Now, all you Mac-folks can point and laugh. I’m not becoming a Mac. Your OS has advantages and disadvantages as does mine. You have preferences and so do I. Would you have gotten this glitch? Probably not. That alone does not make your OS superior. I would rather have to deal with an occasional glitch than a proprietary company that censors the content I can access.

Though the past few days have been stressful, I can say this about the process:

» I was able to fix the problem myself (i.e. I didn’t have to send it away).

» It didn’t cost me a penny to fix.

» I didn’t lose anything.

» My computer is running more smoothly now as a result of the maintenance I ran on it.

So, I’m all good now, and will probably resume regular blogging after this holiday weekend.

I have to say, I was surprised at how much my mood was affected by the availability of my computer. I certainly have no trouble when I’m in situations where I know I won’t have access, but when I should have access and the tools I’m used to using aren’t serving me the way they should, I was rather distraught. I felt out of the loop, disconnected.

You know, there are a lot of people who believe in some higher connectedness or consciousness. I think anything ethereal is preposterous. But, I do think that the internet is reshaping the human consciousness in a very observable way. The way we relate to each other and the globalization of our society are quite marvelous, and I’m not sure we’ve all quite realized what an impact these changes have had on each of us as individuals.

At any rate, I’m back!

And here’s a tip for all you computer users out there: Just in case of whatever, back up your system!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIoG4PlEPtY

Who are Christians?

This drives me crazy, because it makes it hard to blog about Christians. It’s a word that means so many different things to so many people, and for some people, it’s the only word that describes them. In reality, there is nothing I can say to generalize Christians as a group except that they believe Jesus Christ is their savior, and in some cases, even that might not be true.

This makes it very hard to write about Christianity. There are a lot of Christians who say a lot on behalf of Christianity (or some vague sense of Judeo-Christianity), such as Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Rick Warren, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson. Glenn Beck certainly made it quite clear that his 8/28 rally was all about God (and I doubt he meant Allah). I take responsibility from time to time to call these people out (I quickly realized it was foolish to try to cover them all), and then I have to say, “This is what Christian leaders are saying.” There are surely many Christians who do not agree, but these individuals and their groups still unabashedly claim to speak on behalf of (all) Christians.

Catholicism doesn’t have this problem. It’s a specifically defined institution with a very clear hierarchy. And whether all followers buy into it or not, the Catholic Church has very clear specifications for who IS a Catholic and who ISN’T. And given that the Catholic Church is pretty regularly deciding what’s best for other people in a very public and powerful way (or demonizing gays as the scapegoat for all their internal problems), it’s not surprising I end up writing more about them. It becomes all too easy to point at Catholics and say, “Look at what your Church is doing. You realize you’re still supporting that?”

The Mormon Church is similar, but doesn’t face the same challenges. When you’re no longer a Mormon, the good folks at LDS make it quite clear. They’ve been surprisingly quiet since the Prop 8 mess, so there hasn’t been as much to say about them lately. Even when they are in the news, there’s little finger-pointing to be done. Mormons who go against their Church are excommunicated pretty expressly; they very much take accountability for their institution’s actions in ways many Catholics blithely avoid.

But then there are those Christians. There are Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals, Quakers, and Mennonites, to name a few. I’m usually not too interested in what each of those groups do internally, because I see no point in trying to change the nature of individual religions. My goal is just to diminish the obscene privileges they have in society. Given that atheism defines the purview of this blog, I don’t think my time would be well spent arguing whether there is one better way to worship God or another. As a recent example: I feel bad that Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr was rebuked by the Presbyterian Church for presiding over same-sex marriages, but I’m not going to write about it extensively here. While I do care about the visibility of pro-gay messages as an LGBT activist, I’m more concerned here on the blog with the volume of religious voices, regardless of their content. I want to dismantle religious privilege and disempower faith. To chime in regarding an internal religious debate would suggest I think one religious explanation has more intellectual merit than another, when my actual point of view is that they all are equally lacking.

And so I’m left to write about Christians who are trying to control or manipulate the lives of people beyond their Church walls. So often, there is no other moniker to describe who these people are. They are Christians. This summer alone, I’ve written about local Christian organizations trying to evangelize through church camp and VBS (here and here), I wrote about the Christian Legal Society at Hastings School of Law (here), I’ve responded to WorldNetDaily’s Christian evangelism to its followers (here and here), I’ve responded to groups who privilege Christian beliefs about LGBT people over the science like AFTAH (here) and NARTH (here), I’ve responded to Christian counselors who think they know best (here, here, and by the way, the second girl also lost), and I also responded to a Christian evangelist who commented on the blog (here). I could have probably written even more, but Prop 8 and Netroots Nation swayed a lot of my focus toward LGBT activism. Still, I think I called out a lot of “Christians.”

If you, my reader, are a Christian, what should be your take-away? Many might say, “Well, I’m not that kind of Christian.” Great! I’m sure there are a ton of live-and-let-live Christians out there and even some who are very passionate allies of social justice. Unfortunately, there is a divide between the proactive and the reactive. In the United States, those who are proactive have a much louder megaphone, and arguably the most followers. These are the Christians who think it’s their mission to spread their faith and dictate that others abide by it. These are the individuals who claim that we are a “Christian Nation.” We’re talking about the AFA, FRC, WND, NOM, the Tea Party, and frankly the whole “religious right.” They define Christianity in this nation. They harness the privilege that religion has in our nation in ways no group ever has.

If you’re not that kind of Christian, I’m glad. But if you call yourself a Christian or you defend Christianity, know that those groups claim you and speak on your behalf. If you’re not happy with how they’ve defined what it means for you to be a Christian, you have a responsibility to stand up and correct them. As someone speaking out on the harm religion does to society, I cannot make exception for “all those other Christians” who don’t stand up for themselves when they are not pleased with what is said about Christianity. I’m not a Christian. It is that group of “Christians” who have to make an example of themselves.

This is one of many burdens Christians carry. Yes, you have an obligation to speak up for yourself and to repudiate and disavow those who try to define not just your faith but your place in society. I don’t care if you live in Washington, DC, or Coudersport, PA (I’m in probably a very small minority of Pennsylvanians who even know where Coudersport is); when people use your faith to foment their hate or discrimination, it is your responsibility to correct them, not mine. My job is simply to let you know that you’re still way behind.

I think there is something so important about celebrating our out LGBT artists. There are a lot of artists out there who can do things for our community, but artists from our community can really project our experiences with profound power. Tom is a great example of that, particularly in the way he’s so open and casual about his relationship with his amazing fiancé, Michael, who was also at the show last night, and for whom many of Tom’s songs are unabashedly written. Here’s a video Tom recorded of a song he’d just written about watching Michael snore, which he recorded while Michael was snoring. It’s incredibly sweet:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8opSPEocXk

I remember when I first discovered an out gay artist. It was Levi Kreis, and his album One of the Ones was this lovely collection of songs about love and relationships, and even if there wasn’t a single gendered word in the song, you knew they were about another man. There is something so important about hearing songs that are about our own experiences. I think so many in our community are still deprived of that opportunity: to see a fellow queer person communicate through music testimonies of our own lives.

While the music of the civil rights movement was very spiritual and inspiring, it seems music in the LGBT movement has been more about liberation. More than anything, ours has been a struggle against repression, a war against the closet and against those who would keep us there. When we celebrate ourselves, we celebrate our freedom and those chance opportunities to let loose. It’s unsurprising that dance and techno music has largely defined that, because that is exactly what dance music communicates: it makes you want to dance. It’s light and yet fierce at the same time; it’s incredibly freeing.

Unfortunately, many of the musicians we celebrate (Cher, Robyn, September, Ke$ha, Miley, etc.) have been heterosexuals, and while dance music may energize us, it lacks a real human connection to the joys and challenges of our lives as LGBT people. That’s why music like Tom’s is so important; it’s music for the 363 days we’re not at Pride. I wonder how many people re-closet themselves after they leave Pride and just ignore the reality of their own identity because it’s easier for them to do so. Truly queer music might be challenging to some in that it helps break down self-constructed closet walls, but the consequence is, I think, a deep sense of validation and connection. We are real people with real relationships and real emotions and there needs to be a soundtrack for our lives too.

I hope you, my reader, will take some time to find an artist who really speaks to your experience. Don’t settle for the spoon-fed mainstream pop music; it alone will not speak to the life you lead. Find the artists who do, and you will be amazed at how they impact and empower you.

Thanks for a great show Tom! If there are other openly queer artists out there who I can help connect with a queer audience, please let me hear from you! I like new friends and I like supporting queer musicians (and any other kind of visual/theatrical/etc. artists too)!

I’ll leave you with a song Tom Goss co-wrote with Matt Alber (who I featured here on Valentine’s Day ’10) about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell called “Who We Are.” Enjoy!

Tom Goss and Matt Alber -- Who We Are

What an exciting afternoon at the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg, PA. The National Organization for Marriage took center “stage” on the steps but we actively responded and created visibility across the street for LGBT equality! (Click on the image to the left for the full interactive gallery or click here if you can’t see it!)

There was actually surprisingly big turnout for NOM’s part. Prop 8 Trial Tracker/NOM Tour Tracker counted NOM at 75. I heard that some Pennsylvania orgs (like AFA of PA, etc.) helped bring more people in. From where we were standing across the street, it was hard to see and hear NOM’s rally because of their bus—which I think was a good thing.

Our numbers were hovering just around 50 at any given time. We were mostly engaged in a honking war. People driving down the street from our side would honk for us and we’d cheer. Folks coming the other direction would honk for NOM (and the Catholics standing by the street, though that’s almost redundant), then see us and hide their faces in shame. It was pretty interesting to watch, and it was great to see so many passers-by offer us their support, including company truck drivers, city bus drivers, and even pizza delivery folks!

I think our counterprotest was extremely effective. We did very few cheers while NOM’s speakers were yakking away, but it might not have mattered because the street and bus were a great buffer. I say great, because we had a whole lot more visibility to traffic and the media spent a lot of time filming us and interviewing us. You can also see from the photos that we had a lot of positive messages and a great spirit of family, and when we did chant, it was messages of love and equality. We also sang “This Land Is Your Land” and “Gentle Loving People.”

I find myself wondering how differently our event would have been if Equality Pennsylvania had supported the event. For sure, as Adam Bink pointed out on P8TT, if the people who had come to last night’s event came today, we would have outnumbered NOM, as there was very little overlap. We’ll never know for sure, but we can rest assured that there is some amazing grassroots support in Central Pennsylvania who won’t let NOM go unanswered. I want to personally thank Audrey Smith and Kelly McEntree who both helped mobilize a lot of people to be out there today!

On a personal note, I was quite proud of my mother for joining me today. It was her first real act of LGBT activism, and I was actually surprised by just how fired up she got! She’s a great ally and it meant a lot to have her with me.

Are you surprised? A lot of people are when I reveal this super intimate detail. “Oh,  I didn’t know,” they say.

To answer your other questions: I’ve always known, and I have no interest in meeting my genetic parents. My parents are my parents and I love them very much. Oh, and yes, I do like to pretend I might be the second coming of Christ. (How do you know I’m not?)

But let’s step back. What was with that reaction to the news that I’m an adoptee? Do folks have have certain expectations about adoptees that are disrupted by my coming out? Did they expect it would somehow be obvious, or that if they knew me well enough it would be something they could tell?

The funniest (or not so funny, as I’ll be exploring below) moments are when folks will tell my mom how much I look like her. (I don’t know—we’re both tall, I guess.) She’ll just smile and say, “Well, actually, Zack was adopted.” They immediately get embarrassed and apologetic. I don’t think it’s just because they realize their assumption was wrong; I think there’s some disappointment there. There is an inherent expectation that I have some special connection to my parents that they now know I don’t have. (By the way, you can see from my pic that I really don’t look at all like my father. Sorry, Dad!)

The most recent assessment of attitudes about adoption revealed that there is still a lot of stigma in our society—probably more than you think. The 2002 National Adoption Attitudes Survey (PDF) found some startling results about public perceptions. Unsurprisingly, folks have greater concerns about young people who’ve been through foster care, but even some of the numbers for adopted-at-birth children are disconcerting. A third think we adoptees are less likely to be well-adjusted or self-confident, and a fifth think we’re less likely to be happy.

Well-adjusted… well-adjusted… why does that sound familiar?

Oh, right. It’s the argument used against same-sex adoption. In fact, a lot of the opponents of gay adoption will often say things like, “A child does best with his or her birth parents.” Or as Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel recently said, gay parenting is not “in the best interest of the child.” (Handel has a runoff election for the Republican candidacy coming up on August 10, in case you’re curious.)

No voice has been more virulent against gay adoption recently than that of Bill McCollum. As the Florida Attorney General, he pushed for the hiring of George Rekers to testify on behalf of Florida’s ban on gay adoption. (Rekers, you may recall, is a fan of rentboy “luggage carriers”, suggesting that his anti-gay views aren’t so legitimate—as if any are.) Now that McCollum is running for governor, he’s struggling to defend the $87,000+ in taxpayer dollars used to cover Rekers’ not-so-expertly expenses. Here’s the latest from McCollum:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJPCoqylR1g

I don’t believe the gay family model is good for the kids. First of all, it’s my religious views and my principles, so I’m just personally against it. I’m not going to argue with you further the merits; there’s no point in it. You and I perhaps disagree, but I just don’t think it’s a good model.

Now, of course, when it comes to gay and lesbian adoption, there is the added stickiness of archaic gender expectations. But fundamentally, most people who speak against adoption by same-sex couples use the same language that stigmatizes all adoptions. This is how we need to frame the debate.

If you’re curious, another study came out this week confirming that children of lesbian and gay couples do just as well (news article and PDF of the study). Here’s what researchers at the University of Virgina learned (p. 11-12):

Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults can and do make capable adoptive parents. We found no significant differences among families headed by lesbian, gay, or heterosexual parents in terms of child adjustment, parenting behaviors, or couples’ adjustment. In addition, reports of children’s outside caregivers were consistent with those of  parents. It is important to note in particular that gay fathers and their children appeared to be faring as well as were lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. These findings add to the very limited existing research on gay fathers and their children, as well as to the relatively sparse research on adoptive families with lesbian and gay parents. In all, our results both lend support to earlier research with lesbian- and gay-parented families, and extend these findings to adoptive and gay-father families.

While it’s nice to see some confirmation (finally!) for our gay dads, this study is nothing new. There have been many that show the same thing. Some even show that children of same-sex couples do better than children of heterosexual couples.

But these studies aren’t going to shift the argument. You see, I think people who oppose gay adoption oppose all adoption. They might not even realize it, but there’s definitely bias there. It’s no different than when John Briggs tried to ban gay teachers by suggesting they were pedophiles. Harvey Milk pointed out to him that heterosexuals were just as likely to be pedophiles, so it was a moot point. Still, Briggs thought it good reason to attack the gays (and the Catholic Church still does). Just as folks who oppose gay pedophiles oppose all pedophiles, folks who oppose gay adoption oppose all adoption. It’s the same exact scapegoating of gays and lesbians.

The proof is obvious. Look at David Blankenhorn, “star” witness for the defense of Prop 8. He supports gay adoption. He said as much at the trial. We shouldn’t be surprised. I’m sure, among all the goofy literature and pseudo-research he works with at his Institute for American Values, there have to be a few nuggets of truth. He sees how adoption can be good, and so can’t come up with a reason why gay adoption is bad.

Our problem isn’t people against gay adoption. Our problem is people against adoption. It’s the little bit of privilege and stigma revealed by the surprise when I tell someone I’m adopted—as if it’s some big deal (it’s not). People don’t trust adoption, and they use it as an excuse to attack same-sex couples in their family.

Next time you hear someone challenging gay adoption, go through all the motions. Remind them of all the data that proves they’re wrong. Show them pictures of loving families (like Scott, Robert, and Riley who I met at the National Equality March). Correct all their assumptions about the importance of gender roles. But then, make sure you also challenge them on adoption in general. The attacks on gay adoption aren’t just hurting same-sex couples; they hurt all of us connected to adoption and all the children waiting to be adopted.

I don’t.

What happens in Vegas… meh.

I’ve written before that, for my own sake, I’m a big fan of monogamy. Still, I’m a sexual being, and I’m not going to lie, I wasn’t averse to a Vegas experience (but not one I had to pay for). For the record, I doubt I’d have written about it on a blog that’s largely not about my personal life, so don’t get too excited.

There were, in fact, multiple occasions during my time in Vegas that there was the potential for something to take place that was worthy of “staying in Vegas.” These kinds of situations happen all the time. The guys are cute, funny, and you’re buying each other drinks or whatnot… things seem swell. Then, they light a cigarette, and the attraction (and thus any fantasy) ends.

I hate cigarette smoke. It is, by far, my biggest turn off. It’s gross and it’s obnoxious.

More importantly, I have a sensitivity to it. Someone told me that you can’t be “allergic” to it, so I say sensitivity, but damn it if the right whiff doesn’t launch me into a 15-minute sneezing fit. It irritates my eyes, it makes me nauseous, and seriously, it frickin’ reeks. I once went on a date with a guy who just smelled like smoke and I ended it as soon as the movie was over because I simply could not stand to be around him. When I was living in New York and Iowa, I was fortunate that I could go and enjoy the bars without these experiences, but now I hesitate to go out much here in PA, because my experiences are always so tainted.

It turns out that smoking is a big problem in the gay community. I choose the word, “problem,” because yes, it a serious health concern (and not just because some of us hate it). A study came out last month that found that smoking in the LGBT community is disproportionately high:

The study indicates the LGBT population smokes at a higher rate than the general public. Data show that gay, bisexual and transgender men are up to 2.5 times more likely to smoke than heterosexual men. Lesbian, bisexual and transgender women are up to twice as likely to smoke as straight women.

WTF? Isn’t it bad enough that we’re still beaten, harassed, demonized, and discriminated against? Do we have to smell bad too? Do we really need to add lung cancer to our list of ailments when HIV still doesn’t get the attention it deserves?

(Oh, and by the way, if you “only smoke when drinking,” then guess what? You smoke.)

The thing that drives me the craziest is how indignant people are about smoking. I’m sure there are plenty of people who will read this post and think me (or even call me) “intolerant.” I’m not sensitive to people’s addictions. I’m a fascist who’s trying to control people’s freedom. Some might even think I’m jealous that I don’t look super cool with a fag between my fingers.

First, I have incredible sympathy for folks with addiction and eagerly offer my support and motivation for those trying to quit. I really respect the folks who are conscientious about not smoking around others or even indoors. Second, I’m not so judgmental that I won’t even be around people who smoke. My mom smokes, and I still love her dearly (but you can bet I stay away from her when she smokes and for a period of time after).

Also, I’m not trying to tell anyone they can’t smoke. I do like telling people they can’t smoke in indoor public spaces, because I feel that helps make spaces inclusive of non-smokers without really being exclusive of smokers. (Oh, and I might favor higher taxes on tobacco too, because, well, I’m kind of a socialist like that.)

But come on, queer community. Don’t we owe ourselves better? I don’t know the ins and outs of why people smoke, but I just feel like smoking is bad for the queer community’s health and social well being. I mean, some folks even fetishize smoking, as if it’s really hot! (Check out boys-smoking.com if you don’t believe me—fair warning: it’s a gay porn site.) This is just disgusting. And again, I’m not trying to judge your fetish, I’m concerned about your health and my own!

I hated having to walk through the casino this past week. I’d always come out the other side with bloodshot eyes. And come on, even if you disagree with me that we need to really work to reduce the tobacco use of our community, surely you aren’t so cruel as to suggest I don’t deserve a boyfriend who I can kiss without sneezing blood a few minutes later.

There’s no good excuse for our bad habits. If you need help, please check out the National LGBT Tobacco Control Network or contact your local quitters’ hotline. Let’s show the world how nice we can really smell.

New Anti-Smoking Ads Warn Teens ‘It’s Gay To Smoke’

If you haven’t been following my twitter, you should be. It’s the best way to track what’s been happening here at the conference. In this post, though, I want to talk about some ups and downs of the conference. I have a few more grumbles than you might expect, so stick with  me. Redeeming positives are further below.

I really think that, in general, Netroots Nation really needs to be better at modeling. There have been a number of things that have made this conference slightly frustrating in ways that I think could easily be improved.

For example, the wireless internet access has sucked. To use the internet in your hotel room is ridiculously expensive and the service is really not reliable at all. (It was quite arduous just getting this post up this morning.) The Netroots folks have set up a free wireless system in the convention area, but it has been rife with problems. It was down more often than not yesterday and even when it was up, it was not always consistent. There were a number of times I was sitting in a panel trying to follow my Tweetdeck and getting nothing while folks next to me had service.

This seems to me to be bad form. To many, the quality of the internet connection you have while in Las Vegas would be negligible, but we’re here at a conference about using the internet! If I were part of the conference planning group, my first priority in selecting a venue would be confirming that they have quality, reliable internet and don’t charge guests an arm and a leg for it. It’s hard to be a good Netroots activist without the Net!

Surprisingly, that hasn’t been the only technology fail. I’ve been in several panels already where the presenters were struggling with media in their presentations. In some cases it wasn’t their fault, but I still think the result was that it undermined their presentation. If you are here at Netroots to show your eagerness to interact with the blogosphere, you should at least be competent at using your own computer. I don’t mean to sound petty or whiny; I think there’s a credibility issue here. If your words are saying “I want to engage with people through technology” and your actions say “I don’t know how to engage with technology,” the presentation kind of feels disingenuous.

And, by far, my biggest complaint is the level of engagement. Most of the sessions throughout the day are “panels.” There are a few trainings and caucuses, but panels predominate. I went to four yesterday. The topics of those panels were great. I attended two that related to scientific literacy and education standards, one about marriage equality, and one about using social media. Sounds great, right? But the panels themselves betray the very values the Netroots presents for itself.

This thought occurred to me during the social media panel. The panelists were talking about the importance of reaching out to others in the blogosphere rather than expecting others to just come to us. As I tweeted from the panel: Treat online people like people and allies, not sheep. This expectation of community participation is at the core of Netroots activism; it keeps the playing field level by expecting everyone to participate actively.

The panels accomplish the opposite. They are groups of four or five who talk at us and then expect us to just ask them questions. It’s not really conversational, and it just seems to go against the very culture we seem to be trying to promote. Granted, I’m also biased as an educator and a performer; my top priority is always to keep people engaged and participating. The folks on these panels are brilliant and can speak eloquently to their issues, and there are certainly times when a panel format is ideal. I just think it’s odd that such a format is embraced as the primary format of engagement throughout the conference.

So, those are my primary complaints. They’re not really big ones, but they definitely give me a context for how to think about the rest of the conference and how to get the most out of it.

I have to say, Twitter is a pretty amazing tool for connecting with others. It can be annoying as hell when the hashtag search is full of retweets, but it does wonders for shared experiences. I’ve actually met a lot of people here at the conference through our exchange of tweets. I think it’s easy to think of Twitter as just a social tool, but it also is, itself, a great venue for delivering information. I won’t be blogging as much about the content of some of these workshops because Twitter is taking care of a lot of it. A number of people have actually come up to me and told me how much they appreciate my tweets, which makes me feel like it’s not all in vain!

It’s also been amazing to meet my readers. Honestly, before I got to this conference, I wasn’t sure many folks out there were really following this little ol’ blog, and it warms my heart to know you appreciate what I’m doing here. I hope I don’t sound as egotistical as that blowhard Ed Schultz (from MSNBC) who spoke last night. It’s just been an incredible confidence booster to feel like I’m not just wasting my time.

I’m certainly doing my best to sell myself here (though not in that way—I know this is Vegas, but seriously!). I continue to meet incredible people at every turn; there’s no doubt this weekend will have been a life-changing experience. I feel like a little kid at Disney World or something. I’m super excited to see others willing to promote my work! Pam Spaulding linked to my post from earlier this week; Joe Jervis has a picture of me on his site; and I even did a video interview with Minnesota-based The Uptake.

I really and truly feel like a part of this community, and I love it. I must continue to extend my thanks to all the amazing people who have made it possible for me to be here and who continue to be great mentors!! Exciting change can happen when we all work together toward our shared goals.

I have to get ready to get back into the fray! Go back to following my tweets for more updates throughout the day!

And in case you’re wondering, I played one dollar on a slot machine. I now have one less dollar. Cheers from Vegas!

As I pack up and get ready, I want to take just a moment to reflect on the week I’ve already had. I had the distinct honor of standing as a groomsman in my friends’ wedding here in Iowa. It was not a same-sex wedding, but I was certainly proud to be part of an Iowa wedding nonetheless.

Before, during, and after my two years living in Iowa, I would get a common kind of reaction from folks back east. Once they figured out which one was Iowa (the one with the potatoes, right?), there was always a sort of, “Oh… Iowa,” reaction, followed by, “I bet that was fun.”

Truth be told, I did have some challenges living in Iowa. Heck, this blog started because I was having trouble communicating and relating to some others while I was here. But the truth is, Iowa is a pretty cool place.

In addition to the wedding, I spent five days visiting a whole bunch of wonderful people who impacted my life while I was here (as well as playing an inordinate amount of late-night gaming). I remembered what truly awesome friends I did have out here, and how Iowa doesn’t necessarily deserve the assumption inherent in people’s reaction to the thought of it. Iowa left an imprint on my heart that I cannot simply brush off.

It’s odd to think about flying to Las Vegas from here. I am going to Netroots Nation thanks to Freedom to Marry, but I am leaving a state with marriage equality to go be a part of a conference in a state without marriage equality. In fact, I’m leaving one of the few states where I can legally commit to the love of my life to go to the only state where I can legally pay for a hot trick.

It puts things in perspective a bit. If morality is supposedly the underpinning of the laws in our country, then shouldn’t the laws promote the activities more people consider moral? What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas because those are the stories people are often ashamed or embarrassed to tell. What happens in Iowa is beautiful and true and ought to be shared everywhere.

Despite this somewhat disappointing juxtaposition, I am excited for the next five days of my journey. I’m going to commune with amazing other bloggers and activists and perhaps make some of the most important and life-changing connections of my life. For those of you who have missed your daily dose of ZackFord, get ready, because I’m sure I’ll be over compensating at Netroots. Stay tuned, there’s a wild road ahead!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8xCgC3w1zs

Missing your almost-daily does of ZackFord Blogs? Click here for a random post you might not have seen before!

While I’m glad to see open discussion about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on TV, I was generally frustrated that Kathy Griffin would hail herself as some kind of hero that she is not. So, I decided to use the episode to raise a little awareness about the Human Rights Campaign. I’ve written against them quite a bit in the past (April, March, February, January, October) and am still in no way satisfied that they appropriately represent the LGBT community on our salient issues.

So, on the Human Rights Campaign Facebook Wall, HRC had posted a link to their Dear Senator robo-email form, encouraging those watching Kathy Griffin’s show to participate. In fairness, it was not an ask for money. But, the whole things was still a publicity stunt. So, I offered the following comment.

Zack Ford: Want to take action to help pointless publicity stunts that don’t really make a difference? HRC is the group to fund!

And hoo-wee was the discussion fun!

Thomas Vire: Hey Zach,sounds as though you’d rather help the tea party…Now there’s a pointless group of very angry people,they just don’t know who to be angry at… [13 Likes]

Doyle C. Durando: Great Attitude Zach!

Michael Voit: I agree with Zack on this one. Thanks for wasting my time.

Josh Ritchie: Want to talk pointless crap that only makes you look like an idiot? Zack is the person to talk to! [6 Likes]

Bret Valdez: ‎@Zack, Kathy Griffin is a huge ally for the gay community… shame you’re so negative towards our supporters… [2 Likes]

Erica Anderson: Bitter much, Zack? If anything you are thinking of PETA with their outrageous stunts they pull to try to get people to pay attention to them.

Ashleigh Bealko: Yes, no hate please…if u don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all- didn’t anyone ever teach u that? [2 Likes]

Social media is fun! Can there be a new form of Godwin’s Law for Tea Party comparisons? I can’t believe that was the first retort out of the gate.

Simply for challenging our largest LGBT organization to be accountable (as most of the Netroots do these days, it seems), I was attacked by their supporters. I was called a teabagger, which is bad enough, but my points were also referred to as “pointless crap,” and I was accused of being negative and hateful. I think one of the other commenters might have thought I was a Republican. Yeesh.

We have a big PR problem within our community if that’s how people react to fair internal critiques.

Of course, I wasn’t done.

Zack Ford: Wow, love all the respectful dialogue. If HRC claims to speak on behalf of all of us, it’d be great if they didn’t constantly cave on all our issues. Excuse me for wanting to hold them accountable. [3 Likes]

Not even close.

Sloan Danenhower: zack, i hear you. but at the same time politics is the art of the possible and if the HRC didn’t “cave” we wouldn’t have anything…

Mario Pinardi: Bitter & jaded solves nothing. Energy & passion solves the impossible. If you do not like HRC, at least, stand behind the cause of repealing DADT. Zero patience for bitter idiots. [4 Likes]

Zack Ford: Sloan, we don’t have anything anyway.

Chris Weisbecker: I don’t know. I do believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, that’s one of the things that makes this country so friggin awesome. But I also do feel that we are making a huge difference. If you are not happy with the organization, you can always just leave. Or even better yet, offer some constructive ways and solutions to make things better. [3 Likes]

Zack Ford: How about we stop pandering the President? How about they stop asking for money for campaigns that don’t actually apply pressure? How about we stop accepting compromises on our equality? Anyone want to tell me when the discharges stop?

Brian Rolon: If HRC is pointless, then remove them from your friends list and quit posting your own pointless comments. Get em Kathy!

Bret Valdez: Zack you sound so ignorant right now. I barely know anything about politics, but I’m not on a Facebook profile voicing my ill-advised opinions about them. and remember, opinions are like assholes; everyone’s got one.

Zack Ford: Bret, when do the discharges end?

I’m not going to lie; I do find this kind of fun. But I also think it’s important. There could have been a hundred comments of people just praising Kathy Griffin and HRC, but now there’s some real discussion going. People are calling me names and spelling my name wrong, but that’s ok. It’s just a poor response to the cognitive dissonance they’re experiencing.

Sarah Angela Evans: ‎@Zach Ford, WRONG.. you do have rights and you may not realize this because of your youth, but the rights you have NOW are because of the HRC and those of us who stood up and gained the rights we have now. We started the first Gay Activist Alliance at the University of Oklahoma, when it was unheard of to talk about being a “queer” but we fought and we won. I remember being called names, bashed and having fireworks hurled at us by those who hated us. And the police turned the other way. When the police did look our way, they were beating us up for being a queer… I see you graduated from IOWA.. be proud at least gays can marry in your State!!! I remember many friends who were discharged dishonorably after a career in the military simply on the word of someone saying they were a queer… and when the Army Internal Affairs would come to the gay bars off post and take names of those who were there so they could throw them out of the service… Zach, we have so much more than we did when I was your age… This is not an overnight win.. it takes time… hopefully in my lifetime, but definitely in yours… [3 Likes]

I didn’t want to respond to Sarah, directly, because that just didn’t seem like it would be productive to the thread. But, I will say here that the dishonorable discharges are no different today. I still can’t get married. I still can get fired. The police still unfairly target our community. I am quite proud of those who came before to help educate and change attitudes, but when it comes to the law, what’s different? As far as I can see, I don’t have any federal rights that she didn’t back at the University of Oklahoma. I hate to be a downer, but that’s why I’m angry. Important work was done, but we haven’t come that far, and HRC surely has done squat recently (except take our money, of course).

Zack Ford: It’d be great if we stopped apologizing for a President who takes our money and then doesn’t expend any capital on our issues. I appreciate the work that’s come before, but I think we need to hold HRC accountable for their promises and issues. [1 Like]

Brian Anderson: Thank you Zack.

Sabrina Codella Ricketts: I am gay, and I served for 8 years. I completed my contract, got out and married my highschool sweetheart. As much as I am disgusted with DADT, I’m not naive enough to think that things will change over a couple years. Never in our country’s history has change towards equality been swift. One of the first moves towards ending slavery happened in 1787. MLK was still marching for equality in the 1960s. Now gays aren’t fighting back from slavery but we are fighting back from being labeled as immoral and a disease on society. You can’t expect the impossible. Unfortunately it will be slow gains over time. Just keep fighting and grab onto and celebrate the gains. Direct your anger where it belongs. At the bigots, not the organizations trying to make things better.

Thank you for your service, Sabrina. Unfortunately, the organization taking our community’s money is responsible for our lack of progress. Did it ever occur to you that they’re not good at what they do? Or more importantly, they don’t accomplish the goals they’ve promised us?

Evance Cannon: HRC FAIL

Evance Cannon: The elegant activist is a total DOUCHENOZZLE!

Zack Ford: Gotta love the photo opportunity while real activists are taking real action… Ooh, and a text from Cher! That’s going to make a difference. We can do so much better than these stunts folks. Think twice about who you entrust to advocate on your behalf. [1 Like]

Mario Pinardi: As a gay man who is relatively dull, I choose to make bold choices in order to fight for equality. So, if you are a gay & a conservative & a hater, then you are the one who is damaging our cause, not vocal allies like Kathy. Again, zero tolerance for those who choose to diminish & hate inside their own GLBT community. You have a lot to learn about tolerance, inclusion, & equality. I say “Go Kathy” – make more bold choices for your “gays.”

Some of these comments make me wonder if we have a real insecurity problem in the community. I come from a biased place; I read about HRC’s inaction at least weekly on the blogosphere. But here are folks that think HRC’s the end-all-be-all and attack anyone who challenges their organization’s pristine reputation. Wake up, folks! It’s far from it.

The thing that frustrated me most was that at the end of the D-List episode, some text on the screen explained that the House of Representatives had voted on repeal or Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

No, they did not. They voted on some ambiguous compromise that two months after the completion of the survey that will take until December, a whole bunch of military leaders can decide if and how they want to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Zack Ford: WHOA MISINFORMATION. THEY DID NOT VOTE ON REPEAL.

Zack Ford: When do the discharges end? No one knows.

Keith Valdez: I think Kathy did the right thing in not going to the white house with cho. How is handcuffing yourself to the white house fence going to help? [1 Like]

Zack Ford: Keith, like all civil disobedience, it puts the pressure and accountability on the those who enforce the law. It’s saying, “This discrimination is so hurting us we’re willing to break the law in front of your office. It’s YOUR fault, President Obama, that I’m in jail. I wouldn’t have to do this if you had fulfilled your promise to be a fierce advocate.” [1 Like]

Keith Valdez: Well not everyone is against Obama. Obama didn’t put him in jail, he handcuffed himself to the fence. That is a violation of the laws protecting the residence of our nations leader and therefore he put himself into jail. He could have made a bold statement any other way because if I remember correctly he wasn’t protesting the laws governing the protection of the white house. Kathy does not have to subscribe to his way of protesting and neither do the rest of us. That event was in the news for a few days then forgotten until now so he can thank her for giving him some publicity. It was presumptuous and not very thoughtful on his part to put her on the spot in that way.

Actually, I think the media completely ignored Kathy and Joe’s staged rally in favor of the real activism Dan and Jim were doing. There was nothing news-worthy about the rally except that it got trumped by what Dan and Jim did! Oh, and did you see they were still in the news today of their own accord? And their charges were dismissed, presumably because the Obama administration was embarrassed there would be a public airing of their failure to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell!

William Robert Hagen: ‎@Zack Ford, I agree 100%. Almost 1,000 LGBT soldiers have been booted under Obama. HRC does need to hold Obama accountable. Obama made those promises to us, we did not force him to make him those promises. Obama could stop enforcement through Executive Order right now and has not. If he would do that, I personally would shut-up, but until he does that he does not get my support and more importantly, my money.

Glen McWilliams: All the blind kudos just because it’s Kathy Griffin is a perfect example of why no one in office takes gay activism seriously.

Now, there might be some of you out there who think my little comments on HRC’s wall were petty and useless. You might feel that reading this post was a waste of your time. That’s fine. But let me ask you: what have you done to engage in critical dialogue lately?

If one person read my comments and thought twice about the efficacy of the Human Rights Campaign, then it was worth it. Every step forward helps.

Hey all! I’ve been making a few tiny updates to the ZFb page and I thought you might be curious about the little ways it is becoming more user-friendly!

Email Subscription

I mentioned this change a few weeks ago on Facebook, but thought I’d reiterate it here. You can now subscribe to receive posts and/or comments via daily email digests. I know there are folks who prefer email updates over using RSS, so I hope you will take advantage of this option. Click here to subscribe to posts or click here to subscribe to comments. (ProTip: FeedBurner Email Subscription service.)

Comments

There are a number of changes to comments!

Those of you who were commenting this week may have noticed I changed out the comment form. As fancy as the MCE input box was, it had this habit of not putting spaces between folks’ paragraphs. This really started to drive me crazy, so I simply did away with it. Kudos to Hemant Mehta for tipping me to which plug-in he used to help you with some code. Even though this change is—I think—a visual set back, it will help ensure that comments look the way you all want them to, which I think is important. And for any of you who aren’t html-savvy, it’ll give you a little opportunity to practice! (ProTip: Comment Form Quicktags Plugin. The former plugin was TinyMCEComments.)

Just in case your comments aren’t turning out right, there is now a comment Preview button! This will give you the opportunity to see how your comment will look and proof it before you submit it. Since it now uses code, this will be a great way to double check you closed all your tags and such. Please make sure that if you do Preview your comment, you still remember to click post so it is submitted! (ProTip: Filosofo Comments Preview Plugin.)

I hope you’ll notice that the input buttons are now color coordinated with the theme, which should make them more user-friendly.

Also, some people had trouble with the old CAPTCHA system. I was distressed to learn some wonderful comments had been lost to the void because the CAPTCHA times out. I’ve got a great new system that’s just a simple Check Box. It never times out, and even if you forget to check it, it’ll save your comment for you. I love when smart people offer simple solutions! (ProTip: amcaptcha Plugin.)

By the way, it’s easier to subscribe to comments now! When you post a comment, just check the box to subscribe automatically. Also, if you want to subscribe without commenting, there is a simple form at the VERY bottom of posts (below the comment input form). That way everyone can follow the great discussions that we get going here on ZFb! (ProTip: Subscribe to Comments and Subscribe to Comments Now! Plugins.)

Design Tweaks

Some new visitors to the site had trouble finding the comments, so I added a link to the comment section in the header of posts. I also revamped how the date looks and added the time. (That way, you can tell how uncool I am, like when I post about blog tweaks after 11 PM on a Friday night.)

I also moved the ad that was formerly at the top of single posts. It’s now at the bottom near the comments section. This should make single posts more accessible, which is great, because more people get to the site through a link to a post as opposed to arriving at the main index.

I’ve been playing around with the logos again too, just because I can and it’s fun. Right now we’re tracing the blog’s Iowa roots with some summer sunshine and knee-high corn. You may have missed the Pride Month and 4th of July logos. (The 4th of July one made the site look more like one of those conservative propaganda sites!) There will, of course, be a special one for Netroots Nation later this month.

Facebook Integration

A while back, I went through and tried to manually integrate Facebook with ZFb. It kind of looked like it worked, but it didn’t. If anybody saw the “Like” box at the bottom of posts, I’d never know, because I don’t think the feature worked right anyway. Now it does, and is neatly integrated into the top of posts. Please feel free to Like posts! (Facebook iLike Plugin.)

[Let's hope the third time's the charm! After publishing this post, I spent a couple hours dealing with some RSS problems that were ultimately caused by that Facebook Plugin. I've got a new one and now we're up and running again. For all the trouble this Facebook integration has been, please Like posts when you like them! (ProTip: WP Facebook Like Plugin.)]

To help remove clutter with the new Like button, the Bookmarks bar is now only at the bottom of posts. Please feel free to Tweet, Reddit, Stumble, Digg, and Seed my posts!

Share Your Feedback

I want to make this little site easy to read and interact with. If you have any ideas or suggestions for how to make ZackFord Blogs a better site, let me know!! Leave a comment on this post or shoot me an email. I’ll gladly do anything I can to help my readers!

You might remember a few weeks ago, I posted that I was vying for a scholarship to attend Netroots Nation, the big convention of progressive activists, in a contest called Blog 4 Equality. To enter, we had to submit blog posts or videos and then answer some questions about how attending Netroots Nation would help me grow and advance marriage equality. Freedom To Marry selected me as one of ten finalists, and then we all started rallying votes in hopes of being one of the top 3. I reached out to friends, family, colleagues, readers, listeners, and even readers of other blogs and I tweeted like crazy about it and ultimately, I earned enough votes to be declared a winner (thanks again, everybody!). I am going to Netroots Nation in a few weeks and look forward to blogging live from Las Vegas.

I want to take a moment and thank Freedom to Marry for this opportunity. Marriage equality is a tough issue, but we’re making progress. I appreciate the opportunity to get support for my own work by going to Netroots Nation, and I think this scholarship contest was great exposure for all ten finalists and our efforts toward making this world a better place to live in.

One of the other winners got his scholarship by going a very different route, and I want to write a post to talk about it.

I’ll start by giving Zack Rosen a little credit. He spells his name right.

Zack Rosen runs a site called The New Gay. I’ll be honest, I don’t read it. The name itself makes me feel alienated, as if being gay depends on being trendy. For the most part, it’s a blog about culture, and that’s all well and good, but it simply doesn’t captivate my interest. We do different things, and that’s cool. To each his own.

For the record, though, here is how Zack recently described his own site:

…a DC-based website for alternative queers. It’s a place where queer men, women and transfolk can go to read ideas, narratives and culture commentary that doesn’t talk down to its readers or make assumptions about the things they care about based on who or how they fuck.

Despite his aversion to oxford commas (damn you, AP style!), he wants to run counter to the “white male” culture of the gay community, which I can respect.

What I don’t respect is the tactic Zack Rosen used to win votes for the Blog 4 Equality Scholarship.

Like the rest of us, he submitted posts and answered questions. His focus was cultural and his tactic was to talk about his personal experiences with marriage, which is just fine.

Then, like I and some others did, he posted something on his blog to rally support from readers, which is also just fine.

Then, he veered off course, offering the following to Fleshbot (a site I won’t link you to here because it contains malware):

My solemn promise to the Fleshbot community is that if they go to the Freedom to Marry voting page and vote for Zack Rosen, and if I win, I will send in a picture of myself without that pesky sign in front of my crotch. And I’ll have a boner. So do it for me, do it for dick, do it for naked pictures of non-famous people. But please, from the bottom of my heart, vote for me. I really need your help.

This was accompanied by further descriptions of his penis as well as a picture of him naked holding a paper plate in front of his crotch.

His new plea for votes was picked up by sites like omg blog, Towleroad, and The Advocate. The Advocate piece even ended by saying, “Click here for more information on how to vote for Rosen.”

Since the winners were announced, the Advocate has posted the news of his (and his alone) winning as well as a brief interview with him about the contest, not so subtly titled, “Skin for the Win.”

At any rate, let’s be blunt. Zack’s tactic worked. He probably got a lot of votes, and there were no rules against what he did to get them. He’s going to Netroots Nation, and in the process, he got an incredible amount of publicity for himself and for his blog. He needed clicked on, he knew lots of gay men would do anything to see an erect penis, he offered an erect penis, and he got the votes. His strategy succeeded. None of us can fault him for that.

There have been a number of negative comments on the Advocate articles and such about what he did, and he responded to those yesterday when he posted the promised pictures:

Dear Fleshbot,

I want to thank everyone for helping me win a scholarship to this year’s NetRoots Nation. And a double thanks for not calling me a whore or “an embarrassment to the community,” as the commenters on other websites have done. I figure that many of the readers of this site are pretty cool, intelligent, laid back people with families and careers and interesting lives—people who also understand that a little sex or skin isn’t going to send us to the gulag.

I hope to do some good things in my life and a chance to meet the bigwigs at NetRoots should give me some decent ideas of how to get started. Actually, maybe I can start here by reminding people of three things (that most Fleshbot readers probably knew long before I wrote this):

1. Gay men’s bodies aren’t shameful things.
2. Gay sex is natural and pretty damn fun.
3. No one ever won equal rights by keeping their oppressors comfortable.

ZDR

He doesn’t mention Freedom to Marry or marriage equality, but I do agree with all three of Zack’s points. How could I not?

But I said at the top of this post that I don’t respect Zack for what he did, and rather than just call him names like some commenters did, I’d like to articulate a case for why I think his strategy was counter-intuitive. Before I proceed, let me clarify a few things.

I’m not here to rant or be petty; I don’t have to be because I won too. I just figure if no one else is going to call out the negative impact of what he did, then I will. After all, I have the same first name and I was listed first on the ballot, so I can’t rule out that some of my votes accidentally came from people trying to get a peek at his dick. More importantly, I think what he did was disrespectful to the other finalists, disrespectful to the organizations funding the scholarship, and disrespectful to the cause for marriage equality.

The overall point I want to make in this post is this: the reason Zack Rosen’s strategy worked is the reason it was a bad idea.

The gay community is very sex-positive, a point I do not lament. Unfortunately, we often get perceived as sex-driven, which only helps the cause of those who wish to define us solely by who we have sex with (and how). Mike Huckabee reminded us just two weeks ago that the “ick factor” is a driving force for anti-gay viewpoints. The ick factor is, of course, enmeshed in the history of demonization that led the gay community to become what it is. We couldn’t be out and open, so we had to sneak around to find others to connect with. Not only has there been no incentive for same-sex monogamy, there has largely been disincentive since gay folks first started coming out and organizing.

Our community has a tendency for “promiscuity” because society’s condemnation has essentially encouraged us to be promiscuous. Society also then uses the promiscuity it nurtured in us to further condemn us. I had an interesting airport conversation recently with a teabagger woman who was against same-sex marriage because gay men are promiscuous. She said that those of us who do value monogamy or have priorities greater than sex are just “exceptions,” but of course, the rest of the gay community will destroy the “institution” of marriage. Aside from Bible verses, this was her primary argument.

Now I’m not here today to preach about monogamy nor to judge promiscuity. The important point I want to make, though, is that obtaining marriage equality is going to require that we demonstrate we are not entirely sex-driven. We have to show the world that, despite their condemnations of our relationships and in spite of our own sex-positive culture, we value family, community, and qualities in people other than their body parts.

But in his attempt to win support for “the new gay,” Zack Rosen focused on the old stereotypes. He chose to use the current culture for his own benefit by reinforcing it. He said yep, marriage equality is important, but don’t you all just want to see my dick? It met his goal, but at what cost?

For one, I think his actions took away from his own credibility while marring the reputation of Freedom to Marry and to some extent, the other finalists as well. Here were nine other people vying to go to a conference based on the quality of their writing and their activism, and he bests them by showing his dick. I preferred that people support me for the work that I do. That seemed, implicitly, to be the point of the contest. I’m sure glad that the other winner turned out to be a woman, because in the gay community, I highly doubt women would have a fair shot at a superficial popularity contest.

It was almost as if Zack Rosen entered himself in a different contest. He was getting votes for his body while the rest of us were getting votes for our activism. Natasha Dillon and I won, presumably, for our work.

Now let’s not forget that there is also an onus on the masses that voted for Zack. I wonder how many of these individuals had no idea what the contest was about or who any of the other contestants were? They just wanted to see dick. Commenters on the various articles defended Zack by saying “the male body is beautiful” and he’s such a “creative thinker.” The whole community, including our most visible and widely-read publication, wanted to bring attention to his dick.

And what does it say about how this kind of coverage by The Advocate? Here is a publication working to be a voice for our community that only focused on the sexy part. The coverage never mentioned anyone’s submissions to the contest, nor the mission of Freedom to Marry and the whole point of the scholarship. Zack managed to ensure that ALL the coverage revolved entirely around his dick, including, inevitably, his own.

I write about this today because it’s just so disappointing. I’m disappointed in Zack Rosen for essentially “cheating” by getting votes for his body instead of his work. I’m disappointed in our publications for perpetuating the stereotype that cock is news and progress isn’t. I’m disappointed in all the people who eagerly voted for Zack without any consideration for the other finalists or the work that we do. And I’m disappointed in the gay community as a whole for its hedonistic ignorance of those actually trying to make things better for us. It seems, in many regards, we are still our own worst enemies.

In the end, Zack, you won. We get to spend an exciting weekend in Vegas with a whole bunch of activists and bloggers. I hope Netroots Nation helps us both grow towards accomplishing our professional goals and our active support of marriage equality. Congratulations to Natasha, and thanks again to Freedom to Marry for this wonderful opportunity.

I was waiting until the holiday was over to share the good news:

I’m going to Netroots Nation this month!!!

Here’s the official announcement on Open Left.

Thanks to all your diligent voting (and your tolerance of my nagging reminders to do so), I was a winner in Freedom to Marry’s Blog 4 Equality contest!!

Congratulations to all the finalists who are continuing to do wonderful work!

You can expect a lot of posts from Vegas with all the wonderful experiences I’m having there!

A lot of thanks to everybody who is helping make my trip possible. I think it speaks highly of the LGBT Netroots that there are great folks willing to be mentors to relative newbs like myself. A special thank you goes out to my friend Hemant Mehta who helped support my candidacy. Thank you atheist community!!

If you voted for me, I assume it means you care about the work that I do in some way. I surely hope it means that you appreciate my writing here on the blog, since that’s what the contest was about. If any of you who voted want to make special requests about topics I might not normally cover, feel free to leave these ideas in the comments. I so appreciate your support that I feel I have to give something back, so how about more of the quality content you voted for? Let me know, folks, and again, THANKS SO MUCH!!!

Except, I did blow a guy off like that once. And for all the reasons in the world, you’re going to think me pretty pathetic for the one that could rile me in such a way to just stop talking to someone, but hear me out.

My issue with him? The word “gay.” He was a grad student in linguistics.

Now, language is cool; I love playing with it. But this character was a descriptive linguist, through and through. We’re talking “language hippy” here. To him, there was nothing more cool or interesting than letting language just flow and be whatever it’ll be to whomever whenever. He thought the ebb and flow of language was sacred, and he would not disturb its pure and natural course regardless of the circumstances.

This did not sit well with me at all. I’m much more of a prescriptive grammarian. Words have power, and we have established rules for grammar for a very important reason: to communicate with each other as effectively as possible. I love using these rules when it comes to writing, because they allow me to write in ways that are easily comprehensible and conversational.

Consider that in this post I have already made effective use of an em dash, an oxford comma (which I will never give up—here comes another!), a semi-colon, and a colon—punctuation marks some might go their entire lives without using. And using them comes naturally to me, because my goal is to communicate as effectively as I can!

Of course, I’m not bound to cold, sterile writing. I also used “blow off,” “ebb and flow,” and “language hippy,” expressions that I’m sure you, as my reader, will understand, even though the way that I use them does not fit with their literal definitions. And so while I’m a stickler for prescriptive use of language, I also appreciate that descriptive grammar has its place.

Heck, I’m a blogger. If it weren’t for descriptive grammar, we wouldn’t have the word “blog.” Also, in a fleeting tribute to my rural roots, I have been heard to say “ya’ll” on occasion. (Come on, ya’ll, having a second-person plural can be very useful!)

Despite my flexibility, I still proudly identify as a SNOOT. You might call me a Grammar Nazi, a Syntax Snob, or the Language Police, and after I remind you about Godwin’s Law, I’ll take it as a compliment. I’m proud to know language rules and I appreciate the way they help me communicate. If new rules emerge or standards change, that’s great! Technology has certainly had a profound effect on the way we use words, and it makes perfect sense to me that we grow to accommodate this new paradigm of vocabulary and syntax. However, if we let words mean whatever they want to mean, they lose any meaning at all.

And that’s exactly why I blew off the language hippy. He thought the word “gay” had no meaning.

Somehow, we got talking about the expression “that’s so gay.” He argued that there was nothing wrong with using it to refer to something undesirable. It was just a new use of “gay.” It had nothing to do with homosexuality and it had no negative impact whatsoever on gay people. He had no problem with young people using the expression and didn’t think teachers should discourage it in any way. “It’s just the natural evolution of language,” he told me.

I was so pissed I just stopped talking to him. I found his perspective ignorant, delusional, and abhorrent. As a confident gay man and social justice educator, I still feel a little sting when people say “that’s so gay.” Usually, they are completely oblivious to the fact that “gay” actually means “homosexual,” but this ignorance is irrelevant and unforgivable. Anyone who is gay knows what the word means. And “that’s so gay” clearly derives from decades of negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians (not unlike the roots of other identity-related words like “lame,” “faggot,” and “nigger”). How this linguist could ignore the history of a word in favor of its natural fluidity just disgusted me.

Words and language have incredible power. All those “sticks and stones” and “thick skin” turns of phrase constitute propaganda spread by people who don’t want to take responsibility for their own (mis)use of language. We know that language helps maintain privilege in our society in some profound ways. We also know that language like “that’s so gay” has harsh consequences for the mental health of young people. Just because people use “gay” in that way does not make it okay to use. Achieving social justice requires we be conscientious about the words we use and that we take responsibility for their impact on others.

My brief online discourse with that linguist was years ago, but I still find myself irritated by his obliviousness. That’s why I’ll always be a prescriptive grammarian; I don’t want to ever encourage others to be lazy with their language. The consequences could be severe.

I’ll do my best to not be too SNOOTy, but friends, if I ever correct your grammar or protest your word choice, I hope you will not judge me for my tact. My goal will always be to help you be a better communicator and to make sure the language we use doesn’t hurt people. If you choose to respond defensively by disparaging me for my unyielding affect of perfectionism, hopefully the inherent subconscious negativity that concerned me in the first place will be revealed.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-C5L2A4BJQ

The reference is at about the 1-minute mark. The whole address is lovely, so please listen to the full thing. It’ll brighten your Monday, especially if your Monday is as dreary as mine is here in central Pennsylvania.

I’m proud to be a part of the Ithaca College community, and I’m honored to have had the opportunity to help define the experience of the class of 2010 in just the slightest of ways.

Read my letter to the Class of 2010 here.

Peterson and Zack are here to talk about that big bad issue that no one likes to be reminded of: body image. Body image issues affect all of us, but there are definitely some interesting and unique issues that arise in the LGB and T communities. In this week’s episode, we both talk about our own struggles with body image, we discuss different research that has come out about queer body issues, and we offer our own ideas about how we got where we are and where we’re going. We also invite listeners to share their own stories and struggles so we can build solidarity in our community.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Vote for Zack (Ford) today to get him to Netroots Nation next month!

» David Mixner: On Being Fat

» Study shows gay men are thinner and lesbians are more obese.

» NYT: Gay? Whatever, Dude

» The End Of Heterosexuality (as We’ve Known It)

» Gay men better at recognizing faces: study

» TransForm New Hampshire

Here’s a funny picture of me to hold you over, courtesy my buddy Bil Browning.

I had a number of concerns about the publication of this piece, but let me start by writing a little bit about Eve.

The foundation of everything Eve writes and says about homosexuality is her Catholic belief that same-sex sex is wrong. This belief is offensive, damaging, and frankly just plain stupid. If she wants to be Catholic, fine. If she wants to be celibate, fine. But if you’re going to be a public writer and encourage people (smugly) to repress who they are, then you are a Quisling and a menace.

Tushnet argues that she encourages “sublimation,” not repression. She allows for what she calls Romoeroticism, suggesting that people with same-sex attractions can still have close, meaningful connections without falling into the sinful trap of gay sex. So if I play a lot of tennis, love God, and just hug my boyfriend, then my sexual desires will be appropriately sublimated to the likings of your beliefs? Bollocks.

(By the way, I love the imagery of the photo the NYT used of Tushnet. She’s so focused on blogging about her self-hating beliefs that she is looking away from her own reflection. It’s a profound portrayal of her “sublimation.”)

In a piece she wrote for InsideCatholic (which she proudly links to often from her blog), she concludes her argument with a plea for humility:

Doubtless no matter how many models of chaste same-sex love the Church offers, many contemporary gay people will still reject its hard teachings. But it couldn’t hurt to try. So often I’m asked questions that boil down to the angry or anguished plea, “Is there anything in my love and desire that the Catholic Church can respect?” I’d be shocked if as much as five percent of gay people who grew up Catholic even know that there’s precedent for their lives, and faithfully Catholic beauty available to them. I’d be shocked if anyone had ever even suggested a vision of a world where God, Church, family, and community could celebrate their love while still requiring that this love express itself as chaste friendship or mystical approach to God rather than as gay sex.

In a world of Gay Pride, the Catholic Church offers a unique opportunity to celebrate gay humility. Maybe we should start telling people about it.

Yes, it can hurt to try. The long-term psychological effects combined with an accepted sense of self-demonization can be severely damaging. I can’t help but wonder if Tushnet is just begging for others to cover up their PDA so it doesn’t make it so damn hard for her to repress her own sexuality.

I was glad to see that she opposes the ex-gay movement, oft quoting my friend and podcast partner, Peterson Toscano. However, her own motives don’t seem so unfamiliar. Her promotion of sexless affection has echoes of loony ex-gay therapist Richard Cohen’s nonsense “touch therapy.” Her suggestion of sublimating desire through “a mystical approach to God” isn’t so different than trying to channel homosexual desires through heterosexuality and faith in God. The comment she makes about her attendance at a NARTH conference seems to belie the connection she does see between her own views and those of ex-gay therapy:

During the entire nine hours of the conference, none of the speakers I heard discussed how to live chastely while experiencing same-sex attractions. The focus was entirely on the goal of switching sexual orientations.

Both perspectives demand that gay sex is bad and avoiding gay sex is good. Regardless of the approach, the repressive damage has been done.

Tushnet unflinchingly defends Catholicism (chosen) and works to somehow contort sexuality (unchosen) to fit it. In a recent post, she promoted a Catholic support group for the parents of gay kids. It’s named after a US bishops’ document that recognizes that for parents, a child’s coming out “may be one of the most challenging in their [the parents'] lives.” How horrid! A gay kid. Don’t worry! Catholicism is here to help you demonize them!

In other words, I don’t have much respect for Eve Tushnet’s beliefs or the garbage she spews in defense of an archaic oppressive institution that I oppose at a very core level.

So, given that, you can imagine why I might be struggling with the fact she got a very uncritical profile in a major mainstream newspaper. The article gives her a national platform to promote a Catholic platform for marriage. If anything, the article should raise huge red flags about the danger of Catholic indoctrination:

“By the time it was real enough to be threatening,” she says of her conversion, “things had gone too far. I didn’t see it coming.”

That sounds pretty scary. And now look at the powerhouse of self-hate she’s become!

But I have a serious problem with the NYT here too. Besides giving Tushnet a huge platform for her nonsense, it also validates her belief and her views. Look at the headline: “A Gay Catholic Voice Against Same-Sex Marriage.” I might rewrite it to say, “Hey, look! It’s okay to oppose same-sex marriage because here’s a gay Catholic that does too!” And not only that, “but for her, life is joyful.” See? There’s no underlying hate! There’s no perpetuating of disgust! There’s no demonization! If more gays could just admit their desires are abominable like Eve Tushnet, then we wouldn’t have all this drama about “gay rights”!

Ugh. I expect better from the New York Times. Eve Tushnet might be an interesting topic of study, but I think the danger of her words demands a critical study, not a flowery portrait.

And for the record, while I haven’t been published in magazines (yet), it sounds as if I have about the same readership that Tushnet has (and I would definitely claim that my readers are at least as “learned”). I might forgive the New York Times if they’re willing to profile me and my nonbelief support of queer liberation as an antithesis to the pedestal they offered  Tushnet’s delusional drivel.

At the end of the piece, Eve quips:

“I really think the most important thing is, I really like being gay and I really like being Catholic,” she says. “If nobody ever calls me self-hating again, it will be too soon.”

Hey Eve, ever think we all might be onto something?

I’d like to think that I have more of a bit-by-bit approach, although the use of the list would be more efficient.

I guess the Dilbert characters are all “angry” and “aggressive” when they express their atheism and skepticism.  They’re always hurting people’s feelings.

Rule #1: Don’t evangelize.

Ever, really. But if you know what’s good for you, you definitely don’t want to try evangelizing to someone because of their identity. It’s like touching the top of the stove; you know what the result is going to be. Now, we might politely hear you out and ask a few questions to feign respect so you can walk away with a false sense of validation. We also might respond with questions that challenge your faith, we might insist on disagreeing with your claims, and we will most likely not express gratitude to you for trying to force your delusional beliefs upon us. I’m just saying, you probably won’t be satisfied with the results.

That’s because evangelism, in general, is offensive. It’s trying to force beliefs and assumptions upon another through the use of guilt and shame. It doesn’t matter what your motivation is, as admirable as your belief might be to try to save souls. The effect is always condescending.

And let me just point out that atheists do not similarly evangelize. We reason. We encourage critical thinking, skepticism, and scientific literacy. Our effort is to liberate a person from narrow thinking, not by telling them what to think, but showing them how to think better. As an added bonus, promoting atheism often involves helping people think more highly about the life they live (this is all there is!—celebrate it!), as opposed to belittling them and offering our point of view as the only cold comfort.

I just want to preempt any readers from trying to draw a comparison. Promoting atheism is not evangelism.

I could just leave it at that, but maybe you want a little bit more detail about how exactly evangelism can be offensive. I have the perfect example to work from.

As you may recall, a few weeks ago I talked about the long road to coming out as an atheist. I shared my college admissions essay, which demonstrated I’d clearly moved away from religion, but not yet from belief. I wanted to demonstrate how atheism is something that’s always present, but sometimes it’s a long process to disassemble the wall of indoctrination that blocks it off. I also wanted to show that coming out as an atheist can happen quite naturally, and doesn’t necessarily require some form of abuse or crisis to rock a person’s faith.

Well, a character named Shelonda decided to take it upon herself to evangelize on my post. You can read the full comment here. Now, it is tempting to be completely snarky as I respond to this comment. Even if I try my best, it might still come off as a bit snarky. But I hope my response to Shelonda helps elucidate the obnoxiously annoying proclivities of evangelism in a way that better promotes your understanding. Let’s begin.

Hello,  I listened to your story and realized that you probably need to find it within yourself to find out who Jesus really is because it sounds as though you are trying to find a belief where you do not have to compromise your homosexuality or things you do not want to compromise.

Well, thank you for “listening.” I appreciate that you took the time to read my blog post and are trying to understand where I’m coming from. It sounds like maybe you have some more questions for me.

Oh, wait. Nope. Sorry. I got my hopes up there. It took only 10 words for you to start telling me what’s wrong with me and what I’m trying to do.

Thing 1 that’s wrong with me: I’ve denied myself the opportunity to find out who Jesus really was. Nope. I actually know more than I care to know about Jesus as it is. He seemed like generally a good guy, except when he was promoting slavery, duping people into believing in him (with “miracles”), and leading a cult around challenging the government without any really good arguments as to why. (No wonder the teabaggers are a fan.)

Thing 2 that’s wrong with me: I’m trying to find a belief. Nope. If you’ve read any of my blog, you should know I’m a pretty committed nonbeliever. I have no interest in nor respect for belief. I am very at peace with my worldview.

Thing 3 that’s wrong with me: The fact that I’m gay is something I need to reconcile. Nope. I’m not trying to compromise my homosexuality with anything. I love being gay, to be honest. I just wish it didn’t make it so hard to meet a mate is all. Nothing you can do about the numbers though.

So, we’re one sentence in and you’ve already ignored what I’ve told you about my atheism, forced your belief in Jesus upon me, and condescended my homosexuality as something I need to compromise. Can you see, at this point, how I’m not inclined to care what you have to say, Shelonda? You’ve already indicated that you don’t really have any respect for who I am; you only care about convincing me (shaming me) to be like you.

You seem to be a  very confused and damaged by some sort of molestation or other demonic influence that is not really who you are.

Thing 4 that’s wrong with me: I’m confused. Nope.

Thing 5 that’s wrong with me: I’m damaged. Nope.

Thing 6 that’s wrong with me: I’ve been molested or cursed by some demonic influence. Nope.

And honestly, I find this kind of assumption particularly offensive. What she (I’m guessing Shelonda is a woman?) is basically saying is that she thinks I am so out of whack that something awful must have happened to me. Like, how could I be this messed up? It couldn’t even happen naturally.

The sad thing is: some people are susceptible to this kind of language. “Wait, maybe I am confused. Maybe something is wrong with me.” No! Evangelists are frighteningly confident in their faith, but they know nothing of what they speak. Their goal is to break you. To dominate you. To crush your spirit and fill the void with their delusions.

Shelonda, how closed minded do you have to be to not be able to appreciate the diversity around you? How indoctrinated do you have to be to assume me damaged because you’re unwilling to actually consider anything I say about myself?

Instead of building up a website to find answers about your identity from others, ask Jesus to come in to your heart with sincerety and he is the only one that can provide that hole in  your heart for the answers since he created you.

Maybe this was Shelonda’s first time on my website? I don’t know.

Thing 7 that’s wrong with me: I’m trying to find answers from others. Nope. That’s not really the point of this blog. To a certain extent, the point is the absolute opposite: to help others better understand me. Or rather, to help ME better understand ME through the process of my own writing. Of course, I want to get some challenging conversations going. I want to hear new points of view. I want to commune with others who think similarly to me and have new insights to offer. I want to hear from people who think quite differently from me so I can better understand where they’re coming from. Shelonda, unfortunately, your comment is showing not to warrant that kind of respect.

Thing 8 that’s wrong with me: I didn’t ask Jesus to come into my heart (or I didn’t ask sincerely enough). Actually, did you read about the part where I claimed for many years that I had a relationship with Jesus? The Bible study? The prayer? And then I realized I was talking to nobody and wasting my time depending on a delusion instead of having confidence in myself? I did ask Jesus to come into my heart, and my heart grew when I stopped asking.

Thing 9 that’s wrong with me: There’s a hole in my heart. Wait, if Jesus created me, why did he create me with a hole in my heart? That seems like poor design! I better see a cardiologist, stat! Or does Shelonda mean that I’m dispassionate, incapable of love, totally selfish, and devoted only to my own causes? If that’s what she means, I guess she’s kind of right. (Oops, some snark crept in, but it was at my own expense, so that’s okay, right?)

To say that you live your life for you and the people in this world is like taking a knife and stabbing yourself because the world cares nothing about you, but Jesus does and you will never be able to meet the expectations of the world or yourself.

Thing 10 that’s wrong with me: I’m not cynical enough, so I ought to commit suicide. Wait, what? It’s not that I think the world revolves around me (I’d be on fire!), but is it so wrong to be optimistic about people? Is the key to happiness thinking that everyone in the world is a misanthrope? And the fact that I have hope for mankind means I should be depressed and end my life? Yikes. I want nothing to do with that. Excuse me for following the golden rule.

Thing 11 that’s wrong with me: I’ll never be able to meet anyone’s expectations, including my own. Wow, Shelonda, you are just ripping into my psyche here. If the world expects me to follow Jesus, then I guess the world will be disappointed. I’m actually quite proud of the fact I don’t follow Jesus, so I’m already meeting my own expectations. I’m going to keep trying to do right by the world, but the world’s going to get from me what the world gets from me.

Look in the mirror how many times have you dissapointed yourself?

Hey! I’ve lost a noticeable amount of weight lately! Give me some credit.

Thing 12 that’s wrong with me: I don’t look good in the mirror. :(

By the way, have you ever checked your own spelling and disappointed yourself? (Damn, there’s that snark again. Sorry!)

Take it from someone that Jesus has delivered from self and people. When you come to love yourself, you will realize even in your confusion, Jesus was there all along waiting on you just to seek him.

So, if I’m talking to Shelonda, does that mean I’m talking directly to Jesus? Because Jesus has delivered Shelonda. So who’s Shelonda? I’m only getting confused because of the words you’re using!

Thing 13 that’s wrong with me: I don’t love myself. Wellllll, without going into too much detail, I can pretty much assure you that I do. Take my word for it. And if we ever meet, we can shake on it.

Thing 14 that’s wrong with me: Thing 4 and Thing 8 combined. I’m confused and not seeking Jesus! I’m not really confused, but I’ll try to rectify this one right here and now. This is a public blog and it comes up in search results. Jesus, if you’re out there, please respond. I’m getting the sense you’re pretty full of yourself, so I’m sure you Google your own name like all the time. If you see this post, drop me a line, would you? It’d be great to hear from you.

Invest  in a King James Bible(living translation) and begin to read and pray for change and for him to reveal the reason that you are here so you can began fulfilling your purpose instead of being blindsided by that which feels good to you, but is not good for you.

You couldn’t go one long paragraph without bringing my money into this, could you, Shelonda? I have two Bibles in my house already, but both are Catholic, so they’re probably not good enough for you, are they? King James gave his translators specific instructions in the 17th century, so I’m sure he knew exactly how to properly translate those ancient texts. It also seems that the living translation is a new version of the Bible that isn’t even the same as the KJV. So, you want me to read two different Bibles that are different than the two different Bibles I already have? It seems fishy that with the thousands of editions and translations out there, you know exactly which one(s) I should read.

Thing 15 that’s wrong with me: I need to pray for change.

Thing 16 that’s wrong with me: I don’t know the reason I’m here.

Thing 17 that’s wrong with me: I’m not fulfilling my purpose.

Thing 18 that’s wrong with me: I’m blindsided by things that feel good.

Thing 19 that’s wrong with me: The things I think are good for me are not good for me.

Zackford how many times have  you awaken

Thing 20 that’s wrong with me: I’m not capable of finish

…

Shelonda, thank you for commenting on my blog. You have provided an excellent case study for how offensive and rude evangelism can be. Perhaps if you spent some time outside of your Bible-reading and started considering other points of view, you wouldn’t come off as so obnoxiously selfish and narrow-minded.

My name is Harvey Milk and I’m here to recruit you.

I just took in my second screening of Milk, and I thought I would take some time to talk about why, for me, Harvey Milk is very much a hero.

If I turned around every time somebody called me a faggot, I’d be walking backward -- and I don’t want to walk backward.

Harvey Milk was one of the first individuals to stand up on behalf of the gay rights movement and demand equal rights and protection.  He didn’t ask straight people in power to get equality for him, he wasn’t willing to wait for equality to be handed to him, and he didn’t try to hide who he was to make it easier to get them.  He was Harvey Milk, he was gay, and he wanted equality, and he wanted it now.

I fully realize that a person who stands for what I stand for, an activist, a gay activist, becomes the target or the potential target for a person who is insecure, terrified, afraid, or very disturbed with themselves.

He knew what risks he was taking.  He knew his life was on the line.  But he believed in something extremely important: that not only is being gay normal, but it demands equal respect.  We only get that respect when we make our non-heterosexual identities known and demand that our difference be understood and appreciated.

If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door.

It’s been 30 years since Harvey was assassinated, and the same ignorant myths about same-sex orientations plague our society.  Just like they were promoted by Anita Bryant, John Briggs, and “Christians” across this country then, Rick Warren and his fellow evangelical Christians, the pope and his Catholics, and the Mormons continue to spread lies, fear, hate, and ignorance about gay people, all in the name of God.

The fact is that more people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, that my friends, is true perversion.

Sure, it is easy to say that things are better for gay people now then they were then.  But in the grand scheme of things, nothing’s changed.  The same arguments that won Prop 8 in 2008 were used to support Prop 6 in 1978.  Gays recruit, our children are in danger, gays destroy the sanctity and morality, homosexuality is a choice, hate the sin and try to save the sinner.  Anita Bryant said she loved us too.

It takes no compromising to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no survey to remove repressions.

The reality is… those beliefs about homosexuality hurt our society.  They cause misunderstanding, which causes fear, which causes hate.  Some people apply their hate to others, some apply it to themselves.  By continuing to promote inequity based on something like sexual orientation, society only suffers, and there is over a century of persecution to prove it.

For Mr Briggs and Mrs. Bryant and Mr. Starr and all the bigots out there: That’s what America is.  No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase those words from the Declaration of Independence.  No matter how hard you try, you cannot chip those words from off the base of the Statue of Liberty.  And no matter how hard you try, you cannot sing the “Star Spangled Banner” without those words.
That’s what America is.
Love it or leave it.

We need to move forward.  We need to get past the point in this country where religious bias determines public policy or public morality.  Beliefs have too much power over our society, and they keep us from understanding and appreciating the magnificent diversity around us.  We get nowhere by including the exclusive.  We get nowhere by promoting the exclusive, catering to the exclusive, or being bullied by the exclusive.  We need toeducate the exclusive, and no longer tolerate one’s beliefs as an excuse for ignorance.

And that’s all I ask.  That’s all.  I ask for the movement to continue, for the movement to grow because last week, I got the phone call from Altoona, Pennsylvania and my election gave somebody else, one more person, hope.  And after all it’s what this is all about.  It’s not about personal gain, not about ego, not about power--it’s about giving those young people out there in the Altoona, Pennsylvania’s hope.  You gotta give them hope.”

Harvey Milk wasn’t perfect, but he was selfless.  He showed us that we need to stand up for ourselves.  We need to move forward.  How could we have let 30 years pass and get nowhere?  I cry when I see Milk not just because his death is sad, but because of the fact that I look around and wonder what he died for.  I don’t know about you, but I am ready to stand up the way Harvey Milk did.  I am tired of waiting for respect, waiting for rights, tolerating ignorance, pitying these poor “victims” of “religious intolerance.”  It’s time we take a stand.  Somebody needs to make sure the next 30 years are not as superficially progressive as the last.  You can either help the cause or hurt it.  Which path are you going to pick to define your life?

Hope is never silent.

That’s why I’m kind of delighted today to get my first real piece of hate mail. I don’t mean that I was threatened or anything, I just mean that someone lashed out with what they think about what I do here on the blog. And since it’s the first, I thought I’d take the time to recognize it and respond to it. It’s from a complete stranger, so it’s essentially anonymous. Still, I don’t want anyone to think I’m closed to feedback. If you want to read the whole email exactly as it appeared in my inbox, click on the image below. If you don’t want any spoilers, scroll down and enjoy my conversational responses.

The subject of the email was, “crap.”

Zack,

Since in your “about me” you stated several times that you wanted to hear feedback about your ideas, I figured I’d give you a piece of my mind.

Great! I love hearing from my readers! Thanks for taking the time!

First of all, your snarky, chip on the shoulder “I’m an American so I can say whatever I want!!!!” attitude doesn’t do anything for the reputation of the other gays and atheists in the world.

Well, technically, I am an American, and I can say pretty much whatever I want. (Thank you to the Founding Fathers for that!) I don’t like oppression or the enshrining of bad ideas, so I suppose I can get a little feisty sometimes. (I may have picked up the chip living in Iowa.) I also like to infuse wit into my writing, and I’m from the northeast, so I can be kind of blunt about it. Frankly, I generally think of “snarky” as a compliment, so thanks for that! Perhaps you meant “smarmy,” which I would take less liking to. I am really sorry if you don’t always like my attitude, but I try to be articulate and well-reasoned. While some might take offense to what I write, I am (hopefully) never motivated by the sole intent of offending. Could you tell me more about the reputation of gays and atheists so I know what I’m doing wrong?

Gays, specifically , hold the reputation of being inconsiderate, self-serving and emotionally unstable.

Tell that to the Sassy Gay Friend. By the way, do you think our perceived emotional instability has anything to do with constantly being demonized, disparaged, and condemned by mainstream religions and society? I’m just saying, you might be proving your own point.

I have several gay friends that even admit to this.

Why would you be friends with people who are inconsiderate, self-serving, and emotionally unstable? It doesn’t sound like those kinds of people would make very good friends. Are you friends with them out of pity? Or do you just call them “friends” to feel better about yourself when you demonize, disparage, and condemn them?

I agree that it’s wonderful that we live in a country where we are able to express ourselves freely, but when trying to gain support and sympathy for your cause, you might want to try a less condescending, “I’m right and you’re a terrible person if you don’t agree” manner.

I remind folks that there are plenty of times and reasons when I’m a terrible person, so at least I’m fair about it, right? I try to make compelling arguments with confidence so that if people want to dissent or debate, they have the most complete and coherent thesis I can offer from which to develop their response. Please do not mistake my confidence in my own argument for an assumption of infallibility. As you pointed out in your opening sentence, I welcome feedback specifically for the opportunity to learn from others.

I can’t help but wonder, though: If my arguments leave readers such as yourself feeling like disagreement would be a bad thing, doesn’t that speak positively to the quality of my arguments and/or the style in which I present them? Also, is it possible that you feel like my argument is condescending specifically because you see validity in the way it contradicts your previously held beliefs? Thus, you would be blaming me for the negative feelings you have associated with the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing, in which case I’m sorry, but you’re welcome.

I also agree that normalcy is relative, but the fact of the matter is, putting it in Darwinesque terms ,and this should be something quite easy for an atheist to understand, gays are socially inept and contribute NOTHING to the advancement of human kind.

I think this is the part where I make some self-deprecating joke about fashion and hairstyles.

You seem to imply that you are not an atheist, which probably explains why you demonstrated that you do not understand things in Darwinian terms. Partly because I am an atheist and try to think critically, I do understand that there is no validity to your two claims. First, I think gay folks are quite apt when it comes to social interaction—we even have our own bars and bathhouses! Secondly, in addition to all the loving same-sex partners raising families, there are untold numbers of prominent gay figures throughout the history of our species. I’m not trying to be condescending in my counterargument, I’m just making the point that you are flat-out wrong and offering factual evidence to support my case.

Your mind has been corrupted by some unfortunate events as a child, and ( this is where I sympathize) you’re sentenced to a lifetime of frustration by chasing feelings you’ll never reach, and acting on emotions in a totally unnatural way.

Your sympathy is disingenuous, as it is only motivated by your misunderstanding of my identity. I suffered no corruption, nor do I feel my emotions are unnatural. I know for sure, having felt love first-hand, that my feelings are completely healthy and obtainable.

Your assumption of my life experience is wrong. It is not supported by any evidence, but merely reflects your own bias. There’s a reason homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder: because it’s not a mental disorder. It’s actually completely natural.

That, by the way, is not a matter of opinion, nor is it open to debate.

Now , if you’re not contributing to the advancement of human kind, and your life is spent making questionable emotional decisions to fit YOUR needs, doesn’t that make you naturally selfish?

I already disproved your assumption that I’m not “contributing to the advancement of human kind” (whatever that means) and demonstrated how there is nothing “questionable” about my “emotional decisions” or my “needs.” So, if those two points are the premise for the question, the question itself is irrelevant.

And just in case you wish to persist, is it selfish to want what everybody else already has? And can it be selfish to want things that don’t in any way take away from what everybody else has? If I said I wanted lots of hugs from people, would that be selfish? Would I be greedily taking an unfair share from the great hug supply?

By the way, if I ever meet you, can I have a hug?

ENTJ seems fitting for someone like you as you as its really just a polite way of saying “self-righteous prick”, but that’s just my opinion.

You seem to suggest you have some knowledge of the MBTI, given that you seem to understand what an ENTJ is. However, you also suggest that one’s type is chosen, as opposed to naturally presenting in a person’s personality, which unfortunately belies the understanding you think you have. Your opinion, thus, doesn’t seem to carry much weight.

I will admit that being an ENTJ does lend itself to being perceived as a self-righteous prick, but generally only by those who can’t appreciate that I might just think about the world and express myself in different ways than they do.

I was going to make an ironic joke here about my inability to connect with “bleeding-heart cowards,” but I don’t want to come off as insensitive.

(Hooray for meta-irony!)

Curious, when did you decide to be an atheist?

Great question! Here’s a link to the post I just wrote about it last week!

Was this the easy choice since most religions agree that gays are damned souls, or did you lose faith in a higher being because of the frustrations of being gay(including whatever puzzle piece that’s missing from your childhood that “made” you gay)?

Well, nothing “made” me gay, and the only frustrations about being gay are hateful, condemning ignoramuses like you, so those two points don’t seem to apply. I wouldn’t say I lost my faith. That seems to suggest I wasn’t trying hard enough or that I failed. I, in fact, disavowed my faith.

What gives you the right to try and force your way of thinking on people(Christians in general since America IS based on Christian beliefs and large majority of Americans are Christian)whose beliefs are based on 1000s of years of history?

Pot, meet kettle. Have you been reading Texas history textbooks again? There’s your problem.

For the record, I’m not trying to force my way of thinking; I’m just trying to encourage higher levels of thinking.

I also rarely trust majorities, nor should I be beholden to their will on matters of rights and freedoms. Why, you ask? Ask Rand Paul.

Not only that, but to act as if there is something wrong with THEM when they don’t agree with you? That’s a little illogical for Mr. Logical isn’t it?

Well, it depends on why they’re disagreeing with me. If their dissent is founded entirely on delusional beliefs in an imaginary deity, then I find that I have little reason to respect their point of view. If, however, they offer sound evidence and substance to support their argument, I’ll always hear them out. That seems like a logical approach to me.

Anyways, gotta leave work.

Aight, later! I hope the negative feelings I elicited through my condescending snark didn’t take too much away from your productivity today!

P.S Promise im not gay bashing, re read it and it sure does sound that way, but I have nothing against gays, like I said, I have many gay friends, I just think being gay is directly related to a corruption of the mind at an early age.

-Matt

Well, here’s the thing, Matt. The fact that you espouse your misguided assumption about the “cause” of homosexuality makes you liable for the oppression of gay people. It’s nice to say you like us and all, but what you’re doing by believing this falsehood is hurting us. If you think we are corrupted, then you can’t help but see us as “less than.” Combine that with assuming we contribute nothing to humanity and you are doing quite a bit of bashing whether you realize it or not.

Thanks for your letter. It was fun to respond to! I hope you’ll write again soon!

Much love and warmest regards,

-Zack

I’m not feeling the greatest about life today. We all have days like that. I thought I’d write a little poem to demonstrate how atheism can be uplifting.

Some Days Just Suck
Zack Ford – May 18, 2010

Some days just suck.

Some days you don’t feel useful.
Some days you don’t feel worthy.
Some days you don’t feel competent.
Some days you don’t feel loved.

Some days just suck.

Some days there is no one to blame.
Some days it’s no one’s fault.
Some days nothing can be done.
Some days are just the way they are.

Some days just suck.

Some days you can’t flirt.
Some days you can’t visit friends.
Some days you can’t give of yourself to the world.
Some days you need a little affirmation anyway.

Some days just suck.

Some people give God credit for good days.
Some people give God blame for bad days.
Some people give God credit for bad days.
God doesn’t have a plan.

Some days just suck.
And that’s that.

And some days are all the better for it.

I try to do both, but like the smartass in today’s xkcd, I spend more time thinking about content. I want readers who come to the site because they are interested in the content, and hopefully want to interact with it.

How am I doing, dutiful reader(s)?

Unfortunately, we know nothing about the atheist coming out process. While there have been decades of research on coming out, it has all focused on sexual orientation and gender identity. And while there have been decades of research on spiritual identity development, all such studies continue to be biased toward belief in a higher power with almost none paying any heed to the unique experience of atheists.

One of my professional/life goals is to help fill this deficit of research so that nonbelievers can be better understood in the context of a society that privileges religion. In the absence of the resources to conduct such studies presently, I will instead look back at my own experience as a case study.

When I tell my coming out story (the atheist one), there is a significant milestone. Like coming out as gay, I think coming out as an atheist involves a connecting of past experiences, a revelation of how past inklings and actions demonstrate that one has been on the path to identifying as an atheist for quite some time. The significant milestone I reference in my story is my college admissions essay, which I finished in January, 2003. I was 17, I was participating in Bible youth groups weekly, and it would be another year and a half before I acknowledged I was gay.

I remember being frustrated with this essay. I had a lot to say and not a lot of space in which to say it. The essay got edited a lot. Ultimately, it had to be cut in half. One of the schools I was applying to (Ithaca College, the one I ended up going to) had a max word length of 350 words. I used every single one of them.

At this point, I think I’ll let the essay speak for itself. You will be surprised by what I had to say seven years ago. The prompt was: Please select a topic of personal interest and explain its importance to you.

Having been born into a family of devout Catholics, heavy religious devotion is always knocking at my door.  However, I choose not to answer it.  My case differs slightly from the families of my mother’s eleven siblings.  My parents adopted me at birth after extensive attempts to bear a biological child, some involving medical procedures that the church shunned.

Ignoring the pressure from her family, my mother chose not to raise me in the church.  I was still baptized Catholic, but I never attended more than three Masses a year.  Forever shall I appreciate the prudent way she instilled upon me many of the church’s strong morals and a strong belief in God without smothering me in the prayers, rituals, and long church services.

My academic upbringing led to a great inner debate that continues to this day.  I don’t doubt that God exists, but I question it constantly.  I know there’s got to be something out there, but there are just so many conflicts between the Bible and the world of science.

In addition, almost every conflict in the world’s history has stemmed from dissension among religions, whether it was the Crusades, 9-11 and the Middle East struggle, or even political wars like the American Civil War.

Regardless, I live my life for Him.  I dedicate myself to others through friendship and volunteering and I try never to give less than 100%.  I also believe in abstinence until marriage and I plan never to voluntarily consume or use tobacco, drugs, or alcohol, having lost both my grandfathers to their destructive natures.

As an additional pursuit of music, I play the organ for a local church.  Every week, I overhear Sunday School classes that discuss generalizations in accordance with the strong conservativeness that abounds in my rural community.  Often I want to interrupt and argue, but I restrain myself.  Many churches tend to confine the scope of their congregations’ perspectives of life.

The Constitution grants us not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.  If I can be raised well without intense church attendance, maybe others can too.

Not the Zack Ford you might be used to reading here on the blog.

The abstinence claim was an easy way to closet myself without realizing it. I did eventually start drinking, but I’m still conservative about it. After I left that summer, I never again set foot in the church that had employed me and celebrated my musicianship. Friendship and volunteering are no less important to me today.

But look at some of that language I used!

Forever shall I appreciate the prudent way she instilled upon me many of the church’s strong morals and a strong belief in God without smothering me in the prayers, rituals, and long church services.

That’s right. At one point in my life, I gave the Catholic Church credit for morality. It makes me nauseous to think about now.

I also appreciated that I’d been taught to believe in God. I no longer maintain that sentiment.

I don’t doubt that God exists, but I question it constantly.  I know there’s got to be something out there, but there are just so many conflicts between the Bible and the world of science.

I did not doubt God. At the time, I drew a distinction between religion and beliefs. It was organized religion I despised, not the idea of God. I truly believed God could exist and be worshiped in the absence of organized religion. Religion was the problem, not God. And yet, even then, I knew that there were conflicts between what God was supposed to be and what actually could be. But, for me, my questions were about God; I was not questioning of God.

Regardless, I live my life for Him.

Wow. It still blows my mind that I’d say that. It scares me to think that despite my questions, I had that sense of devotion. I am sure that the inevitable Ford Model of Atheist Identity Development will lend itself to such a phase—a separation from the structure but not the beliefs. That was how I’d explain it: I have my own relationship with Jesus.

My religious identity went pretty latent after that. My coming out as gay journey took over, with its own implications for my worldview, and it wasn’t until really the Fall of 2007 that I started to seriously question again—to seriously think about how I identified. I had already adopted an agnostic point of view with a desire to simply stay away from religious thinking entirely. Everybody else thought it important, so yeah sure, “I believe in God,” but the words meant nothing to me. I started identifying as a Pastafarian, because from a political point of view I thought the FSM was hilarious and brilliant, and I asked for The God Delusion for Christmas (I’ll always laugh about that).

I was a surefire atheist before I’d even gotten halfway through Dawkins’ masterpiece.

How strange to now look back and see how much my thinking has changed. I now call “God” a delusion, a projection only within a person’s own imagination. I say I don’t respect beliefs at all, calling them unfounded ideas without intellectual merit. I chastise the mere idea that morals come from religion, pointing out that religion unfairly claimed moral reasoning as its own to falsely inflate its importance. I no longer abstractly give thanks, but if there is one thing I appreciate in my life, it is the fact that my thinking progressed beyond devotion to invisible deities. I life my life for me and for the people of the world. That, I think, is the most admirable form of devotion I can offer.

Surely, there are more stories to be told. Surely, there is a model for identity development waiting to be formulated so that we can better appreciate and support atheists who are struggling to come out.

But, I guess we first have to recognize that being an atheist isn’t a bad thing. We’ve got a ways to go.