The Advocate” to be the greatest gay icon. She even recently admitted that she used to pine after gay men when she was younger, living in New York City.

“I didn’t feel like straight men understood me. They just wanted to have sex with me,” she explained. “Gay men understood me, and I felt comfortable around them. There was only that one problem, which is that they didn’t want to have sex with me! So…conundrum!”

Madonna recently had the following to say: “Gay rights are way more advanced than women’s rights,” she stated. “People are a lot more open-minded to the gay community than they are to women, period. It’s moved along for the gay community, for the African-American community, but women are still just treading on their ass… To me, the last great frontier is women.”
She continued, “Women are still the most marginalized group. They’re still the group that people won’t let change…You must fit into this box… You must behave this way, dress this way. You’re still categorized — you’re still either a virgin or a whore. If you’re a certain age, you’re not allowed to express your sexuality, be single, or date younger men.”

Despite the controversial nature of her comments, I must say that I agree. Gay rights, while they still have a long way to go, have come along way, but we have been extremely stagnant, and often even taken leaps backward, when it comes to equality for women. I think the real lesson here is that the struggle is never over. Just because gay marriage is legal in most states and will likely be legal in all of them before the end of the year, doesn’t mean there isn’t a strong resistance movement. Gays face discrimination every day… As do women and people of color. And we must not marginalize each other. Instead, we need to recognize this and be supportive of one another. If we don’t continue fighting together, we might face what women have faced – stagnation and regression of their personal liberties.

Subsidizing discrimination: Christian schools and their tax-exempt status

Courtesy Shutterstock

This week 17 year old Austin Wallis was forced to either deny he’s gay or find a new high school. In his viral YouTube video, Wallis explains that his Lutheran high school forced him to leave because he was gay. They gave the popular YouTube blogger a choice: he could either go back into the closet by removing all evidence he’s gay from social media or he would be expelled. So he left.

This story, as tragic as it is, raises the question: why are we giving tax breaks to discriminatory Christian schools?

Lutheran High North (LHN) is run by Lutheran Education Association of Houston (LEAH) which is filed as a 501(c)(3). That means the school is able to function as a non-profit with all the tax shelters that come with it while discriminating against its students in whatever way it sees fit on religious grounds.

In the U.S. it’s the status quo for Christian schools to be tax-exempt. They either fall under the umbrella of a host church which is tax-exempt under federal law, or they apply for their own tax exempt status as an independent religious entity.

It seems absurd that a tax-exempt school would able to enforce moral clauses that, in the case of LHN, declare that the school “reserves the right, within its sole discretion, to refuse admission of an applicant and/or to discontinue enrollment of a current student participating in, promoting, supporting or condoning: pornography, sexual immorality, homosexual activity or bisexual activity; or displaying an inability or resistance to support the qualities and characteristics required of a Biblically based and Christ-like lifestyle.”

And it seems illegal. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin. By requiring its students to identify with a particular brand of Christianity (see the moral clause above) or to otherwise face expulsion, the school would appear to be breaking the “religion” clause of the federal anti-discrimination laws.

There are similarities here to the Ken Ham Ark Encounter story. In case you haven’t been following, Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis is trying to build a Noah’s Ark theme park in Kentucky. Originally, the for-profit venture was depending on $18,000,000 of Kentucky tax payer money as part of that State’s tourism tax incentives. Then it was discovered that the Ark Encounter was taking part in discriminatory hiring practices in that they refused to hire applicants who are gay or non-Christian. As a result they lost their anticipated tourism tax incentives and all was right in the world.

Similar to the Ark Encounter scenario, if a Christian school is to require a student to adhere to a particular brand of Christianity, the school should be stripped of its tax-exempt status. Their thoughts on morality are their business, but when they receive tax breaks while forcing those religious views on others, it becomes our business. It should be obvious that no tax paying citizen should be made to subsidize discrimination and homophobia by bearing the burden of tax-exemptions awarded to these religious, anti-LGBT institutions.

Moving on: When your crush has a crush on Jesus

Jesus crush

We’ve all been there, that awkward moment when in trying to get to know someone you find out they have a crush on Jesus. They love him with all their heart, they say. They think about him constantly. They idolize his very being. They get down on their knees just to chat him up. They talk about him incessantly. They sing to him on Sunday, etc.

As difficult as it might be, if you find out your crush has a crush on Jesus you need to move on. It’s highly  likely — in fact it’s a sure thing — that your crush believes some pretty ridiculous things. You’re setting yourself up for failure in finding a mate if you’re willing to sacrifice sanity for some of the other qualities you might find in this person. You can do better.

To help you get over your crush, we’ve compiled a brief list of some of the absurd things they must believe in order to have a crush on Jesus. Hopefully, with this list close at hand, you’ll be able to take off the crush-goggles and see your crush for what they really are — a crazy person. Take a look:

When your crush has a crush on Jesus…

  • They’re crushing on a dead man who lived 2000 years ago (if he even lived at all) and who purportedly was born of a (married) virgin, walked on water, magically made water into wine, and came back from the dead three days after being executed, among other things.
  • Your crush believes that their crush was required by his father to die (temporarily) in order to forgive us for a sin committed by a woman 6000 years ago (the first woman, no less — sorry Darwin). What was this great sin, you might ask? She broke a nonsensical rule and ate a forbidden fruit because a talking snake sent by your crush’s father (specifically for the purpose of tempting her) persuaded her to do it.
  • Your crush believes that because this woman couldn’t resist the temptation of the talking snake, we’re all born of sin (because her two sons went on to propagate the rest of our species, hence genetically transferring the sin?) which is punishable by death. But hey, your sins can be forgiven if you too would only have a crush on Jesus. If not, sorry, you’ll be tortured for all of eternity in a lake of fire, regardless of what a good, moral person you are.
  • Your crush believes that a book written thousands of years ago by bronze-age men has every sort of moral relevance today, despite the fact that, for example, it condones slavery, its commandments don’t mention rape, and was clearly written by bronze-age men. They believe their Jesus crush made a few corrections and additions, but that they’re still free to evoke the old otherwise obsolete rules whenever they feel it would be to their benefit (so much for an unshakable moral code).
  • Your crush believes the father of their crush (who apparently created everything, has a grand plan, and is all-loving) to be a very angry man indeed. For example, your crush believes that several thousands of years ago this sky daddy was so angry towards his creation that he flooded the earth in a mass genocide, surely banishing everyone to hell, but saved one family of humans and every species of animal by shoving a pair of each of them onto a makeshift wooden boat. (They believe this despite the overwhelming and overlapping evidence we find in the fossil and geological records to the contrary.)
  • Your crush is still a child. They haven’t gotten over the “make-believe” stage of their lives, holding on to their childhood fantasies. While the rest of us were doing away with Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, your crush missed one.
  • To top it all off, your crush has probably eaten crackers and drank wine in church on Sunday to symbolize the consumption of their crush’s flesh and blood. (The rest of us call that cannibalism.)

So there you have it, just some of the reasons to get over your crush if you find out they have a crush on Jesus; just the tip of the iceberg, really.

In all fairness, if we’re to be completely honest with ourselves, there may be one benefit to your crush having a crush on Jesus as is summed up nicely by this meme:

jesus threesome 2

But otherwise, you’re swooning after a crazy person. Move on, and do so quickly. Godspeed!

These six superpowers are why atheists are #winning

Atheism is #winning

To be free from superstition or the belief in the supernatural is a rarity in the history of our species. It’s so rare in fact that it’s a stretch to include it in the description of what it is to be human. It is only through generations of evidence-based knowledge about the world that we have recently found ourselves in an environment hospitable to modern atheistic and skeptical world views. This niche we find ourselves in has been so out of reach to humans until so recently that the ability to experience such a detachment from gods and superstition might even be fairly described as superhuman.

There’s evidence that the origin of supernatural thinking dates as far back as 300,000 years ago when Paleolithic humans began burying their dead. If you consider that we’ve only had access to enough evidence-based ammunition to smother the absurdity of faith-based and superstitious thinking since the dawn of the scientific revolution 300 years ago, you realize that only 0.1% of our species’ existence since the Paleolithic era has been marked by the potential to be a modern atheist or skeptic.

So it can be argued that to be an atheist or skeptic in the modern world makes you superhuman. As an atheist (or future atheist) you might ask, “what’s the point of being superhuman if it doesn’t come with superpowers?” Well it does, take a look:

Superpower #1: Freedom of Thought

We have the freedom to think about anything we want without thinking someone else is listening. While our religious friends are fearful to imagine for even a second that there might not be a god because they might be damned to eternal hell-fire, we’re free to explore all ideas. The ability to entertain all ideas without the fear of a supernatural eavesdropper allows us to make sound judgments about the validity of some ideas over the absurdity of others. We’re #winning because our freedom of thought gives us the freedom to be ourselves.

Superpower #2: Wisdom

We live at a time when we have access to an unimaginable breadth of knowledge that helps us not only better understand our past, but more presciently plan for our future. Theists have to square any new knowledge they gain with the views held in their ancient doctrines. When there’s a conflict, they’ll choose the obsolete doctrine over new evidence leading them to surrender their potential wisdom to utter ignorance about the world around them. We’re #winning because our wisdom is built on the shoulders of giants.

Superpower #3: Imagination

With the unimaginable amount of knowledge we’ve garnered on the inner workings of the universe, our imaginations are given boundless range for exploration. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a theist who understands enough cosmology (see Superpower #2) to dream about, say, someday terraforming a planet, or to realistically contemplate the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, or to make a great discovery in string theory. We’re #winning because we have a “spaceship of the imagination” that runs on logic and evidence and so is limitless in range.

Superpower #4: Honesty

Understanding the world based on facts and evidence allows an honesty in our thinking. Theists have to hold in their minds competing ideas about how the world works as becomes apparent when they have to defend a belief. For example, watch what happens when you ask your Christian friend how, when Noah’s ark landed, the kangaroos made it back to Australia? Your friend will have to ignore the entire fossil record and invent a response. We’re #winning because we don’t have to make stuff up to make sense of the world.

Superpower #5: Stewardship

Our ability to consume and synthesize facts and evidence in the absence of religious doctrine allows us to make decisions that will benefit the future of our species. As is all too common in the US, Christians are the first to ignore scientific evidence in favor of faith, submitting control of the future of our planet to their imaginary friend. An atheist understands there are no gods to solve our problems and will therefore work to solve them rather than ignore them or try to pray them away. We’re #winning because our thoughts and actions are positively correlated to the survival of our species.

Superpower #6: An Evolved Morality

Our morality like everything else is subject to evidence and research and as such is able to evolve as our understanding of human nature evolves. We don’t rely on an ancient, static doctrine to mandate fixed moral codes that aren’t open to criticism as we learn more about ourselves and what it means to live in societies. A static view of morality results in a narrow understanding of what it is to be human and by extension what it is to be humane. We’re #winning because our morality is adaptable to knowledge and therefore promises to work to reduce the suffering of as many fellow human beings as possible.

We’re #winning because we possess superpowers that were out of reach for our species until very recently. If you’re a fellow atheist or future atheist, enjoy these powers, don’t squander them, and use them wisely.

Dear Gays, The FDA Does Not Want Your Filthy Blood

Now, I hate to be a negative nancy-boy, but the FDA’s recent announcement that they will begin to allow gays to donate blood if they have been sexually inactive for a year is the most adorably offensive thing I have heard in a long time.

Allow me to offer you a few translations of this announcement:

“Dear Gays, We still don’t want your filthy blood.”

“Dear Gays, You’re all still gross. Love, the FDA”

“Dear Whorish Gays, We are sloooowly hating you less and less. At least enough to someday allow you to save our lives.”

Now, you may think I am being outrageous but I personally think that I am being poignant and honest. The reason for this is simple. Every single blood donation, regardless of its source, is screened for HIV/AIDS. So, while it is true that gays are a higher-risk group for HIV/AIDS, the FDA cannot justify it’s decision to require gays to abstain from sex for a year because ANY blood that is donated will ultimately be tested. Because of this and the fact that HIV is now detectable within just two weeks, anything short of allowing gays to donate blood even just a couple weeks after having sweet intercourse is homophobic. Period.

Now, I am not the first one to call the FDA out on this. Many have pointed out the obvious hypocrisy that a promiscuous straight person could donate, but a monogamous gay couple who have been together for years could not. The FDA recently responded to the criticism by stating that “Assessment of high-risk sexual behaviors would be highly burdensome on blood donation establishments and potentially offensive to donors.” Again, so adorable. I thought the idea was to take an assessment to insure the safety of the blood you are collecting. Far be it for you to offend a highly promiscuous straight person by telling them they do not meet the required safety measures to donate. Instead, let’s just offend all the gays.

Allow me to share an interesting personal story from a couple of years ago. I will preface this by saying that I am one of the least sexually active people I know. It’s not for lack of interest, it’s more just lack of effort. Plus, drinking beer and watching “Family Guy” is always available to me, and provides an equivalent satisfaction. Nevertheless, I decided to make a responsible decision and head to the clinic for some annual, however unnecessary, testing.

Upon learning that I am homosexual, the clinic actually offered me $10 to take an extensive survey about HIV/AIDS. Keep in mind, I am probably more likely to be exposed to HIV by the needle they test me with, given how slow it remains around these parts. Yet, because I am gay, we need to talk about AIDS. So much so, that they actually paid ME. (Sorry for sounding ungrateful – thank you for the $10… I needed that.)

While the survey went in-depth regarding the details of my sexual history, the doctor did not – and he did not see the answers I provided. Despite this, the doctor shamed me into believing that it was my moral responsibility to get tested for absolutely everything under the sun. He hadn’t so much as asked me when the last time I had sex was and if I used a condom… he simply knew that I was a homosexual and therefore a walking cesspool of sexually-transmitted infections. Now, it is not that getting tested is bad. It is the attitude behind it. Any doctor who asked a single question about my sexual history beyond “are you straight or gay?” would have determined that I am at nearly zero risk for having become infected with anything.

It is decisions like the one the FDA just made that allow and enable this prejudice to continue. They reinforce stigmas not only for gay people, but those who are HIV-positive as well.

So, guess what, FDA? I’ll just hang on to my filthy blood. Best of luck!

Expanding the definition of child abuse: anti-LGBT parenting

depressed teen

Leelah Alcorn’s suicide has brought about a fresh public awareness of the phenomenon of parental negligence and abuse under the guise of religious freedom. As People describes it, “Leelah’s death has sparked a growing debate about how to approach transgender youth, as well as a public backlash to how her parents, Doug and Carla Alcorn, handled their child’s situation.” As we’ll see below, it is clear that there is a link between higher rates of LGBT teen suicide and the anti-LGBT religious households in which many teens grow up.

The following is an argument that we as a society should hold parents and guardians accountable for working to improve the emotional well-being of their LGBT children as based on a science-based understanding of mental health regardless of their held religious beliefs. In the same way we have begun in the U.S. and the U.K. to criminalize attempted “faith healing” as a form of physical abuse against dying children, we can and should criminalize attempted “gay healing” as a form of emotional abuse toward LGBT children. In short, to attempt to convince a child that the sexuality or gender with which they identify is the result of a mental disorder is nothing less than child abuse.

LGBT teen suicide

To build the case, let’s look at LGBT teen suicide. We need to stop ignoring the fact that higher rates of LGBT teen suicide are correlated to anti-gay religious parenting. While it is difficult to determine the exact percentage of LGBT youth who attempt suicide relative to their non-LGBT counterparts, studies have clearly shown the incidence is much higher in LGBT youth. Further, it has been demonstrated that there is a direct correlation between high rates of suicide attempts in LGBT youth who are living in anti-LGBT households.

According to a San Francisco State University study, LGBT youth “who experience high levels of rejection from their families during adolescence (when compared with those young people who experienced little or no rejection from parents and caregivers) were more than eight times likely to have attempted suicide, more than six times likely to report high levels of depression, more than three times likely to use illegal drugs and more than three times likely to be at high risk for HIV or other STDs” by the time they reach their early 20s.

In this spirit, gay rights activist Dan Savage tweeted in reaction to Alcorn’s suicide, “We know that parental hostility & rejection doubles a queer kid’s already quadrupled risk of suicide—rejecting your queer kid is abuse.”

A direct comparison: faith healing

Next, we need to clearly understand where religious freedom ends and children’s rights begin. Children, unable to make adult decisions by definition, are dependent on the decisions of their adult caretakers. When a parent is incapable of effectively caring for their child, we have already in place a robust framework for removing the child from the ill-suited parent. However, sometimes religion gets in the way of this framework.

A clear example of this can be seen in the phenomenon of faith healing where children are allowed by their parents to suffer and often times die of treatable conditions under the belief that prayer is the only remedy. Modern medicine is shunned in the name of blind faith, and it is helpless children who suffer as a result. Faith healing is physical abuse by any definition and in the case of the death of a child, it is homicide and should be tried as such in a court of law. Much of the time, however, these parents get away with murder under religious freedom legislation.

Recently in the U.S. some states have begun to remove these antiquated legal shields that protect faith healing parents from prosecution under the pretense of religious freedom. Just last month, three years after Oregon updated its laws, two parents were convicted of manslaughter and were each sentenced to 10 years in prison for allowing their daughter to die of a treatable form of diabetes, relying on prayer instead of medicine.

In her sciencebasedmedicine.org article, Faith Healing: Religious Freedom vs. Child Protection, Harriet Hall sums up the issue: “Freedom of religion has come into conflict with the duty of society to protect children. The right to believe does not extend to the right to endanger the lives of children.” She further explains, “The medical ethics principle of autonomy justifies letting competent adults reject lifesaving medical care for themselves because of their religious beliefs, but it does not extend to rejecting medical care for children. Society has a duty to over-ride parents’ wishes when necessary to protect children from harm.”

Emotional abuse is a thing

That the physical abuse of a child by an adult is detrimental to the child’s well-being is obvious and that we should criminalize faith healing when it leads to death or injury of a child should be equally as obvious. But why isn’t emotional abuse held to the same level of prosecution as physical or sexual abuse? Emotional abuse, according to a study cited by the American Psychological Association (APA), is just as harmful as sexual or physical abuse. It was found that “Children who are emotionally abused and neglected face similar and sometimes worse mental health problems as children who are physically or sexually abused.” According to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), a charity campaigning and working in child protection in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands, “not recognizing a child’s own individuality [and] trying to control their lives” is included in the definition of emotional abuse. It would seem given these definitions that emotional abuse should be prosecuted no differently than sexual or physical abuse.

In just such a step forward, last June in the Queen’s Speech, Queen Elizabeth announced a crime bill that would include legislation to criminalize neglect and emotional abuse of children.

Conversion therapy is emotional abuse

Coming full circle, conversion therapy can be described as a form of emotional abuse. The foundation of conversion therapy lies on the false premise that homosexuality and alternative gender identity are mental disorders. Forced conversion therapy can be classified as emotional abuse because it works to persuade the subject that they have a mental disorder when in fact they do not.

According to the APA the tenants of conversion therapy have “serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure.”

Mainstream health organizations critical of conversion therapy include the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Academy of Physician Assistants.

The good news is that in alignment with faith healing and emotional abuse as described above, legislative headway is being made in banning conversion therapy.

Washington D.C. recently became the third jurisdiction in the nation, after California and New Jersey, to ban the therapy for minors. There have also been legislative actions to make it illegal in eight other states. In New Jersey, the law was unanimously upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as Christian counselors and therapists fought to claim that the ban was a violation of free speech. Judge Freda Wolfson summed up the case with: “Surely, the fundamental rights of parents do not include the right to choose a specific medical or mental health treatment that the state has reasonably deemed harmful or ineffective.”

Conclusion

It is clear that suicide rates among LGBT teens are higher than their non-LGBT counterparts. High suicide rates in LGBT teens can be tied to emotional abuse characteristic of anti-LGBT households. In the same way the physical abuse of children should not protected by declarations of religious freedom as we have seen through the phenomenon of faith healing, so too the emotional abuse that comes with falsely diagnosing one’s LGBT child with a mental disorder and demanding that they become ‘healed’ can neither be protected on religious grounds. In agreement with Dan Savage’s view, Leelah Alcorn’s parents should indeed be prosecuted; the emotional abuse they unleashed on their daughter as evidenced through her online footprint can be seen to be the direct cause of her death.

New study identifies evolutionary basis for homosexuality

In the News