A Look at Civic Issues

Over the years, we have increasingly come to hear numerous stories of scientists trying to come up with the answer to, or the source of, homosexuality. Over the years, we have also heard of numerous attempts, via churches or official laws passed by state governments, to “solve the problem” of homosexuality using so-called gay conversation therapies (or more commonly known as attempts to “pray the gay away”). With the increased awareness in gay rights and issues comes greater transparency with these issues. ABC’s What Would You Do?, a show that is essentially the moral-justice/social experiment version of Punk’d, even covered a “pray the gay away” scenario in one of its segments. It is clear that the search for what exactly makes people gay, and what can “cure” them, has seeped into our cultural understanding.

In order to examine gay conversion therapies- what they are, what they do, if they really work- we must first look at the biology behind homosexuality. Previously, there had been research pointing to homosexuality stemming from a gene- there was the concept of a single so-called “gay gene.” Now, however, within the past few years, new research has emerged suggesting that being gay may be the result of epi-marks, or “extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed” (source). These epi-marks a supposed to be erased in passing from parent to child, but that suspected to not be the case for gays and lesbians. Instead, fathers pass their epi-marks to their daughts, and mothers pass their epi-marks to their sons, making their offspring more likely to be gay due to the masculinization of females and feminization of men, according to scientists. Of course, the homosexuality is suspected to only manifest when the epi-marks are strong, and there is variance in the strength of the markers. Scientists also suspect that because homosexuality may be linked to epi-marks and not genetics; thus, although homosexuality would have been eliminated years ago through evolution because since gays are not able to reproduce, the epi-mark link continues because epi-marks provide an “evolutionary advantage” for parents in order to serve to protect them from too much or too little testosterone (again, same source).

Other studies have agreed with the general idea of this finding, that homosexuality is partly genetic. In a study of 400 sets of male twins, researchers found that, though gay men shared a similar genetic makeup, their genes only made up a 40% chance of being gay. The bigger part of what determines whether or not someone is gay is due to social and environmental factors- in this case, homosexuality is a bigger case of “nurture” than “nature” (source).

Despite the increased understanding of the dual role that biology and social environment have on a child’s sexuality, gay conversion therapies remain popular in many parts of the country. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation conversion therapy is defined as “counseling and psychotherapy to attempt to eliminate individuals’ sexual desires for members of their own sex.” Effectively, the therapy attempts to turn the gay straight in order to eliminate individuals’ “unnatural” desires. Organizations that conduct such counseling are often linked to religious groups. As the APA has stated, gay conversion therapies also rely on the fundamental belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder or illness, a view that the APA officially rejects. Furthermore, the organization claims that the therapies are actually damaging to the very individuals that they are trying to help because they promote the view that homosexuality is a mental disease and inability to “conquer it” is a “personal and moral failure” (source again). Because of this, and also due to the lack of cohesion in gay therapies (there is not standard practice because it is not a formally recognized treatment by the American Psychological Association), sexual conversion therapy is generally seen as ineffective and damaging on the whole. There is only one study that suggests that conversion therapy works, and that study is so highly criticized for its lack of scientific methodology that even the man who conducted it has admitted its inaccuracy.

Although the science on what causes homosexuality is still evolving, gay conversion therapies have already been banned in California and New Jersey, with more states looking to follow suit. There are still more states to ban it, and a definitive cause of homosexuality will one day emerge.

Hate crimes are defined as “a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.” (source). Traditionally, Americans have looked at hate crimes within the race or religious aspects, correctly identifying the burning cross and nighttime rides of the KKK against African-Americans as hate crimes, as well as prejudice against Jews in the 1940s as an examples religious hate crimes. While hate crimes stemming from race and religion are still an issue, we have increasingly begun to see crimes against persons on the basis of sexual orientation as hate crimes.

The media recognition and increased attention focused on hate crimes can be traced, in part, to the story of Matthew Shepard.

Shepard was an openly gay student studying at the University of Wyoming. In 1998, after a night at a local bar, he was given a ride home by two men who drove him to a remote area, robbed, pistol-whipped, and tied Shepard to a fence, leaving him to die. After initially being mistaken for a scarecrow 18 hours later from a cyclist, Shepard was taken to a hospital where he later died from the injuries he sustained from the attack. His murder was labeled a hate crime after many suspected that he was targeted based on his sexual orientation, and his attackers attempted to defend their actions by alleging that Shepard had “come onto them.” In the wake of the tragedy, however, there were gains made in hate crime legislation; notably in 2009 when the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act were passed. The law is the first to include protections for transgendered people, and it also expands the definition of a hate crime to include crimes motivated by gender, sexuality, or perceived iteration of the former, as well as removes the prerequisite that victims must be engaging in a federally protected activity in order to be labeled a hate crime.

While the act is a step in the right direction, the statistics regarding LGBTQs and hate crimes continue to be high. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are the victims of hate crimes at 8.3 times the expected rate for a given population. Additionally, among various ethnic groups, gays are far more likely to be the victims of violent hate crimes, such as assault (source). Furthermore, although the FBI reports that hate crimes are declining as a whole, that does not hold true for hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In fact, the number of officially record hate crimes on file with the Bureau has risen slightly. It is important to note that, as touched upon in a previous post, LBGT people of color are 1.8 times as likely to experience physical violence because of their sexuality than their white peers. Gay men were also 1.5 times more likely to require medical attention compared to other reporting survivors. What few statistics the FBI does keep on transgender notes that they were 1.6 times more likely to experience threats and intimidation compared to their LGB peers.

Source

What all of these statistics add up to is that despite the progress we’ve made, there is still a long way to go. Mainstream awareness is changing, and people are becoming more aware of the issues surrounding the community, be it the fight for equal rights, health services (HIV and AIDS affect the gay community at a disproportionate rate than heterosexuals- although I’d like to remind everyone that HIV can be transmitted to anyone) and public roles (actors, politicians, and CEOs). However, with the advancements are still reminders of the progress left to be made, and these statistics and these stories- a man was shot in Greenwich Village, an area known for its bohemian, accepting inhabitants, just last year for being openly gay and dressing in a manner that was not hetero-normative- show that there is a lot of work left to be done. But with awareness of the problems plaguing the LGBTQ community seeping into the mainstream, the fight can still be won.

SIDE NOTE: If anyone is interested, it is currently Gay Pride week on campus. Even if you are heterosexual, if you consider yourself an ally, it might be eye-opening to attend one of the events the LGBTQ Center on campus is hosting this week.

As silly as the title of this post sounds, it hits on the crux of the debate concerning same-sex adoption, focusing on whether or not a child raised by two mothers or two fathers affects its upbringing and development.

I have to confess that again, I am somewhat biased. After all, my home state of Delaware is among the states with the highest percentages of same-sex couple households. Rehoboth Beach, where I spent most of my summers as a child, is known as one of the gay-friendliest towns in the United States. I remember pretty clearly being good friends with a girl who lived down the street from my beach house, and she was raised by two moms. Combined with my liberal outlook in general, I think you can guess where I stand.

But what I want to focus on is not my personal belief; rather, I think it’s important to examine the laws and norms that are currently in place regarding homosexual households and adoption laws in the country.

As of the 2010 census, there are 594,000 same sex couple households in the United States. Of those households, almost twenty percent reported having children, and 84% of those that claimed offspring lived with their own children.

Now, the laws on gay adoption are tricky and vary widely by state. Florida is the only state with an “outright ban” on gay adoption, while a multitude of states (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C) openly allow it. Still others have such strict laws that LGBT couples are, perhaps unwillingly, discriminated against, such as Utah and New Hampshire, which forbids any unmarried couple, gay or straight from adopting. I think it’s also relevant and interesting to note that Mississippi allows a single person to adopt a child but not a gay couple (source for all of these states provided in the Florida hyperlink).

What is all the fuss against allowing gays to adopt? I looked at arguments against allowing all couples to adopt, courtesy of the conservative think-tank, the Family Research Council. Among the objections, purportedly drawn from scientific research, are the concerns that same-sex parents would engender sexual and gender disorders in their children, as well as “undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage,” as well as the idea that children “hunger” for their biological parents. These claims all focus on fears regarding traditional gender socialization, as well as traditional gender roles and conceptualizations of what it means to be married and raise a family.

UK newspaper The Week, which intends to publish “multiple political viewpoints” on current issues,  listed the expected opposition arguments as well as arguments in support of gay adoption. Among their points, they raised the issue that discrimination against LGBT couples trying to begin a family was a form of sex discrimination, as well the facts that there is a shortage of parents seeking to adopt in an overcrowded foster care system and the belief that same-sex couples provide a measure of stability, as they tend to form longer-lasting relationships than heterosexual couples.

As an anecdotal piece of evidence in support of allowing gays and lesbians to adopt, here’s Zach Wahl’s 2011 speech to the Iowa state legislature. Although his speech was an attempt to bar the passage of Iowa passing an amendment to their constitution to eliminate recognition of gay marriage, his illustrative examples of his family life serve to show how normal his life was, despite being raised by two mothers. He had a little sister, and he still participated in Boy Scouts, even going so far as to reach the Eagle Scout level, an achievement seen as being masculine and representative of male roles.

Despite the debate and legal complication surrounding adoption, homosexual couples’ adoption rates have continued to rise. There are still obstacles, but adoptions have continued despite setbacks. The fight for families will carry on.

With all the renewed interest in gay and lesbian rights recently in the wake of the surge in interest and debate over same-sex marriage, LGBTQ issues have been in the national limelight now more than ever. Since the Stonewall riots in 1969, the community has made progress in some realms, yet the community’s rights remain lacking and even endangered when compared to the basic rights of their heterosexual peers.

I have to confess that although I am straight, I still feel invested in this struggle. It’s always appealed to me as an issue of equality, and mainstream society at large must celebrate the small victories while still recognizing how much work there is to still be done.

Thus, while I am thrilled at the mainstream attention that gay and lesbian discrimination has received, I still worry about the “forgotten” part of LGBTQ- the transgender community.

Recently, LaVerne Cox, an actress on Netflix’s acclaimed series Orange is the New Black, received attention for her handling of an interview conducted by Katie Couric that focused on Cox’s transition, rather than her accomplishments. Cox brought up some very important issues that face the trans community- mainly the reoccuring pattern that focus on the transition takes away attention from the important realities surrounding today’s trans community, such as the disproportionately high percentage of unemployment, violence, and other discrimination and negative reactions that continue to plague transgendered people.

What’s so important about Laverne Cox speaking out on behalf of the community is that is raises awareness. Despite the mainstream attention and widespread support of the media on behalf of homosexuals, transgendered people are often forgotten in the quest for LGBTQ rights. Many people know the story of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming college student who was brutally murdered for being gay and whose story was the basis for the well-known play The Laramie Project. Islan Nettles died eight days after being beaten when a man who had attempted to come onto her realized she had not been born a biological female, yet her death has not received nearly the amount of media coverage that Shepard’s did in the late 1990s. Although there is (valid and justified) outrage over gays subject to violence or as victims of homicide, the violence against trans people continues to be forgotten, overlooked, or just not covered: transgendered women in particular still make up 45% of hate murders and trans people in general are at a “disproportionately high risk” of being victims of hate violence (source).

Even without the immense problem of violence against  the transgendered, there is still an incredible amount of discrimination and intolerance codified into the wider community. A 2009 study of transgendered individuals in the workplace found the an astonishing 97% of transgendered people had experienced “harassment or mistreatment” in their work environment, and almost half of those surveyed said that their gender identity played a part in being fired, not hired, or not advancing (source). Their economic plight does not fare much better: they are more than twice the national average of earning incomes less than $10,000 (15% compared to the national average of 7%). Transgendered people also face higher rates of homelessness and lack of access to employer-based health coverage than their cisgendered peers.

The bottom line is that there is a huge gap in privilege- economic, safety, and politcal representation- of the heternormative, cisgendered population and the transgendered population in the United States. The LGBTQ community is, ideally, encompassing and accepting of everyone; however, too often, the “T” in the acronym is forgotten or overlooked. There is still much work to be done for the community as a whole, but we must recognize that the transgendered community is far behind its peers in the realm of rights, equality, and acceptance.  Hopefully, with the spotlight increasingly on positive figures such as LaVerne Cox and Chaz Bono, some light can be shed on the situation and society is able to successfully lobby for the rights and acceptance of everyone.

The attention on issues within the battle for gay rights in the United States has picked up a substantial amount of steam in the past three years. As of January 2014, seventeen states have now legalized gay marriage, seven of these states in the past year alone. There’s something to be said about a cause which has had its progress snowball very rapidly very recently. Social media and mainstream pop culture has played a role in this, with this past Sunday’s Grammy Awards show featuring rapper Macklemore’s performance of his critically acclaimed “Same Love” while more than thirty straight and homosexual couples were legally married in the audience. Even from personal experience, I find that my friends (who admittedly may tend to lean on the liberal side) posting pictures of past protests by whites against desegregating schools and comparing their protests to the modern battle over gay marriage. Social media is a powerful tool- remember last spring, when everyone seemed to be changing their Facebook profile pictures in support of gay marriage in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to issue a ruling on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)? Certainly, the popular tide of support seems to be turning in the favor of procuring the right to marry for everyone, regardless of sexual preference, spurred on the its recent rise in profile according the celebrity endorsements (although does the President count as a celebrity) and court rulings.

The question of whether or not gays should have the legal rights to marry entails a variety of other benefits as a direct result of being able to marry. Married couples enjoy legal benefits that unmarried couples do not; couples who enjoy the legal rights that marriage provides are able to make medical decisions on behalf of their spouses, file their income taxes together, and sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes for them to be able to come to the United States. Many states who have not yet legalized gay marriage have legalized civil unions; however, these unions neglect to provide the full benefits of marriage. Partners in a  civil union cannot sponsor family members to aid in the immigration process, their rights to make medical decisions on the behalf of their partner are not guaranteed in states other than the state in which the civil union was granted, they are unable to make unlimited transfers of property and gifts and are federally taxed on larger gifts and transfers, and their rights are only guaranteed in the state in which the civil union was granted. When Ellen Degeneres hosted John McCain on her talk show during the 2008 election cycle, she framed civil unions as a case of “Well, [gay couples] can sit here, but [they] can’t sit over there.”

The fight over the legalization of gay marriage is not only a question of marriage rights but also on the morality of homosexuality itself. Scientists have devoted research to determining whether or not being gay is truly a “choice,” and the results are still vague. They have struggled to find a biological reason for the propagation of homosexuality within humans. Some studies have suggested that there is a genetic predisposition involved, if the higher rates of homosexuality among identical twins versus fraternal twins is any indication (the logic goes that the higher incidence of homosexuality among identical twins may have something to do with the shared genes). Additionally, when framed against the goal of evolution (survival), scientists have puzzled over the persistence of homosexuality, because their sexual acts would not result in reproduction and survival of the race and therefore is considered evolutionarily maladapative.

While the source of homosexuality remains unclear, there is no question that the fight for marriage rights for gays is not over. The battle for either side, pro- gay marriage and anti-gay marriage, will continue.