copying machine

Letter Ten, July 1995

Wes Writes the Whole Family

July 12, 1995

Dear family members,

Welcome to this week's edition of our family's Point-Counterpoint.

I got a letter from Aunt Priscilla last week, which many of you also received, in which she reiterated that she felt that Tom should not come to the Uncles' Party.

Basically Priscilla has two themes for why Tom shouldn't be at the Uncles' Party: (1) homosexuality and (2) AIDS.

Priscilla had written me on June 13, 1993, and February 10, 1994, with her concerns about homosexuality. It took me quite a while, but I wrote a long letter back on December 18, 1994. Then I did not hear from Priscilla until she called last month and stated that she felt Tom shouldn't come to the Uncles' Party. This came as quite a surprise, as I'd assumed I'd addressed all her concerns about homosexuality. I am attaching my December 18 letter to her as it should resolve most misrepresentations about homosexuals.

Priscilla and I haven't discussed the AIDS issue before (other than research funding), so it also surprised me that -- out of the blue -- she raised some fears of transmission. I am happy to address the situations mentioned in her letter, though, as there is no risk of transmission from casual contact.

In her letter, Priscilla wrote that she had "...called everyone in my family to ask their opinion..." Since her AIDS concerns seem particularly directed toward our younger family members, I need to include my generation -- which has all the grand babies -- in this discussion. In addition to this letter, (and the one answering Priscilla's questions on homosexuals) I will try to bring these people up to date on both sides of these issues by including Priscilla & I's recent correspondence: My June 5, 1995, letter making my case for Tom being included and Priscilla's June 29, 1995 response.

Because Priscilla's letter included a great deal of incorrect information, I still believe her position is based on unintentional fear and misunderstanding, which I'll get into later. Despite my belief, though, I don't think this letter will change her mind. So, let's get down to the nitty gritty of working out the details so that all of us can have a good time when we see each other.

The party

Saturday, August 12th, is the annual family reunion at DeeAnne's. From Priscilla's letter, it sounds like Tom and I wouldn't both be welcome, so I won't bother going: I think it would be insulting to our relationship if I were to go without Tom.

I've also heard that some might feel more comfortable if our Sunday gathering weren't called an "Uncles' Party." If that makes others more comfortable, it's fine with me.

That leaves us with a family gathering -- whether we call it an Uncles' Party or not -- at Susan and Dan's on Sunday, August 13th. Having changed the structure around, it also means that Priscilla and I are in almost full agreement about the party. The one difference is that she maintains that it is not appropriate to have children present, and I maintain that we pose absolutely no threat to children. We'll both have to leave it up to each individual parent to decide for him/herself whether or not to bring the kids.

The issue isn't whether or not Tom comes, it is whether the family feels comfortable with him coming. I am sure you will after reading this letter.

Children

In her last letter, Priscilla stated some strongly opinionated concerns about children being at the party. That would be okay -- except that she took it to the point of bearing false witness [Exodus 20:16] against Tom and I by lumping us with child molesters and implying we could infect children at the party. As a Christian, my response must be to turn the other cheek [Matthew 5:39] and ignore the inflammatory rhetoric. So, I'd like to use the rest of this letter to explain my position and address the underlying concerns as I understand them.

A prime problem Priscilla and I have in resolving our differences is that we are both sure we "know" the truth. In my case, it is based on being gay and having hundreds of gay friends. In her case, her information comes from people opposed to homosexuality (the OCA, the Christian Coalition, etc.) and also from some research she has done. I believe she has done this research. From what she writes, however, I can state unequivocally that her research results do not represent the views of most gay people as she thinks they do. When she thinks of me, she automatically lumps me with "the homosexual agenda" that she's heard about. (I think we've all heard what it supposedly is. If not, take a look at page two of her June 29th letter.) It doesn't matter that I have nothing to do with any of the things she hears about -- and I've told her I don't. Priscilla can not see me as an individual. This is unfortunate. But it won't change as long as we have the OCA and other groups providing a constant barrage of wrong information. As a result, all we can do is agree to disagree.

One of the big concerns Priscilla intimated was about the existence of NAMBLA and other implications that gays want to recruit children. I previously wrote Priscilla that NAMBLA represents hardly any homosexuals (see page 10 of the December 18 letter) -- it is a tiny splinter group. So that there is absolutely no misunderstanding, I'd like to clearly state that Tom and I are not NAMBLA members, have nothing to do with NAMBLA, and therefore it is irrelevant to this party.

I should also point out a pediatric medical study that was included on page 10 of my December letter:

"Homosexuals no threat"

CHICAGO - A study of sexually abused children found that they were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people, the American Academy of Pediatrics says. The study, published in the July 1994 issue of "Pediatrics", explored the assertion that gays and lesbians are at particular risk of sexually molesting children. This was one of the justifications presented for strong anti-gay legislation placed on ballots in several States in 1992.

Of 249 cases of child abuse studied, only two offenders were identified as gay or lesbian. In this sample, a child's risk of being molested by the heterosexual partner of a relative is more than 100 times greater than by somebody who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.

'As public policy may hinge on the potential risk homosexual individuals pose to children, the issue must be addressed', said the researchers from the University of Colorado, Denver's Children's Hospital, the Kempe Children's Center and the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine. The researchers concluded: 'There is no support for the claim to this effect by groups advocating legislation limiting rights of homosexuals.'"

I can't defend every single homosexual nor every group of homosexuals. I can, however, point out what should be obvious: Anything that sounds really far out is not common. To give some "straight" examples: Would it be wise to assume that what I could read in Hustler is really what heterosexuality is all about? Or that all heterosexuals in their 20's necessarily hold the same beliefs as the skinheads in Idaho's White Aryan Resistance? Or if one church member is a crook, does that mean the entire congregation are crooks? The examples here could be endless, and hopefully point out how absurd it is to believe the broad-brushed stereotyping of gays as child molesters.

I regularly encounter intolerance based on my homosexuality. Sometimes the person is not even aware of that intolerance, or the twisted logic that ties unrelated things together. A good case in point is from Priscilla's June 29th letter: "We all know that just the slightest amount of fecal material is deadly so why in the world am I expected to put Tom before any of my grandchildren..." How is Tom's presence somehow related to exposing grandchildren to fecal material? It's not. If it were, wouldn't there be the same objection to having me there?

AIDS

I think we all know that the real issue here isn't about transmission of AIDS, it's about homosexuality. If Priscilla's objections really were about AIDS transmission, she would be as concerned about me being near the kids as she is Tom. I think it telling that today would be Grandma Helga's birthday. She knew full well about both my health and of my relationship status with Tom -- and had no concerns about me being around her in the frailest of health.

Nonetheless, since Priscilla voiced concern about the possible transmission of AIDS, let's talk about it.

There is no risk for anyone at the party. Let me quote from Dr. C. Everett Koop's "SURGEON GENERAL'S REPORT ON ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME," which includes a section titled "No Risk from Casual Contact:"
"There is no known risk of non-sexual infection in most of the situations we encounter in our daily lives. We know that family members living with individuals who have the AIDS virus do not become infected except through sexual contact. There is no evidence of transmission (spread) of AIDS virus by everyday contact even though these family members shared food, towels, cups, razors, even toothbrushes and kissed each other."

To reiterate, there is no risk from casual contact. And, neither Tom nor I have any of the other diseases Priscilla listed. Nonetheless, to address those irrational fears that we don't control well, Susan has suggested that we use separate facilities and that we all use paper plates and cups.

"Also the new oral saliva swab test they now do for the HIV antibodies indicates that perhaps this virus can be spread more easily than first thought."

First off, please re-read the section above: Even people with close, daily contact --including razors and toothbrushes -- do not get AIDS.

Now let's talk about the saliva test. Scientists have known for years that HIV can be present in saliva. So, it's no surprise that there's now an oral saliva swab test that can detect the presence of HIV. It can be found in saliva but can't be transmitted. To imply that maybe the virus can spread through saliva ignores science:

"...I feel that it would imply that we accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle and I am not willing to say or imply to any of my children or any other children that it is anything other than a destructive and deadly lifestyle. I would rather be wrong on the side of the children..."

Again we're mixing facts here. "Destructive and deadly" is used as if to be gay means that you will get AIDS and die. This conveniently ignores that 70% of AIDS cases worldwide are heterosexual. In my case, I had to have been exposed to HIV during my college years of 1981-1984, during the period before much was known about HIV. Being gay is not destructive and deadly -- not having information is.

Judgment

Priscilla's letter also stated that "... the Uncles' Party was not the place or time to introduce Tom to the family as there would be small and young children present." This has already been addressed: I mentioned in my last letter that I felt Priscilla was concerned that young children at the party might see something inappropriate. I also explained in detail that both Tom and I know what proper behavior is for differing situations.

Another concern that Priscilla voiced is that Tom and I have an unhealthy relationship: "No matter how much you want to insist that yours and Tom's relationship is wonderful, normal and loving, in my opinion it is an unhealthy relationship and is not something I wish to expose my grandchildren, the other young children or even myself to." I need to point her in the direction of Deuteronomy 1:17 -- "Judgment is God's" -- and Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."

When Aunt Priscilla first called, she mentioned that Leslie does not let her children attend AIDS education classes because she doesn't want them to know that homosexuals exist. From this, I can only assume that what Priscilla means when she uses "expose," above, is that she doesn't want any children to know that homosexuals exist. I would guess that this desire stems from the unanswered question of whether homosexuality is something people are born with or whether it's a choice. There is evidence for either case. The bulk of the evidence seems to indicate that it is actually some combination of both. Regardless, our kids are going to know homosexuals exist sooner or later.

Priscilla also raises an "approval" issue: "Everyone was totally aware that the majority of our family does not approve of homosexuality but that didn't count, you wanted to force the issue." and "By allowing Tom to attend the family functions I feel that it would imply that we accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle..."

I hope that it's now apparent that I am not the one forcing an issue, and also that I am not asking for "approval." I am simply bringing my life partner to a family function and want him to be treated with the same accord we grant other partners. Given that Tom and I have high standards of conduct, what is the real issue here? It is that Priscilla disapproves of one aspect of my life As Jesus says in John 8:7 "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." If our family didn't live by this principle, we'd never get together, would we? Would it be right for anyone to suggest that:

It's up to you individually and as a group to decide if this kind of judgmentalism is Christian and has any place in our family. My opinion is that by excluding Tom from our family gathering, we would not be demonstrating Christian love: Jesus' golden rule was to love thy neighbor as thyself.

I hope this letter addresses any and all concerns you may have -- I'd like to see all of you. If any concerns remain, please call me -- or include them in next week's Point-Counterpoint.

Love,

Li'l Wes

UPDATE: I didn't get to start the experimental drug after all: Glaxo-Wellcome couldn't keep up with the demand, so -- just as I qualified -- they tightened the criteria further. But, don't worry. Married life has agreed with me, so I still look pretty darn healthy & won't scare anybody!

Previous letter | Next letter
Letter index | Cast of characters | Family tree
Wes & Tom's Cool Site
Guestbook!

© 1996-2023 by Wes