The Gay Old Party
Hey, I really don't have time for this, you know, I have to give an opening address to a conference here in China, and I need to leave in less than an hour. But Jack Drescher just forwarded this, and I think it deserves a posting on the old blog, don't you?
Why?
Because as we dive into consideration, now, of the 8th grade curriculum on sexual orientation, we're going to hear complaints from the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. We know, from messages that Google kindly posted in their cache last year, that the Republican Party coached them their early meetings, this whole "controversy" was a GOP operation, with Family Blah Blah support.
So the revelation that the party in control is run by gays -- anti-gay gays, I don't understand that, but -- is making the news more interesting than ever these days.
Yes, I repeat, it isn't just hypocrisy, this is pathology.
Listen, I said it before: saying gays have "infiltrated" the Republican Party is like saying Sicilians have "infiltrated" the Mafia.
Ah -- I thought they liked being called nuts. I thought that's why they acted that way. Silly me.
Drescher links to another story, too. What the hey -- from the UK:
The other day I was parking my car, and I heard a weird noise. I was nuts falling out of a tree, hitting the roof of my car. It sounded just like that.
Why?
Because as we dive into consideration, now, of the 8th grade curriculum on sexual orientation, we're going to hear complaints from the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. We know, from messages that Google kindly posted in their cache last year, that the Republican Party coached them their early meetings, this whole "controversy" was a GOP operation, with Family Blah Blah support.
So the revelation that the party in control is run by gays -- anti-gay gays, I don't understand that, but -- is making the news more interesting than ever these days.
The Gay Old Party Comes Out
By Frank Rich
New York Times
October 15, 2006
PAGING Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council: Here's a gay Republican story you probably did not hear last week. On Tuesday a card-carrying homosexual, Mark Dybul, was sworn into office at the State Department with his partner holding the Bible. Dr. Dybul, the administration's new global AIDS coordinator, was flanked by Laura Bush and Condi Rice. In her official remarks, the secretary of state referred to the mother of Dr. Dybul's partner as his "mother-in-law."
Could wedding bells be far behind? It was all on display, photo included, on www.state.gov. And while you're cruising the Internet, a little creative Googling will yield a long list of who else is gay, openly and not, in the highest ranks of both the Bush administration and the Republican hierarchy. The openly gay range from Steve Herbits, the prescient right-hand consultant to Donald Rumsfeld who foresees disaster in Iraq in Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial," to Israel Hernandez, the former Bush personal aide and current Commerce Department official whom the president nicknamed "Altoid boy." (Let's not go there.)
If anything good has come out of the Foley scandal, it is surely this: The revelation that the political party fond of demonizing homosexuals each election year is as well-stocked with trusted and accomplished gay leaders as virtually every other power center in America. "What you're really seeing is the Republican Party on the Hill," says Rich Tafel, the former leader of the gay Log Cabin Republicans whom George W. Bush refused to meet with during the 2000 campaign. "Across the board gay people are in leadership positions." Yet it is this same party's Congressional leadership that in 2006 did almost nothing about government spending, Iraq, immigration or ethics reform, but did drop everything to focus on a doomed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The split between the Republicans' outward homophobia and inner gayness isn't just hypocrisy; it's pathology. Take the bizarre case of Karl Rove. Every one of his Bush campaigns has been marked by a dirty dealing of the gay card, dating back to the lesbian whispers that pursued Ann Richards when Mr. Bush ousted her as Texas governor in 1994. Yet we now learn from "The Architect," the recent book by the Texas journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater, that Mr. Rove's own (and beloved) adoptive father, Louis Rove, was openly gay in the years before his death in 2004. This will be a future case study for psychiatric clinicians as well as historians.
Yes, I repeat, it isn't just hypocrisy, this is pathology.
So will Kirk Fordham, the former Congressional aide who worked not only for Mark Foley but also for such gay-baiters as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma (who gratuitously bragged this year that no one in his family's "recorded history" was gay) and Senator Mel Martinez of Florida (who vilified his 2004 Republican primary opponent, a fellow conservative, as a tool of the "radical homosexual agenda"). Then again, even Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania senator who brought up incest and "man-on-dog" sex while decrying same-sex marriage, has employed a gay director of communications. In the G.O.P. such switch-hitting is as second nature as cutting taxes.
As for Mr. Foley, he is no more representative of gay men, whatever their political orientation, than Joey Buttafuoco is of straight men. Yet he's a useful creep at this historical juncture because his behavior has exposed and will continue to expose a larger dynamic on the right. The longer the aftermath of this scandal continues, with its maniacal finger-pointing and relentless spotlight on the Republican closet, the harder it will be for his party to return to the double-dealing that has made gay Americans election-year bogeymen (and women) for so long.
The moment Mr. Foley's e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman's predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It's the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.
The Family Research Council's Mr. Perkins, a frequent White House ally and visitor, led the way. "When we elevate tolerance and diversity to the guidepost of public life," he said on Fox News Channel, "this is what we get - men chasing 16-year-old boys around the halls of Congress." A related note was struck by The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which asked, "Could a gay Congressman be quarantined?" The answer was no because "today's politically correct culture" - tolerance of "private lifestyle choices" - gives predatory gay men a free pass. Newt Gingrich made the same point when he announced on TV that Mr. Foley had not been policed because Republicans "would have been accused of gay bashing." Translation: Those in favor of gay civil rights would countenance and protect sex offenders.
This line of attack was soon followed by another classic from the annals of anti-Semitism: the shadowy conspiracy. "The secret Capitol Hill homosexual network must be exposed and dismantled," said Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, another right-wing outfit that serves as a grass-roots auxiliary to the Bush administration. This network, he claims, was allowed "to infiltrate and manipulate the party apparatus" and worked "behind the scenes to sabotage a conservative pro-family agenda in Congress."
There are two problems with this theory. First, gay people did not "infiltrate" the party apparatus - they are the party apparatus. Rare is the conservative Republican Congressional leader who does not have a gay staffer wielding clout in a major position. Second, any inference that gay Republicans on the Hill conspired to cover up Mr. Foley's behavior is preposterous. Mr. Fordham, the gay former Foley aide who spent Thursday testifying under oath about his warnings to Denny Hastert's staff, is to date the closest this sordid mess has to a whistle-blower, however tardy. So
far, the slackers in curbing Mr. Foley over the past three years seem more straight than gay, led by the Buffalo Congressman Tom Reynolds, who is now running a guilt-ridden campaign commercial desperately apologizing to voters.
Listen, I said it before: saying gays have "infiltrated" the Republican Party is like saying Sicilians have "infiltrated" the Mafia.
A Washington Post poll last week found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Democrats would behave just as badly as the Hastert gang in covering up a scandal like this to protect their own power. They are no doubt right. But the reason why the Foley scandal has legs - and why it has upstaged most other news, from the Congressional bill countenancing torture to North Korea's nuclear test - is not just that sex trumps everything else in a tabloid-besotted America. The Republicans, unlike most Democrats (Joe Lieberman always excepted), can't stop advertising their "family values," which is why their pitfalls are as irresistible as a Molière farce. It was entertaining enough to learn that the former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed wanted to go "humping in corporate accounts" with the corrupt gambling lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The only way that comic setup could be
topped was by the news that Mr. Foley was chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. It beggars the imagination that he wasn't also entrusted with No Child Left Behind.
Cultural conservatives who fell for the G.O.P.'s pious propaganda now look like dupes. Tonight on "60 Minutes," David Kuo, a former top official in the administration's faith-based initiatives program, is scheduled to discuss his new book recounting how evangelical supporters were privately ridiculed as "nuts" in the White House. If they have any self-respect, they'll exact their own revenge.
Ah -- I thought they liked being called nuts. I thought that's why they acted that way. Silly me.
We must hope as well that this crisis will lead to a repudiation of the ritual targeting of gay people for sport at the top levels of the Republican leadership in and out of the White House. For all the president's talk of tolerance and "compassionate conservatism," he has repeatedly joined Congress in wielding same-sex marriage as a club for divisive political purposes. He sat idly by while his secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, attacked a PBS children's show because an animated rabbit visited a lesbian couple and their children. Ms. Spellings was worried about children being exposed to that "lifestyle" - itself a code word for
"deviance" - even as the daughter of the vice president was preparing to expose the country to that lifestyle in a highly promoted book.
"The hypocrisy, the winking and nodding is catching up with the party," says Mr. Tafel, the former Log Cabin leader. "Republicans must welcome their diversity as the party of Lincoln or purge the party of all gays. The middle ground - we're a diverse party but we can bash gays too - will no longer work." He adds that "the ironic point is that the G.O.P. isn't as homophobic as it pretends to be." Indeed two likely leading presidential competitors in 2008, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, are consistent supporters of gay civil rights.
Another ironic point, of course, is that the effort to eradicate AIDS, led by a number of openly gay appointees like Dr. Dybul, may prove to be the single most beneficent achievement of this beleaguered White House. To paraphrase a show tune you're unlikely to hear around the Family Research Council, isn't that queer?
Drescher links to another story, too. What the hey -- from the UK:
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20061014005523101
Religious Conservatives Fail to Make Gay Link to Foley Scandal
Despite Links by Conservative Groups, Majority of Americans Do Not Link
Scandal to Gays
BBS News (Your true conservative news source)
Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 12:55 AM EDT
HRC via BBSNews 2006-10-14 -- WASHINGTON DC - The Human Rights Campaign today released a new nationwide poll that shows the aggressively coordinated attempts by anti-gay right-wing leaders and anti-gay groups to brand the Mark Foley scandal as a gay issue are a resounding failure.
The new, nationwide poll shows that, by a 2-to-1 margin, voters believe that "this type of behavior is typical of politicians" over "this type of behavior is typical of gay men." The poll also showed support for either civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples at 66 percent, which is consistent with other polls on the same question.
"Some right-wing leaders and politicians have tried to divert attention from the congressional leadership's failure to investigate Mark Foley's abhorrent behavior, and their cover-up in order to hold on to power, by insisting that his being gay was the central issue," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Conservative politicians have tried to promote prejudice against gay Americans, rather than push for accountability in this scandal. Today's poll shows that Americans reject their outrageous claims."
Since this scandal was made public on September 29, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Pat Buchanan and other ultra-conservative leaders have spoken out numerous times to national media outlets pushing the idea that this is a gay issue, in an attempt to shift the public's perception of this inappropriate behavior and subsequent cover-up by the Republican leadership on gays.
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. conducted a poll of 806 registered voters nationwide from October 9-11, 2006. The results of the poll show that the attempt to scapegoat gay Americans has been an utter failure, as the American people continue to focus on the lack of leadership displayed by the Republican leadership through this scandal. The poll also finds the American people continue to believe gay and lesbian Americans deserve the same rights and protections as all Americans and their relationships deserve legal recognition.
The Human Rights Campaign has been monitoring what seems to be a coordinated effort to place blame on the gay community and equate Mark Foley's disgraceful behavior to the fact that he is gay. Below are some of the quotes spewed by conservatives in their failed public relations blitz to lay the blame on gays:
"The news is the Republicans have formed a circular firing squad, and they're firing away. It's just insane, this atavistic spirit to find blame just before an election. They'd be better to say, 'Well, this man's gay, he does what gay people do, and so don't worry about it.'"
- Pat Robertson on "The 700 Club," Oct. 5
"If the Republican House leadership is guilty of anything, it is of being too tolerant, of allowing Political Correctness, a fear of being called homophobic, to trump common sense. Whether we admit it or not, many male homosexuals have a thing for teenage boys, which is why so many of them wind up with black eyes when they try to pick them up."
- Pat Buchanan, Oct. 6
"Democrats seeking to exploit the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) are right to criticize the slow response of Republican congressional leaders to his communications with male pages. But neither party seems likely to address the real issue, which is the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse."
- Tony Perkins, Message to Friends of Family Research Council, Oct. 2
"We are very concerned that the early warnings of Mr. Foley's odd behavior toward young male pages may have been overlooked or treated with deference, fearing a backlash from the radical gay rights movement because of Mr. Foley's sexual orientation."
- The Arlington Group in a statement, Oct. 3
"For the sake of honest and open government, not to mention protection of the children, the secret Capitol Hill homosexual network must be exposed and dismantled."
- Right-wing blogger Cliff Kincaid, Oct. 9
"Where does post-modern American ethics place Mark Foley's homosexuality on a scale of 1 to 10 - a 1 being just another gay guy and a 10 being a compulsive, predatory sex offender?"
- Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor, Oct. 6
"The fact that Americans find former Rep. Foley's alleged conduct reprehensible shows we have not bought into the false ideology that 'all sex should be celebrated' or that age of consent laws should be reduced as some special interest groups demand. Not all 'diversity' should be accepted and not all conduct or beliefs should be 'tolerated.' In the real world, there is such a thing as right and wrong."
- Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, Oct. 3
"Here is the real problem. It has been known for many years that Congressman Foley was a homosexual. Homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex."
- Paul Weyrich on "All Things Considered," Oct. 4
"I think that this -- there's an indication, there's clear research that shows that homosexual men are more likely to abuse children than straight men. And when it comes to government, yes, I have a concern that any type of sexual deviancy is a problem."
- Tony Perkins on "Hardball," Oct. 3
The other day I was parking my car, and I heard a weird noise. I was nuts falling out of a tree, hitting the roof of my car. It sounded just like that.
posted by JimK at 6:56 PM
52 Comments:
"We know, from messages that Google kindly posted in their cache last year, that the Republican Party coached them their early meetings, this whole "controversy" was a GOP operation"
Could anyone post this again? I think I missed it.
Here's one Google cache. I'm not sure if it's the one that mentions the advice from the GOP or not.
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/07/frivolous-lawsuit-defined.html
I realize there was a lot of e-mail traffic that Jim "mysteriously" came into possession of. I was just curious where the GOP party planning sessions were discussed. I don't recall that.
Anonymous said...
I realize there was a lot of e-mail traffic that Jim "mysteriously" came into possession of. I was just curious where the GOP party planning sessions were discussed. I don't recall that.
Well Duh... it came via internet and google. About as public as you get.
Ted
Could you, then, duh, Ted, post these GOP planning sessions?
All this is going to do is make the GOP clean house just like it made the Catholic Church clean house we tried tolerance and it did not work unfortunatly this is all to common a behavior among gay men no one should be surprised at the congressmans behavior thats just a fact of life. the GOP will clean house like the catholic church because decent people are tired of there sons and daughters being used as sex toys by perverted narcissistic old men.
Is calling gays "perverted narcissistic old men" another example of compassionate conservatism? In what Sunday School class did you learn to say things like this about people? Where are your biblical references?
Latest anonymous: I can not imagine that you are really as unkind as you come across; maybe you can explain yourself a little more fully.
Goodness, I almost forgot how deeply cynical Frank Rich is, and now Jim passes along his column and I am reminded all over again, since Rich is all too predictable and forgetable...
Rich writes, quoting Mr. Tafel,
"The hypocrisy, the winking and nodding is catching up with the party," says Mr. Tafel, the former Log Cabin leader. "Republicans must welcome their diversity as the party of Lincoln or purge the party of all gays. The middle ground - we're a diverse party but we can bash gays too - will no longer work."
Wow!!!...is that so? I must have missed that "diversity" memo...I guess I will have to tell my closest friend of 23 years that I can no longer be his friend because I oppose so-called gay marriage and he is gay. Now, really, how silly and infantile is that???
Sorry Mr Tafel, this friend and I have a tad more maturity and are able to understand that even and especially friends can disagree, and remain friends.
Oh, and btw, Mr. Tafel's "middle ground"? See Fallacy of the Excluded Middle...Logic 101.
He adds that "the ironic point is that the G.O.P. isn't as homophobic as it pretends to be." Indeed two likely leading presidential competitors in 2008, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, are consistent supporters of gay civil rights.
Define "gay civil rights" please...since I also support non-discrimination in housing, employment, etc. Really just about everything but same-sex marriage (and even that I would accept if enacted thru the democratic process).
digger writes,
Is calling gays "perverted narcissistic old men" another example of compassionate conservatism?
No, it is ungracious to name call...though I don't recall many raising this same objection when it was the Catholic Church as the eye of a media hurricane.
In what Sunday School class did you learn to say things like this about people? Where are your biblical references?
The operative ethical principle is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I suspect in the realm of present day Americn politics this principle is seen as a mandate to attack before you are attacked. I strongly suspect this is not what Christ had in mind, nor is it an example of WWJD.
Orin
I would agree that the standard in politics is to attack before you are attacked. For some people, that is the standard they follow in their lives. I will say I've never seen you do that.
As for civil rights, you do seem to support everything adults have asked for except full marriage. We may disagree on how to foster supportive environments for lgbt youth, though. That's OK; as you said, people can disagree on important issues and still be friendly..
Republican gay-bashing: the opposition to lgbt people among christian religious conservatives goes far beyond opposition to same-gender marriage. That was a gift that allowed them to take a position with which most americans agree. The most insidious gay-bashing is the charge of recruiting youth, the connection made between gay people and child molesting, and the insidious pushing of the whole ex-gay thing. This is gay-bashing; opposition to same-gender marriage is not.
rrjr
So I am curious, was Ellen's Degeneres partner an ex-gay (I guess she couldn't be because they don't exist).... so she was never really gay in the first place ?
Oh, and Digger, I suppose I am now gay-bashing since I am pointing out that there seems to be a problem with your argument ?
"The most insidious gay-bashing is the charge of recruiting youth,"
How about people like Mark Foley? He seemed to be pursuing youth who weren't interested. Same with the gays that entered the priesthood because it was a good cover from which to try to corrupt young guys.
Just because every gay is not doing it doesn't mean it's not a common problem. The truth is not insidious.
"So I am curious, was Ellen's Degeneres partner an ex-gay (I guess she couldn't be because they don't exist).... so she was never really gay in the first place ?"
She was obviously never gay. It was a crass career move, which seems to have worked.
Those interested in reading about Anne Heche, Ellen Degeneris's former partner, here's a good place to start:
Heche is also known because of her relationship with comedian Ellen DeGeneres and the events following their breakup. The couple started dating in 1997 shortly after the infamous "Puppy Episode" of DeGeneres' first sitcom. At one point, the two said they would get a civil union if they became legal in Vermont. They also worked on film and TV projects together. However, the couple split up in August 2000 and Heche soon began dating cameraman Coley Laffoon, whom she met while he was filming a comedy special for DeGeneres. They married in September 2001 and have a son, Homer Heche Laffoon, born March 2, 2002.
A year after her split with DeGeneres, Heche made claims in television interviews and in her autobiography, Call Me Crazy, that she was mentally ill for the first 31 years of her life after being sexually abused by her father (who died of AIDS in 1983). She also claimed to have an alter ego that was the daughter of God and half-sibling of Jesus named "Celestia," who had contacts with extraterrestrial life forms. In her book, she explained that before her split with DeGeneres, she was contacted by "God" and told he would walk with her for seven days.
Her mother, Nancy, is a Christian and psychotherapist, and does not believe that her late husband sexually abused Anne. Nancy tours the nation speaking with ex-gay groups claiming her prayers cured Anne of her homosexuality. Anne has denounced her mother for speaking at these events and said her split with DeGeneres was not because of a change in her own sexual orientation.[2] In an interview with The Advocate following the split, Anne said she does not give a label to her own sexual orientation and said "I have been very clear to everybody that just because I'm getting married does not mean I call myself a straight."
Before dating DeGeneres, Heche dated comedian Steve Martin for two years (she is rumored to be the basis for the Heather Graham character in Bowfinger, although Martin denies it [3]). She also dated musician Lindsey Buckingham of Fleetwood Mac for a year in the early 1990s.
She is the subject of Buckingham's barbed song 'Come', where he took a number of shots at her lesbianism and delusions, and he wrote the unreleased 'Down on Rodeo' with a much softer reflection on the relationship where he can be heard saying "Do you hear me Annie?" at the end.
In 1998, Heche's sister, Susan Bergman, wrote a book about the family and their relationship with their father. Susan, like Anne, was estranged from her mother. Heche and Bergman were reportedly estranged after the release of Bergman's book; Bergman died in January 2006 after a lengthy battle with brain cancer. Heche also had a brother, Nathan, who died in a car accident in 1983, and she now just has an older sister, Abigail.
In 2003, Heche admitted to believing she could have conversations with the deceased, and that Jesus has visited her on several occasions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Heche
Theresa asked "was Ellen's Degeneres partner an ex-gay (I guess she couldn't be because they don't exist).... so she was never really gay in the first place ?"
Theresa, there is such a thing as a bisexual you know. I was once married to a woman, now I'm with a man, that doesn't mean I've ever been gay or exgay, my orientation hasn't changed, I am bisexual, as I suspect are many people who call themselves "exgay".
Theresa
My impression is that the people who believe in ex-gay-ness and foster the ex-gay movement are precisely those people who think it is a lesser thing to be lgbt than straight. Expressing that opinion is, yes, gay-bashing.
rrjr
"those people who think it is a lesser thing to be lgbt than straight"
Don't most people think that?
So Randi.
Do you believe that you should be able to marry a man and a woman, both, at the same time, since to deny you that would be to deny your bi-sexuality ?
And were you born bi-sexual or do you believe that this is something that just developed over time ?
At what age did you decide you were bi-sexual ? I mean, if you were married to a guy and then decided you were bi-sexual and attracted to women as well, wouldn't it be denying your rights to not also allow you to bring a women into the relationship ?
digger writes,
I would agree that the standard in politics is to attack before you are attacked. For some people, that is the standard they follow in their lives. I will say I've never seen you do that.
Well, thank you for the compliment.
The most important step any religious conservative can take in better understanding gays and lesbians is to reach out and get to know the REAL people that are a part of this community.
As for civil rights, you do seem to support everything adults have asked for except full marriage.
And here I will give you an example...a specific example. I have a gay friend in California that is in a committed relationship. I have invited this friend to visit and to bring his partner along as well. They would get the guest bedroom, and would share a bed as I recognize their relationship.
Were I to be invited to attend any sort of marriage ceremony I would have to gracefully decline (though it would pain me to do so). The reason? I could not compromise the principle of what I understand marriage to mean.
We may disagree on how to foster supportive environments for lgbt youth, though. That's OK; as you said, people can disagree on important issues and still be friendly..
In agreeing to disagree in a respectful manner, the chords of civility are strengthened, and in turn, society (civilization) is made stronger.
Republican gay-bashing: the opposition to lgbt people among christian religious conservatives goes far beyond opposition to same-gender marriage. That was a gift that allowed them to take a position with which most americans agree. The most insidious gay-bashing is the charge of recruiting youth,
As much as it may disappoint you digger, this does take place though it is not as common as alleged.
the connection made between gay people and child molesting,
Fair enough here...a child is at risk of being abused by a het as easily as any gay. Still, it is worth noting that in upwards of 85% of all sexual abuse of minors in the Boston Archdiocese involved a Priest and a boy.
and the insidious pushing of the whole ex-gay thing.
Now on this, I agree...change is difflicult, and something that defines so much of who we are must be exceedingly difflicult. Goodness, I am in my mid 40's and I still chew my nails...and I don't mention this to trivialize this complex issue.
Here again though it needs to be mentioned that gays and lesbians that seek to live their lives as ex-gays, former gays, or whatever they desire to be called, do face a barrage of criticism, disdain, contempt and even harassment if they go public affirming their new identity, while also revealing their past identity.
This is gay-bashing; opposition to same-gender marriage is not.
I am glad to read this Robert, but please keep in mind that most gay advocacy groups at present consider opposition to same-gender marriage to be a form of gay bashing, homophobia if you will. All that, and the label "narrow minded, homophobic, bigot" are expressions that are passed as an argument all too often.
I, for one, welcome a debate on the merits of this issue, though I am sober about the limited ability of all sides to maintain civility about an issue that cuts to the core of the identity of some.
Orin
I welcome a civil discussion, though I'm not much of a debater.
I think society's interest in marriage is the promotion and protection of stable relationships, both including and not including those that raise children. Certainly we would want relationships among lgbt people to be stable.
I'm not sure if I would presume to address what God's interest in marriage is; I suspect it is also stable and loving relationships between people.
Health stats indicate that people in marriages are healthier than those who are not. We should compare the lifestyles of people in stable relationships with those of people in unstable relationships and those not in relationships. Single people are wilder when they are young, lonelier when they are older. Should we not encourage better health among lgbt people?
As an individual, I would like the opportunity to declare to the world that I love and cherish another human being.
As a citizen, I would like the same rights my fellow Americans have.
LGBT people definitely should get the same contract and tax benefits that straight people get, as a matter of equal protections under the law.
All that said, the legal and social situation of lgbt people is vastly better now than it used to be, and improving all the time. I love America.
rrjr
Orin
I welcome a civil discussion, though I'm not much of a debater.
I think society's interest in marriage is the promotion and protection of stable relationships, both including and not including those that raise children. Certainly we would want relationships among lgbt people to be stable.
I'm not sure if I would presume to address what God's interest in marriage is; I suspect it is also stable and loving relationships between people.
Health stats indicate that people in marriages are healthier than those who are not. We should compare the lifestyles of people in stable relationships with those of people in unstable relationships and those not in relationships. Single people are wilder when they are young, lonelier when they are older. Should we not encourage better health among lgbt people?
As an individual, I would like the opportunity to declare to the world that I love and cherish another human being.
As a citizen, I would like the same rights my fellow Americans have.
LGBT people definitely should get the same contract and tax benefits that straight people get, as a matter of equal protections under the law.
All that said, the legal and social situation of lgbt people is vastly better now than it used to be, and improving all the time. I love America.
rrjr
Theresa, I assume I was born bisexual because the sexual attractions to males and females appeared without me conciously willing them or any events that would seem to have caused them to develop. I recall my first sexual attraction to males at about the age of eight and my first attraction to females at about
the age of ten.
I am content with the right to marry the one person I love most whether that is a man or a woman. I don't feel being unable to marry both at the same time denies my sexualty. Being unable to choose which I marry would deny my sexuality. From a practical standpoint its hard enough to balance needs and desires in a relationship with one other person let alone trying to do it with two other people (3, including me).
I'm a bit of a loner so I've been fortunate to find one partner of either sex at any point in my life. I spent the first half of my life with a woman and now with luck I'll spend the last half of it with a man. I'm fortunate to be bisexual because if I weren't I might spend half my life alone.
Orin said "it is worth noting that in upwards of 85% of all sexual abuse of minors in the Boston Archdiocese involved a Priest and a boy.
This is to be expected as sexual abuse of minors is a crime of opportunity and priests are much more likely to have that opportunity with a boy rather than with a girl. The assumption is usually made that it is girls who are threatened with sexual predation by men and so they are generally not left alone with men whereas close relationships between boys and men are encouraged thus providing an opportunity that doesn't exist with girls. If priests were allowed similar free access to young females we'd see a lot more man/girl abuse.
Orin also said "gays and lesbians that seek to live their lives as ex-gays, former gays, or whatever they desire to be called, do face a barrage of criticism, disdain, contempt and even harassment if they go public affirming their new identity, while also revealing their past identity.".
No one hassles people for being heterosexual as the "exgay" label implies and "exgays" claim to be ("complete change is completely possible", they like to say"). If "exgays" experience any harrasment from the heterosexual community its because of their past association with being gay, not because of their supposedly now heterosexual orientation. They are harrased because of the negative association with gayness, not because they've changed.
If they are truly changed as they claim to be they should be refering to themselves as straight and they won't experience harrasment because of what they supposedly are no longer. Any harrasement they get from the gay community is because gays believe they are lying about the change. Again, if it weren't for the political "exgay" label no one would be the wiser and no harrassment would occur if they truly have changed. There is no reason to use the "exgay" label other than to encourage the broader society to think all gays should change and can easily do so - both lies as well.
"If they are truly changed as they claim to be they should be refering to themselves as straight and they won't experience harrasment because of what they supposedly are no longer. Any harrasement they get from the gay community is because gays believe they are lying about the change. Again, if it weren't for the political "exgay" label no one would be the wiser and no harrassment would occur if they truly have changed. There is no reason to use the "exgay" label other than to encourage the broader society to think all gays should change and can easily do so - both lies as well."
Remember when the Muslims proved the Pope's point by reacting violently to his suggestion that they often react violently. Same idea here.
Anonymous at October 19, 2006 8:21 PM, an anti-gay like yourself would consider a verbal spanking the same as arson and murder.
Didn't mean that, Randi. It's just that Orin said gays harass ex-gays and your answer was to defend such harassment.
It's quite odd to demand tolerance for your own choices and viewpoint and then deny the same to others. Seem as though we need to get on one side or the other.
Anonymous at October 19, 2006 8:21 PM
The criticisms gays make of "exgays" are justified in light of the anti-gay politics of "exgays". The harassment of "exgays" by straights is due to the same hatred of gays that "exgays" themselves encourage.
I don't know of any gay criticizing "exgays" for trying to be heterosexual, its that they promote anti-gay legislation and and social rejection of gays.
Maybe those whacky guys at FOX NEWS have uncovered the October Surprise:
"Judge Orders Bush Administration to Release Cheney Visitor Logs
Thursday, October 19, 2006
WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to release information about who visited Vice President Dick Cheney's office and personal residence, an order that could spark a late election season debate over lobbyists' White House access.
The Washington Post asked for two years of White House visitor logs in June but the Secret Service refused to process the request. Government attorneys called it "a fishing expedition into the most sensitive details of the vice presidency."
U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina ruled Wednesday that, by the end of next week, the Secret Service must produce the records or at least identity them and justify why they are being withheld.
The newspaper sought logs for anyone visiting Cheney, his legal counsel, chief spokesman and other top aides and advisers.
The Secret Service had no comment on the ruling Thursday. In court documents, government attorneys said releasing the documents would infringe on Cheney's ability to seek advice.
"This case is about protecting the effective functioning of the vice presidency under the Constitution," attorneys wrote.
A lawsuit over similar records revealed last month that Republican activists Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed — key figures in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal — landed more than 100 meetings inside the Bush White House...."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222459,00.html
"I don't know of any gay criticizing "exgays" for trying to be heterosexual, its that they promote anti-gay legislation and and social rejection of gays."
They can't sanction anyone whose experience undermines the fallacy that they've structured their civil rights argument on- that sexual preference is innate and immutable.
Anonymous at October 20, 2006 11:44 PM
Being a Christian isn't inate or immutable and they have civil rights protections like anti-discrimination laws singling them out. Gays deserve the same.
"Being a Christian isn't inate or immutable and they have civil rights protections like anti-discrimination laws singling them out. Gays deserve the same."
Randi,
If you're conceding that homosexuality is not innate and immutable, that's progress. Then there can be an honest debate about whether sexual behaviors can be the basis of discrimination. Personally, I think it's in the realm of things where freedom of association should apply and where it's appropriate for government policies to encourage certain social structures that benefit everyone but you are certainly free to disagree. Just don't make these disingenuous arguments about scientific support.
Anonymous at October 22, 2006 6:46 AM
No, I'm not conceding that being gay is not innate and immutable, I'm just pointing out that being religious is not innate and is mutable, so why would you argue that that's a basis for allowing discrimination? By your justification there should be no anti-discrimination laws protecting people on the basis of religion and no laws giving the religious special rights that don't apply to everyone else including gays.
I haven't made any statements about scientific support in this thread so I don't know why you mention it but seeing as you have the evidence strongly suggests being gay is innate and immutable. Of the studies that have been done on this none are absolutely conclusive but the vast majority point to being gay as being biologically caused and not to social environment as is disingenously argued by anti-gay people. From brain structures in humans and sheep, to heredity linkages, to twins studies, finger length, hearing, pheremone reactions, eye-blink rates, to
Spitzer's estimated .04% "success" rate in conversion therapy and on on. As the evidence mounts and all points in the direction of innate and immutable only a liar would suggest its otherwise.
Anon loves to pull the "innate and immutable" red herring. People ARE discriminated on the basis of (perceived) sexual orientation, so whether it's innate/immutable (and the science that goes with either position) is irrelevant. Orientation or preference? Also irrelevant.
K.A.
Oh right, Anon doesn't believe in discrimination bills because everyone should be free to associate with whom they choose.
K.A.
"I'm just pointing out that being religious is not innate and is mutable, so why would you argue that that's a basis for allowing discrimination?"
I don't remember arguing for or against laws against religious discrimination. I'm really kind of ambivalent about them. I guess if I were king and made all the laws without right of contestation by anyone else, I'd say let's let people associate with whom they please. But it's no big deal to me.
"By your justification there should be no anti-discrimination laws protecting people on the basis of religion and no laws giving the religious special rights that don't apply to everyone else including gays."
Probably right although I do agree that the freedom to choose one's religion without governmental coercion is an important constitutional right.
"I haven't made any statements about scientific support in this thread so I don't know why you mention it but seeing as you have the evidence strongly suggests being gay is innate and immutable."
No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that once same-sex activity has been established as a preference, there is a biologically measurable response to such stimuli. There is no reason not to believe that the preference came about because the individual decided to indulge certain feelings- just like any other preference.
As for therapy, psychiatrists haven't given up on finding cures for any other fetishes. Why give up on this one?
"Of the studies that have been done on this none are absolutely conclusive"
There aren't degrees of conclusiveness. Something is either conclusive or not- and this is not.
"but the vast majority point to being gay as being biologically caused and not to social environment as is disingenously argued by anti-gay people."
No, they don't. The studies properly assess the inconclusiveness.
"From brain structures in humans and sheep, to heredity linkages, to twins studies, finger length, hearing, pheremone reactions, eye-blink rates,"
There are problems with all these studies.
Brain structures, for example. There are tendencies but not 100% correlation. There are gays and heteros with all different brain structures. At best a tendency is indicated but a tendency is not a destiny. Additionally, I believe the results of that study have not been replicated.
Or the pheronome studies. The authors in the conclusion warn that there is no way to discriminate between whether the biological reactions are cause of the feelings or the result of them.
"to Spitzer's estimated .04% "success" rate in conversion therapy"
Spitzer didn't try the treatments. He reviewed the situations of others. A blanket statistic covering all types of treatment doesn't mean there aren't some successful types of treatment. Even if there weren't any, there is no reason not to continue to try to find a cure.
"and on on. As the evidence mounts and all points in the direction of innate and immutable only a liar would suggest its otherwise."
Only a biased partisan would say the evidence exists.
Anonymous at October 22, 2006 11:03 PM you said "the freedom to choose one's religion without governmental coercion is an important constitutional right." So is or should be the freedom to choose to marry the one person we love most without the government dictating the gender.
You also said "There is no reason not to believe that the preference came about because the individual decided to indulge certain feelings- just like any other preference.". "Certain feelings" equates to "preference". You may as well have said "the preference came about because the individual decided to indulge certain preferences". The preference comes first, not the behavior. If you'll ask most gays they'll tell you they had the desire long before they engaged in same sex sex. I'm sure you recall having a preference for the opposite sex before you engaged in opposite sex sexual behavior, why on earth do you think it would be any different for gays?
You said "There aren't degrees of conclusiveness. Something is either conclusive or not- and this is not." and then you contradicted yourself by saying "There are tendencies but not 100% correlation. ". The fact that when one identical twin is gay there is a 50% likelihood that the other will be is is strongly indicative that genes play a major role in same sex attractions. The authors of the pheremone study acknowledged that it could be that the behavior caused the change but they and most scientists agree that this is the less likely possibility. There is no evidence that behavior
causes biological change such as this and the same is true for hearing differences, eyeblink rates, finger lengths, etc - its hard to imagine one's behavior affects one's finger length. One could use your logic to argue that basketball players are tall because of their behavior, all that jumping and stretching might make them taller, but its much more plausible that they were born to be tall although there is no conclusive evidence that this is the case. Its been shown that mothers with same chromosone deactivation are much more likely to have gay sons, one would be hard pressed to show how the behavior of the sons has affected the biology of the mothers. Only a biased partisan would say the evidence suggests the behavior has caused the biological difference.
You also said "Spitzer didn't try the treatments. He reviewed the situations of others. A blanket statistic covering all types of treatment doesn't mean there aren't some successful types of treatment. Even if there weren't any, there is no reason not to continue to try to find a cure.". The .04% "success" rate I refered to is for the organizations that referred the 200 clients to Spitzer its based on the
estimated number of clients that were seen during the time it took to come up with the 200 claiming to have changed orientations. They saw an estimated 250,000 clients in order to come up with the
200 referred to Spitzer. There are no randomly sampled studies showing any significant success in changing sexual orientation from gay to straight. There is no reason to "cure" that which hurts no
one and brings people together in loving supportive relationships like mine. Your bigotry and hatred of that which does not affect your life is not a valid reason.
Anonymous said:
"Even if there weren't any, there is no reason not to continue to try to find a cure."
Interesting. Why do you think it is something that should be cured? It is not comparable to any disease that currently has or needs a cure.
K.A.
And don't forget....
"In a separate study looking at people's response to the body odors of others, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women.
"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study.
In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.
It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
Christine
Remember, Cilly's quote is from a media interview. In the peer-reviewed scientific paper, the same researchers said that the evidence couldn't "discriminate" between cause and effect concerning the biological reactions. How odd that they take a different line when the media focus is on.
It's pretty obvious that scientists are under heavy pressure to interpret findings to support the gay agenda.
Anonymous at October 23, 2006 11:14 PM
Its pretty obvious you'll cling to the absurd to advance an anti-gay agenda. No rational person would believe having a same sex love effects the production and reaction to body odour or something like finger length or same chromosome deactivation in a mother. You ignored it first time around, tell us how the behavior of a son affects the chromosonal makeup of a mother - its preposterous but you cling to it anyway.
"So is or should be the freedom to choose to marry the one person we love most without the government dictating the gender."
Randi, you don't just favor gay marriage, you favor government endorsement of gay marriage. If you have some religion that says gays can get married, no one would stop you. What you really want is for the government to extend the same benefits to gay couples as they do to hetero spouses. It's ludicrous to demand government benefits and then say the government should dispense them indiscriminately.
"The preference comes first, not the behavior. If you'll ask most gays they'll tell you they had the desire long before they engaged in same sex sex. I'm sure you recall having a preference for the opposite sex before you engaged in opposite sex sexual behavior, why on earth do you think it would be any different for gays?"
Because it is.
"The fact that when one identical twin is gay there is a 50% likelihood that the other will be is is strongly indicative that genes play a major role in same sex attractions."
Well, it could be as easy as, short people don't have as much success in attracting opposite sex attention and are more likely to adapt by seeking same gender relationships which are more readily available because they are more transient. Just as an example.
"The authors of the pheremone study acknowledged that it could be that the behavior caused the change but they and most scientists agree that this is the less likely possibility."
No they didn't. They stated blatantly that there is no way to "discriminate" between the two possibilities.
"There is no evidence that behavior
causes biological change such as this and the same is true for hearing differences, eyeblink rates, finger lengths, etc - its hard to imagine one's behavior affects one's finger length."
But a tendency is not inescapible. With societal standards, there is no proof that heterosexual feelings couldn't occur. Indeed, it is likely since the correlations aren't 100%. Only a strict determinist would say so. Unfortunately, this is what's so confusing: most psychiatrists simply don't believe you have any choice about what you desire or do. So when they say you have no choice but to be gay, you have to keep that in mind.
"Its been shown that mothers with same chromosone deactivation are much more likely to have gay sons, one would be hard pressed to show how the behavior of the sons has affected the biology of the mothers."
Because they have passed along some characteristic that makes it more tempting to turn to homosexuality. Doesn't mean at all that it's inevitable.
"Only a biased partisan would say the evidence suggests the behavior has caused the biological difference."
Scientists who don't believe this are persecuted by the status quo. It's an old story. Science always has a few giants and alot of followers.
"The .04% "success" rate I refered to is for the organizations that referred the 200 clients to Spitzer its based on the
estimated number of clients that were seen during the time it took to come up with the 200 claiming to have changed orientations. They saw an estimated 250,000 clients in order to come up with the
200 referred to Spitzer."
Oh please. He asked for some examples. They gave him some.
"There are no randomly sampled studies showing any significant success in changing sexual orientation from gay to straight."
Nor otherwise.
"There is no reason to "cure" that which hurts no one and brings people together in loving supportive relationships like mine."
Well, if this is your cause then stick to it. Argue it on moral grounds and stop playing games with scientific evidence.
"Your bigotry and hatred of that which does not affect your life is not a valid reason."
Bigotry are false assumptions. Mine aren't based on that.
Really don't hate anybody. I wish the best for them. We simply have different ideas what the "best" consists of.
Anonymous at October 23, 2006 11:37 PM
You claimed that the same sex behavior causes biological differences such as in brain structures while most people believe being gay is caused by the biological differences. You said there is no evidence for same sex attractions being innate which is ridiculous. Its no more likely that behavior causes different brain structures than it is that behavior causes different finger lengths or a basketball player to be tall. Basketball players are tall and people are gay because they were born to be that way.
You claimed there was no evidence people are innately gay, that behavior causes biological differences which is obviously wrong given that mothers with same chromosone deactivation are much more likely to have gay sons. There is no way the behavior of the sons caused the genetic differences in the mothers yet this is the heart of your rationale for saying there is no evidence that people are innately gay. Admit its you that is the biased partisan, what you are claiming is undeniably wrong.
Yeah, Spitzer asked for some examples of people who changed from gay to straight, he got people merely claiming to be so and it took 250,000 people to come up with those 200. This strongly suggests virtually all attempts to be "exgay" end in failure. Even those Spitzer thought might have changed were employed by "exgay" organizations and had trememndous incentive to lie about it. Given the numbers from his study it works out to a .04% "success" rate, I'm not playing games with scientific evidence, you are.
Your assumptions most certainly are false and you are bigotted, why else would you make the absurd statement that there is no evidence supporting the idea that being gay is innate? Why else would you suggest its always same sex behavior which causes biological differences when such differences include same chromosone deactiviation in mothers of gay sons?
I said to you I'm sure you recall having a preference for the opposite sex before you engaged in opposite sex sexual behavior, why on earth do you think it would be any different for gays?"
Without any rationale you absurdly said "Because it is.". You have no reason to believe this and I'm sure you don't, its just more evidence of your bigotry and hatred of people who aren't harming you.
If you hoped for the best for people including me you'd stop blindly and ignorantly portraying my wonderful loving supportive relationship as destructive, you'd stop encouraging others to look down on us for doing what makes us happy. Stop the lies and hate
"Remember, Cilly's quote is from a media interview. In the peer-reviewed scientific paper, the same researchers said that the evidence couldn't "discriminate" between cause and effect concerning the biological reactions. How odd that they take a different line when the media focus is on.
It's pretty obvious that scientists are under heavy pressure to interpret findings to support the gay agenda."
Lying again Anon? Show us a study where Dr. Charles Wysocki said anything different about the diffences in the production of body odors which were found to be associated with sexual orientation. The media quote I cited was from that well known "liberal" media outlet FOXNEWS.COM. It was about a study done in Philadephia by Dr. Wysocki, at the Monell Chemical Senses Center. What are you talking about?
Christine
"You claimed that the same sex behavior causes biological differences such as in brain structures while most people believe being gay is caused by the biological differences."
Randi, when I said this, I was talking about the biological reactions observed concerning pheronomes. As far as body structures go, besides the fact that the studies aren't replicated, no study has found 100% correlation- or even close. It's likely, if the unreplicated studies are validated, that these are factors that might make one susceptible to this inclination but many other factors would need to come into play, not the least of which is perception of societal norms and individual will.
You realize, of course, that there are gay people who are offended by the idea that they are programmed and believe that they have made their own choices.
"Lying again Anon? Show us a study where Dr. Charles Wysocki said anything different about the diffences in the production of body odors which were found to be associated with sexual orientation. The media quote I cited was from that well known "liberal" media outlet FOXNEWS.COM. It was about a study done in Philadephia by Dr. Wysocki, at the Monell Chemical Senses Center. What are you talking about?"
Cilly, I incorrectly assumed this was the interview with the European researchers which you posted earlier this year. Anyway, why quote a media interview? Where's the link to the study?
Anonymous at October 24, 2006 10:08 AM
This began when you claimed there is no evidence to support the idea that being gay is innate and immutable. That was why I made the reference to pheremones, finger length, hearing, eye blink rates, brain structures, and maternal same chromosone deactivation. You implied all of these were to be dismissed as caused by same sex sexual activity. As I stated then, only a liar would say there's no evidence to support the idea that same sex attractions are innate.
The fact that Narth et al had so much difficulty it took years to come up with 200 clients (out of an estimated 250,000) merely claiming to have changed strongly suggests that same sex attractions are immutable as well.
You know heterosexual attractions appear before opposite sex sex and yet ask us to believe your absurd bald face statement that somehow its not the same for gays - despite the fact that every gay you ask will tell you first they were same sex attracted and then they had same sex sex. Clearly you're a bigoted liar.
"This began when you claimed there is no evidence to support the idea that being gay is innate and immutable."
Well, that's a fact.
"That was why I made the reference to pheremones, finger length, hearing, eye blink rates, brain structures, and maternal same chromosone deactivation. You implied all of these were to be dismissed as caused by same sex sexual activity."
The pheronomes are likely a reaction to anticipated participation in a chosen activity. The bodily structures may be factors contributing to a susceptibility, if the data is ever reconfirmed by further tests, but making the leap to innateness or immutability is not justified.
"As I stated then, only a liar would say there's no evidence to support the idea that same sex attractions are innate."
If you pretend to not understand what I've said, you are likely lying.
"The fact that Narth et al had so much difficulty it took years to come up with 200 clients (out of an estimated 250,000) merely claiming to have changed strongly suggests that same sex attractions are immutable as well."
They weren't on trial. They didn't have a set number they were supposed to produce. I've met these people who claimed to have changed myself and I don't 250,000 people. Guess I just got lucky, eh? Take off to the Great White North!
"You know heterosexual attractions appear before opposite sex sex and yet ask us to believe your absurd bald face statement that somehow its not the same for gays - despite the fact that every gay you ask will tell you first they were same sex attracted and then they had same sex sex. Clearly you're a bigoted liar."
There is no reason to believe the things that trigger same-sex sexual response are anything more than aesthetics. Objectively, it's hard to see why they can't be altered. Psychiatrists still try to treat other fetishes.
Anonymous said:
"There is no reason to believe the things that trigger same-sex sexual response are anything more than aesthetics. Objectively, it's hard to see why they can't be altered. Psychiatrists still try to treat other fetishes.
Gee are you trying to be objective? Fine, then why couldn't attraction to the opposite sex be a fetish? For a bisexual, why is the attraction to the opposite sex not a fetish? For a homosexual, how is attraction to the same-sex be a fetish if there no attraction to the opposite sex? If their "fetish" is "treated", will they become asexual?
You need to get your round a few assumptions before you can even begin to look at things objectively. You're a sizzling hotpot of subjective bias and clouded judgements.
K.A.
Anonymous at October 25, 2006 11:28 AM when I brought up these studies you acknowledged yourself they indicate a tendency or as you put it just now a susceptiblity. That's just another way of saying innate. For you to make those statements and then claim there is no evidence to support same sex attractions as being innate is clearly dishonest. Mothers with same chromosone deactivation are much more likely to have gay sons. That alone is evidence of its innateness, no rational person would suggest otherwise.
A mere claim to have changed sexual orientation carries little weight. The people seeking out such change are highly religious and have tremendous incentive to lie about any change in order to avoid social and religious disapproval. The people involved in organizations like exodus, when pressed, acknowledge that when they say they've changed they don't mean they've changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions, they've merely changed the way they view themselves and possibly their behavior.
If people had truly changed sexual orientation they'd be willing to take an objective test to prove it. So called "exgays" have been invited repeatedly to take penis volume measurement tests while viewing sexual images of men and women to verify claims of change. None have been willing to put their claims to such an objective test. If they were telling the truth there would be no reason to refuse to do so and every reason to verify their claims. That none have been willing is a good indication that all are lying.
Its crazy for you to say "The pheronomes are likely a reaction to anticipated participation in a chosen activity." Most people would be hard pressed to understand how behavior could indirectly cause a physical change of this sort, I challenge you to hypothesize step by step how same sex sexual activity would bring this about when opposite sexual activity does not. It is equally unlikely that same sex sexual activity brings about changes in hearing or eyeblink rate when opposite sex sexual activity does not. How would the gender of one's sexual partner affect the rate at which eyeblinks occur or how well we can hear? Its doubtful that the mechanisms controlling these functions can distinguish the gender of a sexual partner. There is no evidence that sexual activity brings about such biological differences and for you to say its likely shows your bias - you have no reason to posses such a belief beyond your desire to oppress gays.
"There is no reason to believe the things that trigger same-sex sexual response are anything more than aesthetics. Objectively, it's hard to see why they can't be altered. Psychiatrists still try to treat other fetishes."
Ignoring the evidence won't make it go away. I'm sure you don't believe the things that triggered your opposite sex sexual response are just aesthetics. There's no reason beyond bigotry for you to believe a gay person's experience with the appearance of sexual desire prior to sexual activity differs from your own. To suggest the sexual behavior causes the sexual attraction is absurd when you know that contradicts your own experience. You'd be hard pressed to find any people who wouldn't tell you the sexual attraction came before sex itself.
People have been trying and failing to change sexual orientations for decades using everything from electroshock to nausea inducing drugs without success. This is reason enough to see that it probably can't be altered. There's no reason for psychiatrists to "treat" same sex attractions which hurt no one and can bring people together in loving supportive relationshps - that's good for them and good for society.
"You're a sizzling hotpot"
Well, that can't be all bad.
A fetish is a sexual response to stimuli that is irrational. Ther are degrees of harm this causes but, in the case of homosexuality, it is destructive to the individual participating.
Anonymous atOctober 26, 2006 6:57 AM
Homosexuality is no more destructive to the individuals involved than heterosexuality is. Both can be problematic if practiced irresponsibly but both are a wonderful thing in a committed, loving supportive relationship. In that circumstance they make the individuals involved happier, more productive, and healthier, that is good for them and for society. I've been involved in such relationships with both a man and a woman and I speak from experience (which you likely do not) when I say these are both a good thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home