Broken promise rings.

Not that Sarah Palin and other fundamentalists could be bothered with facts and other liberal nonsense, but yet another study has shown that virginity pledges do not work.

Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study.

But the results, published in the journal Pediatrics, suggest that virginity pledgers are less likely to protect themselves against pregnancy or disease when they do have sex.

Researchers say the findings suggest that virginity pledges may not significantly affect teenagers' sexual behavior. Instead, they may decrease the likelihood of teenagers taking precautions, such as using a condom or using birth control, when they do have sex.

According to the study, which followed 289 pledgers and 645 non-pledgers, after five years 82% of pledgers denied ever having vowed chastity. They did not differ in rates of STD's, premarital sex, and "oral and anal sex behaviors." The only difference, the researchers claim, is that pledgers were less likely to use birth control or condoms.

Amazingly, the Evangelical Right continues to trumpet "abstinence education" even when study after study has shown that it simply does not work. It's irresponsible and a health hazard to just tell kids to keep their pants zipped. Christians need to face the fact that they're putting their children - and others - in danger if they withhold basic sex education.

The fight for abstinence education is part of a broader trend of an assault on privacy and sexual freedom by the Evangelical Right during the Bush presidency. Bush, ever the panderer to fundamentalists, recently has ordered the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to classify birth control pills and emergency contraception as "abortion." But that's not all. This month, he has ordered employment protection to workers who refuse health care services on religious, moral, or ethical grounds.

The callousness of Bush's war on science and sexual privacy is truly stunning. But it's also indicative of the mindset of fundamentalists, who are quick to impose their beliefs on others (Proposition 8 comes to mind...) but demand "religious protections" of their own. They can't even claim moral superiority, as the studies on abstinence have shown they're just as "sinful" as anyone else.

Oh, and Sarah Palin's unwed teenage daughter gave birth to a son today.

The audacity of arrogance.

Barack Obama's invitation to Rick Warren is symbolic of the President-elect's overconfidence in his ability to bring Americans together, asserts New York Times op-ed columnist Frank Rich.

As we saw during primary season, our president-elect is not free of his own brand of hubris and arrogance, and sometimes it comes before a fall: “You’re likable enough, Hillary” was the prelude to his defeat in New Hampshire. He has hit this same note again by assigning the invocation at his inauguration to the Rev. Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch preacher who has likened committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy and “an older guy marrying a child.” Bestowing this honor on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong.

As Rich points out, the potential political gain from this invite is minimal. Warren's most fervent supporters are ones who declared Obama was an Arab Muslim terrorist. Furthermore, Obama's ardent pro-choice stance is unlikely to win any converts from the Evangelical Right, regardless of Warren's appearance. The President-elect couldn't possibly believe this move was about winning fundamentalist Christians over, because it's simply not going to happen.

Instead, Obama figures the invite to Warren is consistent with his message of "a new kind of politics" of emphasizing common American values to start productive political dialogue, as he explains in The Audacity of Hope. Obama may genuinely believe that inviting Warren is a legitimate way of bringing Evangelicals to the table and giving them someone to root for on Inauguration Day. (And perhaps a move to take attention off of the appearance of a San Francisco gay choir in the march.) But the invitation comes off as too slick. Rather than seeming like a leader bringing in opposing voices together to work for a common cause, Obama seems like a first-grade teacher telling two bickering children to get along, when one of them is clearly the bully and the other the victim.

If Obama believes that he can convince Warren and his flock that gays are "likeable enough" by being inclusive, then one just might wonder why he's not inviting racists and anti-Semites to speak at his inauguration, too. The bottom line is that Warren's church's position on homosexuality is radically out of the mainstream and absolutely offensive. He must acknowledge that in some cases, the progression of a just society and the legitimacy of fundamentalist Christianity are mutually exclusive. To believe that oppressed minorities like gays will be okay with the legitimization of such radical voices reeks of arrogance.

More lies about Rick Warren

Oh, won't somebody please make an honest case against Rick Warren?

Here's the latest examples of pundits using flat-out lies to try to convince us that Rick Warren is a seething homophobe. The first comes from popular gay blog The Bilerico Project. Waymon Hudson writes:

Who I am, who I love, my relationship, my family- those things are me. They are who I am. By attacking those things, Warren is attacking me, not just some vague idea. He is calling me the hateful names, saying my relationship is comparable to a sexual deviants, and saying my family isn't as good as his. That is hate, no matter how flowery his language is or how much he claims otherwise.

I haven't heard or seen Rick Warren call anyone a faggot, queer, slimy homosexual, or anything else like that, so I'm not sure what hateful names Hudson is talking about. I also have never heard or seen Rick Warren compare gay relationships to a sexual deviant's -- he did say he didn't think gay "marriage" was any more legitimate than polygamist "marriage," but as far as I know he hasn't said anything about what he thinks about gay relationships. And yes, there is a huge difference. Furthermore, I haven't heard or seen Warren preaching about how gay families are not as "good" as his family. So if Hudson has some evidence to back up his claims, I would love to see it, otherwise he should stop using flagrant distortions (some would say lies) to make his case.

Let me reiterate that I'm not on Warren's side. I think hate and homophobia are bad just as much as the next gay. But I think it's extremely important that we stay honest in this debate, or people are going to stop taking us seriously, as many already have.

Lying about Rick Warren

I am pretty amazed at the outright lies that have been spread about Rick Warren since his invitation to the Obama inauguration. I'm not particularly fond of evangelical pastors or anything, but seriously: why can't we make our case without resorting to lies and distortion?

I won't sit here and rant though. Here's the raw evidence, see for yourself. From a column by Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff:

And, in a 2005 interview with CNN’s Larry King, Warren went one step further, blaming gay AIDS patients for contracting the disease. “The question isn’t how did you get it,” he said. “It’s what do you do now? I mean if I’m driving down the street one day on the freeway and I see somebody laying on the side of the road bleeding to death and I go over to them, my first question is, was this your fault? No, I just help the guy.”

Here's what Warren said about AIDS, according to the transcript posted online by CNN.

KING: In the past, Rick, you will admit the evangelicals and a lot in the church didn't look at AIDS.

WARREN: Oh, yes.

KING: Didn't deal with it and in fact called it God's revenge against gays.

WARREN: Yes, yes. Well, you know, they were wrong and we were wrong to be quiet. I never called it that but we were wrong to not speak up. The fact is AIDS is not a gay plague. AIDS is a human plague and it involves -- actually more women have AIDS than men do. You know the face of AIDS in America is usually a white, gay guy but the face of AIDS around the world is a black or brown woman and, to me...

The man said AIDS is not a gay plague! How is he James Dobson in disguise?! I might expect this from a rabid blog commenter somewhere, but you would think the editor of a successful gay publication would be able to make his case honestly.

We should note that Warren cares far more about AIDS in Africa than AIDS in the U.S., and you can read into that whatever you want. But the fact is Warren did NOT blame gays for contracting the disease.

A brief introduction.

Hey. I'm aggiecat.

My colleague Ted and I decided to begin a blog because, well, we felt like we have a lot of stuff to say about the issues that are important to us. Our primary area of emphasis will be LGBT issues. However, we (or I, at least) may comment on current events and especially those issues pertinent to our generation, the Milennials. And I can't guarantee that I won't share cute cat YouTube videos with you.

As far as personal background goes, I'm a junior at a large, public university on the West Coast majoring in business and history. In what little spare time I have, I bike, follow the San Francisco Giants, read American lit, and watch television and movies. The passage of Proposition 8 inspired me to become more involved in politics. I'm optimistic that better days are ahead.

Our goal for this blog is to have rational discussions about LGBT issues, which are too often emotionally charged. We'd like to see more logic in the debates from both sides of the aisle. We want to blog logically - blahgically, if you will. Granted, I'm certainly passionate about my beliefs - and I'm sure that will be clear in my posts - but we won't win over hearts and minds without careful thought and incisive logic.

Here's to blahgic.

What's a bigot?

In the passionate wake of Prop 8, many people who oppose gay marriage have been labeled bigots. Some of them actually are bigots, many of them not. So what exactly is a bigot?

The dictionary definition is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

Another really good description of anti-gay bigotry comes from Andrew Sullivan in his 1995 book, Virtually Normal:

"A person who holds up a sign saying "God Hates Fags"; who finds association with homosexuals repugnant simply because they are attracted to people of the same gender; who mistreats, despises, or seeks to injure homosexuals because he believes them to be incompletely human; who stalks, assaults, or murders homosexuals out of passion or fear or unaccountable hatred..."

An anti-gay bigot is someone who views gays as less than human and who allows that view to affect how they treat gays.

A bigot is NOT just anyone who disagrees with your views on gay marriage. So can we please stop labeling everyone who disagrees with us bigots?

Who am I?

What I have to say is a lot more important than who I am, but in the interest of satisfying your curiousity, I'll say this. 

I am a gay college student in the U.S. I have not done any political activism, but I am a writer who has recently become interested in gay rights causes and gay issues. I decided to start contributing to this blog because I am tired of reading gay-oriented blogs that serve merely to add to the hysteria of the day. 

With the exception of Andrew Sullivan, Dale Carpenter, and a few others, most gay bloggers don't seem more interested in fanning the flames than in making good arguments. I'd like to change that, and that's what I'm doing here. Oh, and if anyone disagrees, bring it on.