"Forced" a response

If any of you have been living in a cave, Lawrence King as a gay JUNIOR HIGH student, murdered a while ago. Today, this article was published:

Gay Tolerance

Schools overplay gay tolerance
Lazarus Austin
Lazarus Austin is a junior majoring in history. He can be contacted at opinion@reflector.msstate.edu.

In February, Lawrence King was shot to death at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, Calif. What sets his murder apart from others is that King was openly gay. He often flirted with his fellow male students and wore feminine apparel and accessories. His murder has brought onslaughts of paranoia and calls for tolerance by gay rights advocates.

According to The Washington Post, gay rights advocates are claiming that King’s murder is the "extreme consequence of a growing but often ignored phenomenon." The phenomenon they are referring to is homophobia.

As a result, they are calling for more tolerance education in schools and stricter anti-harassment rules. Many middle schools and high schools are opening gay and lesbian clubs for students. Other schools are openly teaching students about homosexuality at an early age, often at the frustration of parents.

Furthermore, schools are cracking down on bullying. They, of course, do not want bullies harassing people with a different religious belief, sexual preference, race or gender.

I have two problems with the controversy. First, people are blowing the situation out of proportion and automatically assuming King’s murderer killed him simply because King was gay. This reminds me of how people love to cry racism when someone kills a person of a different race.

His alleged murderer, Brandon McInerney, 14, and also an eighth-grader, had a rough upbringing. According to The Washington Post, McInerney’s parents divorced in 2002. His mother dealt with drug issues, the father had been accused of shooting his mother in the elbow, both parents had filed restraining orders against the other and both had been accused of domestic violence. Supposedly, McInerney was a good kid in school, so the results of his upbringing are hard to judge. However, if you ask me, McInerney was probably a fuse ready to explode, and King’s fraternization possibly sparked it, which brings me to my second point.

By imposing his homosexuality on McInerney, he may have set McInerney off. McInerney may not have had an innate hatred of gay people. In fact, he may have tolerated homosexuality, while simultaneously thinking it was immoral, sinful or simply "uncool," like many people do. King, however, may have gone too far by imposing his sexuality on others. Although King by no means deserved his fate, he may have unfortunately invited it.

Now, gay rights advocates would like to force their homosexuality on others and promote tolerance in schools. Doesn’t sound so bad, does it? The problem lies in their methods. Many of them, by teaching tolerance, also teach values, whether intentionally or not. In 2006, one school was sued because one of its teachers read a famous children’s book advocating homosexuality called "King & King" without parental permission to 7-year-olds.

"My problem," said the suing parent, according to a transcript of "American Morning" on CNN.com, "is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be."

The focus should be on targeting harassment, not tolerance per se. Some people may think gay people are immoral or, as Michael Venyah would put it, "going to hell." Promoting tolerance can instill in children’s minds moral and religious values. Furthermore, it can make them think that homosexuality is the norm and, in my opinion, encourages them to be gay, which is OK but not something schools should be promoting. If at all, tolerance should formally be taught at the upper grade levels, starting at high school.

Some gay rights advocates would have homosexuals permeate society, from TV shows and films to teachers and bishops. I say just let people be gay, don’t forcefully stick them in everybody’s faces and in the limelight.

King sounds like he was a good kid, and what McInerney did was absolutely unjustifiable. However, some want to use King as a martyr for the wrong reasons. Gay people should and do have just as many rights as the rest of us, but no more. Minorities shouldn’t get special privileges, only equal privileges. However, murderers, including those of gay people, should get a special privilege, the privilege of rotting their lives away in prison where they deserve to be.


Of course having read that, I had no choice, but to write a letter to the editor in response. Here it is:

Regarding Lazarus Austin’s article, "Schools overplay gay tolerance" I must say that this letter is, dare I say, forced, by Austin’s misguided words.

The most surprising thing about reading Austin’s article, was the following to the bi-line that said he was a history major. One who studies history should surely see the faulty logic that was displayed throughout the article.

Interestingly enough, I would not necessarily disagree with his first "problem with the controversy." It is entirely possible that the child’s upbringing had more to do with him becoming a murderer than his innate homophobia. The interesting thing is that he follows that up with refuting his own argument, by saying it was a "hate crime," but because he felt that King "forced his sexuality on him." You can’t have it both ways. Either it was a murder based on hate or it wasn’t. Whether or not King "invited" it is a different issue entirely.

As for the "forcing" issue, this is one of the most obtuse arguments a person can make. I mean that thusly:
We do not consider a guy flirting with a girl "forcing" their sexuality, yet if this girl happens to be gay, by Austin’s rules, he is indeed forcing his sexuality. One could equally make the same argument for forcing all children go to "traditional" sex education. Any gay children are instantly having straight sexuality being forced upon them. Similar arguments exist for any type of affection, etc. which is viewed as fine when it is a guy and a girl, but "forced" when it is two guys or two girls.

Lastly is the biggest disappointment of all. As a history major, Austin should know, that you cannot reduce crimes of intolerance (of which bullying and hate crimes both fall into) without teaching tolerance. No group in history has stopped "picking on" (also seen as murdering or enslaving in the historical sense) without the oppressors learning tolerance. It is a fallacy to think that you can reduce bullying in schools without teaching tolerance.

The argument about saying that gay people can be happy and "right" is teaching morals of course would go back to my earlier double standard argument. Allow me a moment of intesnse sacrcasm to point out that if you can’t show gay people as happy, please, don’t allow movies that show a person making a mistake and being redeemed, don’t correct children when they make a mistake, don’t share personal aspects of your life with your class, as I am sure, all of these, simply by existing show morality, and we certainly wouldn’t want that.

-Rick Raven