09/13/2007
Gay Rights: A Look at Two Young Americans
I missed this profile on William Sleaster (above), the Concord High School student who challenged John McCain on gay rights last week (some of which can be seen in the clip below). Sleaster made headlines when he followed up his questioning by telling McCain, "I came here looking to see a leader. I don’t."
Sleaster told the Concord Monitor: "It may have been disrespectful, but he discriminates against me and my people. If he walked in there to Tide Pride (the school's LGBT support group) Monday morning and started dropping sexual slurs, we wouldn't shake his hand and say, 'Thanks for coming.' That's why I didn't shake his hand and say, 'Thanks for coming.' I regret nothing...Going into it, I was looking to be impressed. I was looking for him to be the leader type," Sleaster said. "But he didn't show that at all. He seemed very weak. He didn't have any good ideas at all."
Sleaster says that some of his views crystallized after coming out to his classmates last February as bisexual: "It was a good thing to do, to come out like that. Then I knew the whole don't ask thing, the policy, was very flawed. Pretending your sexuality is something it's not is very difficult to do. Even liking both sexes, you can't just pretend you like one. It's very hard to do."
He even understands why he was scolded for his strong words to McCain: "I believe (what the teacher did) was proper. They wanted us to shake the candidate's hand. They wanted to make sure I didn't make Concord High look bad. I understand why they might have been worried."
The need for young people like Sleaster is made ever-apparent by the rising Fundie youth in Louisiana.
Contrast Sleaster's perspective with that of Louisiana State University student wingnut Michael Denton (right), whose school paper yesterday published an opinion piece a hate piece he wrote called "America needs to stand against homosexuality" which basically spews the talking points of the worst of the right-wing Evangelical bigots:
Writes Denton: "America needs to grow in self-confidence on this debate. The homosexual argument is illogical; sexuality is obviously meant for reproduction. Any sexual activity that is opposed to life is intrinsically disordered. Yet we continue to refuse to stand up for ourselves, allowing courts, school boards and speech codes to dictate political correctness to us. There are few greater debates in America today. The gay marriage issue threatens marriage and the family, which are the very foundations of society. Unless America decides to stand for something in this case, we'll continue to fall."
Denton is very concerned about the "homosexual movement": "They know they can't win in elections. Despite all of their efforts to convert us, an August 2007 CNN poll still shows 57 percent of Americans opposing gay marriage. So they ignore the democratic process and rush to friendlier courts. To top it all off, they're using sex education programs to jam their views down the throats of school children. They're not looking for debate; they're looking for victory at any cost."
As much as we think youth is on our side in the gay rights debate (and I still believe it is, as a general trend), bigoted slugs like Denton will still rise from the spawn of the worst kind of Bible Belt bigots. I'm just grateful folks like Sleaster will be around to take 'em down.
The teen who challenged John McCain [concord monitor]
America needs to stand against homosexuality [the daily reveille]
(thanks, Zeke and Peter)
Posted 9:30 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Rights, Gay Youth, John McCain, Louisiana, New Hampshire, News, Religion, Republican Party, William Sleaster | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"However, having truth and right on our side WILL eventually change the viewpoints of more and more people."
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya....
Can someone put another log on the campfire and pass the s'mores...OR
GROW UP!!!
Posted by: Tom | Sep 13, 2007 11:35:08 AM
Lets see if Denton feels this way once he moves out of his house.
Keep in mind that both of these boys form their opinions in rather immature ways. The difference being that Sleaster's seem to have formed from his brain, Denton's from his parents brains.
Posted by: Gregoire | Sep 13, 2007 11:36:52 AM
RE calling him a "slug," Andy is entirely right in doing that. What would you call Sleaster, "naughty boy; very naughty boy"? We are still effectively under Society's boot, with countless numbers of us afraid to come out to our family and friends, even ourselves, because most of our movement has been afraid of being called impolite or rude or what the fuck ever as if we were perpetually living in some kind of prissy Sunday School class instead of the real world in which we are denied legal equality, verbally and physically brutalized, and clubbed, knifed, hung, shot, our bodies set on fire. McCain was speaking as a bigot yet the courageous kid who called him on his bigotry was condemned for being "rude." If he'd said that Blacks or Hispanics or Jews shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military would teacher have worried about anyone being rude to him. If he'd said he'd never heard the term "NAACP" the same way he went blank on "LGBT"?
You don't stop bigots or their bullets, figurative and literal, with hearts and flowers or tea and sympathy. Read what Ms. Louisiana said again—slowly, outloud. He is demonizing millions of people; calling on people to see us as a "threat." That is hate speech; that is the kind of rhetoric that leads those who physically attack us to feel justified.
Referring to him as a slug is not just hissy fit name calling but a call to others to understand the seriousness of his lies, of what he is proposing.
Years ago the Smothers Brothers had a comedy song routine in which Tommy falls into a vat of chocolate and starts yelling, "Fire! FIRE! FIIRRRRE!!!" His brother asks, "Why did you yell 'Fire'?" Tommy replies, "Because no one would have come if I'd yelled 'CHOCCCOLATTTE!!'."
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 13, 2007 11:40:09 AM
Denton is about 15 years from tapping his foot and brushing his hand underneath a bathroom stall in some public locale.
Posted by: Dan B | Sep 13, 2007 11:43:48 AM
"...even if homosexuality is an abnormality in nature and the only purpose to sex is reproduction, does that mean homosexuals should be treated any differently than any other human being possessing some trait that is unnatural" -- JAKE
JAKE, homosexuality may be "abnormal" (as in "not the norm"), but it most certainly is NOT "unnatural".
People tend to interchange these words as if they mean the same thing.
Left-handedness, like homosexuality, is not "normal" but it is perfectly natural for a segment of the population.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 13, 2007 11:55:27 AM
rather than prove his thesis, the identical twins studies this twit cites argue against it. the incidence of gayness in identical twins is higher than among fraternal twins and much higher than among brothers who are neither. the incidence of gayness in fraternal twins is higher than in non-twin brothers.
this moron rests his argument on the idiotic notion that identical twins are exact clones of each other. to follow this sophistry to its logical conclusion, identical twins would get the same diseases, have the same vision and hearing acuity, and in fact, be carbon (literal and figurative)copies of each other.
what's more, i know of no study that bases the origin of gayness strictly on genetic grounds. there are also hormonal influences in-utero. other variables have been posited that may impact sexuality; environmental and emotional stressors on the pregnant mother, for example.
this is nothing but a scurrilous argument cloaked in speciousness wrapped up in authenticity. nothing angers me more than slack-jawed opinion supported by spurious claims.
denton would have been better off saying, "god hates fags," and left it at that. that statement contains the sum total of his opinion and his "facts". plus, it would at least be honest.
Posted by: nic | Sep 13, 2007 11:56:31 AM
Is it me or does Denton kind of look like a lesbian?
Posted by: anon | Sep 13, 2007 12:06:21 PM
NIC, you're right.
Many twins don't share the same handedness but no one, in this day and age, doubts that handedness is a natural, inborn and innate orientation.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 13, 2007 12:14:12 PM
The contrast between these two young men is obvious. It's ironic the one who thinks more clearly is a high school student, while the other is already in college. I hope Mr. Denton takes a few philosophy classes while he is at LSU. It could help him see how illogical the arguments are in his little editorial. Let's hope his ignorance dissipates.
Posted by: Bill | Sep 13, 2007 12:22:18 PM
Denton said: They're not looking for debate; they're looking for victory at any cost.
If by "victory" he means I get the freedom to live my life unencumbered by fear and prejudice, exercising the same rights as every other citizen of this country, then yes, I agree.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 13, 2007 12:23:19 PM
Oh, Michael Denton, does this mean if I go on Gay.com's Lousiana room, I won't find you trolling there?
Bless your heart, you have gay face to the max.
Posted by: Tread | Sep 13, 2007 12:39:00 PM
You know what they say: the guilty dog barks loudest.
Posted by: scottevill | Sep 13, 2007 1:02:05 PM
Of course I overlooked the obvious point - he must not be very bright - he goes to LSU. I think that school may have cracked the top 150 (maybe).
Posted by: ATLSteve | Sep 13, 2007 1:06:09 PM
WAPO reported on a poll a while ago that sheds a ray of hope on the future.
30 and older self identified evangelicals 7 out of 10 fear gay marriage
younger than 30 self identified evangelicals 3 out of 10 feared gay marriage.
Slowly but surely the old dinos will die off and more progressive generations will take over. Each generation is inherently more liberal than its predecessor. For example modern evangelicals would all be hung as witches by the folks back in time in salem.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 13, 2007 1:49:15 PM
I hope I don't get flammed for saying this... I don't mean to put down what William Sleaster did, as I think that it is awesome that he was able to stand up and voice his opinion against such as a man as John McCain- making him accountable for what he says. And I agree we need more people who are willing to do this. But looking at his myspace page (easily searchable by his name) I wonder what motivations he had. It seems almost like he is just one who is searching for attention.
Does that matter or play a part? Is it the action or the motivation behind it that matters? His page and posted blogs make him appear somewhat selfloathing, and not the nicest of kids. He even uses gay slurs himself when putting things and people down.
Granted he's 16, just came out, in high school and is still coming to terms with himself. So I can see the deeper roots. I just hope he able to get through and past it, and continue on speaking out for himself and others.
Not to get too philosophical but when we hold someone up to such a height and hero standard- should we focus soley on one outside action or the whole being?
Posted by: Zachary | Sep 13, 2007 2:12:34 PM
"Denton is right about one thing: sexual activities do exist for the sole purpose of recombining the genetic information from a male and female into an offspring to further the species."
I guess Benobo Chimps didn't get the Memo that sexual activity's SOLE purpose is reproduction. They use sex to relieve social stress and resolve disputes - gender is irrelevent to this activity. And when boy animals are fucking boy animals, the whole "natural" debate completely flies out the window.
Posted by: mark m | Sep 13, 2007 3:06:22 PM
Others above have come close to making this point, but the nuance I think is important: if sex were strictly a mechanical act, like turning on a light switch, then I doubt moral considerations would come into play. It's only because there are emotional and physiological ramifications to sex that one needs to consider ethics and morality (though I would prefer we use the logic of ethics to the the dreams of morality). He has actually divorced sex from morality by his argument, or is he so worried about the emotional side of the subject that to him the ideal of sex would happen only in fertility clinics with beakers and syringes? We have achieved something of a "moral" victory over nature by having "unnatural" sex, becoming its master for the most part, rather than the other way around and separating us further from "lowly" animals, who are so normally dismissed by conservatives.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 13, 2007 3:21:10 PM
zachery,
these are the answers to your questions:
-no.
-the action.
-nobody is trying to beatify him.
now, you answer me this. why were you trolling his myspace page?
Posted by: nic | Sep 13, 2007 4:07:58 PM
i have one word that throws denton's argument right out the window - cloning.
Posted by: amanda | Sep 13, 2007 5:05:17 PM
Why do people with no real understanding of genetics feel like they can discuss the subject in the manner that Denton does?
He states, "If genetics was the explanation, the proof would be easy. One would merely have to look at identical twins. Since they share the exact same genetic codes, if homosexuality was entirely genetic then identical twins would share the homosexuality trait 100 percent of the time."
This is simply untrue, and shows an ignorance of genetics. Penetrance is a term used in genetics to describe how often a gene will express its phenotype. That is to say If the "gay gene" had 50% penetrance, then only 50% of those who you would expect to be gay by looking at their genetic code would actually be gay.
I'm not arguing that there is a sinle gay gene, just that there is more to genetics than Denton learned whilst constructing Punnett Squares in his 9th grade Bio class. And I'm sick of people advocating the restriction of rights based on their own ignorance. Something that happens far too often in this country.
Posted by: Caleb | Sep 13, 2007 5:23:03 PM
Gregg,Mark M, you miss the point. I said sex EXISTS for one purpose. Natural selection favored an activity that produced genetically varied offspring in an non-aquatic environment (Aquatic organisms have the option of external fertilization). Without it's goal, sex wouldn't have evolved in the first place. It's quite a simple concept. I don't know why you guys don't understand that.
Now, what we decide to do with the Existence of sex is another thing. We Homo sapiens have managed to grow a large enough brain, and complex social structure that allows us to use sex for secondary purposes (i.e. dopamine release and strengthening of relationships)
Posted by: Miguel | Sep 13, 2007 6:49:48 PM
Anon (gmail.com),
Trolling? The news article mentioned he had a myspace page, I went to check it out, to see who this kid was who the media and others are, yes, holding up. I was just asking a few simple questions. And while I appreciate your curt responses, the snide remark at the end was not neccesary.
Posted by: Zachary | Sep 13, 2007 7:10:45 PM
It saddens me greatly to see that the only mention of LSU (my alma mater) over the past year I've been reading this blog is in connection with guy.
Let me just point out that LSU is home to the oldest college gay-student group in the south. They celebrated their 20th anniversary during my time there (95-99). I doubt even a majority of the current student body thinks like this guy. We were generally considered to be among the more liberal of student bodies in the south, relatively speaking.
Posted by: LSUmd | Sep 13, 2007 7:56:26 PM
No Miguel - YOU miss the point. You are spouting ideas as if they are facts. They are actually not facts. They may be your beliefs, but that does not make them true.
Take your argument further. Why DO Bonobos have so much free-for-all sex? Why does homosexuality exist in species other than humans?
These are complex issues and deserve more thought than your un-nuanced answers.
Posted by: Gregg | Sep 13, 2007 8:26:46 PM
Denton looks like the kind of dweeb on the cover of Guys Who Get Beat Up magazine.
I think he is trying to convince everyone- himself included- that he does not have same-sex attraction. What else could all his fuss be about?
Posted by: Misty | Sep 13, 2007 11:22:44 PM