Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Let's try to make society see it's okay to be different

I would like to thank the St. Petersburg Times for running the story Endorsing only tolerance (March 17). This story captured the essence of PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) as it strives to help families go through the trauma they feel when one of their members tells them he or she is gay. I am the father of two wonderful children who happen to be gay. My wife and I joined PFLAG 10 years ago, and the group helped us tremendously. We are still active members but now we spend more time helping others than we do receiving help.

I would also like to thank the Times for running Burke gives her perspective as it is only fair to give both sides of the story. I am glad to see that Cecilia Burke is concerned about AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, alcoholism and drug abuse in the gay community. As most of us know AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases are not an issue for gays alone but are a significant problem for the population as a whole. Alcoholism and drug abuse are considered to be more acute in the gay community, however.

The question then becomes why are gays more prone to alcoholism or drug abuse. These problems are far from universal in the gay community so I do not believe it is an automatic condition caused by being gay. I believe these problems are more prevalent in the gay community because of the pressures placed on these people by an intolerant society. The fact that many people do not want gays to marry, do not want gays in their churches and that many gays are rejected by their own families puts tremendous pressure on these people for just being themselves. People do not choose their sexual orientation. So when a person of authority like Cecilia Burke comes out and says it is wrong to be gay, she is adding to the problem. The solution is not to try to change a person's sexual orientation but to convince the majority of our society that it is okay to be different.

I hope that Cecilia Burke realizes she cannot change who a person is but that she can help them live in a society that is less than accepting. Maybe she can even convince some people that gays are okay.

Heterosexuals are off the hook?

Re: Endorsing only tolerance, March 17.

In defense of her statements critical of the Juvenile Welfare Board's relationship with the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays organization, Juvenile Welfare Board member Cecilia Burke is quoted as saying she doesn't believe gay sex is "normal and healthy" because AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, alcoholism and drug abuse are its consequences.

Whew, it certainly is a relief to know that those involved in heterosexual sex have nothing to worry about (except maybe for unwanted pregnancies and then that's only a woman's problem).

Burke showed courage

Re: Gay groups demanding an apology for "attack," March 7.

I sincerely hope that Cecilia Burke will not compromise her principals or her opinions in order to placate PFLAG. I respect her courage in sticking up for the children of Pinellas County on such a sensitive issue. We need more public servants willing to say and do what they believe is right, even when it is not necessarily the "popular" opinion.

The St. Petersburg Times says that ". . . JWB does not take a specific stance on homosexuality . . ." but everything else in the article certainly indicates there is a specific stance taken - the PFLAG stance. Other research, opinions and religious beliefs do not seem to be respected or considered.

As to the whole issue of reparative therapy, here is a link to an article published in the American Psychological Association's journal: http://www.narth.com/docs/throckarticle.html which indicates that it can in fact be helpful. Obviously, there is a lot that science does not know or fully understand about homosexuality, so wouldn't it make sense to give people a choice? PFLAG does not seem to give people a choice.

Deal with reality

Re: Burke gives her perspective, March 17.

I have two comments:

First, Cecilia Burke's goal to promote sexual abstinence among young people is great, as long as it's presented as an option, along with promoting safe sex. I'm not endorsing sex among young people - I'm saying it's a reality we can't ignore. Burke doesn't think young people should be experimenting with sex. Well, guess what - they are, and they always have been. So let's deal with reality and try to keep them safe.

Second, Burke implies that AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), alcoholism and drug abuse are consequences of a gay lifestyle. No, Mrs. Burke, AIDS and STDs are consequences of unsafe sex, whether those participating are gay or straight. And drugs and alcohol are problems among ALL teens (adults too), not just gay teens.

I'm amazed at how many people live their lives with their heads buried in the sand. Maybe people (teens or adults) shouldn't be gay, but it's not a choice. Maybe people (teens or adults) shouldn't have unsafe sex, but the reality is that they do. Let's all get real, accept the facts instead of denying them, and work to implement realistic solutions.

Homosexuals want what we all want

Re: JWB should serve children, not try to indoctrinate them, letter, March 10.

I was hugely disappointed to read my good neighbor Nancy Bostock's use of that tired old phrase, "promote the homosexual lifestyle."

One more time, I'd like to clarify - speaking as a PFLAG member and gay-rights activist since the thought occurred to me, well before his second birthday, that my son might (as in fact he is) be gay:

Homosexuals, like every other person, want to enjoy constitutionally guaranteed (but thus far denied) equality of full citizenship, including the right to safety in school (and elsewhere) and the opportunity to develop all abilities without being driven to truancy or early dropping out (or worse) by having to study in a hostile environment.

In fact, the JWB program is part of an effort to deal with the very hardships Bostock specifies - homelessness, abuse, poverty - which may result from a student's being perceived as gay and which interfere with students' ability to attend school and produce their best work.

Bostock needs to be replaced

Re: JWB should serve children, not try to indoctrinate them, letter, March 10.

As a Pinellas County resident of the past 18 years, a graduate of Seminole High School, and a social worker within the community, I find Nancy Bostock's recent letter to be misleading, misguided, and, at best, totally unfounded.

It is her suggestion that organizations such as PFLAG exist to "indoctrinate" young men and women into a specific "lifestyle." I have three questions for Pinellas School Board member Bostock: Have you ever attended a PFLAG meeting? When was the last time you sat down with the mother and father of a gay student in Pinellas County (members of your constituency) and talked about the issues their children (also your constituency) are facing? Have you ever looked inward and pondered when you made the decision to be heterosexual?

I am quite certain that answers to these very simple questions would reveal a tremendous amount of information regarding Bostock's homophobic remarks about PFLAG and her current view of the relationship that the organization has with the Pinellas County Juvenile Welfare Board.

As a staunch supporter of the rights all minority and vulnerable populations within our society (especially children) I find Bostock's remarks to be in stark contrast to the mission of the position she currently holds. Perhaps it is time for those who do want to protect the rights and health of all children (regardless of their sexuality) to organize and ensure a suitable replacement is found for Nancy Bostock's seat on the Pinellas County School Board.

Evidence abounds for intelligent design

Paul Gross' grumpy lecture, Keep creationism out of science class (March 11), reminds me of the contempt that was spewed upon Alfred Wegener and geologist Harry Hess at Princeton, as the theory of plate tectonics was being developed.

We are told that "only the naive, or those indifferent to the rules of serious scientific inquiry" are convinced of intelligent design. What a nifty way to instantly marginalize the thousands of prodesign scientists, working and teaching in our colleges and universities! Off we go to Gross' Gulag of Incompetence.

Gross' most assertive sound-bite, "There is no scientific evidence for intelligent agency behind biological design," is simply intellectually ludicrous - perhaps the most flagrantly false statement I have ever seen printed in the Times.

Evidences for design abound in every branch of biology, but three areas make neo-Darwinists blush: embryology, chemical evolution studies, and fossils of the Cambrian explosion (where dozens of complex body plans burst into existence out of nowhere). Yet, the most powerful evidence is in molecular machines and systems of horrendous, unexpected complexity. Our cells are chock full of such systems whose step-by-step evolution is overwhelmingly implausible.

To say that IDers use "incredulity" as a standard is laughable. Gross, a professional ID-smasher, knows better. Design theorist William Dembski takes every system that is suggested to have been "designed" and first submits it to a statistical-logical "filter" that can positively detect intelligent agency, only after "law" and "chance" have been ruled out. Who published Dembski's "filter" in one of its most prestigious, peer-reviewed book series? Cambridge University Press. Were the Cambridge reviewers having a moment of "credulity"? Not likely.

While completing my Ph.D. research at the University of South Florida on the history of the intelligent design movement - now in print as Doubts about Darwin (Baker, 2003) - I found it helpful to chat with evolutionary biologists about arguments for design. Some were hostile (like Gross) but others were much more open. One very renowned paleontologist who welcomes the ID challenge, told me he loved a video of biologist Michael Behe, presenting his "molecular-complexity" case for intelligent design at Princeton. "I admire his courage in presenting his case before a hostile audience," said this legendary scientist. "I look forward to the day when design will be considered fairly in the university world." Gross' rhetoric has one simple goal: to make sure that day never arrives.

Evolution is compatible with religion

Re: Keep creationism out of science class.

This article discusses two connected subjects: teaching in the schools and the essential question about the relation between science and religion. On the second subject, my answer is: evolution - yes; intelligent design that we see in nature - yes.

The idea of evolution is compatible with religion. The Bible tells us that God gradually created the world and, lastly, human beings. To take literally that six days in the Bible represent six days of our calendar is only an assumption. God's time is not our time. We can understand six days as six long periods of time. To my best knowledge, the large majority of scientists who are religious (and my impression is that the majority of scientists are religious) accept the idea that God creates through evolution, too.

The idea that science indicates the existence of a design in nature arose among cosmologists in their description of the first moments of the universe after the big bang. The fine tuning of the physical constants that later made it possible for life to develop just cannot be overlooked. As Mark Demiansky, cosmologist and astrophysicist said, "Somebody had to tune it very precisely... I think there are clearly religious implications."

Like others, I see the cosmic evolution in different domains: inorganic evolution of matter that has led to formation of galaxies, stars and planets, then a biological evolution on Earth, then a spiritual evolution of human beings toward love and God.

Science motivates our belief in God. Science and religion are complementary. I am sorry when I hear that people from science and religion attack or ignore each other. There is no fence between them.

Fill the buses, and the stands

After reading the articles regarding Devil Rays support, I believe that we can help fill the stands if our county would make available public transportation to the games. It's quite obvious that gas prices and traffic will not get better in Pinellas.

My proposal is to have public transportation buses stationed in several parts of the county (east and west), from St. Petersburg to Tarpon Springs, before each game. Transport to the game in ample time to get a ticket and peanuts. Then have the same bus transport back to the pickup area after the game. There must be an area at the pickup point to park vehicles, i.e., shopping centers, which we have enough of.

I am one fan that would rather pay for a bus ride than parking fees at the dome, let someone else do the driving, and not worry about traffic conditions and gas prices.

[Last modified March 19, 2005, 01:01:18]