The Religious Rights’ Unreal Understanding of Homosexuality
Jonathan Rowe on May 8th 2008
You can always count on WorldNetDaily to express such an unreal understanding on homosexuality. WND produces two articles about an antigay administrator at the University of Toledo who was suspended for writing an antigay column. Time permits me to discuss only a few points.
First, whatever the legal or constitutional issues involved (whether this is a private school not bound by the First Amendment or a state school that is), it was lame to punish this woman for writing the column. There is plenty wrong with what this woman wrote; and the best way to counter that is to criticize her with more speech, exactly what I’m doing.
Here is one of the offending paragraphs, illustrating her poor argumentation:
“As a black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few.
Homosexuals are civil rights victims. Homosexuals historically have been subject to sodomy laws which led to imprisonment or worse, being banned from government jobs, institutionalization with a whole slew of sadistic treatments like electroshock therapy, reputation ruining, all which have led to at worst suicides like that of World War II hero Alan Turing. In short, if mistreatment is a criterion for being a civil rights victim, homosexuals easily pass that test.
Regarding the test of civil rights categories, her argument would be valid only if 1) blacks alone had a monopoly on civil rights status; or 2) immutability were some absolute test for civil rights status, neither of which is true. Because of unique historical circumstances, I’d be willing to live in a world where race were the only civil rights category, but that’s not the world in which we live. We’d have to say goodbye to gender, pregnancy, color, ethnic origin, religion, age, disability — all protected at the federal level. And many others protected at the state.
Many of those categories are not immutable or inborn like race. Diseases can be cured and some disabilities like paralysis result entirely from chosen risky behavior, but are covered disabilities nonetheless. Further religion is entirely a matter of choice, much more so than sexual orientation.
Does Bill Donahue’s mission to fight anti-Catholic bigotry exist on a mistaken premise, that there can be no such thing as “bigotry” where the trait is mutable as Roman Catholicism certainly is? Have evangelicals ever spoken of “anti-Christian bigotry”? If this woman’s premises are taken for granted, religion could not qualify as a “civil rights” category.
It is also false that daily thousands of homosexuals decide to “leave the homosexual lifestyle.” Groups like Exodus have a proven record of failure with regards to most folks who attempt to change their sexual orientation.
Finally, I want to explore the issue of gays and wealth that repeatedly comes up. The argument goes something as follows: We don’t need sexual orientation discrimination codes because gays & lesbians are better educated and make a lot more money. As she was reported as saying:
“Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor’s degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself,” she said.
Jews and Asians are also better educated and make higher incomes. Could you imagine someone trying to argue they should be forbidden from anti-discrimination protection because of this. Further, because of the proven track record religious conservatives have on spreading false information in the guise of “statistics” about homosexuals, I’m extremely wary of her numbers. My own anecdotal observations suggest gays probably are better educated and have higher incomes (thus, like Jews and Asians, aren’t economically impoverished). However her figures seem exaggerated to say the least. Gays would be outperforming both Jews and Asians! Gays would be civilizational superstars, the most model of the model minorities. Society arguably would have a duty to cultivate homosexuality given its incredible results at economic and civilizational achievement.
Further such high performing homosexuals suggest a biological not a developmental cause for homosexuality. There are cultural/developmental reasons as to why Jews and Asians outperform. For developmental explanations to work, they must be present in a child’s environment at a young age. And indeed many Jewish and Asian homes cultivate educational and economic success from such a young age.
But gays are all raised in heterosexual households, and do not join the gay “subculture” until such development is already set in stone. Such higher rates of IQ and creativity necessary to be so better educated and make so much more $$ would have to be explained biologically, suggesting gays are biologically different. Whatever biological factors that are likely to make folks smarter and more creative are more likely to make them homosexual. If homosexuality has such a strong biological cause, it makes this woman’s assertion about “choosing the homosexual lifestyle” ring all the more hollow.
Further the notion that gays can be so better educated and have higher incomes also gravely conflicts with the religious rights’ notion of homosexuality as a social dysfunction. To hear them tell the story gays are hopelessly promiscuous, disease ridden, depressed, drug addicted, alcoholics.
I’m sorry but common sense dictates that a social group cannot at once both be that dysfunctional and so successful that their household incomes are almost 80% above the median. That would take hyper functionality. Gays would have to be arguably the most socially functional social group to be that successful.
This is why the narrative told by the religious right (”The Gay Agenda”) is so unreal that it defies credulity.
Filed in The Boudoir |
Jews and Asians are also better educated and make higher incomes. Could you imagine someone trying to argue they should be forbidden from anti-discrimination protection because of this.
Sure, just about every college admissions office in the country.
(But, yeah, I get the point.)
All good points. I’d just add that studies that find gay people have a higher average income can only count the gay people who openly identify as gay. This skews the result because people in higher education and income brackets are more likely to come out. Their peers tend to be more tolerant, and money gives them the option to leave an unwelcoming job or town. Poorer gay people have fewer ways out of a bad situation, and so have more incentive to hide. They’re also more likely to grow up in an environment that condemns gay people, and so not to realize their orientation until later in life.
The result is that the sample for any study about gay people that depends on self-reported orientation is going to miss a lot of construction workers and secretaries, and end up looking like white collar professionals are the norm.
Well, pretty much you’ll have to go to the outback—places like World Net Daily [or perhaps the Claremont boards, hehe] to get much engagement on this, Jon. Intelligent people tend to avoid the whole subject, lest they meet Ms. Dixon’s fate of being tagged “anti-gay” and endangering their livelihoods.
Heh.
I find the language if immutability regarding civil rights really creepy — it seems like the people using that argument do not think it through. Does Ms. Dixon really feel that if a ‘treatment’ for being Black were invented (as Betty Bowers so brilliantly lampooned here http://www.bettybowers.com/bigots.html) that she should lose civil rights protection, since change is now available?
Where is she getting this “economic data’? There are no citations at all.
I suspect she’s quoting the usual market research data that the anti-gay crowd likes to point to; it consists of reader responses to magazine surveys. IOW, not in any sense a true sample of gay people, but a self-selected group that, by virtue of reading the particular magazine, is probably already aligned with the magazines’ target audience: that is, upscale individuals.
There was, though, an actual study of gay income done not long ago; here’s an article about it at IGF. It said that lesbians earn about 11 percent more than heterosexual women, on average - but that gay men earn 17% less than heterosexual men.
Also, to augment tilts_at_windmills’ post: Many of these higher-income self-identified gays live in major metro areas where they can be self-identified AND not fear for their safety and the safety of the loved ones and/or property. These areas have a higher cost of living so I would think that the majority of the gay “Super-Earners” are actually making a lot less when you curve their earnings against the cost of living.
According to the figures above, my fiance and I are one of the “entitled gays” but living in Los Angeles means that even with a combined income of 100K+ per year, we cannot afford to buy a house (or a condo, for that matter) in the area that we currently live.
I am just curious if you threw in statistics about African American GLBT folks if the numbers of highly educated high income earning homosexuals would go down. I, as a black gay man, would also argue against the point that biology plays a pivitol role in educational attainment and income. I feel this post is slanted towards a white gay perspective. This issue of race as a protected civil rights category and sexuality as such is a thorny one for me. I do beleive that as GLBT folk we should have protections however I also acknowledge that white privilege and racism do exist within the GLBT community and it should be addressed. I have heard arguments similar to the suspended administrators one and I understand how black people fail to grasp the oppression of white gays and lesbians as many of them are land owners, business owners, college educated and otherwise successful. The disparities between college graduation rates, rates of imprisonment for black males (gay and straight), earned income, and home ownership are vast between the color lines and need to be investigated and discussed alongside the discussions of homophobia, racism, and classism in this country.
BLS:
You have to be careful about studies and controls. I think the 17% less figure carefully controls for everything and shows perfectly situated gays v. straights. That’s fine if you are checking for discrimination and indeed, all things being equal a straight man (esp. one with a wife and kids) is probably more likely to get the job. The notion that gays make more probably results from gays being better educated and more qualified on average (hence the things that are controlled away in those studies). In other words if you compare apples to apples, you see discrimination against gay men and gay men make less. But it’s also possible that gay men as a group are a significantly better set of apples.
I don’t think her suspension is a punishment per se. As a human resources officer at the University of Toledo, she is responsible for overseeing diversity and equity.
I think the university has an obligation to investigate whether or not she can do her job adequately in light of what she said. The comments do show a pontential bias against a group of students she has been hired to service.
Where is she getting this “economic data’? There are no citations at all.
The numbers she’s quoting are identical to the ones in this survey.
As you predicted, the survey is entirely self-selected respondents from various glossy magazines and websites targeted at gay and lesbian consumers. The purpose of the survey isn’t to accurately portray the GLBT community - it’s to portray the readership of these media outlets for the purposes of advertising sales.
Yes, that’s the one: Rivendell. I’ve heard other people quote these figures, too - and then go on to argue that gay people aren’t discriminated against, because: look how rich we are!
We really have to set the record straight on this; it’s yet another phony weapon against us in the “religious” right’s arsenal. As soon as one set of “data” is shown to be fake, another set appears.
They never stop.
[…] Jonathan Rowe dismantles World Net Daily’s latest screed […]
The reason they’ll never stop in the face of innumerable failures is because their position isn’t one of reason or logic. It’s one of emotion and prejudice. They feel so deeply that being gay is “just wrong” that nothing will convince them otherwise. If there was a logical argument that could possibly sway these people, they would have all changed their minds 50 years ago. They don’t *want* understanding. They just want to get their way.
It’s the same reason that Exodus continues to exist in spite of the dismal record it has. If just one homosexual gets cured in their eyes, then that’s proof enough for them. The thousands of others who go uncured with the “treatment” just weren’t trying hard enough or something.
I think Ernie has a very good point — it’s not about logic or reason. It’s about justifying a belief they already have, whatever the cost in consistency.
Also, I’ll just note that once you’ve gone down this road, and said one or two ridiculous things in support of whatever you happened to have initially believed without reason, it seemingly just gets easier from there…
Spot freaking-on man!
“First, whatever the legal or constitutional issues involved (whether this is a private school not bound by the First Amendment or a state school that is), it was lame to punish this woman for writing the column. There is plenty wrong with what this woman wrote; and the best way to counter that is to criticize her with more speech, exactly what I’m doing.”
Completely agree with you.
Let the Religious Right be the one sponsoring censorship.
Censorship, to me, gets us nowhere. If everyone knew what this woman was asserting then it would’ve been our job to adress this issue and once and for all put it at rest.