A Test of Values

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (12)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  I went into the US Army at 29 a few years back to prove something to my family about my life, which was going nowhere at the time.  I eventually got out because I lied about taking anti-depressants and other psychological problems I had. 
  
  Anyway, when I was ‘in there’, I went to a Jewish Bible Study and met someone who I knew had to be gay, because his body language was so typically effeminate.  I knew if it was twenty years or so earlier, and this was the Marines, that guy might have gotten kicked out, or worse. 

  The point is, I think that kicking out gays, from anything, is wrong.  But it would surprise me even more if we were at all inclusive and accepting. 
  
  I hate what’s happening to our country.  I hate the fact that people aren’t free to believe and think what they want to.  Isn’t that what we were all taught - that (most of) our forefathers came here so they could believe what they want and act how they want?  I am a practicing Catholic, but the Bible should have no say as to what are this nation’s laws. 

  One more thing:  I know that people will write back saying that the Bible is the literal truth.  It’s not.  There.  Are you happy?  I’m not going to Hell, even if you say so.  PS, I’m straight, too.  Is this ok?

  Posted by tw on Dec 28, 2004 at 4:16 PM

  What nonsense! Why does a homosexual make it known (how else would we find out) that he wants to have sexual relations with people of the same sex, and then is offended that we consider him to be abnormal?
  Alcoholics usually try to overcome their condition through treatment, usually with the support of other alcoholics. They don’t insist that they are normal, and that we should treat them as if they are.

  Posted by Richard Partridge on Dec 28, 2004 at 10:31 PM

  Homosexuality is not a “condition”, nor is it “abnormal”. It is a state of being, different from yours and mine. I have many gay friends. None of them chose to be gay. On the contrary, none of them would have chosen it, had there been a choice. Not because it’s an abnormal condition, and not because they feel that who they are is wrong--they wouldn’t have chosen it because of the ignorance, bigotry and discrimination they have to endure. They wouldn’t have chosen it because of people like you, Richard Partridge.

  Posted by Steph (aka Peacemonger) on Dec 29, 2004 at 8:23 AM

  I guess living in a large metropolitan city has blinded me somewhat.  For me the whole gay question is moot.  Why do I care if my neighbour likes the guys instead of the girls?  It just doesn’t affect me in any way whatsoever.  So when I read things like this I get truly shocked.  Are we in the 1950s still?  Calling homosexuality “abnormal” and a “condition”?  What next? that mutual masturbation leads to pregnancy? 

  Oh wait, aren’t the cons already saying that?

  gays have as much right in the military as anybody else...if you replaced the word “gay” for “black” in any argument supporting an anti-gay stance you’d rightly be condemned as a bigot...why is it still okay to claim “moral higher ground” by being a homophobe?

  Posted by neil on Dec 29, 2004 at 12:52 PM

  Look: It’s 2004. We live in the Western World, whose culture is defined by the values of the European enlightenment.

  America is a democracy. “We hold these truths to be evident… That all men are created equal.” (Th. Jefferson—“The Declaration of Independence")

  I don’t care if someone is gay or hetero or black or white (or any tone in-between) or born-again Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Atheist or whatever. (Or any combination thereof.) A person is a person. Full stop. What more is there to say about it?

  Nothing.

  Posted by Ben on Dec 30, 2004 at 10:02 AM

  Richard Partridge,

  Countless times, everyday, you make a choice to be ignorant or not ignorant. Start choosing more wisely, for the sake of your own spirit.

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Ban computerized voting machines.

  Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Dec 30, 2004 at 2:04 PM

  Richard Partidge, think of the women in your life.  Now, would it make you happier I, as a gay men, were to pretend to be straight, and marry your sister or daughter?  Then instead of having a truly loving, satisfying relationship with her I would close my eyes and imagine the hunky guy next door when having sex with her? 

  I’d allow her to feel doubt about her attractiveness as I pay lip service to how sexy she is because she can tell I don’t really feel it..

  I wouldn’t be able to share my feelings and thoughts, my true self with her, and be a true partner to her because I’m playing a role.

  Maybe eventually I couldn’t take it anymore and start seeing a man who brings real spark to my life. 

  We could have a divorce, or we could go on playing our roles in public in order for her to save face and avoid embarassment for marrying a gay guy, while we hardly speak to each other in our house.

  Our kids would think that a cold, distant relationship is what marriage is supposed to be (we’d be such great role models!).

  This seemed like the only choice presented to gay men (and vice-versa for lesbians) not too long ago in our society.  I think the toll ‘pretending’ takes on the institution of marriage and kids can be immense.  In many parts of the country, depending on our background, we no longer feel the pressure of entering into sham marriages to please people such as yourself. 

  Letting us be ourselves, in the military and in our public lives, actually makes straight marriages stronger in this regard.

  Posted by ScottinCali on Dec 30, 2004 at 3:28 PM

  Richard Partridge,are you an “alcoholic”?Your hatred smacks of denial.

  Posted by whats the truth? on Jan 1, 2005 at 10:03 PM

  So are we going to allow marriages with more than two people? What if a bisexual wants to have one of each gender? Who are we to prohibit this?

  How about marrying ones pet? Sure it might (or might not!) be for tax purposes but who are we to make moral judgements?

  If we are going to redefine marriage - and letting gays marry surely is a **major** redefinition - without making any moral judgements, Mormons surely should be allowed to have multiple wives. Not to mention Muslims. . .

  Perhaps we should just leave marriage alone - it has served us well for thousands of years. A simple and reasonable solution might be to invoke “civil unions”, define them in some fashion (which undoubtedly would be contested in the future as being too restrictive and morally narrow minded) and see how that goes?

  Just a thought.

  Posted by justCurious on Jan 4, 2005 at 1:12 PM

  Mr. Partridge:

  As the former airman in the featured article, I feel as I need to respond to your emotionally-driven but well-phrased argument.  I tried valiantly to not be gay for many years by going to counselors affiliated with my church as well as not.  I am a Christian and as such read every verse I could find regarding homosexuality in the scriptures as possible.  I almost lost my faith during this period of time.
  While in the military, I worked as hard as possible to be “normal.” There were many factors in why I would do this, most of which are summed up in the article.  I lost many “friends” who did not know where they stood with me because I didn’t really go out with anybody of either sex.  I roomed with a fellow airman for a while who believed in a superior race and thought Hitler was the greatest person who ever lived.  These are just a couple more reasons.
  Under these circumstances, I only told others I was gay (after resolving my internalized battle)if they were related to me or were not in the military.  It was others who ASSUMED that I was gay and treated me as subhuman without any grounds to base that assumption (too much classical or broadway music do not count, they just show I appreciate different styles of music than some others.)
  If I could choose to be straight, I would.  I have always wanted kids to continue the family along.  I have wanted to get married in the temple.  I have wanted to live a somewhat typical life, as you would call “normal”.  However, it is not in my deck of cards if you will, and I have come to accept that.  I am not asking you to accept me, just if at all possible tolerate me.  We all have opinions on the ways others around us choose to live their lives, but it is considered faux pas to actually try to force our ways on them (such as making Jewish people celebrate Christmas just because Christians make up the majority in this country.)
  As for your comment on Mormons, I myself am a Mormon or Latter-Day Saint. 1. The church has banned multiple marriages.  2. Every fellow church member I know does not want multiple wives.  One relationship takes enough commitment, energy, and time for the average man ( and woman).
  I do value your feedback to Hans’ article.  Dialogues like this one help make us Americans.  We are free to have our opinions and voice them (as you know doesn’t happen in many other parts of the world) about whatever we would like.  Thank you for taking the time to respond.

  I would also like to thank “tw” for his posting.  It’s people like you who truly are (in my opinion) the main backbone to the human rights movement.  Thank you for your courage to speak out when it is not required of you.

  Posted by Robert Firpo on Jan 11, 2005 at 2:42 PM

  The saddest aspect of this seemingly endless issue is that a decent guy like Mr. Firpo cannot simply love whom he loves, bind his life legally, romantically, and openly to his chosen mate, form a family with children (adopted I suppose, which would be an additional benefit), and simply carry on his life as a citizen of a liberal (oh the dreaded word!), non-sectarian democratic republic, free of hassle or the necessity of subterfuge to evade the dictates of pushy religionists who believe theirs is the entire cosmic truth. As for moral values as a priority for progressives, how about “live and let live”? Or, “treat others as you wish to be treated yourself”? It’s been as clear as day to me since I was a kid and hasn’t altered in the decades since, if a man wants to govern his life by Judeo-Christian precepts he should be free to do so, but he should not be free to coerce others to his vision by way of law or aggression, whether he’s acting individually or ganging up. Who one loves should also have no bearing on an American’s ability to participate in the life of the nation, including service in the military or any other role that a free citizen might choose. Any other standard is a kowtow to religious dictates, forcing many to accept values they do not share. Who gives a damn what another thinks about one’s choice of lover or spouse? The answer? We end up having to give a damn, because the law won’t protect our decision as free people, but instead upholds the ability of a mean-spirited faction to bully those who don’t conform to their cultural bias. It’s unAmerican.

  Posted by Kuya on Jan 12, 2005 at 9:15 AM

  I am intrigued by the conversation occurring in response to this article.  Robert Firpo is a great man to encourage dialogue between himself and someone who wants to define him as “abnormal.” It’s also wonderful to read about several Americans who are willing to stand up for the rights of gay Americans and defend them for what they are—rights guaranteed to every American by the Constitution.
  Homosexuality as we define it in America in the early 21st century is a relatively new concept.  While homosexual attitudes, lifestyles, and activities have always been part of human beliefs and behavior since recorded history, how a society imagines and reacts to homosexuality changes radically.  For instance, in a book I have been reading lately (Caliban and the Witch, by Silvia Federici, Autonomedia, Brooklyn, NY 2004), I read about a thriving homosexual culture in Florence, Italy in 1403.  As a response to the depopulation of the Black Plaugue, Florence established an “Office of Decency” which opened city-sponsored brothels in order to encourage men to have sex with women. (pgs 58-59) Now, this is only one interpretation of this event, but I think that today’s “Office of Decency” would not be establishing brothels in order to combat homosexuality!  This is just an example of a different definition and reaction to homosexuality.  The repression of sexual behavior rarely has its roots in tradition or sacred texts; generally, it is motivated by other factors.  I challenge readers to think about why homosexuals are repressed in our society.

  As a response to the marriage-definition debate, I think it is high time that marriage was redefined.  Traditionally, marriage has not been about love at all.  That is also a new concept.  Certainly, there are very few Biblical stories about love between married partners.  Further, marriage has long been seen as primarily a financial arrangement.  Is that how you want your love relationships defined?  I think that the government should get out of the marriage business.  “Marriage” should be left to religion.  Defining contractual partnerships and inheritance is the financial aspect of “marriage” that might be regulated by the government.  In that case, any two or more people can form a legal contract by which they define their relationships.

  That doesn’t leave much room for the social prestige of getting married, but that is something the government cannot control, in any case.  The government should not be in the business of controlling anyone’s sexual expression unless that expression causes harm.  Consenting adults should be free to be sexual in any way that turns them on, and I agree that it should be a private matter.  It would be wonderful if people could get more concerned about who you exploit to make your money than about who you want to love in the privacy of your life.

  Posted by Rachel on Jan 12, 2005 at 9:58 AM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Hans Johnson

• Jumping Ship
  Citing social issues, local GOP officials are abandoning their party in droves
• California Rules!
  A Defeat for Right-Wing Activism On and Off the Bench
• Demolition Crew Butts In Where Deft Organizers Need To Tread
  
• The Next Gay Moment?
  
• Primary Importance
  For leaders of interest groups and social movements, power comes from being able to show elected officials that you know who, where, and how numerous these hell-or-high-water voters are within your ranks, and within their districts, at all times
• Running, With Scissors
  The Republican drive to cut off voters is the sleeper issue of 2008