Ummm....WHAT?

A few days ago, a Mr. Mike Rogers (blogger) was interviewed on daytime TV about an upcoming documentary called "Outrage." During a back-and-forth debate, one of the co-hosts actually threatened to take Rogers out back and punch him.

...Like--seriously--he physically threatened his guest on national TV. And you know what? As far as I can tell, he's suffered absolutely no punishment for his distasteful behaviour. Which just goes to show that threats and violence are wrong...unless the victim is someone gay.

Oops!

Haha, I can't believe I forgot to post about this! Maine legalised gay marriage last week. YAY!

Of course, conservatives are going nuts. Someone's proposing a public referendum. What this means is that the law cannot take effect until the group either fails to gather the required number of signatures to put it on the ballot, or until the motion fails in the November election. It's a highly unfortunate situation.

My Latest Article

Here's a transcript from an article I just wrote. It's a last-minute addition to the upcoming copy of our med student newsletter. Enjoy, and please feedback with your ideas and opinions. :)

In the world of public health, the goal is to benefit the greatest possible number of people. When it comes to blood donations, that means getting as many people to donate as possible, without compromising the safety of the blood supply. To this end, Canadian Blood Services not only screens the blood it receives for pathogens, but also screens out at-risk donors from giving blood in the first place.

In the 80’s, when HIV first burst into the public health scene, little was known about it except that the infection was endemic among gay men. This prompted a blood-donor ban, not just on sexually active gay men, but on any man who had ever had sex with another man (MSM) since 1977. This policy is still in place today. Potential donors are screened via questionnaire.

The obvious purpose of banning MSM from donating blood is to prevent iatrogenic transmission of HIV and other STI’s. However, the donor questionnaire doesn’t ask potential donors if they’ve had unprotected sex recently, nor does it inquire about anonymous sexual partners more than 6 months prior.

To clarify, this means that some guy who got “curious” (yes, including oral) at college once in 1981 but now has been straight and monogamous for 25 years and has 4 kids can’t donate blood. Meanwhile, another guy who had unprotected sex with 3 strangers in Vegas last year can. Somehow, I don’t feel like our blood supply is made safer by this policy.

Think of it this way: since, in Canada, men have a higher prevalence of HIV than women, we should ban men from donating blood, right? Of course not, that’s a ridiculous overgeneralization. The at-risk group can be narrowed down, as it has been. But limiting the at-risk group to MSM is still overly general. There are lots of sexually active gay men who use condoms intelligently with every partner, who get tested regularly, or who have been monogamous for years. These men are no more at risk of contaminating the blood supply than heterosexuals—and are less likely to do so than some!

One obvious remedy to this problem is to ask donors pertinent questions, rather than use a criterion that’s both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. Such questions could include “Have you had unprotected sex or a new sexual partner in the past year?” or “When was the last time you were tested for HIV?” These types of questions would weed out potential donors are at genuine risk for infectious diseases, but allow healthy, monogamous gay men to help their fellow Canadians by donating blood.

Other solutions include improving the reliability of testing and removing monetary incentives. However, the latter has already been implemented in Canada, and current blood screening is already so reliable that only one HIV-positive sample in a million would fail to be detected, according to the US FDA. Surely the best way to solve today’s shortage of donors is to add to the donor pool. The question is: how do we weed out those people who are truly at risk, without turning away healthy donors? Whatever the best answer is, the current policy is certainly not it.

Note: image from slapupsidethehead.com--a wonderfully humourous gay-centric Canadian blog.

Hate Crimes Bill in the US House

The the big talk in gay advocacy right now is centered on the passage of a gay-inclusive hate-crimes bill in the US House of Representatives. The legislation was inspired by the murder of Matthew Shepard 10 years ago. Long story short, he was lured by young men who pretended to be sexually interested in him, and then robbed, beaten, and left tied to a fence in the middle of nowhere. He was later found and brought to hospital, but did not survive.

The bill being debated is supposed to allow the federal government to assist in the prosecution of violent crimes based on sexual orientation (and disability, actually). Since this represents protection for gay people, many conservatives are flipping their lid. The most commonly touted argument is the claim that people who view homosexuality as immoral would be prosecuted for expressing their opinion. Of course, the bill explicitly targets violent crime only (AND Americans have the 1st Amendment that protects freedom of speech), but talk of gay rights tends to decrease some people's preoccupation with "truth" and "reality." ;)

There is another argument, however, that I take more seriously. That is disagreement with hate-crimes laws in general. The general argument goes: an old lady gets murdered, and a gay guy gets murdered because he's gay, but the murderer of the gay man gets a longer sentence--why is the gay man's life "worth" more?

There is some validity to this concern, but it's unfounded if we consider that perhaps there is an additional crime in the murder of the gay man, and I believe there is. This additional crime is a form of terrorism, in that murdering someone because of their sexual orientation sends a message to the queer community at large. That message is one of violence and intimidation towards a particular group of people, which I think falls within the definition of terrorism. That's why I think that additional penalties for people who commit "hate-crimes," but it has to be made clear that the additional punishment is for the act of intimidation and violence towards a greater community.

I would, of course, love to hear what everyone else thinks. :)

UPDATE: The bill includes gender identity as well

Progressive advertizing

I posted this on my FB page, but I thought I'd double it here. It features a trans-woman. In a positive way. That's pretty forward. But I really can't imagine this kind of ad being used in North America. But I certainly hope that someday it will be.

Fantastic comeback

A little while ago, a terribly misleading video was released by an organisation called NOM. The video claimed that gay marriage would impinge on the rights of people of faith. All the claims that they make relate to situations that involve public money or accommodation, and thus do not fall into the category of religious persecution.

Now, tons of parodies of the ad have been made and posted on youtube. Some of them are actually pretty good, too. But this one, I think, is the best. It's not mocking, it's truthful. And the truth hurts...

An Illustration

For all those who wonder why marriage is important to LGBT couples. My favourite part:

Ten, even five years ago, people in my situation in Massachusetts would have faced prejudicial treatment in some of these interactions--in addition to having to deal with protracted legal issues because of being denied the right to be married--simply because marriage equality was an unknown, often feared, and that fear was exploited by our opponents for political gain. Coming of age in a time when AIDS felled so many so quickly, I was aware of far too many horrible, heart-wrenching stories in which the surviving partner was completely shut out and cast aside by next of kin. Now, we are legally next of kin. For all the wonderful things that marriage equality does for the living, it maintains our dignity in death.

Cross-post...sorta: Gay Parenting

I've just not been in the blogging mood lately, probably because of my exam last week. I hope to pick things up again soon.

As a warm up, here's an article I wrote for our student paper:

Imagine my surprise when my gay med-student friend says to me “Yeah, but I don’t think gays should be having kids or adopting. Kids need a mom and a dad.”

Gay! Med student!

It’s surprising that misconceptions still exist about gay parenting even among the medical community. Of course, even though we’re all pretty fantastic people, I guess no one’s perfect, right?

Still, it seems like a logical premise. If two dudes are raising a kid, where will they get the female “mom” influence? Won’t they be more likely to be gay, or gender-confused? Turns out the answer is no. According to current research, kids raised by gay parents fit into normal gay-to-straight ratios. In fact, their development is indistinguishable from their peers raised by heterosexuals.

As far as the opposite-sex influence is concerned, one can easily apply the same logic to kids raised by single parents; just because they only have one gender parent doesn’t mean they don’t have aunties and uncles, grandmas and grandpas, and friends of both genders at school. The same goes for kids with two same sex parents (with the added benefit of having two parents instead of one!).

Gay parents have been found to be more involved with their childrens’ school life than heterosexual parents are, and have been shown to be exceptional parents even despite facing the additional stresses of discrimination. In fact, groups such as the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, who are kind of a big deal, agree that there is no evidence to suggest that gay parents are any less fit than their heterosexual counterparts.

My friend was surprised about these researched facts (and he did, in fact, want to see the evidence), but in the end I think he sees the logic of it. After all, as the AAP says: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” Contrary to our pre-conceived notions of what type of family is “best,” kids raised by gay parents turn out just fine.

A Comparison

All over the US, various bills are making their way through state or federal legislatures concerning the treatment of LGBT people. They are basically either non-discrimination, hate crimes or anti-bullying bills.

Regardless of one's opinions regarding the moral issues surrounding homosexuality/gender issues, the vast majority of people are of the opinion that LGBT people should not be subject to discrimination or violence.

That being said, many people still take issue with making it illegal to discriminate against LGBT's, even going so far as to oppose anti-bullying laws specifically for their LGBT-inclusive clauses. They cite their personal values of homosexuality as being immoral, against their religious convictions, etc.

In comparison, I am a firm non-believer in astrology. The whole "you're going to act a specific way because you were born on a day when the Earth was within a particular rotational angle" baffles me. In fact, I think it's not just a waste of time to give astrology any credence, I think it's a flagrant promotion of outright lies that serves no purpose other than to put money in the pockets of astrologers.

However, if it could be shown that Libras were frequently being denied housing because of their astrological sign, I would fully support legislation to ban such discrimination. If students in public schools were being subjected to verbal or physical harassment because they were born between May 20-June21, I would support legislation that would help keep them safe.

The reason is not because I give any credence to the signs of the zodiac, but rather because people who are systematically treated badly for illogical reasons deserve to be protected from that discrimination. Anti-gay activists should be aware that their positions suggest that by fighting these legislative efforts, they suggest that it is acceptable to dehumanize LGBT people. Meanwhile, supporting these efforts would in no way undermine their theological convictions.

Adoption Preferences

With the increasing acceptance of gay parents, more and more gay couples feel confident enough to raise children. This gives researchers a chance to get statistically sound data on trends among gay parents.

The most recent news to hit the interwebs concerns differences between hetero and gay couples with respect to gender preference in their adoptive children. The main finding was pretty in line with what I would have expected:

Dr. Goldberg found that many couples, irrespective of sexuality, had no preference for the gender of their adopted child. They were simply grateful to finally have a child and gender was insignificant in the context of their larger goal of becoming parents.

However, there were also some interesting discrepancies:

The most common reason for preferring boys among heterosexual women was an inexplicable desire for a son, whereas heterosexual men's preference for a son reflected patriarchal norms, including keeping the family name going and gender identity considerations i.e. their own masculine interests. When explaining their preference for a boy, lesbians most frequently mentioned their own atypical gender identities, including the fact that their own interests tended to be more masculine and tomboyish, whereas gay men most often highlighted that they felt more confident about their ability to raise and socialize boys.

Très cool. The idea of adoption grows on my mind every day, and a lot of the things said in the paragraph above resonate with me. Little girls are adorable, but I would be at a complete loss with regards to how to raise one...

'Course, I doubt I'll have to make any decisions soon. ;) You can find the article here.

Amazing Ruling

This is incredible. This is just breaking, but apparently the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Sa-weeeet!

In other news: I should have mentioned this yesterday. Congratulations to Sweden are in order too!

A Response

I found a blog post arguing against same-sex marriage here, and I commented thusly:
1. While this slippery slope argument raises a common fear among same-sex marriage opponents, I have to agree with Robinson; legalizing same-sex marriage does not automatically legalize polygamous relationships. If polygamists would like to have their relationships recognized under the law, they will have to argue it on it's own merits. Insinuating that polygamy will be legalized because of legalized same-sex marriage is a red herring. It merely distracts from the topic at hand, which is whether same-sex relationships should be recognized by the state. Polygamy is not the same thing.
2. Even people who are known to be infertile would never be discouraged from marrying. It's fallacious to suggest that our society is actually that intent on having every marriage produce children.
Furthermore, your claim that the government only recognizes marriage in order to provide incentive for creating the types of families they want misses the point entirely. The fact is, same-sex couples have families already. They have kids and/or other dependents, and it's in the state's interest to help those families be as stable and healthy as possible by providing legal recognition for their relationships and even tax breaks to ease the raising of children.
And if a single mother and her sister are working together to provide the best possible environment for her child, why shouldn't they have a civil marriage? Having their relationship is recognized by the law doesn't require that they have sex. If the legal aspects of their lives are no different than those of a heterosexual couple, why shouldn't they gain the same legal status and benefits?
3. Once again, same-sex couples already have children, and so it's in the state's interest to provide them with the same benefits that are provided to families headed by opposite-sex couples.
Also, same-sex couples can adopt, and more and more scientific studies are showing that children raised by homosexual couples are just as well off as their heterosexually-raised counterparts. By providing legal recognition to same-sex couples, the state would be providing more opportunities to find loving and supportive families for the state's orphans.
4. One of the biggest problems facing couples with civil unions is that their relationship is often not recognized for what it is. It takes merely a Google search to find stories of loving partners turned away at the hospital because they didn't have their official documents, while their partner lapses into a coma. Or couples harassed at airport security for proof of their relationship with their adopted kids. Civil unions don't cut it; "marriage" is the only term most people understand.
And I do think you make a valid point: the law does normalize our lives. Just as Loving vs. Virginia helped to normalize multi-ethnic marriages, and Laurence v. Texas helped to normalize gay sex, legal same-sex marriage will help to show people that LGBT people can partake in unions that are just as loving and healthy as those of their heterosexual counterparts.
-Chris

PS Schools these days teach kids that marriages of different ethnic backgrounds or different religious backgrounds are ok. Books like "And Tango Makes Three" do the same thing, only for homosexual marriages. Of course, that doesn't prevent you from teaching your kids that homosexual marriages are immoral anymore than it would prevent you from teaching them that Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, or Civil marriages are immoral. The schools teach kids to accept everyone for who they are, but you can still teach them to look down on different types of relationships when they get home.

Lemme know what you think.