Dan Savage, the Editorial Director for the Stranger and also the syndicated columnist who writes Savage Love recently responded to the suicide of the gay 15-year-old Billy Lucas by starting the YouTube channel titled “It Gets Better”. Billy Lucas killed himself by hanging after years of being harassed and bullied for being gay. Dan wrote “I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that it gets better. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, it gets better.”

Dan described how gay adults aren’t allowed to talk to these kids because the kids parents might be homophobic or they go to school in conservative communities that wouldn’t allow a Gay Straight Student Alliance or a gay speaker to come into their schools. Dan had the insight that he can speak to these kids directly via the Internet and started the YouTube channel. It’s been getting a lot of press attention, and justly so.

But since Savage started the site, there have been a plethora of other suicides reported, including Asher Brown, a 13 year old in Texas who hung himself, Seth Walsh, another 13 year old in California who also hung himself, and 18 year old Tyler Clementi in New Jersey, who was secretly videotaped making out with another male student by his college roommate and another student, and then the video was posted on the internet. Clementi jumped to his death off the George Washington Bridge that spans the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York.

And finally, Anderson Cooper has reported on the Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell and his bizarre obsession, stalking, and harassment of gay student body president Chris Armstrong at the University of Michigan. The interview is “must see TV”. Armstrong doesn’t appear to be at risk for suicide, but this story highlights the kind of bullying and harassment gay youth experience on a daily basis. The tragedy of this story is that the tormentor is an adult. Shirvell appears to be a seriously troubled individual and in my opinion needs the help of a competent mental health professional.

I don’t believe that all these stories coming to the fore right now are just a coincidence. Rather, I suspect there is some sort of critical mass of attention forming around this issue and it’s finally getting the attention that it is due, in large part because of the efforts of Dan Savage to bring attention to this tragic, previously invisible problem.

It’s true that if you can survive the torment of growing up gay in an openly hostile society (and sometimes a hostile family) that things do indeed get better. But sadly, for Billy and Asher and Seth and Tyler, they didn’t hear that message soon enough, and they ended the torment in the only way they knew how. This has to stop, and my deepest prayer is that all this attention on this problem will lead us to that goal.

I’m part of a list serve from a spiritual community where I was once a resident. There are often updates from past residents about their lives and one recent individual wrote about how she’s currently working with “homeless homos with AIDS”. I immediately found her use of language to be insensitive and inappropriate and I responded to the list serve with my opinion. It seems I struck a bit of a nerve since the topic of language became a lively thread for the past few days.

This incident makes me think of Laura Schlessinger and her recent incident with the use of the “n” word. When a black women called in to complain about her white husband and his white friends insensitive use of racial language, Schlessinger went on an n-word rant, using the word multiple times to highlight what she deemed the hypocrisy of black peoples use of the n word where others were forbidden from using it. I take her point, but I find her method of raising that point to be offensive and gratuitous.

I would argue that if we all agree that some words are offensive and hurtful then they shouldn’t be used by anyone in an effort to do no harm to others. The women I mentioned above who described homeless homos with AIDS justified her use of that language by identifying herself as gay. I wrote back and told her I didn’t think it mattered, particularly because she only identified herself as such after the fact and because she didn’t know who her audience was when she used that language.

I will admit to using that sort of language in the privacy of all gay settings, and I recognize that it’s a risky business to play with language in that way. At the same time, I would never use that sort of language in a mixed setting or when I couldn’t be sure of the sexual identity of all those present. Am I marking myself as a hypocrite? Perhaps. But my point is that language matters, and we should all be more sensitive to its use, and abuse.

An article published last week in the LA Times reports that a drug used to treat congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that causes ambiguous genitalia (also known as the condition called intersex) can have the secondary affect of decreasing the likelihood that females with the disorder will be gay and increasing the chances that she will have more feminine behavioral traits.

Adrenal hyperplasia causes the accumulation of male hormones (testosterone). Medical science is increasing their understanding of the effects of hormones in the development of sex and gender. Apparently the effects of testosterone only affect female fetuses.

The larger question for me is, if given the chance, should a parent exercise the option of impacting the development of his or her child’s sexual orientation. The question itself presupposes that there is something wrong with one sexual orientation and that the other is preferable, and therefore any action that leads to the preferable outcome is justified. I find this line of thinking morally dubious.

The irony in all this is that the opponents of gay rights have consistently argued that sexual orientation is merely a choice, not an immutable characteristic. This research seems to demonstrate that there is something that happens physiologically that leads to homosexuality. If true, then I predict it wont be too long before the opponents change their tune, agree that homosexuality is a biological predisposition, but that it is inherently pathological and requires any available treatment, such as this new one to treat congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

We’re entering into very interesting waters here and I believe the only option is to be well informed. I hope this entry is but a small step in that direction.

A study conducted at York University, Toronto, Canada and published in the journal Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition offers yet another example of proof that gay men have different brains than their heterosexual counterparts, and that those different brains function differently. The study, titled “Sex differences in face processing are mediated by handedness and sexual orientation” demonstrates that heterosexual women and gay men can recall faces faster and more accurately because both heterosexual women and gay men use both sides of their brain for that task, as compared to heterosexual men who primarily use only one side of their brains for the same task.

My thoughts about this kind of research is mixed. On the one hand, anything that scientifically and empirically demonstrates the immutability of same sex orientation is culturally significant because it strongly undermines the notion that same sex behavior is a choice and also undermines the notion of the “heterosexual norm”. But on the other hand, this sort of research always strikes me as too materialist and reductionist. Is same sex desire something that only exists in our brains? I tend to think not. Same sex desire is a complex phenomenon, no less complex than heterosexuality, and no less worthy of its rightful place in our culture. Even if same sex desire were simply a choice—which is surely isn’t—why shouldn’t it be afforded the dignity and respect of any other choice?

The other concern I have about these sorts of research findings is the risk that same sex desire can now be pathologized with the explanation of a malformed or malignant brain. Could someone now argue that gay men need some form of brain surgery to “correct” their gay brains to make them normal? Don’t think someone who is sufficiently homophobic wouldn’t make that very argument.

I suspect that over time we’ll see more and more of these sorts of findings. What I’m even more curious about is what impact they’ll have on our larger culture. My hope is always that the impact will be positive, but we shouldn’t be complacent about the risk of someone trying to use it against us.

In a recent issue of Bay Windows an article was published titled “Marriage inequality extracts a price on mental health”. The article reports on recent research that suggests that there is a measurable impact on the psychological well being of GLB folk who live in states that have same sex marriage bans. The research shows a significantly increased prevalence of mood disorders (like depression and dysthymia), generalized anxiety disorder, and substance abuse.

These findings aren’t entirely surprising to me because I see the psychological consequences of homophobia in my office every day. Imagine living in a time and place where your love is not only legislatively invalidated, but is openly debated, criticized, and demeaned in all forms of media. Your neighbors place signs on their lawns supporting the denial of your rights, perhaps with the full knowledge that you are gay or lesbian. How could anyone feel safe and secure in such an environment? How could this NOT have an impact on one’s psychological well being?

The import of this research is that it not only confirms the negative impact on citizens due to these types of laws, it also highlights the costs to society in increased mental health services and lost productivity from these psychological impairments. And the value of this research is that it can be used to challenge anti-gay laws in court cases in which the laws are being challenged by showing the real impact of these laws.

But isn’t it sad that in this day and age GLBT folks are still having to fight as hard as we must to justify our existence and to demand the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen? It’s not that we haven’t come a long way. It’s truly remarkable how far we have come in such a relatively short amount of time. It’s just that we still have so much further to go. For those of us who live in Massachusetts, let’s be grateful the marriage rights that we do have. And for everyone else, don’t ever give up, and know hope!

YouTube Screen Shot

A little over a week ago, the American Conservative Union hosted their yearly CPAC gathering (Conservative Political Action Conference) and of note was the speech given by conservative commentator and author Ryan Sorba. The content of Sorba’s speech isn’t what’s noteworthy. Suffice it to say that it was predictably homophobic and loathsome. What was noteworthy was the reaction he received from the CPAC audience. Sorba’s comments were booed! It appears Sorba was upset that ACU had invited a gay conservative group to CPAC (I know, I know, a gay conservative group is oxymoronic, but I have no control of such things). When Sorba bitterly complained about the gays attendance at the conference, not only did the gays boo him, so did many others in the CPAC audience. When Tea Party conservatives are booing homophobia, I guess we can claim another small victory for our side! In fact, I like to think we’ve already won. Some of the practical effects of that victory have yet to materialize, but it’s not a matter of if, only when. Keep hope alive!