Gutless Wonders. This is exactly the term which comes to mind over the actions of the City Council Monday night. Regardless of where one stands on the merits of the proposed ordinance to grant civil rights protections to homosexuals in Galesburg–– the crux of this condemnation of the City Council rests upon their unwillingness to permit free and open public discussion at the meeting.
It was already clear to most observers that the ordinance stood little chance of passage. However, the various arguments made by Councilmembers against public discussion simply do not ring true to the precepts of democracy in America. Even the most obscure and outrageous among us should have the right to be heard and the Galesburg City Council has a proud history of accommodating public discussion of issues. This legacy was torn asunder Monday night–– but for what reason?
Since the prohibition on discussion prevented debunking of the many myths and lies which the religious right opponents of this ordinance have recently spewed I thought it might be beneficial to quickly cover some of them in this column.
The best information available suggests that approximately one out of ten people we deal with daily is homosexual. The difficulty of obtaining an accurate count is due in large part to the fear of ridicule and persecution which leads so many gay men and lesbians to remain "in the closet." Most families have at least one cherished relative who is gay even if they are unaware of it.
Like a number of other less anonymous minorities in this country, homosexuals have a demonstrable history of success in their chosen careers and professions and are frequently among a company's most productive workers. The stereotype of the homosexual as a workaholic seems to have a good deal of truth behind it. Perhaps it is for this reason that nearly all major corporations have gone to great lengths to protect the civil rights of their gay employees.
Despite the claims of opponents, there is nothing new about instituting prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Literally hundreds of communities, colleges, universities and businesses already afford some degree of protection against such discrimination.
The following communities in and around Illinois already afford such protections: Ames, Iowa; Bloomington, Ind.; Champaign; Chicago; Cook County; Evanston; Iowa City; Lafayette, Ind.; Madison, Wisc.; Milwaukee; Oak Park; Oberlin, Ohio; Saginaw, Mich.; and Urbana. While it is true Galesburg would have been the smallest Illinois community to enact such protections, what is the relevance of such a fact?
The employment rights of all Federal workers, aside from the uniformed military, are already so protected. In the State of Illinois public employment is protected by executive order of Republican Governor Jim Edgar. Similar employment protections are in place in Michigan. Meanwhile, the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin were among the first to enact sweeping civil rights protections for homosexuals.
The bulk of the religious right's objection to homosexuality is based upon their interpretation of the Bible. To many of these groups the main issue is that homosexuality is "unnatural" because such sexual liaisons cannot procreate. The argument goes that God made animals sexual beings for the purpose of reproduction and sexual conduct which cannot reproduce is therefore unnatural. This is also the rationale which asserts a stigma against masturbation and is behind the prohibition against the use of contraception within some religions, notably Catholics.
The simple fact that a large majority of heterosexuals regularly flaunt such behavioral prohibitions passed down by their church should be enough to counter prejudice on this basis. Few adults engage in sex solely with procreation in mind. Point in fact is that most responsible adults take great care to prevent unplanned pregnancies and engage in sex because it is a pleasurable activity.
All of the sexual activities regularly engaged in by homosexuals are also popular among heterosexuals. Hence, it is good for all of us that Illinois was the first state to repeal sodomy laws in 1961. If sexual stimulation and intercourse is conducted for pleasure rather than procreation what is the essential difference consenting adults who are either heterosexual or homosexual?
The blatant accusations, so frequently cited, that homosexuals are more prone to sexually molest the young are demonstrably untrue. According to Scott Smith, an outpatient therapist and director of Bridgeway's Sexual Aggression and Deviancy Program, the available data shows that heterosexual men account for the vast majority of child sexual abuse. In most cases pedophiles are adult males who take advantage of minor females within their own family.
Even in those instances where a pedophile molests a child of the same sex the perpetrator is almost always exclusively heterosexual in their adult sexual relations. The most likely molester of a child is a heterosexual adult trusted by both the child and his or her parents. "In my experience of dealing with sexual abuse I can confidently say that you could count the number of homosexuals treated as molesters on one hand with fingers left over."
As for homosexuals engaging in consensual sex with minors, Smith cites statistics which show approximately ten percent of gays reported that their first homosexual experience occurred before the age of 18. Only 8 percent of this small group (or .08 percent of all gays) reported that this first experience was with an adult partner. The vast majority reported that this first experience was with a peer.
Homosexuality is not a club one chooses to join or is recruited into any more than a heterosexual can claim to have made a conscious "choice" to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our sexual identities are something we mature into and discover in due course.
Homosexuality is neither a cult evangelizing for new members nor a virus spread by exposure and contact with homosexuals. Were this the case it is quite logical that the size of America's gay population would have grown beyond its current estimated size. In fact over 35 studies have been done in recent years looking at the children of gay and lesbian parents. These studies have shown that the children raised by one or more homosexual parents are no more likely to be homosexual themselves that those raised by heterosexual parents.
The final stereotype I wish to debunk here is the presumed promiscuity of homosexuals. A study conducted in 1992 found that nearly 56 percent of gay men and over 71 percent of lesbians were in exclusive relationships. One ongoing impediment to steady homosexual relationships is the lack of legal recognition they receive. Millions of homosexuals in America live in long-term committed relationships without the legal benefits and protections now afforded to heterosexual couples.
The stigma and discrimination felt by many homosexuals makes it incredibly difficult to socialize and meet a mate in a manner analogous to many heterosexuals. Gays aren't looking for anything not afforded to heterosexuals in our society. They want to live openly; seek love, companionship and security; and to attain and hold positions of respect and dignity within their communities that heterosexuals take for granted.
It is clear that for many minorities civil rights are not to be considered a given. This
country has paid a high price to learn of the need for governmental protections for age,
ethnicity, and religion. Why must these same lessons be relearned as each
discriminated group gathers the nerve to request equal treatment under the law?