Monday Male Beauty

Will Afghanistan Be Obama's Vietnam?

Time and time again U.S. leaders - especially those in the military - seem to make the same short sighted decisions that squander lives and ultimately end up unable to stem the tide of events in foreign nations most Americans and policy makers do not understand. The senior military commanders can be depended upon to ALWAYS want more troops and seek to escalate engagement. War is after all their game and sitting home on base as opposed to breaking things and killing "the enemy" is the last thing these guys want. One would think that after Vietnam - where the USA went in after a disaster for the French - we'd be wiser, but apparently not in some circles. Having witnessed the disaster for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the U.S. military command seems hell bent to reprise the disaster. Frank Rich's editorial in the New York Times looks at the phenomenon from a historical perspective and cautions that we should not make the same kinds of mistakes made dating all the way back to Vietnam. The question is, will Obama be able to refuse the antiquated thinking of the military leadership. Here are some column highlights:

*

THE most intriguing, and possibly most fateful, news of last week could not be found in the health care horse-trading in Congress, or in the international zoo at the United Nations, or in the Iran slapdown in Pittsburgh. It was an item tucked into a blog at ABCNews.com. George Stephanopoulos reported that the new “must-read book” for President Obama’s war team is “Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M. Goldstein, a foreign-policy scholar who had collaborated with McGeorge Bundy, the Kennedy-Johnson national security adviser, on writing a Robert McNamara-style mea culpa about his role as an architect of the Vietnam War.

*

What’s most relevant to our moment is the war’s and Goldstein’s first chapter, set in 1961. That’s where we see the hawkish young President Kennedy wrestling with Vietnam during his first months in office.

*
The remarkable parallels to 2009 became clear last week, when the Obama administration’s internal conflicts about Afghanistan spilled onto the front page. On Monday The Washington Post published Bob Woodward’s account of a confidential assessment by the top United States and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, warning that there could be “mission failure” if more troops aren’t added in the next 12 months. In Wednesday’s Times White House officials implicitly pushed back against the leak of McChrystal’s report by saying that the president is “exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan.” As Goldstein said to me last week, it’s “eerie” how closely even these political maneuvers track those of a half-century ago . . .

*

Obama finds himself at that same lonely decision point now. Though he came to the presidency declaring Afghanistan a “war of necessity,” circumstances have since changed. While the Taliban thrives there, Al Qaeda’s ground zero is next-door in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Last month’s blatantly corrupt, and arguably stolen, Afghanistan election ended any pretense that Hamid Karzai is a credible counter to the Taliban or a legitimate partner for America in a counterinsurgency project of enormous risk and cost. Indeed, Karzai, whose brother is a reputed narcotics trafficker, is a double for Ngo Dinh Diem, the corrupt South Vietnamese president whose brother also presided over a vast, government-sanctioned criminal enterprise in the early 1960s.

*

Goldstein points out there are other indisputable then-and-now analogies as well. Much as Vietnam could not be secured over the centuries by China, France, Japan or the United States, so Afghanistan has been a notorious graveyard for the ambitions of Alexander the Great, the British and the Soviets. “Some states in world politics are simply not susceptible to intervention by the great powers,” Goldstein told me.

*

Even if we routed the Taliban in another decade or two, after countless casualties and billions of dollars, how would that stop Al Qaeda from coalescing in Somalia or some other criminal host state? How would a Taliban-free Afghanistan stop a jihadist trained in Pakistan’s Qaeda camps from mounting a terrorist plot in Denver and Queens?

*

Obama’s decision, whichever it is, will demand all the wisdom and political courage he can muster. If he adds combat troops, he’ll be extending a deteriorating eight-year-long war without a majority of his country or his own party behind him. He’ll have to explain why more American lives should be yoked to the Karzai “government.” He’ll have to be honest in estimating the cost. (The Iraq war, which the Bush administration priced at $50 to $60 billion, is at roughly $1 trillion and counting.) He will have to finally ask recession-battered Americans what his predecessor never did: How much — and what — are you willing to sacrifice in blood and treasure for the mission?

*

Just as I sensed that the Iraq War would be a disaster, I get the same sense on Afghanistan. If past super powers could not win there, why should Obama believe the promises of less than objective military leaders?

Ignorance and Bigotry Prevail So Far at St. John Lutheran in Roanoke

This is the third post I have done on this issue because in my view it is symptomatic of the sickness of religion and Christianity in particular. The dishonesty of the statements of St. John senior pastor (pictured at left), that his church does not "want to be seen as anti-gay or against homosexuals," is stunning. It's sort of like a 1930's German saying, I don't want to be seen as anti-Jewish, but I support Adolph Hitler's policies. Sorry, pastor Graham, but you do not get to have it both ways. You and your congregation have shown your true colors and I believe it is you, not gays, who will have a severe accounting to face come Judgment Day. You and your congregation have deliberately chosen to cling to ignorance and bigotry - all because you are too intellectually lazy and self-centered to open your minds. Personally, I believe that the ELCA will be stronger and certainly more morally in tune with the true Gospel message without the pious bigots at St. John Lutheran who seem, based on this vote, better suited to join the snake oil merchants of the professional Christian set. I'd like to know how many divorced and remarried members of St. John's voted for this measure since they represent hypocrisy personified. It is also noteworthy that this mindset in Southwest Virginia is one of the reasons the area continues to be a backwater. Here are highlights from the Roanoke Times:

*

One of the largest evangelical Lutheran churches in Western Virginia on Sunday afternoon took the first step to split from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. By a majority of 70 percent, members of St. John Evangelical Lutheran Church, in Southwest Roanoke County, voted to separate from the largest Lutheran church in North America.

*

Senior pastor Mark Graham said his church does not "want to be seen as anti-gay or against homosexuals," but the ELCA's statement goes against the church's interpretation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

*

Of the 485 members who voted, 342 approved breaking away from the ELCA. The church has 1,200 members and the average Sunday attendance is about 600 people, Graham said. The next step is a visit from the Virginia synod bishop next month, followed by a second vote slated for January to finalize the split. A two-thirds majority is needed. "I do not want St. John's to leave ... and I will continue to encourage them to remain a part of their Synod," Bishop James Mauney of the Virginia synod wrote in an e-mail Friday.

*

These folks truly make me sick. The good news is that I believe that history will view them with the same disdain shown for those who used the Bible to argue for the continuation of slavery. History has a way of ultimately revealing bigots.

More Sunday Male Beauty

OutComes for Children Raised By Gay Parents Equal to Those Raised by Straights

On yet more fronts modern research studies are disproving the the anti-gay "talking points" of the professional Christians and the snake oil peddling Christianists. This time, the research and evidence disproves the bullshit line heard over and over again that "it takes a mother and a father to raise a child." It may be a convenient line for those who seek to impose their religious views on all, but it's just not true. First, a new book, "Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle" has been published and lauded by the American Psychological Association. It's findings? That the outcomes and well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no different than those of children raised by heterosexual parents. Here are some highlights from the Windy City News based on an APA press release:

*

Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle is the first book-length review and analysis of research on parenting by gay and lesbians and suggests that the outcomes well-being of their children are no different than those raised by heterosexual parents.

*

Goldberg's new book is the first full-length analysis of the research on gay parenting, summarizing research data on the subject from the 1970's to the present day. The research is consistent in suggesting that the outcomes and well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no different than those of children raised by heterosexual parents.

*

Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle provides a comprehensive review of recent research in a way that engages the perspectives of both the children and the parents who live in lesbian/gay-parent households. Also included are topics rarely discussed in the research studies to date, such as: divorce/relationship dissolution in lesbian/gay-parent households; the perspectives of non-heterosexual children of lesbian/gay parents.

*

Similar conclusions were reached by researchers looking at the issue of the fitness of gays as adoptive parents contrasted with straight couples. Again, I suspect that the Christianists will continue their same old lies and try to dupe the ignorant into believing their anti-gay propaganda. Hopefully, judges and child welfare agencies will open their eyes and believe legitimate researches as opposed to those who have no support for their views except bogus "experts" and religious dogma. Here are highlights from Rueters:
*

NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Gay or straight, the sexual orientation of adoptive parents does not have an impact on the emotional development of their children, according to a new study. But researchers said that if parents were satisfied with the adoption process, had a stable income and functioned well as a family the risk of emotional problems in children were reduced.

*

"We found that sexual orientation of the adoptive parents was not a significant predictor of emotional problems," Paige Averett, an assistant professor of social work at East Carolina University, said in a statement.

*

Averett, Blace Nalavany, also of East Carolina University, and Scott Ryan, dean of the University of Texas School of Social Work, questioned nearly 1,400 couples in the United States, including 155 gay and lesbian parents. They used information from Florida's public child welfare system and data from gay and lesbian couples throughout the U.S. for the study.

*

The researchers said the findings, which are reported in the journal Adoption Quarterly, are important because it compared gay and lesbian and heterosexual couples. "There are implications for social work educators, adoption professionals, and policy makers in this and other recent studies," said Averett. "We must pay attention to the data indicating that gay and lesbian parents are as fit as heterosexual parents to adopt," Averett added, "because at least 130,000 children are depending on us to act as informed advocates on their behalf."

*

I love the fact that the evidence keeps on building that proves the anti-gay histrionics of James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and their faux experts are lies, plain and simple. The religious based bigotry of the Christianist has no place in setting public policy which needs to be based on science and objective fact. If only more of our elected officials would wake up to this fact. Are you listening Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli? I suspect not.

Successful Equality Virginia PAC Fundraiser

The last few days have been a round of fundraisers given that Virginia has off year elections for all state offices. The last one was one the boyfriend and I helped host for Equality Virginia PAC - he contributes the money and I am the sweat equity contributor since every penny I spend is watched by the ex-wife and her homophobic attorney. This evening's event was in the presidential suite on the top floor of the Sheraton Waterside in Norfolk, Virginia. The room - where Barack Obama stayed twice last year during the presidential campaign (with secret service members in rooms up and down the hall) - was previously donated by the Sheraton to HRBOR as a raffle prize and the winner donated the room to Equality Virginia as a venue for today's event. The photo above is out across the Elizabeth River towards the old Naval Hospital in Portsmouth.

*

Proceeds from tonight will help EV PAC make contributions in contested election where extreme anti-gay incumbents have a good chance of being defeated, as well as in races where well funded anti-gay candidates are challenging pro-gay incumbents. Between our involvement in HRBOR, the Legends Gala committee and other community organizations, we knew the majority of the attendees.

*

For those coming out later in life, I truly encourage you to get involved in your state and local LGBT advocacy organizations. It is a wonderful way to rebuild your social circle if you lose many of your "friends" when you come out as I did. Plus, it is a great way to help make a difference. No one is going to just hand LGBT citizens full equality under the civil laws and all of us need to work towards that goal. Sitting at home whining and complaining will not bring the change we need. Get out and get active.

Roanoke Church Considers Leaving ELCA - Follow Up

Yesterday I wrote a post about an church in Roanoke, Virginia, that is contemplating leaving the Evangelical Lutheran Church because of last month's vote by the Churchwide Assembly to recognize committed same sex relationships - but not call them marriages - and to permit partnered gay clergy in ELCA parishes that wanted to have such clergy. Obviously, it is a subject that I feel passionately about and in my post I faulted the hypocrisy of the church's pastors for their hypocrisy in wanting to literally apply anti-gay passages of the Bible, but failure - as is the want in most anti-gay churches and denominations - to apply that same literal application to passages that hit home against their rank and file parish members such as the Gospel prohibition on divorce. In response to the post I received the following anonymous comment:

*

I am the president of an ELCA congregation where a lot of the members are upset with the vote on gays in the church. I am torn in my own heart about how I feel about the whole thing. I definitely believe that we all need to answer and ask for forgiveness for our own sins and not for the sins of others what ever they might be. Your comments are very convincing to me and I just wish you didn't have the sense of anger in your message that I belive would turn off a lot of my fellow parishoners if I read it to them. God's peace to you

*

I am sorry if my sense of anger is apparent. But I do not apologize for it. On the one hand this writer's parish members are "upset" because their sensibilities are offended and old prejudices are challenged. On the other hand we have gays, young and old, who are losing their faith or ending their lives by suicide because of hypocritical, selective applications of the Bible passages against gays. For newer readers, I AM VERY passionate because a former long distance boyfriend of mine lost his identical twin brother to suicide because of this very situation withing the ELCA in which they had been raised. Hurt sensibilities versus the loss of the life of a talent young man. I lost another friend - not a Lutheran - for similar reasons given his family's religious background. His solution was to shut himself in a running car with the windows down in a closed garage and let the carbon monoxide kill him. All because of a few ancient passages written by those ignorant of modern mental health and medical knowledge.

*

I understand this ELCA congregation leader's concerns, but these people afraid of change who selectively apply Bible passages to harm others really and truly need to move on, accept modern knowledge about sexual orientation, and inherent limitations in the Bible and get over it. True Christians would not be hanging on to a handful of ancient passages that are ruining and destroying lives literally every day. I hope more people will wake up to the violence they are doing to countless LGBT individuals. One suggestion I'd make to this congregation leader is that he rent "Prayers for Bobby" and make it MANDATORY viewing for all congregation members. Another movie the congregation should watch is "For the Bible Tells Me So." These people need to understand the evil that they do - all in God's name.

Sunday Male Beauty

Regent University's Yarhouse: Don't Focus on Gay Conversion

A recent symposium on sexual orientation at Pat Robertson's Regent University seems to have displayed a possible back peddling by Regent researcher, Mark Yarhouse who for years has been one of the proponents of the "choice myth" on sexual orientation and has claimed that gays can be "cured." Since the Virginian Pilot article is not overly lengthy, follow up with Yarhouse will be needed. Nonetheless, as reported, this is a far different Yarhouse than what has been seen in the past. Perhaps the American Psychological Association's recent unequivocal condemnation of reparative therapy efforts is influencing those like Yarhouse that I suspect want to avoid being charged with unethical practices that could threaten their professional licenses. I haven't yet had a chance to talk with Philip Deal to get more of his reaction to the symposium. What would Taliban Bob McDonnell have to say about this apparently significant about face? Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:

*

Gay-rights blogger Philip Deal came to Regent University's symposium on sexual orientation Friday expecting to debate a pitchman for converting homosexuals to heterosexuality. Instead, he heard the Regent researcher, Mark Yarhouse, say that while same-sex attraction may be changeable in some individuals, not everyone can change. "For me, in my own practice, I would not focus on change of orientation," said Yarhouse, a psychologist and counselor who teaches at Regent, an evangelical Christian school.

*

About 100 people, mostly Regent students but some local gays and lesbians, attended the two-hour presentation and question-and-answer period. Lesbians and gays frequently say their orientation is innate and natural, while many conservative Christians say homosexuality is a sin and can be reversed with therapy. Yarhouse's study focused on those who said their same-sex attractions collided with their religious beliefs. He said his research found that there was "modest" movement away from homosexuality among some Exodus participants, but categorical conversions to heterosexuality were rare.

*

Yarhouse recommended that counselors avoid uniformly steering struggling gays toward heterosexuality and focus instead on the best outcome for the individual. That could include celibacy or exploring different faith groups with various attitudes toward gays and lesbians, he said. Deal, who lives in Norfolk, faulted the research project for not scrutinizing other orientation conversion treatments that he said left gays psychologically scarred. He said Yarhouse's research was "a little more moderate than what I thought it would be... but it was still pretty right in terms of its conservative agenda."

*

It will be interesting to see if Yarhouse continues to moderate his statements as has been the case with Warren Throckmorton, another one of the high priests of the change myth in the past and with whom I've had my share of e-mail debates.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Don't Ever Slip Up ...

UPDATE: Richard in the story asked me to pull his photo and I have done so.

*

I am rather shocked that the Virginian Pilot did this story on gays in the military and the fact that DADT - religious based discrimination written into law - is causing the military to lose many skilled personnel who simply cannot live in the closet and in fear on a 24/7 basis. I have one relative senior officer as a client right now who says he is retiring the minute he hits the retirement mark. Why? DADT. He is but one of many that I know that have opted to get out of the military taking their training and skills with them.

*

The irony is that there are SO MANY gays in the military in this area that some friends joke that the Navy would cease to function if all the LGBT service members left in mass all at once. I truly hope that this article will help more people in this area - at least the rational ones - to wake up to the manner in which national security is compromised by what constitutionally should be an illegal law. Naturally, give the number of Christianist Neanderthals in the area, some of the comments left by readers are not pretty, displaying the level of ignorance and intolerance that is a hallmark of Virginia. I also find it telling that both men interviewed did what I did - they married trying to conform and refusing for years to accept the truth about themselves. Here are highlights from the story:

*

About 13,000 gays and lesbians have been discharged since the changes took place. Still, a far greater number of gay Americans are serving, or have served, in silence. They walk a fine line, constantly recalculating how much of their personal lives to share with co-workers, learning which doctors and chaplains they can trust, and in the safest cases, finding bosses who subtly make clear that actions, not adjectives, are the best measure of a good sailor.

*
The Virginian-Pilot interviewed three gay members of the military about what it's like to serve without disclosing a key part of their identity. Because naming them could jeopardize their careers, the newspaper agreed not to use their real names or include details that would allow them to be recognized.

*

PHOEBE: . . . She's a no-nonsense sailor, promoted three times in four years, and she doesn't think work and personal lives should mix too much. The bridge of a warship, she said, isn't an appropriate place to talk about intimate relationships - gay or straight. But when you live together, and you're deployed together and you sleep in a small compartment, she said, it's hard to keep the most basic truth about yourself private.

*
She abides by the rules. But curse words fly when she talks about the current policy. "I think it's bull that I could get kicked out for something that has nothing to do with the military. I can go die for my country, and I can't be gay?" she said, before letting loose with a choice expletive.

*

Phoebe posed a theoretical question to those who think gay men and women have no place in the military. "What's worse?" she asked. "Having a terrorist attack? Or having a homo stop it?" She's confident that the commanding officer of her ship knows she's gay. The C.O. asked her once what she thought of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Her response was not suitable for publication. Phoebe believes that most people in her division know her truth, but she's careful not to provide any proof.

*

She also mentioned that there's plenty of illicit interaction between men and women on her ship, even though Navy policy forbids sex while a boat is under way. On a recent deployment, she said, the captain put 10 people on the ship on restriction for having sex. One case involved a tryst between an officer and an enlisted sailor, she said - a type of fraternization verboten at sea or ashore.

*

RICHARD . . . a few years ago, he accepted a truth he'd fought to bury for years: He is gay. The acknowledgment came as a great relief, even at home. He remains married to a woman he met in the military. They have school-age children. In some ways, their marriage is stronger now. He and his wife are no longer lovers, but they're still best friends and partners committed to raising their kids in a loving home.

*
Because there's so much at stake - his job, his family's health insurance, his retirement - he worries about someone discovering the truth before he's eligible to retire in a few years. Trained in multiple foreign languages for a job that requires travel and a security clearance, he knows his skills would fetch a handsome salary in the civilian world. He would happily stay in uniform if the law changed. If it doesn't, he's prepared to retire as soon as he can.

*

The current policy encourages lying, he said - and even small lies about where you spent the weekend or what you watched on TV turn into a bigger breach of trust. "When, by law, you are compelling people to lie about their personal lives, you're driving a wedge between people and their unit," he said. He is confident the military would accept the change without much trouble. "Saying our military can't adapt to those challenges is really selling our military short," he said.

*

FRANK . . . . Like Richard, Frank didn't accept being gay until after he'd married and become a father. He enlisted to get away from home.

*

Frank lied. He didn't want to be gay. So he repressed it. He took his marriage vows seriously and stayed faithful to his wife, whom he met on duty. His control lasted 10 years, until Frank realized he couldn't deny reality. The couple divorced. Their youngest child wasn't yet in school; the older one was in grade school. Frank and his kids stayed together, and eventually his partner, Dave, joined them. The arrangement was tested when Frank prepared to deploy a few years ago and Dave became the kids' guardian - taking them shopping, shuttling them to dentist and doctor appointments, overseeing their homework.

*

Frank described years of nagging worries that his secret would be revealed. "I constantly felt like I had to watch what I did," he said. He knows five gay sailors who were discharged or chose to leave the Navy because bearing their secret was too hard.

*

The worries have subsided now. Frank recently retired. Even on his last day in uniform, Frank was concerned about keeping up appearances. Dave attended the ceremony, but stayed in the background. Frank said he cut his remarks short when he started getting emotional. "I didn't want anything to slip."

*

So much lost talent and so much needless stress and drama - all so that religious bigots like Elaine Donnelly can get orgasmic over having their religious views forced on the country. It is beyond sick.