QUICK LINKS
Faith Groups Take Stand on Homosexuality
We wanted to make you aware of an article recently released from Focus on the Family that we felt was very important for you to read.
11-16-2006
Faith Groups Take Stands on Homosexuality
from staff reports
Christian leaders are rejecting the gay agenda.
Catholic bishops, a state convention of Baptists and the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) recently took steps to affirm that homosexual behavior and Christianity are incompatible.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told its members that scriptural teaching is clear regarding the issue of homosexuality. C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League, said it left no doubt where the church stands.
"Homosexual behavior is objectively sinful," he said. "Homosexual orientation is disordered, and same-sex marriage and civil unions are morally impermissible."
The bishops also declared that gay adoption is wrong, although children living in same-sex households may be baptized if there is an intention to bring them up Catholic.
Norman Jameson, president of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, said the organization will expel any church that affirms homosexuality.
"A church will be considered not to be in friendly cooperation if it acts to affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless homosexual behavior," he told Family News in Focus.
In North Carolina, the PCUSA put a minister on trial for conducting a gay wedding. The charges were dismissed on a technicality.
But Joe Dallas of Genesis Counseling said it's part of a growing tendency for churches to push back against the pressure applied by homosexual activists.
"These are encouraging development," he said. "They do show that Christian leadership, both Protestant and Catholic, is taking biblical standards seriously and literally."
Source: Focus on the Family: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003073.cfm
_________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to receive these blogs in your email inbox.
76 Comments:
Awesome! Way to push back on those gays and their children! Strip them of legal benefits and protections until they find God!
So, when are we gonna start condemning divorced couples and punishing their children? Remember, divorce is a sin, too. Seems we're focusing too much on homosexuality.
So what anon 3:12 suggest is that we should embrace the sin as we have done with divorce? Thats is great logic. Look at all the wonderful things divorce has done for families and our culture. Give me a break. Love and acceptance are two different things.
But why not fight against those other sins related to marriage? Even a little? We don't see the churchs and the Christians doing 1% of the effort to work against divorce, infidelity, or abuse in marriages as they do against homosexuality. It's a pretty weak double standard and it comes off looking very bad.
Hhhmm 3:34 that's not how I see it. I see Christians also speaking against divorce, infidelity and abuse calling all sin. Sin is called sin because it is harmful and you are correct in identifying the above wrongs.
I see churches providing marriage classes, parenting classes, etc.
Understand - ALL sins are forgivable by God - except that which is against the Holy Spirit once one has "tasted" his reality and then denied or turned away from him.
It is the continual practice of sin that makes a difference. Even if a person divorces (example) several times (as horrible as that is), IF that person humbly and in truth asks the Lord to forgive him/her God does know their heart and will forgive if they have accepted his gift of life through Jesus sacrifice. He will not be foolded, though! God then sees each redeemed sinner through the grid, if you will, of Jesus payment in our stead.
Maybe from our human point of view, we see a person as just as much a sinner as any other sinner. From God's point of view, he sees that person through Jesus. Can you see the difference? Who are we to judge God's plan!
A person who after being "saved" continues to sin in any way and doesn't come to the Lord for forgiveness will lose fellowship with the Lord but not their salvation.
Sex sin, the Bible says, is particularly grievous and so is mentioned many times that we should avoid any HINT of such.
For gay/lesbian/etc. to get so bent out of shape about the Christian response (as well as other religions who also may be against the practice) is because they do not want to accept that it is sin or that God is against it.
A common thing that I hear is that they "love" the other person. This is a bastardization of love, folks. What it really is, is lust. These people really do not understand love that should be connected with marriage. Oh, yes, many heterosexual's also marry for the wrong reasons many times. That does not make the marriage wrong. See, it is the perversion of the physical union by "gays" that makes it against what God designed.
May I add, when you look at most of the "celebrations" of "gay pride", are they not very orgy like? Are not the activities lustful, indulgent, in-your-face flamboyant, rude, arrogant, etc.?
Try as they might, they just cannot change this fact. That many churches have "endorsed" the proclivity is wrong and those churches are trying to bend the rules so to speak. Just because they say it is ok, does not mean God does!
I have said many times, it is perfectly alright for two males (or two females) to have a very strong FRIENDSHIP with a person of the same sex. This has happened and is wonderful to behold. The problem comes when they want to include SEX in the relationship. Got that folks? They can look good, smell good and talk good; but, it just is not right.
The thing is, the Bible does speak of where humans will insist on practicing this to the point where God gives them over to this perversion and lets them go ahead. Some may take that as God's approval. This is not so! God does let us go our own way in spite of what he wants. It is OUR choice.
With this constant insistance of so called studies etc. that say this proclivity is ok; these so called studies are flawed and have been denounces as such. To continue to speak these lies of acceptance is to be totally deceived. To foist them on general public as "gospel" is also a grosse sin! Think on that. It is one thing to do so "innocently"; but when one does not check our the truth, they are going to be held accountable by God - one day. Best to seek help while you can!
It seems that many people continue to mix church and state. The church needs to be responsible for people's salvation, and since the "church" is the people believing in Jesus, they need to reach out to all people to help heal the hurts.
The nation should have no say in persons' feelings, but should "provide for the common defense and Promote the general welfare" by promoting the most stable type of relationships for the good of both the current and the next generation and therefore, the country in general. That of course is well documented to be the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
All other arguments are just "rabbit" trails to get people off the subject and attack, attack, attack when off on the rabbit trail.
Gee Gary, more gay-bashing for cash, how pathetically predictable.
-JC
To JC:
Even if someone has a different opinion or belief they are a hater. Pathetic. Thanks for your input you speech Nazi!
It is interesting that there are many in churches that really do NOT believe in Jesus! I have known some personally! So, to simply say "since the "church" is the people believing in Jesus", is not quite accurate. They may be seekers or they may just like the company (that is what the ones I know like).
For gays to keep harping on the "church and state" separation issue as if this will eliminate any "anit-gay" activity is still not going to fly as those who see this as an aboration from what is "normal" may or may not be "Christians" or people of faith! Just people who in their inner being do not think this is right. The Bible even speaks of people like that! It says, they have "the laws" within them even though they are not under the law. They know right from wrong without having a "religious" affiliation!
If you notice the ones who have the big chip on their shoulder and persist in calling everything "gay-bashing" are like a broken record. They refuse to consider what is truth. Even Jesus ran into those who questioned "truth" and refused to recognize the claims he made about himself as being the "way, truth and the life". So they sought to KILL him! And kill him they did. BUT, God had other plans and resurrected him from the dead that whosoever believed on him would have eternal life.
How many of the major religious leaders or "founders" are still in their graves???!!! ALL, except Jesus! The Bible testifies of the agony the "believers" experienced at the empty tomb.
JC, Have you really thought to yourself why you refuse to think of the possibility that "gay" practices are wrong? Is it because you like it and therefore do not (will not) give it up no matter what anybody says? (rebellion)
We could turn the tables and consider you straight bashing! This because, there is no way you will be able to convince most Christians in particular, that the gay practices are viable.
To get the laws to "protect" gays is to thumb your nose at heterosexual relating. To see heterosexuals squirm and "hurt" - just as you consider you hurt from being rejected in many ways. Rebellion again. There is freedom for you if you want it.
Straight bashing is right on the money! Yet we do not scream it loud enough.
To get the laws to "protect" gays is to thumb your nose at heterosexual relating. To see heterosexuals squirm and "hurt" - just as you consider you hurt from being rejected in many ways. Rebellion again. There is freedom for you if you want it.
Lets substituted "blacks' for gays and "whites" for heterosexuals and see how that reads..
You seem to be saying you think that gays and straights can't exists in the same world - considering they have since the dawn of time what do you base this silly notion on?
to the spirit of oshtur,
Equating "blacks" as the same as "gays" is like comparing the proverbal apples and oranges. We have gone over this many times before. Blacks ARE by genetics, black. This is not of and in itself "evil". There is no question about it. They can and do marry "whites" (Asian, Caucasian, any other human beings. They are perfectly compatible with any "race".
The prejudice came from many people taking the statements in the Bible that Ham would be a slave (servant) to his brothers. This was not a dictum, but an revealing of human history before it happened! Noah only spoke. He did not make a decision; but the Holy Spirit spoke through him what would turn out to be quite true for Ham's decendents in human history.
This was not to say ALL blacks are slaves or "servents".
The propensity to the homosexual practices crosses over all races. The reasons for these practices vary from person to person; but they are NOT genetic.
The closest thing to "genetics" regarding homosexuality is: let me give you an illustration from horticulture that can be applied to humans also: there are three entities that need to be present to cause a disease in a plant - 1) a host, 2) a pathogen, 3) environment. Any one or two of these elements by themselves will not cause a disease. It is only when the three converge that there MAY be a disease.
In human sexuality for homosexual tendencies to happen there needs to be three elements:
1) a host (human)particularly a human with a sensitive nature;
2) a pathogen (sexual desire in its emerging from its first discovery - which usually is pleasure, comfort, FEELINGS although for some it is the first steps of pain in the sexual area - the same could be said for the feeding or food relating of infancy)
3) the environment (this is where there are MANY variables.
That is why for one to be able to come to grips as to why they are on the homosexual path, they need to find the base of their particular situation. since that is very painful and we do want to avoid pain, it is not one most people want to confront so it is just easier to take the option of "we will just call it genetics".
You ask if, "gays and straights exist in the same world". The fact that most "gays" will not deal properly with this orientation means "gays" and straights will exist in the same world. The sticky wicket is, how.
To give "gays" special (and it is special) "rights" under law is what would give sanction to this proclivity. That is what "gays" want, is to be recognized as viable in this practice.
Since it is a "disease" as described above, it needs to be addressed in a way that heals rather than just let this practice continue unchecked. If you look at cancer or any other physical ailment, it must be dealt with to help heal the patient. If left unchecked, if it is serious enough, leads to death (physical death).
Oh, I know there is the "reports" that the AMA etc. do not consider homosexuality a "disease". That was achieved by the gay activist's pressure on the AMA etc. So much goes on in these official organizations that is political in nature that one must be very careful to know what to believe is true and what is not. You notice that after a time, many "experts" change their tune as to what is "true" and what is not. A recent example is our beloved "planet" Pluto!
Anonymous idiot, where have I called anyone a hater? Learn to read.
-JC
Anonymous coward @11/17 7:16 PM,
Yes, I have considered the possibility, and found it to be lacking in evidence.
As for your 'straight-bashing', where have I said anything negative about straight people? Where have I condemned straight people? Simply holding an opinion different from your own does not constitute bashing, it is the negativity, sterotyping and outright attempts to promote discrimination that constitute the bashing FFN is doing re: gays
-JC
334Anonymous
You make a good point . Reminds me a little of Buthc Cassidy and the Sundance Kid when Butch screams out "whats the matter with those guys . the cops were only on their trail and let the others go .
So mucg attention is given to homosexuality . One point is that I believe homosexuality in outr culture was seen as quite part of a greater disorder say 50 years ago . So the stigma is worse , also divore having one time having a stigma , not as bad never had people actually marching in parades and shouting it is a good thing . Perhaps more fair laws dealing with custody and such , but never actually promoting a belief it is a good thing . I think that is why it is so controversal , now we have organizations we once considered good , like the Boy Scouts being shown the back door , and gay groups promoting right and wrong beeing based on a tolerance philospy that actually shows intolerance to traditional beliefs .
Also I just read a voters guide from a liberal church . Interesting how the topics and questions all lead to the democrat .. Just like the conservative guides do .
So the church and state thing only bothers the left from what I see on this blog because the numbers are greater and growing on the right , or the practice of churches getting involved ...
I noticed when the NAACP got in trouble for crossing the line into politics , the left was quiet , and actually came to the aid ...
Church and state is a straw man issue , liberal Christians with a belief system that Bible is a pick and choose book tend to vote democratic , interestingly liberal Judges believe in the Constitution as being a living document , Hence it speaks to freedoms , hence women have a freedom to abortion ..
and conservative Christians with a belief its the word of God and I,m sticking to it tend to vote for Republican and support Judges who see the Constitition as a document that means what it says only . So it never speaks to abortion , hence it is something you have to vote on .
would be interested in what I said made any sense to you .
RIGHT JC !
I FIND IT QUITE SHALLOW FOR ANYONE TO CONSIDER YOU SHALLOW .. THOSE TWITS
jc, to answer your 11:26 question, read your own 6:04 answer.
7:16 anonymous, stating that the "church" is the people believing in Jesus is correct, by the definition of church being the body of Christ, which is made up of all believers in Christ. They can belong to any Christian denomination, and probably are not everyone who goes to any single building in this country, because like you stated, the people who enter the building may be seekers or non-believers just looking to see what everyone is doing, or they just feel more comfortable there. I am not talking about those people, I am talking about the body of Christ.
And the leftists have turned the separation of church and state around. They think if means to make the state an atheist state, taking care of the spiritual (by handing out drugs or counseling) and physical (handing out cash) needs of the people of the nation. That is not the definition of separation of church and state. In the OT, the church was responsible for the poor and for the spiritually distressed. The government was set up to provide the defense.
to the spirit of oshtur,
Equating "blacks" as the same as "gays" is like comparing the proverbal apples and oranges. We have gone over this many times before. Blacks ARE by genetics, black.
A silly notion considering many calling themselves 'black' actually have multiple genetic histories, many who call themselves black are primarily caucasian. For many what race they are is a personal decision or one made for them by the state, its not 'genetic'
And you missed the point - it wasn't relating to marriage it was showing how you say one group asking for equality is 'thumbing' its nose at the group with special rights, but another that asked for the same kind of equality is not.
And your fantasy cause of homosexuality ignores all the empirical data and just plain common sense that contradicts it. The complete genetic maps that make an individual sexually attracted to men is in each and every human being, male and female. Further as we know from animal studies many of the traits that make an individual attracted to females are on the non-sexed chromosomes, i.e. these are in every male and female.
Just simple logic and a basic understanding of biology will lead you to the hypothesis that these any combination of these pathways could be active in either a male or a female which would mean that some people are by biological design going to be inclined to be attracted to their own gender. And the more we learn the more we find that this simple intuitively obvious hypothesis is supported at every turn.
There is no indication that anyone's sexual orientation is a 'disease'. If you have a single empirical bit of data that shows that, please present it - if you can't then please stop making things up.
Only allowing some married couples to license the civil contract of marriage makes them a group with 'special rights' rather obviously. Asking for equal access to government is not asking for a 'special right'.
"empirical" is another very OVERUSED word! "Gay" used to be a word peopple enjoyed using to describe a happy feeling or event. Today, if you said an event was gay, one would ALWAYS think homosexual sex! What has happened to our language???!!! It has been abused! "Queer" worked then and even now it is used by those in the "gay" "society" about themselves! It is descriptive of a proclivity.
Ok, you put 26 males (or females), homosexual or heterosexual, on a deserted island come back in say, 50 years. What would you have????
At the same time, put 12 males and 12 females on another deserted island and come back in 50 years. What would you have????
Of course, "black" has been "mixed" in the human society and so could be considered, caucasian if you want. They are still human and reproducing as such! That "someone" "chooses" to designate "black" or "other" because of a preference does NOT deny they do have "black" genes.
If it were only so simple that (genetics) would make a male "sexually attracted to men". You keep hanging onto this notion and it is FALSE! You want it to be true and will insist that there is viable research that proves it so and that is just not true.
"Animals" are NOT human so cannot be equated as the same identical characteristics. The Bible says God made humans, animals, birds, fish all of different "flesh". He took the same basic ingredients and made them into their own kind.
Just look up "disease" in the dictonary. The fact that same sex sexual relating is not normal makes it a "dis-ease". Even in the field of electrical components there are "male" and "female" connections. Any other variation to make an electrical connection is a aboration - not normal.
Please, don't give all this "stuffy" intellectual blatherings to try to complicate the basic elements.
If you want to believe what you believe, so be it. Just quit trying to convince heterosexual people that they are wrong.
Anonymous , 'empirical' can't be an over used word because truth is perceived by examining empirical facts.
And you also lack knowledge about how long the word 'gay' has been used as slang for someone who is homosexual. Most likely the word has 'meant' that since before you were born since it was in common usage in the 1930's and was even used in a mainstream Cary Grant movie, "Bringing up Baby" in that context.
And the notion that everyone has to reproduce is silly. 14% of American adults don't pass on their genes for one reason or another so yet once again you are complaining about a quality that many times more heterosexuals have than homosexuals. This also addresses your allusion that somehow a married couple must reproduce or even be capable of reproduction to be married. Again, many married couples that can't reproduce are license the civil contract of marriage, you can't ethically bring this up as a reason to deny license to some married couples and not others.
And animals most certainly can be used to illustrate patterns of genetics - as you know with your advanced degree humans are 98.3% genetically identical to chimpanzees. Many genes are present in all mammals in at the same loci with the same function.
And using a dictionary to try and define 'disease' as not normal. Really, that means red-hair, left-handedness, being short, being tall, being thin, being fat and any other quality is a 'disease'. Few people are 'normal' in every quality.
And 'stuffy intellectual blathering"?! First you whine because you think your intelligence has been insulted and then you whine because the discussion is too intellectual (how is that even possible?!). Come on Anonymous, make up your mind!
Where ever did you get the notion that someone was trying to convince heterosexuals they were 'wrong'? Of course they aren't wrong - they are part of creation just like homosexuals, just like right handed people and south paws, just like people with brown skin and people with pink. Variation is part of the wonder of creation, something has to be more that that to be a 'disease' or 'wrong'.
The issues under discussion are:
Do you acknowledge the right of Christians to have different views on Biblical topics, ones that may not agree with your particular sects?
Do you acknowledge the right of American citizens to practice their own beliefs?
Do you acknowledge that the American government was created to serve all the citizens and that all citizens should have equal access to government?
Anonymous coward,
My 6:04 post doesn't call anyone a hater. I merely point out that Gary & FFN are once again attacking homosexuals to scare up some cash from rube like yourself. No hate necessary. In fact, I seriously doubt Gary believes all this anti-gay propaganda he posts, its merely the way he makes a living. I'm sure it beats the hell out of having to actually work for a living.
-JC
Back to Gary's post, who cares? If those groups want to continue to preach their prejudicial beliefs, good for them. It will continue to divide their denominations as more and more realize they inaccuracy of their positions.
The affect is similar to the affect that contraception has had on the Catholic church. The more absolute the stand, the more people drift away leaving just a small group remaining.
Yes, "wide is the gate and broad the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate, and narrow is the road that leads to life..." It doesn't seem wise to those with a short time line to take an absolutist stand. But when an eternal timeline comes into focus, the narrow path seems like a much wiser choice.
JC, I really don't think Gary is financially motivated - he really is terrified of gays, that they are a pernicious vice that left unchecked would corrupt the entire society, maybe even leading to there no children being born at all!!!
But we know where traditionally these sort of feelings come from and the sort of people who have them don't we? The NHSLS survey found that although 2.7% of adult men self-identify as 'gay' 3.0% still are having sex with men, and another 4.4% have desired it though didn't admit to doing anything about it.
Pastor Haggard was in the 3.0%, and lots of men homophobically obsessed with gays are in there or in the 4.4% They are living in a world where the threat they might 'turn gay' seems very real to them and accepting gays is accepting temptation as far as they're concerned and it scares the willies out of them. And as we know from Yoda - fear leads to hate and from there to the Dark Side™ - a kid's entertainment but nevertheless so often true.
As Americans we are more than a bit sexually repressed and don't really talk about sex with others in detail. Because of that these guys who are really less than 1 out of 10 of the male population don't realize that they are unlike 90% of men. Most men have NO same sex attraction - they aren't tempted, they don't pair-bond, they aren't curious, they really would rather not waste time thinking about it at all.
And it is this intellectual disconnect that makes these discussions so often turn in to races around a mulberry bush. The tempted viscerally KNOW how dangerous the temptation of gay sex is (remember when Dr. Paul Cameron told Rolling Stone magazine that the danger of gay sex is it was so much better than straight sex?), and 90% of their male audience don't find it such at all. How do you convince the unconvinceable? Cloak it in terms of an unquestionable absolute authority, a divine fiat, a missive from God.
Yes, religion is like a beacon to these poor pathetic souls because they think they can just 'order' homosexuality away with the power of the pulpit, a blog, or some political organization dedicated to it. And because their temptation really is from within and not without nothing they do is every 'enough' to make them feel safe. So no rational argument can convince them and they can not actually take the risk of self-examination because then they might have to accept themselves for who they really are - most definitely not an acceptable solution. So it ends up in a stalemate.
Of course I don't know what demons are haunting the space between Gary's ears so who knows - but when you find someone who's figurative eyes go blank and ears go deaf to rational discussion, and are negatively obsessed with a tiny fraction of the population that has been around literally forever it does make anyone with experience in the area wonder...
Just like most gays. Instead of answering to a factual comment, they focus back on the main driving force of their life.
Anonymous, every fact available has been presented here - they are ignored, dismissed without rebuttal with the equivalent of a petulant foot-stomp and cry of "That's just not true!". When that happens enough times the person doing it really is very likely the problem not the facts.
This isn't something new - I've discussed this issue for literally 20 years online and the ones totally obsessed with the subject are usually men, their concern is almost exclusively about male homosexuals, and they are resistant to every logical argument. They arrive with the answer they want to reach and no amount of facts or number of times they are shown to be repeating misrepresentations or outright lies will sway them from their predetermined answer they want - when proven wrong they just run off and find new lies, or disappear for a bit and resurface telling the same old ones again.
You see a rational person if shown they are wrong in their facts will question their assumption, but some people aren't rational and there are reasons for this, one very common one with this subject being the one mentioned above. Haggard wasn't the first prominent religious figure who turns out to be at the very least bisexual and hating themselves and everyone else they see as tempting them.
So Anonymous, with your 'way more' degree what 'factual comment' do you think hasn't been answered in depth and detail and those answers just ignored? What exactly is the reason for Gary's obsession with gays? Does he think that unchecked they will multiply? That if unpersecuted they will take over? That he has the right to force his personal intolerance of them on the entire society?
Please if Gary isn't the problem what are the 'facts'? What is the valid rationalization for justifying discrimination, intolerance, and persecution of other law-abiding citizens and neighbors?
OV,
Nothing more to add - your words are from the throne of God.
Thanks!
In Christ,
Human
Ov you are silly. There are so many anonymous comments on here and you can't tell the difference between them. I can.
And, you say it is mostly men who object to homosexuality. Wrong--I am a woman and there are plenty of other women on here.
Vishanti, what you don't seem to get is that your dubious "facts" are meaningless to many. I am interested in them only to understand where you are coming from. There is no way you are going to "change" me or many others on here. I assume that is why you spend so much time on here. It is not going to happen.
That is why you can't understand the bible. You can't comprehend what makes most of us different from you, and it is that difference that keeps you from understanding. (no I am not talking about homo vs. hetero--that has nothing to do with this difference)
Isn't the definition of insanity "keep doing what you've been doing but hoping for a different result"?
I can not imagine spending all the time you do on here (and others sites from what you've said). That would not be a very happy life for me--I can't see how it would create a happy and balanced life for anyone. It seems very unhealthy.
Pro-gay activists ignore glaring problems with their claims of a "healthy and norman lifestyle".
The following is available at Missionamerica.com (a site founded by a woman) and Family Research Council (founded by a man. There is much, much more from a variety of sites and I thank the pro-gay activists because they caused me to start seaking data. Their behavior on this site is very alarming and just another indicator that their "lifestyle" and its "fruit" (or more acurately lack of fruit) is nothing like that of a heterosexual and is cause for concern especially in protecting children from indoctrination.
Many homosexuals know they are suffering yet the gay-activists insist their choice of behavior is happy and healthy and normal. It is not. And it is not because of external forces such as societal disapproval.
Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS):[32] The Journal of the American Medical Association refers to GBS problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis as "sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes."[33] Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause gbs are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system: According to the pro-homosexual text Anal Pleasure and Health, "[s]exual activities provide many opportunities for tiny amounts of contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of a sexual partner . . . The most direct route is oral-anal contact."
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:
· The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]
· A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred,
It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships.
Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
· Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer."[49]
· At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV "was raised 37-fold compared with the general population."[50]
Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
· Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer."[49]
· At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV "was raised 37-fold compared with the general population."[50]
Unhealthy Aspects of "Monogamous" Homosexual Relationships. Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.
· The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner.[15] Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
· The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[16]
Hollywood and the media relentlessly propagate the image of the fit, healthy, and well-adjusted homosexual. The reality is at polar opposites to this caricature: homosexual and lesbian relationships are typically characterized by instability, promiscuity, and unhealthy and risky sex practices, factors that greatly increase the incidence of serious and incurable sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including hepatitis, HPV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and AIDS.
Anonymous, you should drop that MissionAmerica.org site because now both examples have been propoganda pieces, poorly written ones.
"Gay Bowel Syndrome" was a term coined in the pre-AIDS for what some physicians were seeing in the heart of the most promiscuous gay ghettos. YES, highly promiscuous gay men get rectal and colon infections from other highly promiscuous gay men. That, of course, says nothing about gay men who aren't, and very little about present day even among them - what with safer sex concerns the media gets excited when there are a handful of cases of any STD, let alone any GBS.
Domestic violence - the only statistic mentioned doesn't include gay married couples so no reasonable person would draw any conclusion. If you actually would go look up the data yourself you would find that lesbian couples have less violence than unmarried heterosexual couples, and gay men have only slightly more (its a tesostrogen thing). What these propaganda sites latch onto is that some abuse activists consider saying harsh words to your spouse as 'abuse' massively inflating their figures. The propaganda site then compares these figures with the more reasonable criteria figures of the USDJ and tries to whip up hysteria when the real situation is only slightly different and again is a reason FOR encouraging all couples, gay or straight, to get married.
Of course there is a higher incidence of anal cancer in gay men - they know why too - its caused by the STD HPV just like over 90% of cervical cancer. The current anal cancer rate in gay men is at the same level it was in women before there were PAP smears. That's why a new part of any gay man's health care is regular smears looking for it. Again, this is a reason to encourage monogamy among gay men and universal vaccination against HPV with the new vaccine - once that happens this rate will decline. Raling against homosexuality will just mean gay men won't get checkups, will be forced in to closeted promiscuous sex, and increase the problem not abate it. And even though the rates are higher they are still a small minority of all gay men. Note this has absolutely nothing to do with gay women.
And the ideal that monogamous sex, whatever the act, will transmit any disease indicates an incredible lack of understanding of basic epidemiology: you can't catch a disease from someone if they don't have it. So yes, people in committed relationships have more sex - that's true of heterosexual married couples too. And 2 monogamous gay married people have little more need to practice 'safe sex' than a heterosexual married couple - if neither person in a monogamous relationship has an STD neither can catch it from the other.
And look at the data you yourself submitted: every single negative quality you examined involves a tiny fraction of gay people. As I've referenced before fundamentalist homes are one of the prime spots for incest - should I leave a note about Christianists "ignore glaring problems with their claims of a "healthy and mormal lifestyle"? Would think the claim that fundamentalist homes are unsafe environments to raise children a valid concern or just some agenda-driven propaganda as yours seems to be?
to 1:54:
Thank you for reiterating old, inaccurate stereotypes. Other old information includes the fact that many of you serious and incurable list are curable. Check with your Doctor. They can't get rid of that for you. Anti-biotics work better than prayer nowadays.
Too many non-doctors on here seem obsessed with what happens between two people in their own bedrooms. Get over it - you sound like 13 year olds giggling and whispering about sex for the first time.
Anti-gay groups also don't get to quote reports from medical associations unless they also quote the ones they dislike - like the ones that say homosexuality is normal, same-sex marriage is better for children and society, etc. I understand that picking and choosing works when selecting verses from the Bible, but when quoting medical studies, you can't argue for one and then turn around and argue against another study.
Gays and lesbians have been around forever. They haven't caused the end of the world or the downfall of society. They aren't just going to disappear no matter how loudly you promote your Victorian and draconian beliefs.
Ov you are silly. There are so many anonymous comments on here and you can't tell the difference between them. I can.
No need to - as far as I'm concerned Anonymous is one person - you don't like it, then use a handle that lets people know which notes were left by you. Until then you are just Anonymous, a person with some incredible diverse cognitive issues. :)
What you don't seem to get is that your dubious "facts" are meaningless to many. I am interested in them only to understand where you are coming from. There is no way you are going to "change" me or many others on here. I assume that is why you spend so much time on here. It is not going to happen.
But see I'm not on here for "the many" that dismiss hard facts as 'dubious' and 'meaningless'. That you gleefully admit that facts won't change you though does give someone to whom facts are important an interesting data point about you. How can they care much about someone who's opinion doesn't bother with facts?
I can not imagine spending all the time you do on here (and others sites from what you've said). That would not be a very happy life for me--I can't see how it would create a happy and balanced life for anyone. It seems very unhealthy.
Well that's because you think its 'all about you', its not. Your sole purpose here is to say things like 'facts are meaningless' so the lurkers to whom they aren't can see where people like you are coming from. I mean you say "I can't be like you" when every single opinion I've state here is a Christian opinion - maybe not your sect's but they are someone else's. The delusion that its either your Christianity or no Christianity is just that a delusion, an unAmerican delusion, and people can see that once you make it clear.
And presenting truth and correcting lies is very satisfying, the more so in this hotbed of deception and lies. Again, this note isn't to you, the liars and the deceivers, it is for the people who just come and read. The more you talk the more you reveal yourselves for what you are - people with an agenda that don't care about facts, that views them as meaningless, and have already decided they are right and proudly proclaim they will not change their views, facts be damned!
Fortunately people like you don't garner much respect these days when revealed for what they are - I'm here to provoke you into revealing yourself - thanks for doing that. Please keep it up.
How about some non-biased information for a change:
From: Beyond Homophobia
http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/
About Dr. Herek
Gregory Herek, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, where he teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on prejudice, sexual orientation, and survey research methodology.
He has published more than 80 scholarly papers on prejudice against lesbians and gay men, anti-gay violence, AIDS-related stigma, and related topics.
A Fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Association for Psychological Science, he is a past recipient of the APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest. He has testified before Congress on antigay violence and on military personnel policy, and has assisted the APA in preparing amicus briefs for numerous court cases related to sexual orientation.
A weblog about sexual orientation, prejudice, science, and policy by Gregory Herek
October 22, 2006
Why Marriage Equality Is A Public Health Issue (Part 1)
Posted at 3:51 pm in the category: Marriage Equality, Families
When a federal employee dies, the government denies pension benefits to his or her legal spouse under only two circumstances: (1) if the spouse has been convicted of murdering the employee, or (2) if the spouse is of the same sex as the employee.
Consistent with that second criterion, the US government has denied pension benefits to Dean Hara, the husband of former Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA).
Studds, who died October 14 at the age of 69, married Hara in 2004 after their home state legalized marriages between same-sex partners.
Hara’s experience highlights how Americans in committed same-sex relationships — even relationships that are recognized at the state level — are denied equal access to the rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. The US General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving federal benefits, rights, and privileges ranging from Social Security survivors’ benefits to affordable housing programs. State governments grant still more benefits.
The denial of these benefits isn’t only a matter of fairness and justice. It’s also a matter of health.
The health advantages of marriage have been documented in dozens of studies. Happily married men and women are generally more healthy — both physically and psychologically — than their unmarried counterparts. This difference doesn’t result simply from being in a long-term intimate relationship. All other things being equal, heterosexuals in cohabiting couples don’t have the same levels of health and well-being as their married counterparts.
Why are happily married couples generally better off?
One reason is the tangible resources and protections accorded to spouses by society. The federal pension benefit for surviving spouses is a good example. Like other benefits deriving from tax laws, employee benefits, and entitlement programs, it gives married couples greater economic and financial security than the unmarried. Such security contributes to mental and physical health.
Another factor that affects the well-being of married individuals is the greater emotional and social support they receive from their family and friends, compared to the unmarried. Marital relationships differ from nonmarital intimate relationships, in part, by requiring a lifelong commitment that is publicly affirmed, typically in the presence of family members, friends, and civil or religious authorities. Social support and integration are central to the institution of marriage, and the various rituals associated with marriage can be understood as cementing the couple’s ties to the larger community. This public aspect of marriage increases each partner’s sense of security that the relationship will endure, and fosters help from others during hard times.
In addition to their greater financial stability and social support, spouses have special rights and privileges not accorded to other adult, nonbiological relationships. In this way, marriage provides buffers against the psychological stress associated with extremely traumatic life events. For example, a spouse can make health decisions for an incapacitated partner, including decisions about whether to take heroic measures to prolong the partner’s life. Such capabilities can contribute to a sense of mastery or personal control, which is associated with better health among spousal caregivers.
Similarly, a surviving spouse typically receives social support and sympathy from others, can make decisions about funeral and burial arrangements, and has automatic rights to inheritance, death benefits, and bereavement leave. These factors can somewhat mitigate the considerable stress of losing a partner and reduce its negative health consequences.
Married couples’ legal status also enables them to exercise control over other types of stressful situations, or to avoid them entirely. For example:
* A married person facing legal action can nonetheless communicate freely with her or his spouse because the law creates marital privileges against being compelled to testify against one’s wife or husband.
* Under normal circumstances, a noncitizen spouse will not be deported or forced to leave the country, and special considerations given to some noncitizens (e.g., employment status, asylum) may extend to their spouse.
* Because marriage is recognized across state and national borders, husbands and wives know that their relationship and, when applicable, their parental status, will be considered valid outside their home state.
Finally, although they haven’t been well documented in scientific research, marriage offers intangible benefits that extend beyond the material necessities of life. Sociologists have characterized marriage as “a social arrangement that creates for the individual the sort of order in which he can experience his life as making sense” and have suggested that “in our society the role that most frequently provides a strong positive sense of identity, self-worth, and mastery is marriage.”
In summary, marriage bestows many benefits and protectections that have important implications for physical and mental health.
What are the health consequences for same-sex couples of being denied the right to marry? I’ll address this question in a later post.
By the way, in contrast to Dean Hara’s experience, former members of Congress who are serving jail terms for felony convictions remain eligible for federal pension benefits.
October 23, 2006
Marriage Equality & Health (Part 2)
Posted at 5:27 pm in the category: Marriage Equality, Families
In my previous post, I summarized research findings on the health benefits of marriage. The data show that marriage bestows many benefits and protectections with important implications for physical and mental health.
What are the health consequences for same-sex couples of being denied the right to marry?
Empirical data aren’t yet available to directly assess how governmental nonrecognition affects same-sex couples. But it is reasonable to conclude that their differential treatment, vis-ŕ-vis married heterosexuals, creates special challenges and obstacles with ultimately negative consequences for their well-being. Without legal recognition, partners in same-sex couples lack both the practical benefits of marriage and the buffers marriage provides against the psychological and social consequences of traumatic events.
For example, their financial situation is likely to be less stable than that of married couples because they don’t enjoy the many economic protections of marriage in areas such as taxation and property rights. Even when gay and lesbian employees don’t fear dismissal or harassment because of their sexual orientation, they nevertheless receive fewer job-related benefits than their married coworkers. Family leave policies, health insurance, and pension plans, for example, typically include an employee’s spouse but not a same-sex partner. And when benefits such as health insurance coverage are extended to a same-sex partner, they are taxed as income; this is typically not the case for benefits to heterosexual spouses.
Because same-sex couples lack the protections that marriage provides when a spouse dies, they must incur the considerable expense of creating legal protections for the surviving partner through wills, trusts, and contracts for joint ownership of property. And these measures don’t always protect the partner. A will can be contested by the decedent’s biological relatives, for example and, unlike a spouse, the surviving partner is likely to incur a substantial tax burden when taking sole legal possession of a home that the couple jointly owned.
The consequences of having one’s intimate relationship unacknowledged by the law are not only financial. For example, a member of a same-sex couple may be excluded from her or his partner’s medical care. She or he may be denied as basic a right as access to the partner in a hospital setting restricted to “immediate family” members, such as an emergency room or intensive care unit. When a member of a same-sex couple dies, her or his surviving partner may experience a similar negation of their relationship. She or he may not even be able to make funeral arrangements.
Such experiences of what is sometimes called disenfranchised grief may compound the considerable psychological distress experienced by the surviving partner, with potentially long-term mental health consequences.
Examples of other areas in which same-sex couples are disadvantaged relative to married couples include immigration (foreign nationals cannot secure residence or citizenship through their relationship with a US citizen of the same sex) and private communication (members of same-sex couples can be called to testify against their partner in legal proceedings).
As a consequence of these and the many other forms of differential treatment to which they are subjected, same-sex couples are exposed to more stress than married couples, especially when they encounter life’s inevitable difficulties and challenges. Because experiencing stress increases one’s likelihood of mental and physical illness, their lack of legal protection places members of same-sex couples at greater risk for health problems compared to married couples.
But is complete marriage equality necessary to alleviate these disparities? Can’t the problems and inequities experienced by same-sex couples be adequately addressed through arrangements such as civil unions and second-parent adoptions?
I’ll address that question in the final post to this series.
October 24, 2006
Marriage Equality & Health (Conclusion)
Posted at 8:01 pm in the category: Marriage Equality, Families
To summarize my posts of October 22 and October 23, legal recognition of same-sex couples will benefit the partners in a variety of ways. It is likely to increase their financial security and reduce the stress they experience when facing life’s traumatic events. As a consequence, the members of the couple are likely to be physically and psychologically healthier. To the extent that legal recognition enhances the well-being of parents, it will also benefit their children.
But can’t the problems and inequities experienced by same-sex couples be adequately addressed through arrangements other than marriage? Civil unions and second-parent adoptions, it might be argued, could conceivably grant all the rights and privileges now conferred by marriage without actually designating the couple as “married.”
This argument is problematic for at least three reasons.
First, marriage is recognized across borders. By contrast, same-sex couples in civil unions can’t be certain they will be treated as a couple or family outside their home state. If they face a medical emergency when they’re away from home, for example, the consequences can be nightmarish. Their mobility is thus restricted or, if they leave their home state, they are subjected to heightened uncertainty, anxiety, and stress, compared to heterosexual married couples.
It’s true that within the US, this concern about mobility currently affects married same-sex couples from Massachusetts as much as domestic partners from other states. Interstate recognition, however, is likely to come sooner for marriage than for civil unions. This is because the states already have laws on the books dealing with marriage. Thus, they’ll be able to assimilate same-sex spouses to their existing legal structures more easily than domestic partners.
Second, while marriage has profound effects on the lives of spouses, the extent to which civil unions and domestic partnerships have a comparable impact isn’t certain. Many studies have shown that heterosexual cohabiting couples don’t enjoy the same health advantages as their married counterparts. Similarly, although forming a domestic partnership or civil union probably increases a couple’s feelings of love and commitment, those institutions may not confer the same social and psychological benefits as marriage.
We don’t yet have research data to directly address this question. However, the unique status of marriage in US society is evidenced by the very fact that so much controversy surrounds the question of granting marriage rights to same-sex couples, as well as by the desire of so many lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals to marry a same-sex partner. (In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll of sexual minority adults, 74% said they would someday like to legally marry someone of the same sex.)
A third reason why civil unions and domestic partnerships aren’t equivalent to marriage is that these separate-but-ostensibly-equal institutions perpetuate and may even compound the stigma historically associated with homosexuality.
Social science research has shown that same-sex committed relationships don’t differ from heterosexual committed relationships in their essential psychological qualities, their capacity for long-term commitment, and the context they provide for rearing healthy and well-adjusted children. Once these facts are acknowledged, the rationale for according same-sex partners a different legal status from heterosexual spouses must ultimately focus on the former’s sexual orientation.
Indeed, sexual orientation is inherently about relationships, whether they are enduring, transient, or merely desired. The intimate personal connections that people form to meet their deeply felt needs for love, family, and intimacy lie at its heart.
Denying same-sex couples the label of marriage — even if they receive all other rights and privileges conferred on spouses — arguably devalues and delegitimizes those relationships. It conveys a judgment by society that committed intimate relationships with people of the same sex are inferior to heterosexual relationships, and that same-sex partners are less deserving of society’s recognition than heterosexual couples. It perpetuates power differentials whereby heterosexuals have greater access than sexual minorities to the many resources and benefits bestowed by the institution of marriage.
These elements — discrediting, denigration, powerlessness — are the crux of stigma.
Sexual stigma has many negative consequences for sexual minorities, including social ostracism, discrimination, and violence. Because of it, lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals often feel compelled to conceal their sexual orientation, which can have negative effects on their psychological and physical health. This concealment also reinforces sexual prejudice among heterosexuals. As I’ve discussed in previous posts, antigay attitudes are significantly less common among heterosexuals with a close friend or family member who is gay or lesbian.
Thus, by denying same-sex couples the right to marry legally, the State compounds and perpetuates the stigma attached to homosexuality. This stigma has negative consequences for all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, regardless of their relationship status or desire to marry.
I don’t intend to malign civil unions and domestic partnerships, nor do I dispute their value. They represent an important step toward eliminating social inequalities based on sexual orientation and are vastly superior to nonrecognition of same-sex committed relationships. At a purely pragmatic level, more states are likely to enact laws recognizing domestic partnerships or civil unions than to permit marriages between same-sex couples, at least for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, civil unions and domestic partnerships can’t be equated with marriage.
To summarize these three posts on marriage equality and health, marriage bestows many social and psychological benefits and protections on spouses and their children. As a consequence of being denied the right to marry, same-sex couples are more likely than different-sex couples to experience stress and thus are at greater risk for psychological and physical illness. Although data aren’t yet available to directly measure how the government’s nonrecognition affects same-sex couples, it is reasonable to conclude that being denied the right to marry has negative consequences for their well-being and ultimately creates challenges and obstacles to the success of their relationships that are not faced by heterosexual couples.
Thus, marriage equality isn’t simply a moral issue or a justice issue. It’s also a health issue.
Also
----
November 14, 2006
Do Beliefs About Choice Lead To Sexual Prejudice?
Posted at 3:34 pm in the category: Sexual Prejudice
If we could convince Rev. Louis Sheldon that being gay isn’t a choice, would he stop attacking sexual minorities?
In an interview with The Jewish Week, the Christian Right leader recently acknowledged that he’d known about Rev. Ted Haggard’s homosexual behavior months before it was publicly disclosed:
” ‘Ted and I had a discussion,’ explained Sheldon, who said Haggard gave him a telltale signal [of his sexual attraction to men] then: ‘He said homosexuality is genetic. I said, no it isn’t. But I just knew he was covering up. They need to say that.’ “
Apart from raising questions about his complicity with Rev. Haggard’s ongoing deception, Rev. Sheldon’s comments illustrate a pattern that has been well-documented in the United States: In general, antigay heterosexuals assert that homosexuality is a choice. By contrast, unprejudiced heterosexuals are likely to believe that sexual orientation is inborn or otherwise not chosen.
What, if anything, does this pattern mean for efforts to eliminate sexual prejudice?
It’s often assumed that a cause-and-effect relationship is operating here — that heterosexuals will become less prejudiced if they can be convinced that being gay isn’t a choice.
In fact, most gay people in the US don’t experience their sexual orientation as a choice. In my own empirical studies, I’ve found that the vast majority of gay men and most lesbians report having little or no choice in this regard. (I’ll discuss these data further in a future posting.)
Yet, the notion of organizing anti-prejudice campaigns around a “we-didn’t-choose-to-be-gay” theme sparks philosophical and political debate. Such arguments are outside my purview as a social scientist. Based solely on empirical research, however, this plan is problematic for several reasons.
First, many heterosexuals’ beliefs in this realm aren’t internally consistent. If someone regards homosexuality as a choice, you’d expect them also to believe gay people can change their sexual orientation. Conversely, those who think it isn’t a choice should believe that people can’t change. But the data only partly conform to these patterns.
In a 1999 national telephone survey I conducted, more than 1200 heterosexual adults were asked whether they believed being homosexual is something people choose for themselves or something over which they have no control. A bit later in the survey, they were asked their opinion about what proportion of gay people can stop being homosexual if they want to do so. Half were asked these questions about gay men, the other half were asked about lesbians.
Overall, 47% said homosexuality is something men choose for themselves, and 57% expressed this belief about female homosexuality.
As expected, most respondents who said being gay is not a choice also believed that few (if any) gay people can stop being homosexual — roughly 72% expressed this opinion about gay men, and 76% about lesbians.
But it was a different story for those who said homosexuality is a choice. Only 50% of them believed most or all gay men can become straight, and only 43% expressed this opinion about lesbians. Many believed that fewer than half of homosexuals can change (27% said this about gay men, 34% about lesbians).
I’ve asked similar questions in subsequent surveys, with the same results: Many heterosexuals who believe being gay is a choice nevertheless say most gay people can’t choose to stop being homosexual. This contradictory pattern suggests that believing homosexuality is chosen might not be about facts or logic, at least for some people.
There’s another problem with the idea that convincing heterosexuals that homosexuality isn’t chosen will reduce their sexual prejudice. Such a plan will only work if beliefs about choice are actually the basis for heterosexuals’ attitudes toward sexual minorities. However, the data about choice beliefs and sexual prejudice are largely correlational, which means they don’t necessarily reveal a causal relationship. Even if one factor does cause the other, we can’t be certain which comes first — beliefs about choice or prejudice.
The chain might actually begin with prejudice. After all, conservative Christians base their attitudes on the argument that homosexuality is sinful. To be a sin, homosexuality has to be a choice. Otherwise their antigay hostility looks less like moral rectitude and more like bigotry. So perhaps many heterosexuals with antigay attitudes say homosexuality is chosen as a way of justifying their preexisting prejudice.
Research relevant to this hypothesis has been conducted by Dr. Peter Hegarty, a Stanford-trained social psychologist who is on the faculty at the University of Surrey in England.
Dr. Hegarty observed that beliefs about choice and the immutability of sexual orientation weren’t as closely linked with public attitudes toward sexual minorities in England as in the USA. In a series of studies, he found that beliefs about choice were strongly correlated with sexual prejudice among American students, but not among English students.
In further data analyses, he divided the participants into two groups: (1) those who perceived statements that homosexuality is unchosen and unchangeable to signify tolerant attitudes toward sexual minorities, and (2) those who didn’t perceive such a connection. He found that choice beliefs were correlated with prejudice only in the first group.
Dr. Hegarty interpreted his findings as indicating that heterosexuals may construct their beliefs about choice “to fit their sexual politics rather than the reverse.” Insofar as they understand beliefs about choice to express a particular political viewpoint (no choice = progay; choice = antigay), they use them for just that purpose. Some say homosexuality is chosen to express an antigay stance while others express a progay position by saying it’s not chosen.
Yet another possibility is that the choice-prejudice linkage might result from the causal influence of some third factor, such as heterosexuals’ personal contact with sexual minority people. In another survey I conducted in the early 1990s, I found that Whites (but, interestingly, not Blacks) harbored much less sexual prejudice and were much less likely to regard homosexuality as a choice if they personally knew one or more gay people. Presumably, those relationships reduced their prejudice and gave them an opportunity to learn their friend or relative’s ideas about the origins of her or his own sexual orientation.
In summary, we don’t yet know why beliefs about choice are correlated with sexual prejudice. One may cause the other, or perhaps both result from a third factor, such as personal contact with gay people. The data we have don’t support the notion that convincing heterosexuals that homosexuality is inborn or otherwise not a choice will cause them to be less prejudiced. If anything, it appears that stating a particular belief about choice may be a way of justifying one’s preexisting antigay or progay attitudes.
This is essentially the position that Rev. Sheldon took when he dismissed Rev. Haggard’s private comments about the genetic roots of sexual orientation as something “they need to say.” What he didn’t note is that, just as much and perhaps more, he and his followers “need to say” that homosexuality is a choice.
* * * * * *
Dr. Hegarty’s article, ” ‘It’s Not a Choice, It’s the Way We’re Built’: Symbolic Beliefs About Sexual Orientation In the US and Britain,” was published in 2002 in the Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 153-166.
You forgot to mention if Dr. H. is gay or otherwise a pervert like many of those justifying homosexuality. Makes a difference in perspective you know....using means to justify the ends of conclusions.
You forgot to mention if Dr. H. is gay or otherwise a pervert like many of those justifying homosexuality. Makes a difference in perspective you know....using means to justify the ends of conclusions.
That would mean any data that you might like developed by heterosexuals could be considered to be using 'means to justify the ends of conclusions.'
Face it, any facts you don't like you will just find a reason to disregard without dealing with them directly (because you can't).
(though I am not a big fan of the massive cut and pastes into linear comment threads - a link would have done just as nicely...)
Blacks were fooled thinking the democratic party would do anything for them. To this day it still runs true. THe gays are fooled thinking that, the democratic party is in thier best interest. They are not going to forward your efforts. My representitive (democrat) said Gay marriage wont happen in his time. Wish the Gay comunity would research the Democratic party. Seem to think they KNOW the republican party! Better look into the democratic party first.
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX)
PFOX executive director Regina Griggs says:
"self-proclaimed proponents of tolerance want PFOX's flyer censored and facts about the medical and psychological effects of homosexual behavior suppressed, along with the very idea that sexual orientation is not immutable. These homosexual activists "do not want people to know that change is possible," she says, and "they certainly do not want you to provide an alternative."
These pro-homosexual tolerance and diversity advocates generally "see ex-gays as nonexistent," the PFOX official contends. And when former homosexuals are introduced to society, she says, many homosexual activists become afraid that this "confuses the public and may actually be a deterrent to gay marriage and other civil rights that they believe they deserve."
3:46 you are right.
I learned in a Research Methods class that the first study that homosexuality is genetic was a fruad. Newsweek printed it on the cover of their magazine. Did they ever retract it? Nope.
The study was invalidated because the researcher was a closet gay trying to justify himself.
learned in a Research Methods class that the first study that homosexuality is genetic was a fruad.
Then the teacher lied to you on many levels.
First: Dean Hamer's study wasn't designed to see if 'homosexuality was genetic' but to see if there was a correlation between a very specific area on the X chromosome (q28) and a male being gay.
With the data set that Hamer had it DID show a correlation.
Subsequent attempts to check this by University of Western Ontario with a different data set failed as did another as did a subsequent study with a different data set done by Hamer himself.
And yes he was accused of fraud but investigation found no evidence of it. (Some thing the propaganda sites always fail to mention.)
And as Dr. Hamer has said himself "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay..." not many people other than those trying to knock down that strawman ever do.
5:45
You're nuts. The Democrat party has ALWAYS been the leading political party for fighting for equal rights for minorities. And those minority groups are very smart - if they knew that a party was not actually helping them - they would leave. And it isn't happening.
Anon @ 3:46,
If being a homosexual discredits one's research on the subject, shouldn't being a christian discredit the 'research' of the MissionAmerica, FRC & the men of Concerned Women for America?
If not, then you've just dicredited your own assertion.
-JC
7:07,
Not entirely true. Many southern democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act, of course what 5:45 wants to ignore is that with the GOP's Southern Stratagey those bigots found a new home in today's GOP. Strom Thurmond anyone?
-JC
Mission America and Family Research Council didn't do the research. The accumulated data from the research of others.
"Then the teacher lied to you on many levels."
I don't think so OV. The teacher has far more credibility than anything you have presented on here. I'm sorry but some of your past outrageous claims about American history and the bible put you in the position of not being credible.
Strom Thurmond ? Was he just elected or was Senator Byrd ? How about Al Sharpton ? The Haggards rightfully are exposed , the Jackson's and Sharptons run for President as democrats .
The notion that racism comes from one race is only racist in itself .
Mission America and Family Research Council didn't do the research. The accumulated data from the research of others.
And misrepresent it and try and spin it to say things it doesn't actually say. Propaganda pure and simple.
I don't think so OV. The teacher has far more credibility than anything you have presented on here.
Ah but that is the point - everything I've said here is easily proven to be true with a simple cruise of the internet. Hamer didn't lie, he didn't commit fraud, he wasn't trying to prove that 'homosexuality was genetic' or any of the things you said the teacher said. That's just the facts, facts easily confirmed. Since you can assume a higher level of fact checking from a competent teacher he was either intentionally lying or an incompetent teacher - that he was really right just isn't an option when you bother to actually look at the facts.
I'm sorry but some of your past outrageous claims about American history and the bible put you in the position of not being credible.
Emotional thinking - as you know from reading here not a single ONE of my 'claims' has ever been refuted with other than with the "I'm going to cover my ears and sing so I can't hear you" tactic. If you think I've made 'outrageous claims' please grow a set and point out exactly where you think I am wrong and WHY you think my claim 'outrageous' and isn't 'credible'. I deal solely in objective fact and present same - what ethical person claims someone is wrong without presenting any evidence to support that claim? Come one Anonymous, try being ethical - you might like it.
oshtur - you are so enamored with yourself and your ideas that to play your "game" and "refute" any of your claims is a fools errand. no matter what the refutation, you would come up with your own version of facts! You thrive on this sparing and you cannot see that what any other person presents as viable. Your sources are suspect; but you don't think so, so, as I said, it would be a fools errand to play your game.
Dr. Kinesey was a pervert who used fradulent material and the entire gay community pushed it so much and other gays in the medical community helped make it mainstream thought there, with the help of the gays in the media. You would think everyone was gay between the medical community and the media.
In reality, it is still a psycological problem, resulting from one step at a time decisions that spiral, possibly with the help of external influences (such as nearly every gay has a problem with having been abused or the dad in the family is either an emotionally or physically distant father), into the lifestyle that puts sex in the forefront of their thought life.
That can change. Whatever one thinks most of the time is what their god is. If we put God on the throne and dwell on Him through reading the Bible and prayer, we can be delivered from all types of sin. He has promised that. Of course, many will chose not to accept His gift, and others are still blind. Remember the song "Amazing Grace?" There is a reason that the first line states "I was once lost but now am found, was blind but now I see."
Dr. Kinesey was a pervert who used fradulent material
Wow! Where did that come from? Who even mentioned Dr. Kinsey? Who thinks that his work in the prevalence of sexual orientations has anything to do with the current discussion?
And you are wrong - studies show that fathers and abuse have no real connection with eventual sexual orientation expression. Most children who will be gay can be picked out by their behaviors alone at ages 5-8. Psychological studies used to identify and diagnose psychological problems do not find any consistent pattern in all homosexuals - they are just as diversely neurotic (and not) as straight people.
And sex is no more in the 'forefront' of gay thought than it is for heterosexuals. Hello? Do you view any ads, see what sites are on the internet? Heterosexuals are all about sex - they can't point any fingers or toss any rocks in their glass houses. No it is YOU (generically) who are obsessed with gay sex, some more than gay people.
Studies show that gay's don't think about sex any more than straight people. They show that they are not intrinsically psychologically defective (that would mean some quality is present in every single gay person) and the idea that people 'choose' their sexual orientation is silly.
Our sex drive comes from our brain stem and other hardwired structures in the brain that change little throughout our lives. Some males don't get all the necessary 'rewiring' that's done on the fetus's base female model for various and probably combinations of reasons (genetic, prenatal, and neonatal) leaving them wired to be attracted to men. And ditto some of the women get some of the male rewiring activated that is on the somatic chromosomes making them attracted to women. It really is that simple.
There is no indication that homosexuality is a psychological problem, there is no indication that any but a tiny fraction of people truly of a homosexual sexual orientation can change or successfully pretend to be heterosexual.
Now if you personally want to think that then if you are gay do what you got to do to 'turn straight' but don't try and force this objectively unsupportable belief on others.
The truth is the Democratic party was a false face and still is. I am not sayng republicans are perfect. Just know where your party came from- Read up(Unfounded Loyalty). The point fact is you that are leftist who think the democratic party is on your side and believes what you believe may not be so. And they may not hold up to what they say or do what they told you they would. They were the problem not a solution.They (the left) say that about Bush. So funny when most of them voted for the war---and now cry they were lied too....very funny- So were the blacks!And they still are.
The truth is the Democratic party was a false face and still is. I am not sayng republicans are perfect. Just know where your party came from- Read up(Unfounded Loyalty). The point fact is you that are leftist who think the democratic party is on your side and believes what you believe may not be so. And they may not hold up to what they say or do what they told you they would. They were the problem not a solution.They (the left) say that about Bush. So funny when most of them voted for the war---and now cry they were lied too....very funny- So were the blacks!And they still are.
"Our sex drive comes from our brain stem and other hardwired structures in the brain that change little throughout our lives."-oshi
Any person addicted to porn will tell you soooo different. It is a learned behavior that you can not live without ---without pain. It is medication. Homosexuality is not something anyone was born with.
And sex drives do change with age. They change with circumstances. And emotions...Not many have the same sex drive at 50 that they had at age 20. And having children slows sex drive...I know a couple of you will disagree. Too bad. your statements are unbelievable as well....so yada yada yada
You realize that both of your examples (porn and strength) of sex drive have absolutely nothing to do with the statement you quoted, right? Neither of your examples are about what the comment was referring to, the sexual orientation of the sex drive. Of course the strength of the sex drive changes with age and circumstances, of course constant stimulation of the sex drive can effect it, but neither thing effects the part that is due to intrinsic neurological pathways, the sexual orientation.
The sexual orientation of the drive though isn't the strength , its about what gender produces the scents that trigger sexual attraction, what sounds, what appearances. These are complex behaviors that are hardwired into every human being just like they are in other mammals. Don't tell me you think that other primates are 'taught' their sexual orientation, are you? How do you teach someone to response in a unique part of the brain to a pheromone? How do you teach someone with no sexual experiences to exhibit heart palpitations, chest and facial flush, and vocal stammer when initiating dialog with someone they are sexually attracted to? What basis is there anywhere to show that people choose their sexual orientation? (other than the bisexuals that think everyone else is just like them?)
And that my statements are 'unbelievable' to you is only because you have already decided what answer you want - the way the world really is is of no importance to you. Makes life seem really easy I bet - too bad its all based on a lie.
Anon @11:12,
You evaded the question. If being a homosexaul discredits one's research on homosexuality, why would be a Christian not discredit research that is against homosexuality.
-JC
The truth is the Democrats have a lot more honesty and credibility than the Republicans. Neither party is perfect - not by a long shot. It doesn't matter where your party is from nearly as much as what they have been doing lately and currently. It's not a fact that I'm a "leftist" or that I think the Democrats believe what I believe. In FACT, those are both not true. It is a FACT that the Democrats do a much better job of benefiting the entire nation and the entire world - especially the minorities - than the Republicans do. Go ahead - ask around. Of course considering that you end your little rant by admitting how Bush and Co. did lie about the war, I'm not really sure what you thought you were going to prove here anyways.
If taking money from those earning and giving it to those who sit around and vote Democrat is "benefiting the entire nation" then 6:54 is correct.
If allowing people to go around and kill those in their own country and others around the world but trying to "negotiate" with the murderers is benefiting the entire world, then 6:54 is right.
But, if allowing people to keep their own money and give it to the charity of their choice is a better benefit to the entire nation, then 6:54 is wrong and you should, as a good person in a REPUBLIC (a representative democracy) should do, find a good person who will carefully chose and weigh the benefits of letting people keep their own money and investing in both business and others lives in an accountable manner, most of whom will be Republican...but not all.
That same good person will have to decide when to "negotiate" with murderers and when, as a nation, force should be brought to bear to make the murderers rethink their position.
JC, I realize that this will probably be over your head, but you see many heteros see absolutes such as "Thou shalt not lie" coming from an outside source that they commit to.
Therefore, their research is more believable than perverts because perverts' guiding forces are their own desires.
"The truth is the Democrats have a lot more honesty and credibility than the Republicans. "
Funny you should say that. I just watched a documentary about Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America by A&E.
The Democrats were outraged about how the Contract and resulting legislation that would take away school lunches from children. Then the media joined in and to stir the pot interviewed young children about how they felt losing their lunches.
Problem was--there was nothing in the legislation that would take lunches away. Yes, it was a LIE started by the DEMOCRATS.
And need I remind you.....do I really need to...."I did not have sex with that woman!!!"
More credible??? Are you kidding me? Jefferson of LA, Murtha to name just a few???
Anon @9:49,
Your rationalization doesn't go over my head, I see right through it. First of all my question pertained to Christians not heterosexuals. Secondly, there are plenty of Christians and heterosexuals, who fall into the category of perverts. Thirdly, there is ample evidence all around us that both heterosexuals and Christians ignore the commandment on lying with wild abandon, especially when it comes to lying about homosexuals.
Oh, and BTW, your answer (essentially gays can't be trusted but heterosexuals can is textbook bigotry.
-JC
JC, I never stated that heterosexuals can be trusted. I stated "many heterosexuals see absolutes such as "Thou shalt not lie" coming from an outside source." That means that some people actually do ascribe to absolutes, and are trustworthy. Those who do not subscribe to that absolute do not usually subscribe to other absolutes such as "Thou shalt not commit adultery" either. Therefore, if one is a self-described violator of one absolute, they would more than likely also violate other absolutes, therefore perverts are an easy call to not be telling the truth.
JC, I never stated that heterosexuals can be trusted. I stated "many heterosexuals see absolutes such as "Thou shalt not lie" coming from an outside source." That means that some people actually do ascribe to absolutes, and are trustworthy.
No it means they are just following rules without real understanding and those are the easiest things to rationalize breaking. It is the person who understands that lying is wrong in and of itself because of what it does to the liar and those they lie to that is the most trustworthy of individuals.
Look at this blog - the people with 'absolutes' are the ones who post distorted misrepresentations because they believe 'the end justifies the means' and will do anything to get their way. They are the ones that pervert their own supposed absolutes to reach a goal they once again assume to be right without really understanding if it is or not.
Anon @3:19,
Like I said textbook bigotry.
As history has shown time and time again, even Evangelical leaders have no problems breaking any and all of the commandments. Your bigotry is just an excuse to dismiss information that disproves your agenda.
-JC
Did you know the definition of bigotry? It means someone who won't change their mind. In this case, it is a compliment. Thank you.
I don't know any perfect person who has never broken any command...except Jesus. That is why we need him as our Savior. All of us.
Well, its refreshing to see an FFN supporter honest enough to admit they are a bigot.
Sad and pathetic, but none the less the rare lapse into honesty is refreshing.
-JC
SHocking. The narrow minded, brainwashed, anonymous blind supporters here at FFN are so ignorant and unaware that they believe the more honest and more credible party is the Republicans. Can't imagine where they got that from (sure as heck isn't reality).
"anonymous blind supporters "
As opposed to you? An anonymous malcontent??
Please note. 7:56 AM Nov. 27
cannot provide a rational, intelligent response.
He/she is only capable of name calling, all the while proclaiming the virtue of their position.
Sound crazy? That is because it is. Imagine, they have the nerve to call others "ignorant and unaware" as well as "narrow minded & brainwashed" when they can't even do much beyond name calling.
It is amusing.
Anon pot, kettle...black.
-JC
Considering the insults were posted by the same name as the indignant responses, I would just assume they were posted by the same person making the intended result obvious.
OV "Look at this blog - the people with 'absolutes' are the ones who post distorted misrepresentations because they believe 'the end justifies the means' and will do anything to get their way. They are the ones that pervert their own supposed absolutes to reach a goal they once again assume to be right without really understanding if it is or not."
Like what for instance? Broad accusations are worthless. (and bigotry) :)
Well, you certianly are the authority on bigotry, seeing as how it is constantly evident in your posts.
-JC
Like what for instance? Broad accusations are worthless. (and bigotry) :)
No broad accusations - almost every item was posted by the user Anonymous. We've been told that this is the 'body of Christ' talking - so that's who's being 'accused'.
Just yesterday in another thread Anonymous said:
Actually, gays have unsuccessfully married in the Netherlands, and their divorce rate is astronomical. It is true here in the US also, every where it gets legalized, gays stay married an average of two years. Talk about unstable.
A blatant lie. In the 2001-2004 period in the Netherlands only 1% of the marriages formed ended in divorce, the same figure for same gender and opposite gender. Now that they have been called on the lie they then frantically try and change the topic saying 'well no one gets married in the Netherlands anymore'. A lying 3rd grader is mores skillful at their deceptive arts.
You want more examples? How about when Anonymous 'cut and pastes' tracts from the anti-gay propaganda sites? They are about 100% distortion and fabrication yet they repeat them as if they were fact.
Facts are of no important to Anonymous - they will repeat any lie to try and achieve their agenda driven end.
How can you call cut and paste tracts anti-gay propaganda, and 100% distortion and fabrication, and yet show no real reasons for dismissing them? Why do you believe the liberal propaganda is real? Just shows your bias.
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf shows Swedens divorce rate, based on actual government statistics, has gay divorce rates for guys is 50% higher than normal people, and lesbians is 167% higher than normal people. Do you want more?
How can you call cut and paste tracts anti-gay propaganda, and 100% distortion and fabrication, and yet show no real reasons for dismissing them? Why do you believe the liberal propaganda is real? Just shows your bias.
No just shows your ignorance - I did a point by point clarification of one one in an earlier blog entry.
And now you switch countries because you were caught in a lie about the first? How about apologizing for lying in the first place?
As you should know:
First they don't have 'gay marriage' in Sweden, just a civil contract licensing. Can 't compare apples and oranges.
Second, Sweden is a more socialist country than the Netherlands so there is even less a real world reason to license a civil contract for your marriage. While in the Netherlands, 2.3% of marriages were same gender (their same prevalence as in the general population) only 0.7% of civil contracts for marriage and unions were same gender in Sweden. To the rational mind that tips you off right away that only a specific subset of gay people are even bothering to license the contract.
Thirdly, if you would wean yourself off the propaganda sites and do your own research you would find that the people who did the study you are mentioning even said it might have little relevance to the US:
…the legal rights and duties connected
to marriage are less critical in Scandinavia than in other countries.… . In the context of the Nordic welfare state, social rights are largely based on individuals, regardless of their family status. Economic motives that may be
important for marriage in the US,… are virtually non-existent in the universalistic welfare state.
…the divorce of gay partnerships tends to disappear when the comparison is based on childless couples.
Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research
Gee, so what it really means is couples without children get divorced more readily than those with - what a revelation! The actual work goes on to point out the differences between the two target countries and Denmark and the Netherlands the demographics of age, nationality, and the like but I've cast enough pearls your way - if you were actually interested in truth you would have found all these things out yourself anyway.
You continue to heap lies upon lies upon lies.
Post a Comment
<< Home