From a psychological standpoint, homosexuality has been long understood as an innate tendency for attraction to the same sex, which attraction usually begins to felt first around the onset of puberty (though the stigma placed on attraction to the same sex by society sometimes complicates and / or delays this realization of sexuality).

I cannot help but find your comments misguided in another way, as well. As has been mentioned, our country’s government was intended to have an inherent separation of church and state; i.e., religion and government were (and are still) forbidden to be mixed because that was the intention of our founding fathers, the writers of our Constitution. That separation is grounded in the religious oppression experienced by the settlers before they left England and the firm conviction that having your beliefs dictated to you by another is unjust, that the citizens of our country should be granted the freedoms to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It may or may not surprise you to learn that surveys over the last several years have shown not only an increasing support for same-sex unions, but at least one survey (I apologize for not having the citation available as I write this) indicated that a majority of our country’s citizens (voting age and older) are in favor of same-sex unions and marital rights for homosexual couples.

While it may be hard to understand, or approve of, from your vantage point, this shift merely represents the principle that it is unfair to deprive two people who love each other of the rights bestowed upon other loving couples who are unrelated (in a familial way), of age, and of sound mind to decide for themselves. Without a legitimate government interest (and I would even argue a higher standard of a compelling government interest) in preventing same-sex couples from marrying, as well as no other less restrictive means of furthering a legitimate or compelling government interest, it is federally unconstitutional for the government to deprive same-sex couples of the marital rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. I believe that the Supreme Court will sooner or later hold that substantive due process forbids denial of fundamental liberty rights to same-sex couples, or possibly that equal protection of the laws is a firm ground on which to premise the recognition of same-sex marriage by the government. It is well-established that animus (or feeling of moral distaste) toward homosexuality is insufficient to meet the standard of a legitimate government interest, and laws have already been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because the sole government interest involved was animus toward the targeted conduct. (See Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003).

I do not expect any of this to change your mind, but I felt it imperative to clear up a few misconceptions as someone without an ax to grind, but someone who has some particular knowledge about the subject matter.

Sincerely,
Kimberly (Candidate for Juris Doctor degree in 2012)

I would like to first and foremost apologize for my rather informal beginning. I would have much rather preferred to respond to your comment with your name and rank/title, such is only polite and appropriate, but as ‘Me’ was the only designation you deigned appropriate to assign your comment, I’m afraid my rather inappropriate opening must suffice.

Secondly, I would like to thank you for you service to our country. I have, as a family member and friend to many active and retired service members, the utmost respect for those willing and able to serve in our armed forces. Again, thank you.

That being said, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies for the terrible misinformation you have been given regarding the citizens of this county to whom you refer to as “the homosexual.” I am not implying that this unfortunate event is entirely your fault. Citizens of the world did believe, after all, that the world was flat for centuries and perpetuated this discrepancy until the truth was revealed to them. As such, I would like to extend an offer of assistance in clarifying some of the many inaccuracies in the information you have received and, sadly, repeated.

Let’s begin with something rather simple. You’ve stated that, “To be homosexual is to be accutely (sic) heterophobic.”
I would like to make sure that I am as thorough as possible, so I feel obligated to mention two grammatical items about your statement. You did misspell ‘acutely,’ but I felt it necessary to quote you exactly rather than have you feel misquoted in any manner. I’m more than comfortable in my belief that your misspelling was a simple keystroke error, however, so don’t beat yourself up about it later; it happens to the best of us, Me. Also, I would like to point out the high probability of ‘heterophobic’ not actually being a true word. Microsoft Word did not recognize it when I typed it in my program out of curiosity. I have, however, added it to my library on the off chance that my version of Word is not entirely up to date with today’s technical vernacular.

I digress.

Homosexuals are not, I am saddened to inform you, acutely heterophobic. There are some heterosexuals that homosexuals do have an aversion to and will avoid said heterosexuals if and when possible. These heterosexuals are referred to as ‘homophobes.’ I have also known such individuals to be referred to as ‘bigots,’ but keep in mind that not all bigotry is confined to homophobia, so please refrain from the mistake of also assuming all homophobes and bigots are one in the same. I can see how one may be able to construe the belief that homosexuals’ aversion to these particular heterosexuals could be applicable to all heterosexuals, but such a leap in assumption is incorrect.

Homosexuals are, in fact, rather fond of heterosexuals. Parents, sibling, various other family members, coworkers, neighbors, and other peers of homosexuals are, in many cases, actually heterosexuals. Last known consensus was that roughly 90% of said peers heterosexual. Homosexuals do not, as your statement suggests, wish to avoid any and all contact with or maintain an ill will towards all heterosexuals. Quite the contrary, Me. Homosexuals very much enjoy a majority or their interactions with heterosexuals. I have found that many homosexuals are rather fond of accompanying their heterosexual companions to a variety of events, including, but not limited to: dining out, attending concerts/plays, visiting theme parks, family gatherings, and patronage of retail shops. It is simply the sexual interactions with heterosexuals of the opposite gender that homosexuals wish to avoid. Again, I can see how that may have misconstrued and incorrectly conveyed to you, but I hope to have shed some light on this particular item.
Next item. “It is a choice that if one makes that’s fine…” I am going to make the fearful decision to make an assumption. Not usually the action of choice, I know, Me, but one that cannot be avoided at this junction of our lesson. I am going to assume that you mean to convey that homosexuals make the choice to be homosexual. I am truly beginning to have great sympathies for those whom you’ve received such inaccurate information. They have done you, one our countries’ veterans, a dishonor by allowing you to go forth in the world believing this statement it also correct when it could not be further from the truth.

Homosexuals do not make a conscious choice to be homosexual, Me. Shocking, I know. I’ll let you sit for a moment and let this new information marinade.
…

I would like to now ask you at what point in your adolescence you chose to be heterosexual, Me. Take your time, think back to your first innocent, school yard crush and try to remember at what point you actively decided to give that young lady your affection instead of the young man next to her.

…

If you can accurately pinpoint this moment in your life, the one where you tipped the scales to heterosexuality, by all means, share. You will be the first I have known to be able to, with 100% assurance, declare they actively chose one sexuality over the other. I suggest you write a memoir about the experience, it has best-seller potential. Fiction category, of course, but potential none the less.

Next item. “The real course of action here should be putting all that psychoanalysis power we have over the homosexual and examine closely where in each homosexuals past did they cross the line…what trauma was experienced such that a man or woman would turn from the natural to the un natural use of the body…THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE A 12 STEP PROGRAM could be useful.”

My goodness, Me, you really should check your informational sources more thoroughly in the future. I am again, pained to inform you that this statement is rife with inaccuracies. There have been a vast amount of studies in what causes homosexual behavior; it has been deemed, as Dr. Johnson pointed out, a natural occurrence in not just our species, but dozen of species. I propose a topic for you to think on: if homosexuality can be found in nature, how can it be unnatural? As for the suggested 12-step program you have in mind, there are many organizations that offer reparative therapy, but many of these programs have recently admitted that their therapy does not actually make a homosexual no longer homosexual, merely they tout their ability to help their ‘patients’ not to act on their natural homosexual urges. Yes, you did read my last statement correctly, they can only help homosexuals to try and not act on their natural homosexual urges.

I have many more items to discuss with you regarding your comment, Me, but I have more pressing items already on my agenda for the day and must get back to them. I do hope that I have helped, in some manner, in clearing up some things for you, Me. I am more than happy to continue this lesson later if you so desire. Simply post another comment that you would like me to expand some more, and I will be honored to continue teaching you the truth about homosexuals.

With warm regards from your friendly lesbian,
Jennifer

M. Johnson Jr. Ph.D., Capt. USAF, 1993-1997 Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX

2. Homosexuality has been psychoanalyzed and researched for quite some time, and in case you were wondering, was taken OUT of the DSM back in 1974 (almost 40 years ago). All highly credible psychology organizations agree that is it not a mental disorder and the “12 step program” that you suggest (i.e. ex-gay therapy) DOES NOT WORK. It is unnecessary and actually CAUSES psychological damage to the individual.

3. Not all people who have a different sexual orientation have had anything traumatic happen to them. Most grow up in loving, caring families without any real struggles that would cause them to “veer off the path” in any way. It’s also important to note that those AGAINST the LGBTQIA community put the MOST emphasis on the sexual aspect of individuals who are not straight. You do realize that there are plenty of people who have same-sex attractions that do not engage in sexual activity willy nilly. There are several LGBTQIA people who are religious and which to wait until marriage, just like a portion of heterosexuals do. There is absolutely no difference between a homosexual person and a heterosexual person, except for with whom they happen to fall in love.

4. I hope that you find true enlightenment some day and let go of the hatred and fear you carry in your heart because those are terrible burdens to bear. I’m assuming that you are religious simply because you mentioned God, and no matter what that religion may be, there is one thing that remains a truth in all of them: Treat all people with respect and love. There is only one judge when it comes to life matters, and it’s not you.

And in regards to teaching sex education in JH and HS, seriously?! These students are pumped full of sexual hormones and you think it is wise to not inform and educate them about what is going on with their bodies and how to respond to these changes in physically and emotionally healthy ways??? What planet do you live on???