Family Watch International

I got an email from an organization called Family Watch International today, so I just wanted to share some of my thoughts about what was said in the email.  First of all, I just wanted to mention something it said right at the beginning of the email.  The first paragraph stated
In the past few months various anti-family groups and commentators have been making increasingly vicious, dishonest and distorted attacks on FWI.
I want to make it quite clear that I do not mean to attack this or any other organization.  I don't believe that anything I have ever said has been vicious, dishonest, nor distorted.  I do agree with the sentiment that such attacks are neither mature nor effective in persuading honest, mature people to one's point of view.

However, I would like to illustrate how this organization is guilty of that very thing that it accuses others of.  (I do not mean to claim that there are no people who oppose this organization and are also guilty of being dishonest, only to say that FWI is dishonest and distorts the truth.) The first issue I had with them is that they called homosexual activists, among other groups of people, anti-family.  I am not so bold as to claim that there aren't any gay activists that are anti-family, but I have yet to come across one single anti-family statement made by any proponent of gay rights.  In all of the arguments I have heard, I have not heard one single thing about destroying anyone's family.  I have not heard gay rights activists pushing to ban straight marriage.  I have not seen one single person campaigning for straight couple to lose the ability to adopt.  I have not heard anything about trying to break up families of any sort.  The only people I have seen attacking families are opponents of gay marriage.  These people would force the separation of every gay couple, if they had their way.  I ask, simply, humbly, and sincerely, who is the opponent of the family?  The person who is trying to get married or the person who is trying to ban people from getting married?  The next question is this, how are gay activists anti-family?

FWI claims "all the science, facts, and logic are on our side."  I ask, what science, what facts, and what logic leads to the conclusion that homosexuals or homosexual activists are anti-family?  The only science I am aware of indicates that homosexuality is more likely due to biological and biochemical factors rather than choice, contrary to what many organizations like FWI claim.  The only facts I am aware of show that legalizing gay marriage increases family stability, decreases risk of AIDS infection, and increases psychological health for homosexual people.  The only logic I can imagine in this argument is that presented in the previous paragraph, which is certainly not on the side of FWI.

FWI further states "We want to help people understand and avoid the negative consequences of promiscuous sexual behavior for themselves, their families and society."  If that is what you want, then allow gay people to marry.  People who want to be in a marriage--people who are willing to dedicate themselves to just one other person--are more likely to avoid a life of sexual promiscuity.  If you truly want that, then you will push to help legalize it.  Telling gay people that they can't marry only encourages them to be promiscuous, since they are not allowed to dedicate their life to just one person--at least, not in a legally-binding way such as marriage.

Next, I would like to discuss the particular issues that they mention in their newsletter (their "calls to action", if you will).  They listed a bunch of new items concerning abortion.  All I have to say about abortion is that, if I were a woman and I were pregnant, I could not imagine getting an abortion and thinking of killing a life that was within me.  However, since I am not a woman and I won't ever have a pregnant wife, I don't believe that it is a matter I need to get personally involved in.  I neither condone nor condemn abortion.  I will remain neutral in the debate.

There were several items concerning homosexuality.  I will address most of them one-by-one.  First is the recent legislation in California requiring LGBT history to be taught in public schools.  Personally, I think this legislation is garbage.  I don't think that gays should get special attention in any area, only equal attention.  If a history teacher is teaching about someone who happens to be gay, and that is mentioned, then I certainly don't see anything wrong with stating that fact (opponents to this idea may say "What they do in their bedroom is their own business, so we don't need to teach it in schools." to which I would reply "Being gay isn't something you do in your bedroom.  It's a part of who you are.  No, we don't need to present the students with a list of all of their bed partners and all of the activities they participated in in bed, but stating their sexuality is completely harmless.").  I also don't see anything wrong with including people such as Harvey Milk in the curriculum, but it should be as a natural part of the history of that era, not as a special item that needs to be taught because we want to celebrate gayness.  I believe in true equality for all people, not special attention for minorities.  Teach about gay people, but don't make it a big deal.

Apparently there has been homosexuality sensitivity training going on at the USDA and there is movement to make this training spread throughout other government jobs as well.  I think this is a very good thing.  All the time people say things that are rather offensive to homosexual people, merely because they don't know any better.  I have had several people ask me who is the girl in my relationship with Conrad, to which I reply that we are both male (as if that really needed explanation).  Also, discriminating against gays is just as bad as racism, as is taught in the USDA training (and contrary to what FWI claims).  Discriminating against someone due to race, sex, sexual orientation, or any other factor so wholly out of the person's control is clearly unfair.

DADT.  How in the world did this legislation ever get passed in the first place?  I mean, straight people in the military were never required to keep the fact that they're straight a secret.  They've never even had to keep secret the person that they're in a relationship with.  Straight people in the military have, throughout the ages, not only been able to be romantically involved with whomever they please, but they have done so and, more often than not, bragged about such activities.  Why is this privilege granted to straight people, but not gay people?  How does it make sense to tell one person they can't admit who they're attracted to, but another person can?  That would be like handing out popsicles to all the children on the playground who like blue popsicles, but if a child likes red popsicles instead, they'll have to just go without for the time being, watch all the other children eat their blue popsicles, and content themselves with eating their red popsicle when they get home.  Oh, and don't forget that those children aren't even allowed to say that they prefer red over blue.

Rhode Island has approved civil unions for gay couples.  I am very happy about this.  I foresee a day when all over the world people will be allowed to marry the person of their choice, and no more will discriminating people try to stop them.  It seems to be the case that in many states first the step of allowing civil unions will take place, but I do foresee a time when gay unions are viewed equally with straight unions, and no more will be taught the falsehood that gays are second-class citizens.

New York passed legislation legalizing gay marriage.  I heard this news on June 24th, the day that the legislation passed.  In fact, that very night they lit up the empire state building in rainbow colors in celebration of this monumental step forward.

Finally, they mention a matter about California allowing minors to be vaccinated for STDs without parental consent (or knowledge).  Personally, I don't see why anyone would complain about making vaccines more accessible.  Do they want teenagers to get STDs?  I really don't understand the logic of opposing this measure.  Many teens have very weak relationships with their parents.  Their parents might be very judgmental and disown their children if they knew what their children were doing, so the child decides to merely hide all of that from their parents.  Do I condone this?  Of course not.  I think parents should be more loving to their children and foster a relationship where the child feels comfortable confiding in their parents.  However, that is not always the case.  And I would prefer that a teen who is uncomfortable talking to parents about their life to be able to get a vaccine rather than contract an STD.

Anyway, those are my opinions on the matters in the email.  Again, I don't believe that I've attacked FWI or any other anti-gay organization, I've merely exposed their distortions and dishonesties for what they are.  If you feel like what I have presented in this post has been dishonest or distorted, I would definitely be interested in hearing about that.  Also, if you have an opinion different from my own I would happy to hear that too.