On Gay Activism

On Gay Activism

Intro

For the sake of argument and your continued readership, I would like to offer a disclaimer before I begin to regurgitate my political views on this subject. Firstly, I would like to be crystal clear with the notion that I believe ALL people, including the gay community, deserve to live a happy and full life. This belief is of course limited to those individuals who are fulfilling their livelihood within the boundaries of legal authority and not infringing on the livelihood of others. Which is precisely why I feel this blog is necessary. Those individuals who consider themselves to be gay activists are actually harming the overall push for enhanced gay rights, and I would like to tell you why.

The narrowed, abundantly passionate, and often aggressive verbalizations and concurrent protests of the gay activist community have offered very little room for opposition. Very few individuals have the gall to offer opposing views regarding gay rights (particularly gay marriage) for fear of being branded a bigot, hate monger, oppressor…etc. So, in true Guerilla Social Work fashion and Colossal Coxswain swagger, I would like to confront the status quo of thought and offer you my own assertion. I challenge you to not allow your passion to cloud your critical consideration of the subject matter. What I have to say may be controversial, and perhaps may seem offensive on the surface. All the same, I am not attempting to offend, but on the contrary attempting to foment some reasoned debate. I relish the idea that someone out there thinks they can break my argument. I double dog dare you to try and break this one!

Background

Motivation for my written word was spawned from the recent advent of the Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality Disorder in the upcoming DSM V (Diagnostic Statistical Manual). For those of you who are not familiar with the DSM, it is the foremost American Psychiatric Association’s guide for diagnosing mental health disorders. Now, to be fair, the DSM is not a “cookbook” for mental health disorders, but rather a guide offering diagnostic criteria. Mental health disorders are only determined to be “disorders” because their symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Although individuals may experience symptoms of specified diagnostic criteria for a particular disorder, they may have found a way to make said symptoms work for rather than against their life. The symptoms must be addressed in the context relative to the individual instead of the diagnostic criteria. In short, it’s only a disorder when it causes disorder.

For example, C. Coxswain often exhibits symptoms of a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy indicated by his preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; sense of entitlement; showing of arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes; grandiose sense of self-importance; and belief that he is special and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people. All of which fit the diagnostic criteria for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. However, C. Coxswain does not warrant diagnosis because these do not lead to impairment in his life; rather, they are factual descriptions of the type of person he is. Because C. Coxswain is actually superior, powerful, beautiful, entitled, arrogant, and deserving of admiration, he is not suffering from a personality disorder.

C. Coxswain?

He’s simply being himself, but I digress…

To be clear, Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality Disorder differs greatly from Homosexuality Disorder, which was appropriately removed as a diagnosis after the DSM III. Again, don’t get caught up in the negative connotations that come to mind when hearing the word “disorder”. The distinction of Ego-Dystonic is related to an individual’s problematic view of self causing dysfunction or impairment. Those warranting the aforementioned diagnosis of Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality Disorder experience same-sex attraction and personally see this attraction as a problem leading to dysfunction or impairment in their lives. Mental health professionals can therefore offer treatment to these individuals who are often very unhappy about their sexuality and wish they were heterosexual.

Needless to say, this idea has been met with stark protest from the gay activist community citing such treatment as being ineffective and in some cases very harmful to the individual. Instead they suggest that what’s needed is equal treatment by society, not misguided treatment from mental health professionals.

Well Mr. John Doe gay activist, how has that been working out for these people so far? While your ongoing, nearly stagnant approach to liberal gay activism in the interest of passing laws to enhance the rights of the gay community is slow to come to fruition to say the least, these individuals are suffering and need help. Simply stating that everyone deserves equal treatment is not enough. No shit we all deserve equal treatment! Your end-goal is just; however, your approach is not only equivalent to watching grass grow, but has been wholly ineffective thus far. Please allow C. Coxswain to take the reins.

Coxswain’s Evolutionary Digression

Prior to providing you with the indisputable Coxswain Contention, allow me to digress by making clear my thoughts on homosexuality’s relation to morality and evolution.  All too often we get caught up in arguments of morality guided recurrently by religious ideologies. While religious ideologies are important for this discussion, I find it important to look at the gay lifestyle on the most fundamental level and build up from there. I would first like to put forth the case that a homosexual lifestyle is fundamentally flawed in terms of viability. Now, calm down for a second and read on. It’s no secret that gay men and women are unable to procreate. If you were to take 10,000 gay men and relocate them to an island, in a hundred years you would have an island with 10,000 dead gay men. To rebut this claim, you may say that gay men and women could certainly procreate with one another while still maintaining their sexuality. For all intents and purposes this is true. Be that as it may, this doesn’t negate the case that homosexuality is a fundamentally flawed lifestyle. Engaging in heterosexual activity to promote procreation among an entirely homosexual population, would do nothing more than tacitly validate my previously stated case that homosexuality is not viable for the survival of that population.

Another counter-claim to this line of reasoning is that current technology affords homosexuals the ability to procreate without engaging in heterosexual activities. Once again, this is true. In spite of the laughable nature of this postulation in terms of cost, access, and simply being realistic, it still does not nullify my assertion that homosexuality is fundamentally flawed. But for the emergence of such technologies directly linked to the spawning of multiple generations of humans via heterosexual activity, such technology would not exist. In either case survival of the homosexual depends solely on the heterosexual. The question then is how you explain why homosexuals are in fact homosexuals if there is no viability in the lifestyle?

In search of explanation you really have to look at this from an evolutionary point of view. After all, using religion for explanation of the origins of humanity would do nothing more than to bring this argument to cessation because homosexuality is considered morally wrong and would therefore amount to nothing more than a sin. A notion with which I disagree. Since we don’t want to end this debate just yet, we have to consider the evolution of humans to stimulate thought. Moreover, all the secularists should cherish this line of banter since, in their opinion, religion amounts to nothing more than organized tomfoolery.

Evolution, however, only points out the inferiority of homosexuals. Chill out! Let me explain. In line with my previous thoughts, the concept of homosexuality simply cannot co-exist with the survival of the human race without piggy-backing on heterosexuality. Do your best and think of another group of people who could not otherwise survive without the support of the rest of the population, but have nevertheless managed to be granted equal rights. Stumped? How about the developmentally delayed and mentally retarded population? True, nothing to do with sexuality, and while some of these individuals have the ability to reproduce, they still do not represent a viable form of survival. From this, we can look at homosexuality as if it were some sort of mental deficiency, and obtain rights in this manner. Please…take me on and seek out a homosexual who would admit to his sexuality being a mental deficit. No takers? Alright, now read on for a bit longer and let me wrap this up.

The Coxswain Contention

I think the principal argument on the matter of gay rights boils down to whether or not one is “born gay”. I’m not going to waste time mincing words, I simply do not believe that gay people are predisposed to be, or born gay. This concept simply does not add up. Homosexuality is a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on a need to promote a quality of life. Disagree? I’ll talk more about this later, but let’s look at what we know and attempt to decipher some of the controversy surrounding the issue. My primary contention with the idea of some sort of predisposition to being gay is that it is a completely disempowering argument. Simply saying “I can’t help the way I was born” does nothing to promote or amplify gay rights. Rather, it fosters a victim-stance mentality among the gay populace that offers no other avenue for improving their quality of life. More importantly, where’s the proof? Pretty please show me the proof that gay men and women are actually born gay. Think about it. If there were such proof wouldn’t the debate be over by now? Would not every gay activist protester be shouting the proof from the rooftops? Would not every shirt worn and every protest placard during gay rallies be covered citations referencing the research? The answer is yes! But you don’t see that do you? Know why? Because no such proof exists!

Before you go scurrying to Google in search for something you think proves me wrong, let me save you the trouble and provide you with the most persuasive and relevant study to promote the idea of the “gay gene” or that one is born gay. The name of the study is Bailey and Pillard (1991): A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation. Bailey, a well known sexual orientation researcher, studied gay men and their brothers.  Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, they found 52% of the brothers were gay.  Of the homosexuals who had a fraternal twin brother, 22% of the fraternal twins were gay.  Bailey went on to conclude since identical twins had more than twice the rate of homosexuality when compared with fraternal twins and share far more genetic coding than fraternal twins, homosexuality must be genetic.   Bailey’s conclusion is a stretch.  As much as it makes the case that individuals are born gay, it does just as much to prove that they’re not.  If genes are considered to be a determined state, would not the rates of homosexual identical twins be anything less than 100%?  For hell’s sake, the pro-gay Bailey himself acknowledges in his own research that environment must play a role!  Bailey’s study unwittingly, yet scientifically, proves the dubious nature of genetic predetermination.  In fact, it points heavily towards the role operant conditioning plays in shaping all of us to become who we are.

Since C. Coxswain is not in the business of fence sitting on controversial issues, I will go so far as to suggest nobody is even born with homosexual traits. Think about a gay man with whom you have been acquainted, that you consider having feminine traits. Think about how he talks, the tone of his voice and enunciation. Think about how he walks and the posture of his body. Think about his general appearance including his eyes, nose, face, and hair. I know several gentlemen who exhibit such traits and are openly gay. There is no argument from this side that these can certainly be considered feminine traits. From simple observation I think we can agree that we have all seen such traits in individuals from time to time. We have all seen men who exhibit feminine characteristics, attributes, and mannerisms, and vice versa for some females. Despite the existence of these traits, this is hardly an explanation for the predisposition of homosexuality. Because, on the other hand, there are a multitude of men exhibiting obvious masculine traits as well as females who exhibit obvious feminine traits, and yet are still homosexual. In sum, the “born gay” argument does not hold any water worth drinking.

But tell me THIS isn’t worth driiinking!!!

One then has to wonder why the gay activist community continues to promote the notion that individuals are born gay. My opinion is that they would like to link themselves closely with other minority groups such as the African American population. And why not? Think of the civil rights movement and how far African American rights have come since then. Why shouldn’t the proliferation of gay rights follow in the same line? First of all, I find it incredibly offensive to equate the historical pain and suffering of African Americans to that of homosexuals…and I’m not even black! Secondly, this is simply not a valid argument. Granted, the atrocities suffered by both groups are inexcusable and serve as a constant reminder of the harmful effects of oppression. However, this certainly doesn’t suggest that gay rights can be considered the same thing as African American rights. The difference here is that determination of race is in fact based on scientific certainties, rather than a belief system. They are not one in the same and shouldn’t be the basis of argument for increasing the rights of the homosexual community.

The Coxswain Solution

I think I’ve made my case that being born gay is simply not a valid or helpful argument for homosexuals. Therefore I posit that homosexuals must embrace their lifestyle as a choice in order to obtain the rights they deserve. If you can manage to stop shaking your head and rolling your eyes in disagreement, focus and be prepared to offer apologies when you have finished reading. Now, I acknowledge that the word “choice” often carries a negative stigma when referring to homosexuality. So please, give me a chance to explain.

When I say “choice”, I’m not simply saying that a person wakes up one day and says to themselves “I’m going to start being gay”. Undoubtedly this has happened, but I think we can all agree that this is the exception and not the rule. So what is the rule? When we look at choice we have to address it at the most fundamental level. Think back to your earliest memory. Does your sexuality at that time even come to mind? I know mine doesn’t. Therefore, we have to look at sexuality in terms of development and operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is the use of natural consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behavior. Operant in this sense is a voluntary behavior, and therefore refers to a choice. This type of behavior operates on the environment of the individual and is maintained by its consequences. Naturally occurring consequences will ultimately either affect behavior through reinforcement (increase behavior), punishment (decrease behaviors), or extinction (gradual cessation of behaviors due to lack of reinforcement).

Skinner’s Homeless Rat

This does not simply mean we are all products of our environment and that sexuality is learned and reinforced by the natural consequences around us. Operant conditioning considers the notion of fixed action patterns, or in other words instincts. These fixed action patterns can be used to reinforce learned behaviors. For example,  police dogs have a fixed action pattern of predatory biting which can be used as reinforcement for successfully completing a search and rescue training. I assert that humans have a fixed action pattern for heterosexuality, and that heterosexual behaviors are reinforced throughout their various developmental stages because they are largely considered “normal” in our society. This ultimately results in a heterosexual lifestyle. So, if anything, we are all born heterosexual.

Homosexuality then stems from not only the extinction or punishment of heterosexual behaviors, but also the reinforcement of homosexual behaviors. This is where things get a little tricky. For the most part, homosexual behaviors in infants and toddlers are often met with punishment or extinction causing the frequency of the behaviors to decline. However, similar to the way we address symptoms of mental “disorders” in the context relative to the individual rather than the diagnostic criteria of the DSM, the ideas of reinforcement, punishment, and extinction must be considered in the context relative to the infant or toddler. Meaning, in short, that at some point of their development homosexuals have relatively redefined the natural consequences of their environment to reinforce homosexual behaviors while their heterosexual behaviors are met with extinction and/or punishment. This supports the notion of choosing homosexuality as a lifestyle. It’s important to point out here that this is not a conscious decision made by infants or toddlers because they simply do not have the cognitive capacity to do so, but rather a subconscious distinction based on their experiences during development. The reasons for such distinctions are infinite, so no one environmental stimulus can be attributed to causing this feature.

Think of it this way, underlings. Homosexual behaviors are often punished in a religious environment and therefore would prove once again to not be of any use for explanation. To be sure, we’re not interested in the route of categorizing homosexual behaviors as a moral sin. Although it may be a rarity, an environment which reinforces homosexual behaviors is not valid for this argument either.

I posit conditioned behaviors must be met with extinction in the environment in which they occur.  Such behaviors would be met with neither reinforcement nor punishment. This is supported by an operant conditioning concept called extinction-induced variability. Extinction-induced variability tells us to look at behavior as if it existed on a bell curve.

The horizontal axis being the different variations (range) for a possible given behavior, and the vertical axis being the response’s probability in a given situation (frequency). The responses in the middle of the bell curve, in this case heterosexual behaviors, have been most effective at producing reinforcement during development. The outlying forms of behavior, homosexual behaviors, would lie at the lower ends of the curve, to the left and to the right of the peak.  Take a respite from deciphering text book drudgery by considering the example below

Imagine Michael Jordan taking a foul shot. How easy do you think it is for him to make a foul shot? Pretty easy, right? In this situation the response would be Jordan taking the shot and the reinforcement would be the ball going through the hoop.  Now, although the foul shot may be easy for Jordan, he will not take the shot the exact same way every time. Rather, each time he takes a shot he will do it a little differently. Maybe it’s the closing seconds of the game, he’s tired and he has to shoot with more force than he normally would. Maybe less force; Maybe with one hand, maybe with both hands; sometimes quickly, sometimes more slowly.

Because of the physical properties of Jordan and what it takes to make a foul shot, there is a certain range of successful responses which are reinforced.  If we assume foul shots are the easiest to make, then the highly reinforced foul shots would exist in the range at the top of the bell curve.

Now imagine all the other shots Jordan has to make during a game. He’s not going to stop if he misses shots and he’s not going to stop if he makes shots. He’s going to play the game until the last buzzer rings. Again, this has to do with perception. In Jordan’s adapted perception, making shots and missing shots is all part of the game. Of course, making a shot is reinforcing and therefore a foul shot would be the simplest way to seek reinforcement determining the peak of the bell curve. However, you can’t simply take foul shots the whole game.  From Jordan’s perspective his behavior (taking shots during the game while being guarded by defenders) is met with neither reinforcement nor punishment, but rather, extinction. This is when extinction-induced variability occurs. The bell curve of probable responses will begin to broaden with more outlying forms of behavior becoming more likely. Jordan may now have to make a jump shot, slam dunk, sky hook, or even a half-court shot (the outliers) to win the game.

I argue that the value of reinforcement for making the tougher shots listed above may be cause for increasing the likelihood of taking similar shots. Likewise, throughout development homosexuals will begin to broaden their own bell curves of reinforcement stemming from their outlying behaviors in conjunction with their own adapted perceptions and definitions of reinforcement. What’s more, think about Jordan’s success in driving to the hoop (outlying behavior) in an effort to draw a foul from a defender resulting in foul shots—again leading back to the behavior most effective at producing reinforcement (the foul shot). This is how extinction causes variability in behavior. In the hope that these new variations might be successful the individual will engage in outlying behaviors in an effort to gain reinforcement. My application of the extinction-induced variability concept is an important part of the operant conditioning procedure in determining sexuality.

For example, in my professional experience I have witnessed one of admittedly many potential outliers in determining homosexuality. Consider the influence sexual abuse has on sexual orientation. I’ve had several clients who have experienced sexual abuse at a young age and are now homosexuals. Now, I know what you’re thinking, don’t get your panties in a bunch…calm down and let me continue. Generally this is what happens…Chester the Molesters delves out horrific abuse on his 4-year-old nephew Joe. Due to Chester convincing Joe that the abuse is normal familial love, coupled with physiological sexual stimulation, the naïve Joe does not think of this as abuse. Abuse is therefore experienced as love. In terms of operant conditioning, what would normally be considered a punishment is now considered to be a reinforcement. The child therefore grows up to be homosexual because of the “love” he experienced when abused. Granted, the child will likely grow in to an adult who may completely resent and have a strong hatred for what his uncle did to him.  Yet, he still ends up conditioned to a homosexual orientation without consciously linking the disgusting uncle’s abuse with his current, demanding desire for devouring dude’s dongs.

This is not to say all homosexuals are victims of sexual molestation, but rather provides a single circumstantial description of what extinction-induced variability might look like. The possibilities for the occurrence of extinction-induced variability are endless. Again, because they have to be viewed in the context of the individual experiencing the environment. Essentially everyone will experience their environment differently.

The Colossal Coxswain Conclusion

Let’s wrap things up, shall we? To be crystal clear, my grandiose bloviating has purpose beyond schooling your tired eyes about the environmental determinants responsible for the connections between development and homosexuality. This was hardly my intention from the onset; however, without proper guidance my little readers would be lost. Therefore, I had no choice but to set the stage for my assertions to prevent the undoubtedly mind-numbing, tautological arguments from dissenters.

So, let’s get back to my real intention: guiding the gay population to a medium through which they will be better able to enhance their current rights. And what better right to focus on than that of gay marriage; after all, a recent referendum in Maine voted down the right to marriage for homosexuals even after the Maine legislature passed laws granting these rights. A shame no doubt. Maine would have been the 6^th state in the United States to allow same-sex marriage, but rather became the 31^st state to oppose these unions in a popular vote. Wow 31 to 6…doesn’t seem like the political side of gay activism is doing justice to the gay community at large. This isn’t a surprise to me whatsoever. Political advocates are extremely one dimensional in their thinking, and focus almost exclusively on resources as the agenda and justification for their causes.

I ask you to instead look at the idea of gay marriage to see if it’s even a feasible route for the enhancement of gay rights. I will not discuss the religious implications of marriage here because they are irrelevant to the argument, but also counter to the gay rights movement. To begin, we have to ask ourselves the fundamental reason why anyone would want to marry in the first place. At the end of the day is marriage not just essentially making your private life public for the purpose of gaining certain benefits from the state? More importantly, is this not just a free pass for the government to know more about your private sexual life? It most certainly is. So why does the state have a vested interest in the private sexual lives of individual citizens? Well, again this comes back to the allocation of resources. Reason being, marriage laws are essentially in place to benefit procreative relationships, protect children, and keep property concentrated within the family. Marriage often involves a great deal of assets being passed on generationally, and the government has historically found marriage as the best method for ensuring the safe passage of these resources.  Not to mention that marriage serves as the primary vehicle of population replacement in our country. The fact that same-sex couples are unable to procreate is the lynchpin of the debate. Generally the government does not see why it would need to delve into the personal lives of same-sex couples in terms of marriage laws because there is simply no point. Not, however, because states are generally discriminatory to the rights of homosexuals.

Spare me your arguments about how the institution of marriage has been damaged by the divorce rates in the country because I planned on discussing this anyway. I realize marriage isn’t as sacred to some as it is to others. Big f@#%ing surprise! Thanks for the info! Look, stop feeding off the political gay activists talking points. Just think for a minute! I realize there are an abundance of child-births outside of wedlock and that many gay couples adopt and are perfectly good parents, but this does nothing for your argument. The aforementioned deficits in same-sex couples’ ability to procreate will never go away, and will therefore never be a viable reason for the government to recognize their unions of love. Marriage laws are not based on love. Laws are politics, and the politics are concerned with the allocation of resources; allocation of resources primarily to those who cannot protect themselves, but are otherwise a product of the marriage: CHILDREN!!!  So, let’s be honest with ourselves here…the only reason for want of recognition regarding same-sex marriages is when it comes to allocation of resources. It has very little, if anything to do with love. In the eleventh hour, there is not one law saying that gay couples cannot go through the exact same ceremony of marriage as straight couples. Go get married if you want. Invite everyone, send out invitations, make announcements, rent some fondue fountains, hire a Village People cover band, register at Bed Bath & Beyond and I guarantee the government won’t stop you. Now, if you want some state bestowed benefits, lets’ chat further.

The breadth of rights and obligations that come with marriage are too exhaustive to be mentioned here, but to be fair, the large majority of them can be obtained through civil unions. However, there is no federal recognition of civil union laws and it is therefore up to the state to decide. Currently only 18 states offer the civil union option for bestowing the same or similar rights of marriage onto same-sex couples. I assert that the federal constitution is simply too concrete of a document to focus our efforts. Therefore the gay community must target the state constitutions. Just to be clear, there is nothing…and I mean nothing in the constitution directly protecting the rights of individuals based on their sexuality. Further, of all the anti-discrimination laws and Civil Rights Acts passed in our country, there is not one mention of protecting marriage. So please do not reference these sources.

I propose that the gay community use the first amendment, particularly that which protects the freedom of religious belief through the free exercise clause. The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This, my friends, is the key! The gay community must stop their anti-religious protest in an effort to bring recognition to their lack of rights, and they must stop now. Instead, I posit that the gay community must embrace the freedom of religion as a wonderful thing and completely support religious peoples’ right to judge their homosexuality as being immoral. In true liberal fashion and in the traditions of the father of liberal thought, Voltaire, who once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, homosexuals must snuggle right up to religious denigration of their sexuality. Confused? Well the freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion. Religion is the only protected freedom providing rights to those protected based on choice. Choice is the pivotal maxim for the enhancement of gay rights.

When all is said and done, how fundamentally different is religious choice from choice in sexuality? Both are a system of human thought, symbols, beliefs, narratives, and practices that give meaning to the practitioners’ life experience. The only difference really is that most religions are based on some sort of higher power or deity to reference and account for life experiences. However, other protected religions are simply based on the ultimate truth, and there is nothing in the first amendment stating that a religion has to be based on a deity. If homosexuality is designated to be a choice through the means of the operant conditioning argument previously proffered, and that choice is exemplified as homosexuals’ system of belief in search of the ultimate truth, and one of the requisite functions of the search for the ultimate truth is through the matrimonial union of same-sex couples, how then can the government stop you?!  The Free Exercise Clause has already been utilized in previous cases of interpretation by the Supreme Court. Applying a new standard of “strict scrutiny” in various areas of civil rights law, the Court began to apply this standard to the First Amendment religion clauses as well, reading the Free Exercise Clause to require accommodation of religious conduct except where a state could show a compelling interest and no less burdensome means to achieve that end. One example was Sherbert v. Verner, where the Court overturned the state Employment Security Commission’s decision to deny unemployment benefits to a practicing member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who was forced out of a job after her employer adopted a 6 day work week, which would have required her to work on Saturdays against the dictates of her religion. As Justice William Brennan stated for the majority, “to condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant’s willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties.” This test was used through the years of the Burger Court, including particularly in the landmark case of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).

This is it my gay friends! Legitimize your homosexual lifestyle as your choice of the way to live your life to the fullest. There is nothing more empowering than your ability to make that choice. Stop playing the victim role and using terminology that makes homosexuality out to be some kind of disease. Empower yourselves! THE ARGUMENT CANNOT BE BROKEN!

“Without evil there can be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes.”

~C. Coxswain