In the days since President Obama announced the killing of Osama bin Laden on Sunday night, and the subsequent spontaneous celebrations that erupted across the nation, I have been reflecting a lot on my own reaction to the news as well as the reactions of the rest of our society.

I can’t say I was surprised to see live images of people cheering and waving American flags (and one Bush Cheney campaign sign) in front of the White House. But I immediately felt uncomfortable by the celebration. I readily admit that I’m not the least bit troubled that the world no longer has Osama bin Laden around. But to my mind there’s something unseemly in celebrating a human beings death, regardless of who he or she was or what they did.

I’m not Christian but one of the things I most admire about the teachings of Christ is the statement attributed to him from his final moments on the cross: “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do”. An inspiring example of forgiveness if ever there was one. I’m much more immersed in Buddhist teachings and there too you’ll find a message of forgiveness and compassion for even the worst people because of the fundamental teaching that we are all one.

As my workweek began I wondered to what extent these current events would present itself as a topic in my clients sessions. Often when there is big news in the world clients use some of their time to process their reactions. I was heartened that so many of my clients focused on the celebrations they observed and how it didn’t sit well with them. I observed the same kind of sentiments amongst my friends and acquaintances on Facebook. And finally, as the week progressed, the media itself began to comment on the issue, with articles in the Boston Globe (Rejoicing Over Death of bin Laden Debated) and the New York Times (Celebrating a Death: Ugly, Maybe, but Only Human).

As the New York Times article suggests, celebrating the death of someone like Osama bin Laden may be human, but apparently, for a smaller minority of us, it’s also human to be put off by the celebration. And that minority heartens me because I believe they are our future.

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.

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!