Sunday, March 06, 2005

Gay-Straight Alliances

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel recently offered an interesting story on a growing number (somehow I doubt there are many in my home state) of gay-straight alliances in high schools, with more and more teens weighing in on the issue of gay rights and same-sex marriages.

As the newspaper reports:

"Critics believe gay-straight alliances are part of an agenda to promote acceptance of homosexuality.

"'We feel that homosexual behavior is harmful to the people who engage in it and to society at large and that, therefore, this is not something that should be promoted in the schools,' says Peter Sprigg, senior director of policy studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., referring to research cited in 'Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality,' a book he co-authored. Among other things, the book says homosexuals are more promiscuous, face greater risk of sexually transmitted diseases and are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

"But supporters say the groups help make American society more inclusive.

'In that context,' says Eliza Byard, deputy executive director of the New York-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, 'they are an important contributor to the school communities where they exist.' And Byard says the differences between homosexual and heterosexuals that Sprigg cited are not significant.

"Students who belong to gay-straight alliances say all they want is safety and respect."

Gay rights will likely be remembered as the critical civil rights issue of this generation. What never ceases to amaze me is the twisted logic of critics, such as the aforementioned Peter Sprigg (perhaps that should be Peter S. Prig) who argue against gay marriage by insisting that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, and, therefore, undeserving of the sanctity of marriage.

Huh? If you accept that conceit as fact, how then does it make sense to refuse gays and lesbians the opportunity to make a life-long, loving commitment to someone? In the topsy-turvy world of Sprigg and his elk -- er, we mean ilk -- the best prescription for promiscuity seems to be the refusal to administer a good dose of monogamy. Call me stupid, but it seems to me that if you need to shed a few pounds, the logical course of action isn't necessarily to take a blowtorch to the treadmill.

Perhaps there is cause for optimism with the incipient stages of teen activism, if the Journal-Sentinel article is accurate. I remember when conservatism meant staying out of the bedroom as well as the pocketbook. Maybe with the next generation of young politicos, there will be a tilt back to the Goldwater-Rockefeller wing of conservative ideology.


At 4:56 PM, Blogger LiteraryTech said...

Thank you for this excellent topic. I think you not only illuminate the encouraging growth of the youth of our nation, but also the blinding glare of stupidity from that bastion of breathtaking balderdash, the Family Research Council.


Post a Comment

<< Home