In the new (Oct. 10) issue of TIME magazine, writer John Cloud presents an idea that may be shocking and disturbing to observers from every facet of the political spectrum:
In general, today's "out" homosexual teenagers are normal, healthy, socially well-adjusted kids.
In fact, writes Cloud,
"At manyschools it is now profoundly uncool to be seen as anti-gay....When [author/psychologist Ritch] Savin-Williams surveyed 18 young men ages 14-25 for an earlier book...he found that nearly all had received positive, sometimes enthusiastic, responses when they first came out.
"Gay teenagers generally feel good about their same-sex sexuality," Savin-Williams, a gay professor at Cornell University, writes. "They are more diverse than they are similar and more resilient than suicidal....They're adjusting quite well, thank you."
Even the newer and most successful of the faith-based "Ex-gay" groups are toning down their rhetoric, adopting a stance of tolerance and understanding. They're not looking to convert all the gays, they say. Only the gays that WANT to be converted. "How can you be more diverse than an organization that says if you're happy being a homosexual...that's your right?" asks Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). "But if you have unwanted feelings or are a questioning youth, why can't you make those decisions?"
Fallacious reasoning, some who read this will say. The "ex-Gay" groups will want to convert every gay person, because they'll argue that nobody is happy being a homosexual. Ahh, but here's the rub, the most surprising thing in the article:
These happy and well-adjusted Gay teenagers, who have no intention of becoming straight, are starting to find more in common with the right-wing Christian Ex-Gay movement than with the left-wing Gay activist movement!
Why?
Because the gay activist movement, providing help for gay teenagers even to the point of giving them free-ride college scholarships, is grooming/expecting/pressuring them to become the next generation of hardcore activists. The only problem is, gay kids who are growing up in a more tolerant, less oppressive America than their forebears — an America in which three-quarters of high school kids consider "fag" an offensive epithet — have far less incentive to become activists.
"I don't think the gay movement understands the extent to which the next generation just wants to be normal kids," says Michael Glatze, the editor of YGA magazine (a lifestyle magazine for teen and twentysomething gays). "The people who are getting that are the Christian right."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Silas Kain
What a great article leaving plenty of food for thought. Perhaps our generation should let go and let the next generation of gays forge the alliance with the rest of the world. I do agree that more age appropriate activities must be part of the landscape and I don't see that happening in the immediate future. Incidents like the one in Orange Park, FL only show that there is plenty of work left to be done. In the meantime, Mr. West, thank you for your insight. It is most appreciated.
Now, get ready for the floodgates of hate to open.
2 - Michael J. West
Thanks Silas!
LOL...funny thing is, I'm not sure which side the floodgates of hate will open from on this one.
3 - Silas Kain
There's an interesting article out of Scotland's Sunday Herald Online from 2003 which makes a great complement to this piece. An interesting quote:
Bravo to the 80% who stood up and fought back. That's a marked improvement to my generation. The American public education system could learn from the progress made in the UK. The British saw that repeal of the controversial Section 28 was essential to bridging the divide. The repeal succeeded despite the efforts of Christian clergy to intimidate church goers into rejecting tolerance. The bottom line is that this will not be my battle much longer. Fortunately, all indications are that the next generation is in a far better position to make advances. Martin Donovan's monologue in The Opposite of Sex sums it all up very tidily: With that quote in mind, I don't think that Brokeback Mountain could have been made 20 years ago. On December 9 it will open in theaters. It won't be a blockbuster hit - most heterosexual American men are too sexually insecure to venture out in public to see this movie. Despite this fact, Ang Lee had the wisdom to bring the book to life. Jake Gyllenhall and Heath Ledger have taken a major career risk in portraying two cowboys who end up falling in love. What Lee succeeds in doing is to tell a love story about two people who happen to be men. As the tagline goes, "Love is a force of Nature". Reviews from film festivals around the world have been stellar and it won the Venice Film Festival's Golden Lion.Like it or not, America's youth will have a positive image of gays to contend with. The closet doors of opression and self-loathing have been blown open and role models for gay youth are emerging. As this "old" queer generation passes the torch to the new, we can honestly be proud. John Cloud's piece in this week's Time confirms that it's getting to the point where it's not gay vs. straight anymore. Before the year is out, this movie will be discussed around water coolers from Bangor to San Francisco. Mr. West points out that ...the kids who are part of the movement, even while coming out more and more frequently and at younger and younger ages, are becoming disillusioned with gay culture. He's on to something. Perhaps it's becoming less about separate cultures. Perhaps inclusion did win out after all. Perhaps this generation of gays, in all its anger, forgot that love IS a force of nature. The Time article caused a non-activist straight male to ask some serious questions without getting into personalities, perversions or religion. To quote Martha, "That's a good thing!"
4 - Les Slater
This is very good.
It’s an indication that here is a human relation that is becoming more acceptable, not particularly unique, but just part of normal distribution of sexual orientations.
It is not just gays that are finding more acceptance, social progress is being made on many fronts. Blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic groups (not always minorities anymore) are living together more harmoniously. Women are more respected than they ever had been. Even much of the right wing would welcome Condoleeza Rice as president.
Progress will continue. It brings enormous social weight with it. There’s no stopping it.
The disappointment that gay marriage has not made as much progress as some would have wished should be seen in this context. We are way ahead of where we thought we would be even a short while ago. No constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage has a snowball’s chance in hell.
This is another reason that we should not get too bent out of shape over Supreme Court nominees. The Court cannot reverse this. They cannot and will not reverse Roe v Wade.
All the noise from the cultural warriors is a rear-guard action. They are loosing.
We will be and have been pushed back in some areas. The sharpest divide in this cultural war is over the right of women to control their reproductive lives. Roe will not be overturned but we should recognize that both parties are leading the fight against this most fundament right.
5 - Luke
Is it really too much to ask that they have the right over reproduction before it happens? if you don't want kids, don't get pregnant, in fact, from the time they're born, girls should have a permanant birth control implant that can only come out when they intentionally want to get pregnant, really, just, for fucks sake, don't fuck around and let the spoogey tadpoles come looking for some hot egg ass, and then only worry about reproductive rights after you've been knocked up, god dammit!
6 - Les Slater
> from the time they're born, girls should have a permanant birth control implant that can only come out when they intentionally want to get pregnant
See, here's another indication of progress. 'when the intentionally want to get pregnant'. Nothing about only after their married.
7 - Luke
I don't give a shit about marriage, I have a 4 year old niece and my brother and his girlfriend have never gotten married (unplanned and unkilled), it's not really a big deal, just don't fuck every sailor that comes into port and then say "oh geez stupid me, went and got pregnant, well, better go kill this fuckin' little inconvenience" God damn shit frustrates the hell out of me, you want the right to create a life that doesn't even have the right to exist unless you say it can, and then you get to dismember the poor little bastard with a high powered vacuum cleaner, GOD DAMMIT DON'T GET MUTHA FUCKIN PREGNANT! DON'T WANTANLY CREATE VICTIMS, OR SHOULD I SAY, DON'T WANTANLY CREATE FRESH MEAT FOR THE GRINDER.
8 - Les Slater
Luke,
Actually I’m glad that you are expressing what you feel.
I’ve said more than once around this blog that it is a very small minority that I consider the enemy. I don’t think you fit that category and I should not have responded to you as I did.
I gather that you are in favor of birth control. Since you abhor terminating a pregnancy, I suspect you would not be opposed to the morning after pill, which in most cases, prevents pregnancy, the egg is not fertilized.
Supporting sex education, birth control, including morning after pill would be very positive and welcome.
Les
9 - Michael J. West
It is not just gays that are finding more acceptance, social progress is being made on many fronts.
But the question is, is social progress being made at this point because of the activist movements? Or in spite of them?
10 - Silas Kain
Good question. We've arrived to this point in large part due to the post-Stonewall activists. And maybe it's best that the new generation progresses in spite of the activism. They're not driven by the fear, shame and uncertainty as the outgoing generation has been. That gives them an advantage to advance the cause without all the anger and bitterness.
11 - Steve S
Within the gay community, there is a disconnect going on between the younger and the older generations.
I would say the social progress is being made BECAUSE of the activist movement. It was Stonewall that started it all. We have since fought for gay/straight alliances in schools, for equal treatment in the workforce, for equal access in all segments of life, etc. and it is this type of work done, that has made it possible for gay youth to grow up today in a world that those of us as young as 40 years old thought we would never live to see.
The drawback to this, is that our youth do not see the need that we still see, they don't see what could be, because they don't see what was.
The gay movement has morphed in strategy, from the days of in-your-face activists who blockaded cathedral doors and held rallies on the steps of Capitol Hill. When Bush made his announcement, years back, about supporting a constitutional amendment, that was a wake-up call for our youth. It got them to see that the older queers weren't just babbling fools, we spoke the truth.
But the activism went a different route, gay youth flocked by the millions to all sorts of anti-conservatism groups, that weren't exclusively tied to gay rights. Instead of us all banding behind the Human Rights Campaign for example, we had several million go to Moveon.org, we had several million jump on the Howard Dean campaign, we had gay youth form their own groups in schools, jump on all sorts of Presidential bandwagons (Kerry, Edwards, etc.) and become politically active like never before.
I would have to say the major difference between the future activists and the activists from Stonewall up until now, will be this lack of shame we now have. People are starting to see that there is no rational basis for such hatred and oppression.
That and the fact that this whole Christian movement, pushing commandments in courthouses, pushing creationism and prayer in schools, pushing God into government, etc. has forced people to open their eyes and make a decision about which way this country should go. It's not just a gay marriage issue anymore, but a 'how much dogma do we want to live under' issue, which helps marginalize the fundamentalists. It's nice to see them get demonized, comparmentalized, ostracized and shut out for once.
And as our gay youth continue to grow up in an environment where they need not fear being gay, and as social darwinism confines the strict Biblical literalists to the dust bins of history, I can only see our progress as continuing.
12 - Michael J. West
You make some good points, Steve, particularly about activism in the face of the gay marriage amendment.
But you're missing some other points.
What are we to make, for example, of the fact that gay youth are largely not interested in the activist movement? Or that members of the movement are themselves starting to say that the Christian right is more in touch with gay youth than the gay left is?
13 - Steve S
What are we to make, for example, of the fact that gay youth are largely not interested in the activist movement?
what you are talking about, is the same thing that happened to the liberal/conservative debate.
Liberal gay activists jumped on too many bandwagons, and gay youth say 'that's not me'. The gay left went with abortion, NOW, safe sex education, etc.
All fine principles/groups, to me, but they all aren't related to same-sex issues per se. Gay youth didn't like having to support 'all' issues that the gay left aligned itself with.
The same thing happened within the nation overall (straight and gay) with the liberal/conservative ideologies. Many people saw liberals as heading toward socialism, so they are pushing back, and now many people see conservatism as too close to something Talibanish.
It's the same thing that happened within our community. When they say they are closer to the Christian right, they are saying they want to raise kids, have a house with a white picket fence, or something along the lines of those values. They've gotten to associate the gay left with partying, drugs, parades and a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with left/right ideology.
I also feel that our community has a tendency to lean more towards conservatism natually anyway. As many of us do not have children, we become quite successful career-wise and financially, as we don't have the cost of children to consider. We can tend to become very pro-business, as that's where we spend a lot of time.
14 - Steve S
hmmm, there's also this:
Conservatism is against recognition of the relationship. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that. It draws a distinction between the person and the physical act.
Liberalism is about acceptance, tolerance and non-judgement. It does not draw a distinction between the person and any form of self-expression.
So this is why you get conservatives like Rep. Schrock, Andrew Sullivan, Melhman of the RNC, et. al. who have phone sex, or place ads for promiscuous sex, etc. and you will find the liberals, like Melissa Ethridge, Rosie, or any of the main people at the helm of our equal rights group want to have families recognized.
Gay youth, don't see sexuality just yet as much more than the physical act. Like conservatives. They (the youth) will say, 'but being gay is just one part of me, it isn't all that I am'. They are talking about sex isn't what they are all about.
Ergo, they don't have families, they don't have relationships that they've built their world around, like we all do when we get 'married'.
So they define gay relationships the same way conservatives do, by the sex act and not by the expression of love.
15 - T A Dodger
Luke,
"GOD DAMMIT DON'T GET MUTHA FUCKIN PREGNANT"
Women don't go around looking for unplanned pregnancies, as you know perfectly well.
Also, it's interesting how you seem to think only women are responsible for birth-control, or only women should have to forgo sex.
"just don't fuck every sailor that comes into port and then say "oh geez stupid me, went and got pregnant"
Suggesting that women with unplanned pregnancies are whores is *extremely* counterproductive. Why do you think so many women young women are desperate to terminate their pregnancies? They know that other people, who almost certainly had premarital sex too, are going to demonize them and call them sluts or whores or whatever.
I do agree with you, though, that birth control should be *much* more widely available to women, young women especially.
16 - Anthony Grande
>GOD DAMMIT DON'T GET MUTHA FUCKIN PREGNANT!<
Yes!!!!!
But luke as for your thing about NO Marriage at all, you have gone over the line. To keep this a morally balanced society we need things like marriage and LIFE (no baby killing).
>it's interesting how you seem to think only women are responsible for birth-control, or only women should have to forgo sex.<
No, men need to always where condoms and if women forgo sex, then how are men supposed to have sex???
Why is it that only women can get pregnant??? It sounds like mother nature is a self hating women.
17 - Les Slater
> But the question is, is social progress being made at this point because of the activist movements? Or in spite of them?
Neither. I don’t think there is a movement, not in any social arena. There are activists, demonstrations, parades.
Stonewall was in 1969, yes it was a tremendous explosion and shock waves were felt for years, but is now 36 years ago.
Stonewall was at the height of several movements that started with Black civil rights. These include the anti-war movement, women’s liberation including reproductive rights, and gay liberation. There were many others such as the Gray Panthers.
1971 was probably the peak. By the end of 1972 the momentum was lost. It was January 1973 that Roe was decided.
There were a number of actions and issues later in the decade and into the ‘80s and beyond. All the movements were becoming more conservative. There were fringes that may not have been conservative but they were becoming less and less significant.
There were some important battles and some big demonstrations, but none sustained.
So how did we get here with progress not only being made but significant and sometimes startlingly rapid?
The answer is that the gains we made were not universally applied, they were seen by many as foreign, not theirs, but for others. Decades of digestion has increased the social weight of those gains. More people not only accept them but consider them rights, part of the social fabric.
During all this time the composition of the population and workforce has changed dramatically. Besides skin colors, we live with different nationalities, languages and religions. More women are working in jobs that were totally closed off from them back in 1969. We know people with different experiences. In turn they know us.
At the same time we are together confronting economic problems. We now know that homelessness and lack of health care, etc, are not just somebody else’s problem. We are in it together. We are developing solidarity.
18 - Luke
"Suggesting that women with unplanned pregnancies are whores is *extremely* counterproductive. Why do you think so many women young women are desperate to terminate their pregnancies? They know that other people, who almost certainly had premarital sex too, are going to demonize them and call them sluts or whores or whatever."
That's not exactly what I was saying, if a woman is a slut, and doesn't use birth control, then basically she's decided to have fun now and kill a baby later, unless she has it. So fuck all you like, but don't for the love of god get pregnant.
Having said that thoe, I don't think of all women that way, my brothers girlfriend is a good mother, and he's a good father, they both took responsibility for their happy mistake.
"But luke as for your thing about NO Marriage at all, you have gone over the line. To keep this a morally balanced society we need things like marriage and LIFE (no baby killing)."
That's not exactly what I was saying either, the family unit is the important thing, marriage is just a piece of paper or a word on a govt. computer screen, in my country defacto relationships for all intents and purposes do the same thing, if you tell the govt. on your tax return that you're living with your partner, and have 'x' number of dependants, then you get the tax breaks, i dunno, it just doesn't seem like society will collapse just because some people didn't feal like getting that nice little piece of paper that says their relationship is officially recognized.
19 - Les Slater
Luke,
Asking the state to issue you a marriage license is asking them to introduce an element of state compulsion to your relationship.
It also may let you gain financial advantage from tax code or spousal benefits.
If housing were sufficiently cheap, health care totally available for free, and attractive child care were available, the institution of marriage would loose much of its appeal.
Les
20 - Zach
Great article, and powerful. But something is missing.
The idea that the gay activists are not only acting up for the gays of the future (for surely they are), but that they are even more so acting for themselves.
I am well aware, as a 19 year old homosexual male, that my peers really could care less who I like, date, have sex with, whatever. And I'm glad to be living in such an accepting generation.
Unfortunately, those of 10, 20, 30+ older than myself and those of my age range are not as accepting. Those are the people who are trying to take away our basic rights.
I'm not an activist, per say. I do volunteer at my local GLBT (however you want to assort those letters) and I help register people to vote. I feel it is necessary to at least inform those people of my generation, straight, gay, bi, curious, what-have-you of the things that are happening among those of the older generations. I also feel it is important for them to have an opinion about such actions.
So, while I absolutely agree that kids my age and lower just want to be normal, the activists that are fighting so hard are just trying to make it to where, when us "children" are old enough to get married, have children/adopt, and a variety of other things, we HAVE that option.
At this very moment, my state (Texas) is proposing an amendment to our state constitution not only making sure that gay marriages/civil-unions are illegal, but that any legal rights that a gay couple could possibly share will be withheld.
Those activists are fighting against this amendment so that when I am ready, I can marry the man of my choosing. That I can share in the benefits of hospital visitation rights, right to an attorney, right to custody of the child we share...
Are they pressuring the younger generation a little too much? Possibly. In fact, almost assuredly.
Does the younger generation need a good, firm kick in the butt to get into some sort of action instead of just letting themselves be discriminated?
You bet your assets.
Zach Vernon
19
Student of the University of Texas at Austin
21 - Michael J. West
Steve S, you're convincing me on a lot of points.
I do have counterarguments, but before I present them I'd like you to answer a question for me:
How old are you?
22 - Michael J. West
Stonewall was in 1969, yes it was a tremendous explosion and shock waves were felt for years, but is now 36 years ago.
This is one of the important points, I think. The current crop of activists are largely old enough to remember Stonewall; if they are too young to remember it, exactly, they are old enough to remember its after-effects, which only really started calming at ALL in the early 90s.
But the up-and-coming generation, they can't really relate to Stonewall any more than they can to, say, the Haight-Ashbury "Summer of Love." Not only have they largely grown up believing that it's okay and healthy to be gay, but their peers have too.
Maybe that's the reason the gay movement's star is falling with young homosexuals: it doesn't present them anything they can directly relate to?
23 - Michael J. West
ZACH! (Comment 20)
You nailed it. I almost want to go back and delete my previous posts, this is so right on.
Still, let me pose a hypothetical:
Suppose homosexuality is teetering on the brink of complete mainstream acceptance in America. All it's waiting for is for the next generation to assume power in this country and iron out the last remaining wrinkles.
Is it possible that, if the activists make too strong a push at this crucial moment, they will move backwards instead of forwards? That they will unwittingly alienate the straight mainstream that's now on their side (or at least warming up to it) by seeming too "shrill?"
Please don't take that as an insult. I intended it as a sincere question, and one that I would imagine has to be seriously considered by the activist movement.
24 - Luke
"If housing were sufficiently cheap, health care totally available for free, and attractive child care were available, the institution of marriage would loose much of its appeal."
Well all I have to say to that is, in America the institution of marriage will never lose it's appeal, but here, in Australia, we have a peculiar social structure, and most of that is because our women are mostly not dumb, and as a result, the population grows in the negetive, so we supplement our loss with immigration, the good thing about this is that Australia is an island and a continent, there're no borders which are easy for immigrants to cross, so we choose to only allow skilled migrants who're beneficial for us to accept, but because the government prefers us to be born here, the government gives families as much allowances and tax breaks as it can to make kids seem like not such a great burden, they try to reduce the negetive aspects of raising a family, and yes, we do have free healthcare and affordable housing.
25 - Steve S
Michael, regarding comment 21. I'm 40.