Ware Farms

Christian Couple removed from Foster Care List

2007-10-30T15:38:00.000-05:00

We have this article from the Daily Mail Foster child to be taken away because Christian couple refuse to teach him about homosexuality

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.

The problem social services is trying to address, as I see it, is the question, "What if a foster child placed with this couple is gay?"

We find that about 5% of children are born with a non-heterosexual orientation. That's one child in 20. Doing the math, we find that of the 28 children they looked after, there is a 76% chance that at least one of these children fit into a non-heterosexual category.

So then, what is the potential detrimental effect to such a child's healthy development if he or she is raised in a gay un-friendly environment? For example, as foster care parents typically do, they would take the children in their care to church with them. In the case of the nonconformist South Chard Christian Church this couple favors, they would be subject to the anti-gay rhetoric that comes from the pulpit and the congregations self-righteous disdain for anything homosexual.

Yet, we know that the social ostracism that a church like this and this couple as ministers in this church promote can produce anxiety, depression and self destructive behaviors in gay youngsters. In fact, the suicide rate among gay teens is three times higher than teens in general as a result of the way gays are mistreated by society in general.

It's not possible to tell if a young child is gay or not. Yet should we place any child in such a gay un-friendly environment if there is any chance that he or she is? Social services doesn't want to take this risk. I support their decision.

Charisma- When Preaching Becomes a Hate Crime

2007-08-24T08:44:00.000-05:00

From a comment on the Charisma Forum When Preaching becomes a 'Hate Crime'

Macy said:

Funny thing is Bill, despite all that wonderful intellectual crowd telling us that homosexuality isnt wrong or whatever,
the one that made them and has all knowledge and wisdom,
calls it an abomination?

The abomination is when men leave their "natural" affection for women (HETEROSEXUALS) and engage in same sex behaviors.

In Sodom, the vast majority of the men who showed up at Lot's door were HETEROSEXUALS behaving badly.

Paul comdemns th HETEROSEXUALS who left their wives at home to engage the services of young male prostiutes, a form of birth control, and the HETEROSEXUAL idol worshipers engaging in promiscuous sexual activities with both men and women.

The prohibition in Leviticus is to keep HETEROSEXUAL men from using this form of birth control as well, to ensure the growth of the tribe during their 40 years in the desert.

For the HETEROSEXUALS mentioned in each case in the Bible, to engage in same sex activities is "unnatural" and therefore "sinful."

For homosexuals to engage in sexual activities with a person of the opposite sex would be just as "unnatural" for them and therefore also "sinful."

Note the tragedy that results when a gay man tries to pretend to be straight and enters a sham marriage with someone he could never love, only to have the whole arrangement fall apart later when the pretense can no longer be maintained. This is particularly damaging to the family and society in general when there are children involved.

This is the terrible harm that is done if someone were to follow Lucy's unethical suggestions.

The abomination is when a person doesn't live within the boundries of the sexual orientation they are born with, whether it's heterosexuals having unnatural relations with persons of the same sex which is what the Bible addresses or same sex attracted people having unnatural relations with persons of the opposite sex. Both are unnatural and therefore sinful. Relations which are appropriate to one's sexual orientation are not.

Don't use passages which condemn the inappropriate behavior of heterosexuals and assume they apply to same sex attracted persons as well.

Would you consider marrying someone who is gay??? I don't think that would be wise. Do you?

Baptists Promote Ex-Gay Therapy - VI

2007-08-23T07:52:00.000-05:00

Comment posted regarding Tennessean article Baptists reach out to gays, to make them 'ex-gays'

deliciousirony80 mentions,

"I agree with cortney, too. At some point, we have to stand back and let it sink in that nobody is going to change minds on here. I do appreciate seeing what others think and new ways to consider or think about what I believe in. But it is very rare that this people on this forum really change my way of thinking on whatever topic. I have to assume that people who disagree with me would be similar, at least in that respect."

Perhaps so, yet we can't let misinformation about gays go unanswered. We must respond to their lies with the truth:

1. People who are adjusted to their natural born sexuality, both gay and straight, can live the same healthy, happy, productive lives. Those who claim that being straight is "better" than being gay are just as mistaken as those who believed that being white is superior to being black.

2, There are no diagnostically testable differences between gays and straights. They both respond similarly during psychological testing.

3. Gays have served in the military with distinction, as have others. The idea that being gay is a disability or disorder is clearly refuted by these undeniable facts.

4. No environmental factors during upbringing have been shown to influence adult sexual orientation. These natural variations in human sexuality are a near random happenstance of birth.

5. No "cure" for same sex attractions has ever been found. These primitive limbic system responses to sexual stimuli are not subject to change.

6. Those who unjustly condemn gays and their behavior bare a great deal of responsibility for the problems gays have. In areas where gay acceptance is higher, these problems fade away.

Professionals and others who are aware of these facts need to bring them to the public's attention. Confronting the hateful lies and malicious misinformation that some spew out about gays not only helps members of the GLBT community and their families but the community in general as well.

Baptists Promote Ex-Gay Therapy - V

2007-08-21T16:01:00.000-05:00

Comment posted regarding Tennessean article Baptists reach out to gays, to make them 'ex-gays

clarksbar wrote,

"The thing is that many non-political mental health professionals believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder based on years of treating homosexuals and in-depth studies."

I see you're blowin' smoke again.

Here are the groups,

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association

which have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a "cure." Notice they include the more progressive National Education Association and the more conservative American Federation of Teachers.

Ref: Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth:
A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel

Add in the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association and others representing 790,000 professionals. In reply you link to the 130 members of NARTH, none of whom is a professionally credentialed psychologist.

Your smoke is too thin to obscure the reality of the matter. The fact that homosexuality is not a mental disorder is backed up by 50+ years of research in the area.

Baptists Promote Ex-Gay Therapy - IV

2007-08-16T06:00:00.000-05:00

Comment posted regarding Tennessean article Baptists reach out to gays, to make them 'ex-gays'

Bryant said,

Don't know how to break it to you Bill but those people you mention are far from unanimous in thinking homosexuality is normal in fact i would be surprised if even a majority does.

I have a sister who is quite an accomplished Psychologist who thinks it is anything but normal and she says there are plenty more who feel the same.

The LEADERSHIP thinks it is normal and attempt to present it as a unanimous or nearly so opinion.

I would love to see a vote on it myself(among Psychologists).

I didn't say homosexuality was "normal," i.e. typical. I said it is a normal variation in human sexuality. Big difference. Don't misstate what I've said in order to justify your anti-gay prejudices. Thanks.

Here's The American Psychiatric Association's view on the what the SBC is proposing:

Question: Is it ethical to engage in a therapy (such as reparative or conversion therapy) to change sexual orientation?

Answer: No. Although successful and ethical treatments for legitimate psychiatric diagnoses may sometimes lead to some changes in sexual behavior, any treatment that is based on an assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder, or is based on an assumption that the patient should change his or her sexual orientation, is by its nature unethical, as it violates numerous ethics principles. Such so-called "treatment" ignores established scientific evidence, demeans the dignity of the patient, succumbs to individual and social prejudice and stigma, and has often been significantly harmful to patients, families, others, and their relationships.

From: Principles of Medical Ethics, 2001 Edition.

The American Psychological Association supports this view:

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.

From:Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

The APA has created a task force to look into revising these statements. Most APA members I've talked to would like a stronger condemnation of any efforts to change a persons sexual orientation due to the harm that usually results. Whether it also declares this practice unethical remains to be seen. Preliminary results are due Dec, 2007

The fact that the SBC would promote the unethical treatment of gays via these "ex-gay" programs is astonishing, but not all that surprising.

Baptists Promote Ex-Gay Therapy - III

2007-08-15T09:24:00.000-05:00

Comment posted regarding Tennessean article Baptists reach out to gays, to make them 'ex-gays

clarksbar said,

" And you forget that the APA also supported pedophilia until Congress went after its arse."

Not so! The APA published research on the effects of pedophilia on a large number of children. They found that the degree of harm done varies considerably. No surprise there. Many were severely traumatized, most moderately so. For some the effect was modest and a few suffered little or no ill effects.

Therefore, clinicians should not assume the worst in every case. If the child rebounds quickly, shows none of the secondary characteristics of trauma: anxiety, withdrawal, bed wetting, nightmares, etc., then it's possible that the child is one of the few who was not as greatly effected as most children are. Long term therapy would not be indicated in these cases.

Suggesting that by publishing these results, the APA supports pedophilia is nonsense. It's like saying that while most people have severe to moderate headaches as a result of being mugged, a few don't end up with a headache at all, therefore mugging is okay. It's just that silly. The APA has a strong position against child molestation. Members deal with the psychological harm that results every day.

The APA promotes the mental health of the citizens it serves. It makes recommendations based on the best scientific information available. Removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was based on sound research findings like the first four I've already mentioned. Here's another:

Fifth, there's no "cure" for same sex attractions. Since environmental factors (upbringing, child abuse, etc) do not cause these feelings to develop in some people, environmental factors (therapy) can't make them go away. About every type of therapy imaginable has been tried, from Freudian psychoanalysis to electro-shock treatments, all to no avail. These limbic system responses occur at a primitive level that is not subject to conscious control or therapeutic manipulation.

If there were even the slimmest chance that one of these reparative or conversion "therapies" worked, wouldn't the National Institute of Mental Health be financing research in this area under the Bush Administration? Fifty years of science says that such attempts at therapy don't work. The NIMH is not wasting research funds trying to do the impossible.

We don't need to spend time and money on a "cure" for a disease that doesn't exist in the first place. Yet that's what the Southern Baptist Convention is doing in promoting its "ex-gay" programs.

Baptists Promote Ex-Gay Therapy - II

2007-08-13T19:49:00.000-05:00

Comment posted regarding Tennessean article Baptists reach out to gays, to make them 'ex-gays

clarksbar said,

"There was absolutely NO logical reason to remove homosexuality, as a formal disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) during that fateful conference in 1973. None whatsoever! It was removed for political reasons and the materials offered, as proof, were based on fiction."

Here are two more logical reasons:

Third, it was clear after WWII that gays didn't "break down" during combat stress due to their "mental illness" as many had supposed. Instead, they served honorably and with distinction as did other Americans. The same was true in Korea, and the war I served in, Vietnam. A fellow US Air Force Academy graduate and pilot is gay. Do you think they would have given him a $3,500,000 airplane to fly if he were suffering from some mental illness or other? Members of the APA recognized the same thing. Homosexuality had no debilitating effects during military service, a truly stressful environment, so maintaining that it was an illness made no sense to them.

Forth, the wealth of data available for research from the Army Alpha testing program, and the surprisingly successful gay military service, lead to a surge in research on homosexuality beginning in the 1950's. A primary object of research was to "prove" Freud's conjectures that upbringing factors (distant father, domineering mother, you name it) were the root cause of homosexuality. Later studies became larger and more sophisticated, but try as they might, they couldn't find any relation between childhood experiences and adult sexual orientation. Trauma can lead to many mental disorders. With none discovered in this case, it left homosexuality on the shaky ground of being a disease without a cause.

Removing homosexuality from the DSM was based on logical reasoning backed by sound scientific research.

Baptists Promote Ex-Gay Therapy

2007-08-13T11:44:00.000-05:00

Comment posted regarding Tennessean article Baptists reach out to gays, to make them 'ex-gays

clarksbar sez,

"Of course you're correct. God is clear about sin and repentance. The perverted ones would have all of Christ's Words regarding sin removed from Scripture. If they are so dysfunctional that they cannot function on a fundamental human level, why should we expect their cognitive reasoning abilities to be normal, in other areas? Based on some of the comments they post and the rationales they use on this forum alone, they are not."

There were several major reasons why the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its DSM listing of psychological disorders, and other medical and mental health organizations quickly followed suit. These two relate to your remark:

First, if we give randomly selected groups of gays and straights a whole battery of psychological and cognitive tests, then give them anonymously to a panel of diagnosticians, there's no way the panel can tell which group is which. Sure, both groups will have members with psychological problems of various kinds, but there's no recognizable pattern of differences that would distinguish between the two groups.

Testing is designed to help the clinician determine the specifics of a person's mental disorder so the proper treatment can be prescribed. Changes in testing results later show how successful the treatment has been. Here we have no differences between gays and straights to guide us and how would these tests tell us that the "treatment" is successful when the before and after test results are the same???

The logical conclusion is that homosexuality is not a mental disorder in the first place.

Second, a disorder implies an impairment in a person's ability to function successfully in routine areas of their life. Research comparing gays and straights who are adjusted to their sexuality find that gays can lead the same healthy, happy, productive lives as anyone else. There are no impairments to their abilities simply because they are gay. Hence, being gay is not a disorder.

Those who promote change for members of the GLBT community imply that such change would be "for the better." Yet we see that gays who accept their sexuality as it is are no worse off than their straight counterparts. "Better" is a wholely religious judgement in this context. It has no basis in scientific reality.

The theraputic approach to related problems that gays have is to help them learn to cope with their innate sexuality in an often hostile environment. So you might see why there may be some animousity between mental health professionals and those who add to the problem by calling gays such things as "dysfunctional perverts."

PFOX - Arlington School Settlement - II

2007-08-12T18:58:00.000-05:00

Comment posted regarding Daily Press article Group promoting gay 'conversion' settles with Arlington schools:

my Brother EX GAY wrote

hey if the "gay crowd" can distribute their propaganda.... then My Brother's Group HAS THE SAME RIGHTS!!!!

No one has the right to promote unethical, disproven treatment for conditions that members of the medical and mental health community have found do not even exist.

Non-heterosexual attractions are natural variations in human sexuality that occur in near random fashion for reasons we don't yet understand. These primitive limbic system reactions are not subject to change.

Attempting to produce this change is considered unethical by those of us who have professional standards to maintain. The fact that groups influenced by their religious beliefs have no ethical standards to guide them, doesn't make what they are doing okay

PFOX - Arlington School Settlement

2007-08-07T13:12:00.000-05:00

Comment posted regarding Daily Press article Group promoting gay 'conversion' settles with Arlington schools:

We've known for more than thirty years now that environmental factors (upbringing) has no bearing on adult sexual orientation and no environmental influences (therapy) can change this inborn characteristic.

Those who promote the "change is possible" mantra through reparative or conversion "therapy" only seek to have those who have same sex attractions deny and repress these natural feelings to conform to their repressive religious beliefs about homosexuality.

These psychologically dysfunctional approaches to same sex attractions can lead to depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behaviors including suicide, especially in school aged children. Due to the harm that almost always results, these "therapies" are highly condemned by all major medical and mental health organizations.

As a former APA member (ret), who has had to repair the damage that these "therapies" do, I would highly recommend that the false hope that "change is possible" not be promoted in the first place, certainly not to children, who are most vulnerable and naive about the harmful effects that these treatments produce.

Ed Brayton on Warren Moon

2006-08-06T14:05:00.000-05:00

From Ed Brayton on Warren Moon:

It all brings to mind for me the absurdity of judging people based on superficial traits. It's not just skin color, it's religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and more. It's the same illogic that makes people think that gay men and women can't be good parents, or can't be good soldiers, or can't be committed spouses and partners. When judging people and trying to predict whether they can handle a job, we should look only at the situation and at the traits that situation requires in order to be successful. Forget about all the irrelevant traits.

If you're looking for a store manager, a company CEO, a quarterback or a military officer, what possible effect could the color of someone's skin or the gender of who they love have on their ability to do those jobs? For all of those positions, you need intelligence, ambition, discipline, the ability to work with others, and many other traits, none of which are associated any more with skin color or sexual orientation than they are with eye color, hair color or whether they're left handed or right handed.

Martin Luther King famously dreamed of a world where his children would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. What is true of race is just as true of every other superficial trait upon which we tend to judge people. Every single person should be judged according to the content of their character, not according to their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, shoe size, religion, or anything else. This, surely, is among the most self-evident truths one could possibly imagine. All the more wonder, then, why so many don't understand it.

Lorian's Family

2006-06-30T21:39:00.000-05:00

A response to a comment to this post at exgay watch:

F. Rottles, whether you choose to call me gay, lesbian, homosexual, "same-sex attracted," or any other term, the words you and I use do nothing to change or invalidate the reality of my 15-year relationship with the woman I love, nor the lovely children God has given us. I cannot imagine a more fulfilling, blessed and sacramental covenant than the "lifestyle" I live with the wonderful woman God placed in my life.

When you discuss a gay person "reorientating" him- or herself, you make the error of confusing orientation with "lifestyle." Certainly I have chosen (and been blessed with) a lifestyle that involves having a family and a home together with my same-gendered partner and our children. I could have chosen a celibate lifestyle, or even, God forbid, a loveless, dishonorable, dishonest "married" lifestyle with a man, promising him levels of physical and emotional love and commitment I could never actually fulfill. So, yes, one can change one's lifestyle (though not necessarily with particularly good results), but one's orientation is quite another thing entirely.

Think in terms of a compass. You orient yourself based upon the points of the compass. You may turn the compass one way or another so that the needle appears to be pointing to the east or to the west, but the fact is that the needle always continues to point to the north, no matter which way you turn the compass. Similarly, a gay person may turn him/herself one way or another, opting for a celibate lifestyle, or choosing to marry someone of the opposite gender despite lack of love, attraction and deep, intimate connection, but his/her internal compass will always remain pointing to his/her "true north," his/her basic orientation towards and attraction to persons of his or her own gender.

Yet no matter how sincerely Lorian expresses the love she has for her same-gendered partner and their children, some still insist that lesbian and gay families do not deserve to be recognized in our country.

Tolerance, Inclusion and Equality

2006-05-01T16:46:00.000-05:00

Here's a blog I just discovered from a comment to a post by Jonathan Rowe at Positive Liberty about the infamous "gay agenda."

Both in the comment and at a similar post at the blog, the author explains that the true gay agenda consists of these items: 1) tolerance, 2) inclusion and 3) equality. He goes on to say:

Now, mind you, tolerance, inclusion, and equality are "Enlightenment" concepts, concepts developed in the course of "human events" and history that argued such fundamental concepts are intrinsic to any pluralistic liberal democracy, like the one our Founders tried to create. Yes, the United States was founded on principles of the European Enlightenment by such disparate writers like Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume, Locke, Milton, and even Kant. It may seem strange in today's environment that the concepts of tolerance, inclusion, and equality have not always been the case. Why did it take 2,500 years of Western Civilization to alight onto to these ideas; weren't they "obvious" to everyone?

Well, no, this wasn't at all obvious, he explains. Religious tradition, the divine right of kings, lots of cultural history stood in the way. Then a "miracle" happened:

Highly unironically, Christianity's own Protestant Reformation was the impetus. People were encouraged to "think" and "believe" for themselves, and now that Guttenburg had discovered moveable type, everyman could have access to God's revelation, and everyman could think and believe for himself. Several major thinkers and writers dared even to think "outside" the Bible and came up with ideas that seemed natural, intrinsic, rational, and divinely-instituted. Well that kind of thought changed the world forever.

There's lots more detailing about how our country was founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even though these didn't apply to everyone at first. Over the years, though, rights were granted to those who were originally excluded as we come ever closer to this ideal. Now, he concludes, it's time for tolerance, inclusion and equality to be extended to our lesbian and gay citizens:

This country, amazingly, got off on the right foot with good intentions (not dealing with slavery and women's suffrages are two enormous strikes against the Founders). And like slavery and women's suffrage that had to fight against the biblical yoke that has held each of them back, so now homosexuals are making the next fight in America's evolution to obtain America's promise. All that the "homosexual agenda" asks is that they receive equal treatment under the law. That the Enlightenment principle of tolerance for differences be restored. And, that equality is true of everyone, or it is true for no one. That seems to have been America's agenda at one time; it's now needed more than ever to restore American self-worth, dignity, and enterprise to ALL its citizens, not just those who claim Yahweh's special dispensations.

I can only add that when our Pledge of Allegiance ends "with liberty and justice for all" that this applies equally to our gay and lesbian citizens.

Jim asks "Why are Fundamentalists Anti-Gay?"

2006-04-28T15:35:00.000-05:00

Fellow Christian blogger, Jim Johnson of Straight not Narrow has an article featured at the Gay Christian Outpost titled Why are Fundamentalist Anti-Gay.

It's hard to find the "key" quotes, since each paragraph has a few, but here is a sample to give you a feel for what Jim is saying:

Why do so many Christians put so much effort into condemning, discriminating against, and sometimes outright hating homosexuals? I'll share the primary causes that I have seen and offer suggestions for how it can be effectively handled.

I believe some of the loudest voices shouting against the GLBT community do so not due to any doctrinal belief, but to draw attention, wealth, and ultimately power for themselves and their organizations...

They appeal to the lowest common denominators, preaching about what gays and lesbians will “take away” from “traditional families.” Of course the infidelity, abuse, and dysfunction running rampant in those families which they are fighting so hard to maintain as “God’s blueprint,” is seldom if ever addressed...

How does this reflect God’s plan for our lives and spur the growth of the body of believers? Not very well, I'm afraid. Many, many things are said in God’s name that have little to do with God’s will for our society, be it in the United States or any other nation. Of course, Jesus showed us with his words, actions, and his painful death that Godliness is not about grabbing power and forcing people into your will. It is about being a willing servant and subjugating one’s own will to God’s. That’s not very “sexy” these days, even in Christ’s own church...

We don't need to fight, but we need to make sure our voice is heard because the other side is being broadcast at full throttle. They have a huge advantage in resources, but our side does have an edge.

They have God’s name, but we have God’s love and the Holy Spirit. If we show that to the world, they will indeed know that we are Christians by our love.

For those who are interested in a Christian perspective that is far different than the "gays are going to hell" variety, please take a few minutes to read to whole article.

Day of Silence Responses

2006-04-26T16:13:00.000-05:00

I looked into Day of Silence blog posts and found the following to be insightful.

From Joe Killian:

I helped a handful of friends organize the first Gay-Straight Alliance at my high school in Connecticut some years ago - and it wasn't smooth sailing even in that time and place. We did have sympathetic faculty, though, and the administration knew what was good for them and didn't get in our way. In fact, when a gay friend had his car windows broken and his tires punctured shortly after the group was made public it sort of galvanized the administration to stand in opposition to the meatheads who thought that kind of thing was necessary.

I did get some shit from the northern equivalent of rednecks at first. I remember, in the cafeteria of our school one day, some kids stopped me -- my friend Brian LaRue might have been with me -- to try to intimidate me and to pointedly ask if I was gay.

"What -- are you looking for a date?" I asked them.

Which, being the mental giants they were, completely flumoxed them.

From Scared Ordinary:

Before the event, the advisors had informed the students that during the Holocaust of World War II, the Nazis tried to exterminate not only Jews, but also Poles, gypsies, communists, and homosexuals. To identify these "undesirables," the Nazis required each group to wear a symbol on their clothing, as we all know. As Jews were forced to wear a yellow Star of David, homosexuals were forced to wear an inverted pink triangle. Since then, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community has reclaimed the inverted pink triangle as a symbol of pride and support for the gay rights movement. I did not know the latter, so thanks to the effort of the GSA, I became better informed.

During the morning break last week, students formed a large silent standing triangle on the main lawn. It was a deeply moving experience.

A bit of history about GLSEN co-founder Kevin Jennings and Massachusetts Governor William Weld from Lassiter Space

I knew Kevin Jennings back in the mid 90's when he was starting GLSEN. He once told me that he envisioned a future where every child learn to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. He was a teacher at the time and he devoted the next dozen or so years seeing that vision through. Gay kids nationwide owe Kevin Jennings a debt of gratitude, for making their cause his life's work.

During my Harvard days (circa 1993), I took a class called "Gay Issues in Education'' taught by prominent gayologist Dr. Arthur Lipkin. This was around the same time that former Mass. Gov. William Weld implemented a "safe schools" program that put anti-gay discrimination on par with racial discrimination within the public schools in Massachusetts. Basically it meant calling a kid a "faggot" would have the same gravitas as the N-word, for example. This is about the same time Kevin was getting GLSEN off the ground. Anyway the field work for the Harvard class was to research the efficacy of the safe school plan. Did Gov. Weld's program make schools safe for gay and lesbian youth? You betcha. In fact, Bill Weld remains my favorite republican politician ever. He was a moderate guy acting his conscience to protect gay kids.

All in all, I say that the Day of Silence was a meaningful experience for many.

How Loud the Day of Silence

2006-04-24T20:23:00.000-05:00

My two previous posts have to do with my views on the limits of anti-gay speech by high school students. If Christians or others wish to propose a more positive alternative to the "gay lifestyle," then they are free to do so. If, instead, they say hateful or demeaning things about gays, I don't care if they're based on religion or come from the Bible, this type of speech cannot be allowed among vulnerable children whose presents is mandatory.

An appropriate expression of views in school is the "Day of Silence" scheduled for this coming Wednesday, April 26. Nearly a half million students in over 4000 colleges and high school will remain silent for the school day to remind us of how gays and lesbians have had to remain silent about their existence in the past and even today.

In the 1950's when I was in high school, I certainly didn't know that anyone was gay. The silence was unbreakable.

In an opinion piece in the Tacoma, WA News Tribune, Brent Hartinger relates his experience thirty years later:

Gay and lesbian Americans and their allies are finally making themselves heard. Even in some high schools.

It wasn't always this way. I first joined the gay youth movement back in 1989, when I helped establish Oasis, a Tacoma support group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youths. Only one of our 150 members was “out” at school, and he was receiving death threats.

Death threats, imagine. Speech can't get any more hateful than that. An anti-gay blogger a while ago (I can't remember where, SAT) mentioned that at least we don't put gays to death like they do in Iran and Iraq, as if gays should be so thankful for that concession that they refrain from asking for anything more.

I see that that the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which helps promote the Day of Silence, lists 11 high schools in Tennessee with Gay Straight Alliances (GSA's), which is far lower than the 80 per state average. Needless to say, Rhea County HS isn't among them, (although we do have a JROTC unit we're quite proud of).

This doesn't mean that no students here will be participating. I'll check the local paper and get back to you. Say, I've gotten to know the editor, with all my Letters to the Editor and all, so I'll e-mail him to see if he knows if students here will be participating and tell him I'd be eager to read about it if they are.

In fact, here's the e-mail:

JC,

I see that the National "Day of Silence" is being held this Wednesday in schools around the country. After that fiasco in March two years ago with the County Commissioners "Banning Gays from Rhea County" and the "Gay Day in Rhea County" response two months later, I'd be interested to know if any of our students in Rhea County High School will be joining in the "Day of Silence" activities. If they are, I'd be pleased to read about it in the paper.

Regards,
William J. Ware, Sr.
Spring City

The reminder about the County Commissioners "Banning gays from Rhea County" is no joke. When I saw a few lines about it in the print addition of USA Today, I googled the net to see how wide spread our embarrassment should be. I found that Ed Brayton had given us his famous "Idiot of the Month" award on his blog. That's the day I made my first blog comment. I started this blog five months later.

I hope that the Day of Silence is a "roaring" success; that it proves how loud Silence can be.

Update: Our esteemed editor, JC, hasn't heard of any Day of Silence activities here in Rhea County. So I replied:

"Hmm. This is rather enigmatic. If someone were planning such an event, then they would seek publicity to see that their "message" was getting out to as many people as possible. If no one is willing to speak to this issue, then if shows how desperately we need such an event in the first place."

Religion, Homosexuality and Free Speech in High School

2006-04-23T13:26:00.000-05:00

The Alliance Defense Fund, which was involved in the "Homosexuality is Shameful" t-shirt suit mentioned in my previous post, is at it again.

Three Pennsylvania high school students backed by a conservative legal group have sued their school district, claiming they were prevented from quoting Biblical verses in school and expressing opposition to homosexuality, their lawyers said on Friday.

In their lawsuit, the students say they believe homosexuality is a sin and that they have the right to speak out about "the harmful effects of homosexuality."

The students ... are being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, which argues their free-speech rights have been violated.

Comments at the bottom of a later Philadelphia Inquirer article, indicate that the students' primary concern was to be able to call their club the "Bible Club," mention they were a Christian group (although any student is welcome to join), and to quote Bible passages in the posters they are allowed to put up advertising their club as all extra curricular after school hours clubs are allowed to do.

This would appear to fit in with the Supreme Court finding that any school that allows other extra curricular clubs must allow religious orientated clubs, such as a Bible Study club as well. Guidelines ensure that clubs will be organized and run by students to make it clear that they are not representing an official school position. A teacher may be assigned, but for administrative purposes only, not as a participant.

The Downingtown School District has a policy which prohibits students from expressing opinions that seek "to establish the supremacy of a particular religious denomination, sect or point of view."

What??? It looks like they have taken a policy which correctly applies to school personnel who cannot promote religion in their offical capacity, and try to apply this to students, who are not government employees, as well. Sorry. While limiting discussion of religion (and politics?) may lead to a more tranquil environment, restricting student speech in this area is not something the school is allowed to do. In fact, I've never heard of such a thing before, have you?

A further Downingtown policy assures protection from "sexual, racial, religious, age, marital status, ethnic, political beliefs, disability status, ancestral, cultural, sexual orientation or gender harassment." It forbids "the dissemination of materials that attempt to diminish the worth of any individual or group."

OK. As part of the US Dept of Education "Safe and Drug Free Schools" program, schools have established anti-bullying programs to ensure that students will not be picked on for one reason or several. Students deserve a safe environment free from harassment which promotes learning. What constitutes bullying or harassment is subject to interpretation, of course, as the previous post shows.

From the Inquirer:

The lawsuit says that East High School Prayer Club members Stephanie Styer, Steven Styer and Kim Kowalski want to express their belief "that there is a superior religious point of view to other competing views that would, for example, affirm a homosexual lifestyle."

Well, it seems to me that how they say this has everything to do with whether it's acceptable or not. If they say, "We have good news for gays. Come to our 3:15 meeting on Wednesday and find out about it." This would be fine with me. If a gay goes there and doesn't like what he's hearing, he can always leave.

In contrast, if they put out the "usual" quotes from Leviticus and Romans, which are highly derogatory in nature, then that would amount to harassment and should not be permitted.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

"Homosexuality is Shameful" T-shirt in School

2006-04-21T17:18:00.000-05:00

The LA Times has an article about a high school sophomore who wore a T-shirt the day after the school's 2004 Day of Silence which read, "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" on the front, and "Homosexuality is Shameful" on the back. He was kept in a conference room "doing homework" for the day when he insisted on wearing the shirt which the school considered inappropriate.

The student is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund in a law suit claiming his right to free speech had been violated. The ADF represents Christians who feel that their rights to express their religious beliefs about homosexuality are being unfairly repressed in schools, colleges and the workplace.

The US Appellate Court has not made its final ruling, but did rule that the student can't wear the shirt for the time being, while the case is pending. The LA Times article gives the details.

This stimulated quite a discussion on free speech versus the right of gay kids not to be harassed at school over at the ex-gay watch web blog. I added this comment about public schools and free speech:

There's a major distinction between public schools and the public square.

The state requires children to leave the safety of their homes and the guardianship of their parents to attend school. In return, the teachers and school administrators assume a responsibility in loco parentus for the health and welfare of these children beyond just the formal requirement of providing them with an education.

If a child becomes ill, for example, the school informs the parent, of course, but must see that the child gets emergency treatment, if required, until the parent gets there.

From the LA Times article, "Reinhardt cited a study showing that among teenage victims of anti-gay discrimination, 75% experienced a decline in academic performance, 39% had truancy problems and 28% dropped out of school."

Children are more sensitive and vulnerable to criticism than we would expect adults to be. Protecting children from physical harm alone is not sufficient. As this report shows, psychological harm can be devastating. Gay teens have higher rates of suicide and other psychological difficulties. Fortunately, these rates have subsided since the Safe Schools and anti-bullying programs were initiated in the mid 1990's.

A parent can protect a child from the harm our local street preacher holding a "homosexuality is shameful" sign might do by avoiding the corner of Clinton and McClain or by immediately reassuring the child to the contrary. The school performs this "parent" function by not allowing a "homosexuality is shameful" T-shirt in a place where attendance is mandatory.

Judge Reinhardt made it clear that this restriction to free speech would not apply to colleges where the students have the status of adults who can fend for themselves. In high schools and elementary schools, however, the teachers and school administrators must take on the role of the parent and protect these vulnerable children from anti-gay and other harassment.

The Christian? Right?

2006-04-14T12:33:00.000-05:00

Jim Johnson takes note of how derisively a former member of a Christian band was treated by his erstwhile friends after revealing he was gay. Jim ends:

Fortunately, not all Christians are like that, but sadly far too many do behave that way. You know, the Golden Rule isn't just a nice saying, it's biblical:

John 13:34 (NIV) Jesus says "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

Did you notice that there are NO qualifiers in that command. If we are truly seeking Christ's will for our lives, that's how we treat other people; so simple yet so difficult for many "godly" people.

I certainly agree.

In the 1970's, I visited a Jewish co-worker's home and noticed his wife had a bumper sticker on her car which read:

"The Moral Majority is neither"

I got a bit of a chuckle our of that. Thirty years later it appears we need an update:

"The Christian Right is neither"

Any suggestions as to where I could get one?

Update: Bumper Stickers abound. I got a chuckle from this one:

I'm for the separation of
---CHURCH & HATE---

Any readers have their favorites?

Easter Message

2006-04-12T21:37:00.000-05:00

Let me provide an Easter message for you by directing you to a previous post which I called In the Garden of Eden

Happy Easter to all, Bill

Science, Religion and Charisma

2006-04-10T22:48:00.000-05:00

Braveheart,

You seem dismissive of knowledge for some reason. Surely you agree we've learned a lot in the 1600+ years since the Bible was put together. We use this knowledge to implement Christ's teachings.

When we find through 50+ years of research that sexual orientation is a fix trait for most everyone, then we approach our ministry to gays and lesbians differently than if we thought people just went out and engaged in that behavior willy-nilly.

When we deal with those who find the idea of being intimate with someone of the opposite sex vulgar and repulsive, then it isn't helpful to suggest they do what's "natural" and marry someone of the opposite sex like the rest of us do.

I find the Serenity Prayer helpful:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

It would be in our best interest to understand that sexual orientation is one of those things which cannot be changed when we bring our message of Christ's love and redemption to our friends and neighbors who are lesbian and gay.

So that is why I ask you in all sincerity, "How does a Christian congregation who would treat others justly and fairly minister to the needs of those who are not among the 95% of our population who are born heterosexual?"

Jim Johnson has provided his church's answer. I'd like to hear yours.

Braveheart,

Science has nothing to do with "beliefs." Science is the compilation of observations of the world and theories which help describe how the world works. The accuracy of observations is constantly improved; theories are modified or replaced as more becomes known. This self-correction is the beauty of science not a short coming. As time goes on our understanding of the world improves.

Religious beliefs provide the moral principles to live by. Yet religion, like all things, must operate in the reality of the world as it actually exists. Facts are stubborn things. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts.

Since studies started in earnest after WWII, our understanding of homosexuality has grown considerably, yet there is still a great deal yet to know. Never-the-less, it would work to our best interest if we consider what we know in determining the morally appropriate way of dealing with our gay and lesbian neighbors.

NB: The Bible was compiled in 325 AD by order of the Emperor Constantine, so that's where the "1600+ years since the Bible was put together" comes from.

The Man in the Ditch

2006-04-09T22:27:00.000-05:00

Braveheart,

You seem rather enamored of Paul's letters while paying less attention to what Jesus taught us.

When the lawyer asked Jesus, "Who is our neighbor?" Christ responded with the story of the Samaritan, or as the Living Bible says, the despised Samaritan. He wanted to point out that the neighbor could be anyone who had compassion for the one who had fallen among thieves. Yet we could also look at this situation the other way and ask, "Who is the man in the ditch?"

Here in Rhea County we have our own bigot in residence, I call her "Ms. June." She doesn't think too highly of blacks, gays, Jews, Catholics or foreigners (I'm OK so far) or people who don't take the Bible literally (oops, she got me on that one.) When Gore chose his running mate in 2000, the sign in front of her little store read, "GORE CHOOSES ANTI-CHRIST." Apparently it slipped her mind that Jesus was Jewish.

So I'm driving down Toestring Valley Road one evening after dark and I see an old car by the side of the road and a man standing there, arms akimbo, looking down at a flat tire. Who was this man standing there by the ditch? Would it matter to me (or to you) if I saw he were black or knew he was gay, Catholic or Jewish. What if he were a Mexican here picking tomatoes?

He doesn't have a spare, it turns out, so we remove the tire and head to town where we get the flat fixed and I return him to his car afterward. He offers me a few dollars, but I told him no need since I was heading to town and back anyway. I ask if he has children waiting for him at home and he tells me three, so I remind him he's late, that they will have been worried, so I ask him to give them each an extra long hug when he gets there and that will be thanks enough for my efforts.

So who was this man standing there by the ditch? Why it was Jesus, of course. Remember the part about "the least of these, my brethren?" Some day when I meet Him face to face, He'll smile and say, "Oh, you were the fellow who stopped and helped me that night when I had the flat tire. Please stand over here on my right with the rest of the people who were good neighbors to others."

So we see, understanding what the Bible teaches is really quite simple:

STEP 1: Love God without reservation.
STEP 2: Love our neighbors as Jesus taught us.
STEP 3: Repeat over and over.

One doesn't have to remember every verse, jot or tittle. Living God's word is a matter of applying these principles as each new situation arises. So when Ms. June and others make nasty misstatements about the gays and lesbians here in Rhea County, I respond with letters to the editor speaking truth to these prejudices. That's what the Bible tells me being a good neighbor is all about.

Pharisees Rebuked

2006-04-06T02:38:00.000-05:00

Mercy me! I just can't resist responding to the fine folks at the Charisma forum.

First:

I was taught to look at the Bible as a whole, focusing on the New Testament, and in particular the Gospels. What did Jesus do? What did Jesus say?

So many times we read that Jesus started out, "Ye have heard it said by men of old... this, yet I say unto you...that," where this and that are opposite things.

Look, I was told, at Jesus' words and His actions. Find in these instructions the principles to live by. If some verse here or there, even those written by Moses or Paul, is in conflict with Christ's teachings, then it is an error committed by these human beings who are just as fallible as we are.

Those today who quote this verse and that one to condemn others, whom they disagree with, are no difference the those Pharisees in His day who upheld every jot and tittle of the law, yet lacked human compassion for others.

Second:

Brian,

Thanks for the heads up about the Pharisees. However, I think we are on parallel tracks. When I wrote about the jots and tittles, I was referring to the nit-picky details like the 4000 steps you mentioned. The Pharisees got on Jesus' case about healing the sick on the Sabbath. He asked them about the ox in the ditch and rebuked them for thinking it more important to keep the Sabbath than to cure someone's illness.

When I asked the question about the lesbian couple and their two young children moving in down the block, I noticed that those who responded would tell them how they were living in sin according to your understanding of the Bible passages you have been citing. I also noticed that no one suggested how you might give them a hand. Yet their family, like God's family, is a concern we all ought to share.

Jesus asked the young lawyer, "who was the neighbor to this man who had fallen among thieves?" So I ask you, "Who is the neighbor to this new family of four down the block?" Is it the one who chastises the couple for being gay? Or is it the one who welcomes them to the neighborhood and helps them move in? This is what Jesus was suggesting when He said that some are so intent on some point of law that they neglect being charitable to others.

Jesus advised us to gather up our treasures in heaven. So far as I can tell, being kind to our neighbors is the best way to do it.

Gays v Adulterers

2006-04-05T13:27:00.000-05:00

Meanwhile, back at the Charisma Online forum that I posted about earlier, I posted this comment:

Star has a good point. There is a world of difference between being gay and being an adulterer. An adulterer is someone who, later in life, decides to break the vow he or she has taken to remain in a monogamous relationship with hsr spouse and have sex with someone else. In contrast, being gay is an essential part of one's existence from birth. It is not a decision one can make one way or the other.

We all celebrate love, sex and marriage for heterosexual couples since we understand that these things are a natural part of what it means to be human. We need to acknowledge this same basic understanding for lesbians and gays, even though their choice of that "one special person" is someone of the same gender.

Gays and lesbians are human beings, too, and the sooner we treat them with the understanding and respect they deserve, the better it will be for all of us.

BTW, Jim Johnson is not gay (and neither am I, but thanks for the compliment). He and his lovely wife, Brenda, are a heterosexual couple who attend a gay affirming church in Virginia. As a Christian, I'm pleased to see this upsurge in the number of churches, like Jim's, who treat gays like neighbors, as Jesus taught us. I hope this trend will continue.

Update: I mentioned the Apostle Paul in this previous posting.

Some may find this comment in my previous post interesting.

Can Gays be Christians?

2006-04-03T13:25:00.000-05:00

On a visit to Jim Johnson's Straight not Narrow blog, I noticed that he was having a discussion at the Strang Group on the topic of To Be Gay...and Christian?

Jim, who attends a gay affirming Christian church, didn't take too kindly to the idea expressed that a person can't be both.

I chimed in with a few comments of my own:

Jim Johnson,

Thanks for your excellent defense of the true meaning of Christ's teachings. When Christ commanded us to "love our neighbors as we love ourselves" He didn't exclude our friends and neighbors who are gay.

Maz,

Since you live in England, you might be interested in Courage, the Church of England's ex-gay program. Fortunately many US churches are coming around to this same view, like the one Jim Johnson attends. Since sexual orientation cannot be changed, we need to provide the Christian fellowship experience for our lesbian and gay church goers.

Maz,

It's not so much about interpreting the scripture as it is about facing the reality of gay existence. All those years of prayer and repentance and the believers they worked with were just as gay as when they started. This confirms the universal understanding that being gay is an innate characteristic, not a choice, and therefore cannot be changed.

So the question then becomes, how do we treat our fellow gay and lesbian Christians. I would treat them as I would all of God's children, like neighbors, the way Jesus taught us.

Brother B,

I'm not sure why you might group homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, and alcoholics together. Being gay is an innate condition, while the latter three are conditions one may or may not acquire later in life. The Courage program I referred to above, with its prayers and repentance, failed to change what is an essential part of a person's basic make up.

So I'm still curious as to how Christians should treat our gay and lesbian neighbors. What is our Plan B since Plan A doesn't work? For example, if a lesbian couple and their two children move in down the block, how would we respond if we ran into them buying school clothes for the kids at the local Wal-Mart, or met them at the parent teachers conference at our child's school? Would we look after their and their children's spiritual needs by inviting them to join the fellowship of our church?

BTW I agree that discipline is a good thing. As a graduate of the Air Force Academy, the four years of discipline was certainly beneficial.

ThroneofGrace ,

We all have our demons, that's for sure, many of our own making. But I don't see how being born one way or another would qualify. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad about being born gay any more than it is being born male or female. It's how we live our lives that is important. We won't exclude all women from redemption. Why would we exclude all gays? If a gay couple is raising a family, don't they deserve the same community support that all families do?

Macy,

There is no dispute among health, mental health and education professionals that sexual orientation is determined by genetic and hormonal factors that occur during prenatal development. Those who claim otherwise have consistently refused to subject these treatments to rigorous scientific research which would test the veracity of what hey are claiming. In contrast, there are many studies which highlight the great harm that is done by trying to convince someone to pretend to be something they are not. The American Psychiatric Association considers the harm that the attempt to change one's sexual orientation can do makes these practices unethical.

DavidB said: "All attempts to prove some genetic link to homosexuality have been disproven, not that they aren't trying."

There is always some confusion about a genetic link and actually finding the genes involved.

It is not necessary to find the genes involved to prove a genetic link. The genes for eye color, for example have yet to be found, but we know that eye color is inherited. Sexual orientation follows the same pattern of heredity as handedness.

More importantly, homosexuality was removed by the APA after two decades of studies found no relation between children's upbringing and a person's adult orientation. If there isn't even a correlation, then one can't possibly cause the other. With no environment causes evident, it has to be genetic by default.

JGrubbs wrote,

This is the same APA that prior to 1973 had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder in their books.

Well, no, that was the other APA. In any case, here's how these changes came about:

Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

Science continually revises and updates it's practices based on the latest research. Cancer treatments today are much better than those of thirty years ago. Churches are also free to update their practices based on the realities that science provides us. Some do and some don't.

There is no "gay gene"!

Well, actually, there doesn't have to be a gay gene at all! Orientation could simply depend on the selection between sets of genes we already have.

DavidB,

Your said, "Everytime there's a [gene] study with "proof", that study is examined by the scientific community and rejected for a number of reasons."

I'm not getting my point across, I see. The gene studies you refer to have nothing to do with the fact that orientation is innate which is the conclusion of over 50 years of research that lead to the delisting of homosexuality from the DSM over 30 years ago.

Finding a gene might be "nice," but, like eye color or handedness (did you read the paper I referred to above), establishing genetic links is not dependent on finding the location of the specific gene.

Ooh, there's more, I can't keep up. Check it out yourself.

Leader in Trouble?

2006-04-01T15:56:00.000-05:00

Key anti-gay leader found with underaged male prostitute. Details here.

Gay Military Service

2006-03-31T09:25:00.000-05:00

It's fair to say that gays have served in the military for thousands of years. Prior to WWII, being gay was considered to be a psychopathology. This was a hold over from late nineteenth century psychiatric conjectures. How exactly to classify this disorder was always a question; it didn't really fit into any of the major classifications.

The fear was that a person in the military with this condition, like other serious disorders, was likely to have a mental breakdown under the stress of combat, thus rendering him ineffective as a soldier, sailor, marine or airman.

Over seven million men served in WWII. Local draft boards across the nation made many of these selections. If they could, they would rather pick single men or, if married, those without children. With scarce resources, the single fellow who might act a bit queer seemed better than the guy with a family. As long as he didn't show up at the induction center wearing a dress, he was processed into the service like anyone else.

This bending of the rules was something few chose to notice. Who cared what the fellow might otherwise be like as long as he could get your leg to stop bleeding? After the war, people finally admitted that gays served, and in disproportionate numbers. Single men got called up first we recall. Some got to wondering, where were the military psychiatric wards full of gays with the mental breakdowns predicted? Well, there weren't any. Gays proudly served their country as well and as honorably as anyone.

Still, prejudice prevailed, then Korea happened. "You seem a bit odd, my boy, but you say you want to go to Pusan, Inchon or pork chop hill? Well, then, step right this way and sign these papers. We'll get you there right away." We recall Jamie Farr's portrayal of Klinger on M*A*S*H. Even wearing a dress didn't get him a section 8 discharge. No one is turned away when the job is important.

Prejudice again, then came Vietnam. I flew RF-4C reconnaissance missions into hostile territory from Udorn AB, Thailand. Sortie requirements came to us each day from MAC-V, Saigon. Were any of the crew members gay? Don't know. Don't care. If someone will fly at 2,000 feet down the shipping piers along Haiphong harbor at night with 12 million candle power flash cartridges lighting his path every 1.2 seconds, and wings straight and level so the cameras remain pointed at that 150 x 150 foot patch on the ground that is the target, and anti-aircraft fire lighting the sky as the red tracers arc ever closer, then let him go do it. Who would send a capable airman like this home leaving more slots to fill in for the rest of us? We'd be the "crazy" ones in that case not him.

Now we find the latest Pew poll shows those in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military lead those who are opposed by nearly a 2-1 margin. HR 1059, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would replace "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, picked up a few more sponsors this past week bringing the total to 110.

Let's get our policy in line with the reality of gay service and support the passage of this legislation.

Letter to: Tenn Rep Debra Maggart

2006-03-29T00:43:00.000-05:00

As a resident of Tennessee, I couldn't neglect responding to a statement made by one of our representatives as reported by Jim Johnson at his Straight not Narrow blog. Towit:

Rep. Debra Maggart,

This statement purported to be yours in an e-mail to Sara Dykstra is flying around the Internet:

“I am not convinced that just because our foster children desperately need loving homes that we should just place them in homes that are available when research also shows that most homosexual couples have numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that may not be healthy for children.”

As a fellow Tennessean, I'm embarrassed by the uproar this misinformed statement about gays is making around the blogs and Internet news sites. True, studies from decades ago found that gay teens had more problems than other teens, but knowing how vulnerable teens are and the social stigma gay youngsters had to face then, this should not be surprising. To over generalize these outdated studies as if they apply to all gays today, which they don't, and then turn around and apply these teen results to gay couples in their thirties, who are settled in and well adjusted by the time they arrive at the adoption agency, is a total misunderstanding of the available research which finds that gays make equally good parents and are especially well qualified to handle hard to place children. After all, they know what it means to be different.

The just released report (March, 2006) by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute is a must read for anyone on your committee. They recommend that lesbians and gays be actively recruited to become adoptive parents, not turned away due to the prejudices and ignorance of some.

A friend of mine who also served as a pilot in the Air Force during the Vietnam era is gay. Obviously, there were no "emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues" that kept him from serving when his country called. He deserves to be respected for his service, not treated like a pariah right here at home.

There are no "emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues" that would keep gays from being good parents either. Can we tell gays they are "fit" to risk their lives for our country, but not "fit" to parent a child? Surely they deserve the respect of the State of Tennessee and our thanks for their willingness to take on the awesome responsibility of becoming an adoptive parent. Please review your position regarding gay adoption and consider treating gays with the same respect every Tennessean deserves.

Sincerely,
William J. Ware

Update The Nashville newspaper The Tennessean has an article about the brouhaha.
BTW Rep Maggart's e-mail address is: rep.debra.young.maggart@legislature.state.tn.us

Religious Leaders Condemn Anti-Gay Amendment

2006-03-27T08:32:00.000-05:00

Here's some good news on the religious front for gay marriage supporters as reported in the St. Paul, Minnesota Pioneer Press:

At least 1,000 people rallied at the state Capitol Thursday in opposition to a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Like a rally in support of the amendment earlier this week, the event was organized largely through religious institutions and the speakers were almost all clergy members.

"I'm here out of my faith," said the Rev. Tim Tennant-Jayne, an ordained United Methodist minister. He was one of at least 60 clergy members at the Capitol. Religious people against the amendment, he said, "haven't been as loudly a part of this. Conservative viewpoints have been very loud."

Shrill is more like it. Ignorance results in fear. The reaction to fear is anger, which provides strong motivation for action, no matter how misguided. Politicians and preachers who play to the prejudices of people they intentionally misinform are a disgrace. The religious right is neither.

Sister Rita McDonald, a Roman Catholic nun, said she came to the Capitol because she feels the proposed amendment, which bans gay marriage, is unfair, mean and ignorant.

"I think the churches are too quiet and careful," she said.

The recent Pew Research poll of those who "strongly oppose" legalizing gay marriage found Catholics at 19%, which is near the 18% for mainline Protestant churches. Both are below the 28% for the nation overall.

From the podium in the Capitol rotunda, clergy said the amendment is un-Christian and unloving.

I agree. Hatefulness is not a part of Christ's teaching. Dividing us over our differences is the devil's work, that's for certain.

The Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde of St. John the Baptist Episcopalian Church in Minneapolis said unemployment, homelessness and lack of access to health care do far more damage to the institution of marriage than any same-sex union would.

This reflects what Leonard Pitts, Jr. said in my previous post.

More main line Christians like these who follow Christ's "love thy neighbor" commandment need to speak out on these matters. This is a good start.

Pitts Opines on Quoting the Bible Selectively

2006-03-26T19:52:00.003-05:00

Leonard Pitts Jr., a columnist for The Miami Herald, opines about an incident at Miami Sunset Senior High. After describing the incident, he observes:

My biggest frustration lies elsewhere. Put simply, I’ve had it up to here with the moral hypocrisy and intellectual constipation of Bible literalists.

My, my. It sounds like he's miffed. After a few paragraphs about that, he mentions how religionists seem to fixate on one or two hot button issues and continues:

Meantime, people are ignorant in Appalachia, strung out in Miami, starving in Niger, sex slaves in India, mass murdered in Darfur. Where is the Christian outrage about that?

Just once, I’d like to read a headline that said a Christian group was boycotting to feed the hungry. Or marching to house the homeless. Or pushing Congress to provide the poor with health care worthy of the name.

Instead, they fixate on keeping the gay in their place. Which makes me question their priorities. And their compassion. And their faith.

The piece is titled "Thou shalt not quote the Bible selectively" and is also reprinted here.

Donaldson Institute Promotes Gay Adoption

2006-03-24T10:03:00.000-05:00

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute is a well respected authority on adoption issues which has provided unbiased research in this area for decades before the issue of gay adoptions came to the fore. It reports the consensus figure that 119,000 children are in the foster care system who are candidates for adoption and about 20,000 of these are being matched with potential adoptive parents.

As the Donaldson Institute summary states:

It is a mantra of political rhetoric, a guiding principle of professional policy and practice, and an explicit goal of our nation's laws and practices: Every child deserves to live in a permanent, loving home. Yet tens of thousands of boys and girls remain mired in the foster care system, unable to return to their original families and without realistic prospects of being adopted.

The summary continues:

At the same time, agencies and attorneys report the number of gay and lesbian adults expressing an interest in adopting these children is growing. This reality raises hopes among many child welfare professionals and policy-makers, who see a new pool of prospective parents for children who need them. But it also generates controversy and criticism among others, who are concerned about the consequences of permitting adoption into families headed by gay or lesbian parents.

Among its principle findings, the report concludes:

Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.

Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes.

The full report can be found here (pdf file).

Highly Qualified Single Mothers

2006-03-23T15:14:00.000-05:00

While newspaper reports of studies like to simplify things by reporting only the average differences found, data samples are better described by looking at both the mean or average, and the standard deviation or variability among all those who make up the samples.

These two statistics are represented as a normal distribution, the familiar bell shaped curve.

If we look at the green curve in the illustration and take this to be the distribution of children with two parents, then imagine an identical curve offset a smidgeon to the left, this being the distribution of children with one parent. The separation would be two points, the difference that family structure makes when all other factors are held equal. The areas under each curve represent 100% of each sample. Due to the wide variation in the children sampled, we see there is a large area of overlap in the distributions represented by these two curves. Thus we find that while 52% of the children in two parent families do better than the average child in a one parent family, we also find that leaves 48% who do worse. Conversely, while 52% of children in one parent families do worse than the average child in a two parent family, there are also the 48% who do better.

The large variations due to the differences in family income, education, health care availability, drug abuse and criminal records, ethnic and community factors within each sample are far more important than the two percent difference in the averages between the two groups.

When we look at the women in the NY Times articles we find women who are well able to afford the services described. These are not single mothers as a result of a tussle in the back seat of a car. If we look at one, for example, who is at the 95th percentile of all single parents, this means her child will do better than 95% of other children in the one parent category. When we plot this 95th percentile line on the one parent graph, then look at the position it falls on the two parent graph, we find that this child will also do better than 91% of the children being raised in two parent families.

No matter what else we say, this child is highly likely to end up in the top 10% of his or her class. In fact, all the children of mothers described in the NY Times stories are likely to do well above the average for children as a whole. The fact that the children of the average single mother are twice as likely to end up in prison has no bearing on the results we would expect from the well educated, high income women represented in these NY Times articles.

Foster care and adoption agencies look at the totality of the qualifications of those they select. They don't arbitrarily exclude anyone who doesn't fit the mom and pop mold, which is well down on the list in importance. They choose parents who will best serve the interests of the child. In the same way, we should look at the overall qualifications of the women in the NY Times articles and, if anything, encourage these women to have more children, not less. Having a child in the top 10% of the class is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

APA Monitor: "The kids are all right"

2006-03-21T23:37:00.000-05:00

The December, 2005 APA Monitor has an article The kids are all right about children with gay and lesbian parents. Highlights:

Families such as the James-Hermanns and the challenges they face are becoming increasingly common in the United States. The 2000 U.S. census estimated that 163,879 households with children were headed by same-sex couples. That number is likely to be much larger today, says Charlotte Patterson, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.
"More people are choosing to start families in the context of a gay or lesbian identity," she says...

But while gay- and lesbian-headed families face a slate of challenges that more traditional families avoid–from legal hassles and homophobia to everyday tasks, such as figuring out how to fill out school forms–research shows that the children with gay or lesbian parents do as well as children with heterosexual parents. Having a gay or lesbian parent doesn't affect a child's social adjustment, school success or sexual orientation, say researchers.
"Sexual orientation has nothing to do with good parenting," notes Armand Cerbone, PhD, who reviewed research on gay and lesbian parenting as chair of APA's Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships.

Challenging assumptions

Unfortunately, many people are not aware of the three decades of research showing that children of gay or lesbian parents are just as mentally healthy as children with heterosexual parents, notes Cerbone. One such study ... compares a group of 44 teenagers with same-sex couples as parents with an equal number of teenagers with opposite-sex couples as parents.

"There were very few group differences between the kids who had been brought up by same- or opposite-sex parents," says Patterson... One group difference that Patterson was surprised to find: Children of gay and lesbian parents reported closer ties with their schools and classmates. However, says Patterson, the difference was small and needs to be studied further.

Patterson's study debunks the myth that children of gay or lesbian parents have trouble developing romantic relationships due to a missing father- or mother-figure–a concern that judges making custody rulings have cited. Equal numbers of teenagers from each group reported that they had been in a romantic relationship in the previous 18 months. Participants from the two groups did not differ in grade point average, symptoms of depression or self-esteem.

On a less pleasant note:

In fact, an as-yet-unpublished study by Nanette Gartrell, MD, found that by age 10, about half of children with lesbian mothers have been targeted for homophobic teasing by their peers. Those children tended to report more psychological distress than those untouched by homophobia...

So, gay marriage would reduce psychological trauma for gays and their children by making homophobia less acceptable.

Researchers, too, can ameliorate the challenges such families face by continuing to dispel myths about lesbian and gay parents and by educating the public about their findings, notes Cerbone.

We all have our crosses to bear it would seem.

The Effect of "Silenced" Genes on Pregnancy

2006-03-20T04:20:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has an article, Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy, describing the work of Dr. David Haig.

The article states:

This strategy takes advantage of the fact that most of the genes we carry come in pairs. We inherit one copy from our mother and one from our father. In most cases, these pairs of genes behave identically. But in the past 15 years, scientists have identified more than 70 pairs of genes in which the copy from one parent never makes a protein. In some cases, a parent's gene is silenced only in one organ.
Scientists do not fully understand this process, known as genomic imprinting. They suspect that it is made possible by chemical handles called methyl groups that are attached to units of DNA. Some handles may turn off genes in sperm and egg cells. The genes then remain shut off after a sperm fertilizes an egg.

The article goes on to say that the failure of proper imprinting can result in problems in fetal development and can lead to disorders discovered in the child later.

This imprinting or pattern of gene methylation is what I referred to here:

Reproductive cloning is not yet feasible. Gametes which come together during normal fertilization have nearly all their sets of genes turned on. This provides the embryo the potential to produce all the body's structures and functions. The exception to this is that one pattern of genes is turned off (methylated) in the egg and a different pattern of genes is methylated in those in the sperm. When these two gametes with complimentary patterns combine, the likelihood of having a healthy full term baby is increased.

When a skin cell, for example, has to be demethylated to return it to a poly-potential state for potential cloning, this indiscriminate process would remove the male and female methylation patterns as well, resulting in all kinds of potential difficulties in the developing fetus which cannot be ethically tolerated.

The same would apply to same sex procreation. No matter how one tried to produce two gametes, at least one would not have the male or female methylation pattern required for success.

In either case, producing an embryo with the same methylation patterns as occur in the natural fertilization process is way beyond our current understanding or abilities.

This is why I suggest that SSP is not going to happen any time soon.

Carl Zimmer, the author of this article, has more information and examples that would not fit into the article at his blog post.

Relatives as Role Models

2006-03-10T23:18:00.000-05:00

Discussing the Catholic Church and gay adoption at Family Scholar's Blog, George complains that gay and lesbian couple's prevent a child from having both a female and a male role model. I explain:

George,

A family isn’t a cocoon where a child has two parents and perhaps a sibling or two. Plenty of other relatives are part of a child’s life. For example, my Aunt Olive and Uncle Willard had no children of their own, but enjoyed having me over to visit for the weekend. Uncle Willard loved taking us to the stock car races. We would have dinner at the Garden State Diner afterward then head to the Newark airport where we would go to the observation deck on the roof of the terminal and watch the planes take-off and land for a while. Perhaps this inspired me to go to the Air Force Academy and become a pilot myself later.

All these relatives can be role models for the children and can provide them with examples of heterosexual male and female behavior even when the child’s parents are a gay or lesbian couple. This is why marriage is as important for gays as it is for straight couples. It brings together two sets of in-laws providing the child with a much larger family.

So it is not gay parents who are denying their children the benefits of having family members of both sexes, as much as it is those who oppose gay marriage which would provide children with the two sets of relatives who would add joy to their lives the same way my Aunt Olive and Uncle Willard did for me.

Step-Families v Single Parent Families

2006-03-09T18:21:00.000-05:00

I mentioned this before concerning studies with single parents and gay parents in my post In Life, All Other Child Rearing Factors are Not Equal. Let me reframe this in terms of step parents vs single parents and see if this helps.

When we study outcomes that depend on many variables and wish to look at only one variable such as family structure, we isolate that variable by artificially making "all other factors equal." These factors, like income, education, etc. are those that I have mentioned before. Each study lists the variables they chose to "control" for.

So if the only variable we wish to study is the difference it makes for children to be raise by step families vs single parent families, researchers attempt to make all other factors equal.

Say we choose from the pool of available subjects a random sub-set of forty children who are being raised in step families. Then we would need to find a sub-set of forty children being raised by single parents who matched the step-families in every other important way. They must have the same average household income, the same average education, the same average age and the same per cent who own a home in the suburbs, etc.

For example, if we have a step family where both parents earn $30,000/yr, can we match this family with one where the single parent makes $30,000/yr also? No! We have to find a family where the single parent makes $60,000/yr so the total household income in these matching families will be the same.

When we step back afterward and look at the group of single parents we have chosen, we find that in order to match the step-families, we had to chose a sub-set of single parents whose qualities are well above the average for all single parents in general.

When these studies find no significant difference between these carefully matched groups, does that mean that a child in an average step-family is no better off than a child in an average single parent family? No, of course not. Only when the researchers selected out a group of higher income, better educated, house in the suburbs single parents to make "all other factors equal" did they find no differences between the two groups. Do you think the typical single parent makes $60,000/yr?

If instead, we select a completely random set of children in step-families and compare these with a completely random set of children in single parent families, no matching at all (or look at the census data), the children in two parent families are overwhelmingly better off than the children in one parent families because, in the real world, all other things are not equal.

Is it better for children to have two parents instead of just one as the AAP statement contends? You betcha!

Groups who Eschew "Reparative Therapy"

2006-03-07T20:28:00.000-05:00

At the FSB again.

On Lawn,

Here's the test for sexual orientation that researchers in clinical psychology (and others) use when they are conducting studies in this area. Physiological Test.

Except for a few subjects who are too anxious to respond, it works every time.

Interestingly enough, Harvard has a standing offer for anyone claiming to be ex-gay to come and take the test to prove that they are no longer gay. So far, no one has taken them up on the offer.

Here's a partial list of the groups who have provided guidelines for their members regarding sexual orientation:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association

The main premise is to allow youngsters to discover and grow into the person that they are. The sections on reparative therapy and transformational ministries (like Brian Mahieu talks about in his STL Post Dispatch letter) are well worth reviewing.

As you see, suggesting a person can change hsr orientation is considered rude, crude and uncalled for as my daughter, Tambre, would say. Are these groups "legitimate" enough for you?

Closing "Reparative Therapy" Programs

2006-03-07T16:28:00.000-05:00

FSB again (see two prior posts).

On Lawn said, “I’ve rarely seen such animus towards one segment of society marrying another as I’ve seen here in arguing that gays that get married are living a sham (as in they don’t really love their spouses) and calling them, as you did, hollow shells of individuals.”

I have no animus against persons who make the mistake of marrying someone they don’t love, only against those who willfully encourage them to do so knowing the harm that it does to the individual, the spouse and any children they have.

I will gladly acknowledge that “love” is manifest in many ways. I loved my grandmother and my sixth grade teacher, Miss Bolte, but that doesn’t mean I would want to marry either one. If a mixed orientation married couple came to me saying they wanted to stay together, I would do my best to help them achieve that goal.

As the NY Times article Silverside linked to points out, “Gay and bisexual men continue to marry for complex reasons, many impelled not only by discrimination, but also by wishful thinking, the layered ambiguities of sexual love and authentic affection.”

“Sexual love,” “authentic affection,” add any and all variations of the theme that you wish. It is my contention that it is far better to find all these types of love in the one person one chooses to marry.

If some gays are impelled to enter into the disaster of mixed orientation marriages due to discrimination, then we need to eliminate this discrimination by acknowledging that the love that two gays have for each other is as valid as any other and allow their marriage to be honored and respected like yours or like mine.

If some gays marry persons of the opposite sex due to “wishful thinking,” the idea that their sexual orientation might change if they just work hard enough at pretending they’re straight, then we need to make it clear that this change is not possible. Those who play to the insecurities of vulnerable youngsters or the fears of discrimination (or damnation) that their concerned parents have by saying, “Change is possible, just enter your child in our six weeks pre-homosexual reorientation defaggafication program and we’ll straighten him out! (That’ll be $6,000 please.)” need to be called out for the charlatans that they are. Considering the great harm these people do (see previous comment), the sooner these groups can be sued out of existance, the better.

The Tennessee Health Department as shut down a portion of Love in Action’s “treatment” center in Memphis, so we are making at least some progress in this area.

The Harm in Pretending to be Straight

2006-03-07T07:03:00.000-05:00

Still at FSB (see prior post).

OL got in a tizzy when I misunderstood what he meant by "Gays don't have children..." Of course, OL misrepresents what others say all the time so as to present them in the most unflattering way. Was this an accident on my part. Only the shadow knows. On to my next comment:

On Lawn said, “Gays can get married, [I know, just like Negroes could get married, as long as it was to someone of the same race.] unless one believes a homosexual as incapable of loving, honoring and cherishing a person of the opposite sex.”

It’s not what one “believes,” it’s the overwhelming scientific research that has developed over the last 50+ years. Sexual orientation is an innate trait which cannot be changed. Trying to change one’s orientation has harmful effects, some severe. A 2002 survey of 202 persons who attempted these ex-gay treatments found nearly 90% had been harmed by the process. As people come to realize that change is not possible, they become depressed, suicidal or engage in other self-destructive behaviors. Are you not aware that one of the co-founders of Exodus committed suicide when he realized his best efforts to change were fruitless?

Then it falls on legitimate counselors to put these shattered lives back together. At the group I worked with in Chattanooga, we would try to forecast how long we expected therapy to take (for planning purposes) based on each client’s intake information. When a victim of “conversion” therapy arrived, we would take the time they spent there and multiply by a factor of two. So if someone spent a year being “cured” of their homosexuality, we would estimated that it would take two years to restore them to psychological health.

Because of the documented harm that is done, proposing to help someone change their sexual orientation is unethical professionally and morally reprehensible as well.

It’s never in the interest of clients to encourage them to pretend they are something they are not.

"Reparative Therapy" is Harmful

2006-03-07T07:00:00.000-05:00

Respect for Our Children Whose Parents are Gay

2006-03-06T23:57:00.000-05:00

We're at it again over at Family Scholar's Blog.

On Lawn said, “Gays don’t have children,…”

This assertion is not only insulting and hateful of gays, but also to the over 4,000,000 children (as of 2000) who have at least one gay parent, and the 416,000 children (2000 census) who are being raised by same sex couples. Do you think these children like to be told that their fathers and mothers aren’t really parents because they happen to be gay? Of course not.

Instead, these children deserve to have their parents respected for what they do, not who they are, just like their friends’ parents are: for working hard for a living, for being boy scout and church leaders, and for all the other activities they engage in (like shoveling the neighbor’s driveway) that make them valued members of the community.

These kids don’t deserve to have their parents talked about based on opinions that come straight from a nationally recognized anti-gay hate group, or have malicious lies told about their parents based on bogus research by the discredited Paul Cameron and his ilk, both of which you have done.

You say you are for children’s rights, but apparently not if the children have parents who are gay. Instead you insist that these children do not deserve to have parents who are married like the parents of their friends at school.

We have laws to ensure that gay children are treated fairly in school. We need laws that treat gay parents fairly as well, by providing them with the same rights and privileges of marriage for themselves and their children that the rest of us have. That’s the way to respect the rights of all children.

Marriage is about Successfully Raising Children

2006-03-05T14:21:00.000-05:00

While I was typing up this comment:

The state has an interest in promoting the successful raising of children. If procreation mattered, state marriage laws would treat adoptive parents and their children differently than the way it treats biological parents and their children. But it does not. In fact it goes out of its way to treat both the same. As far as the state is concerned, it makes no difference where these children came from in the first place.

Since the state marriage laws treat adoptive parents and their children and biological parents and their children equally, it must treat same sex parents and their children equally as well.

I see Jesurgislac beat me with this post:

It’s interesting, isn’t it, how certain the opponents of civil marriage for same-sex couples are that the one thing marriage is not about is bringing up children together.

Many same-sex couples do have children: by adoption, by AID, or by previous marriages. None of these methods of having children are unique to same-sex couples - many mixed-sex couples have children the same way. No opposition to same-sex couples on the grounds that “they can’t have children” can be taken seriously unless the opposition is consistent in also opposing mixed-sex couples from marrying if they have children by adoption, by AID, or by previous marriages.

If it is intrinsically a good thing for children that their parents should be married, then same-sex couples must be allowed to marry because of the children: if it is intrinsically a good thing for society that it’s a cultural norm for parents to be married, then same-sex couples must be allowed to marry because otherwise, they disrupt the cultural norm as an unmarried couple with children.

If, on the other hand, the children don’t matter a whit, and it’s only the “sex integration” and “procreation” that matter - bringing a man and a woman together to conceive children - then there is actually no point to long-term mixed-sex marriage no more than there is to same-sex marriage.

It’s a problem, isn’t it. To most people, support bringing up children as a couple would be considered one of the most important aspects of marriage. But opponents of marriage for same-sex couples have got to oppose this idea and claim that the only thing that matters is the conception of legitimate children biologically related to both parents (F.Rottle’s “responsible procreation”) as important to marriage.

(The “sex integration” argument is perfectly circular, and not worth responding to: it amounts to saying “The state supports bringing a man and a woman together in marriage and that’s why the only state-sanctioned form of marriage ought to be mixed-sex.”)

It was so good, I stole it. Shame on me!

Christian Exodus, the Constitution Party, Roy Moore, Oh My!

2006-03-04T16:36:00.000-05:00

In checking out Ex-gay Watch, I found this interesting note about Christian Exodus

I was recently told of a group calling themselves Christian Exodus and reading over their mission evoked this old memory [about building a space ship to the moon when David was 8 years old]. They aren't headed for the moon, however, but to South Carolina. Essentially, they believe the Union (United States) has been going downhill since and including the Abraham Lincoln administration. They seem to have little use for any amendments past number 10 and don't see any hope that anyone can do much to make what they consider positive change in our Federal Government. Their answer is to pack up and move to SC where they will slowly take over the local politics and secede from the Union in 2016.

Dominionism and the Constitution Party were also mentioned which prompted me to post this comment:

Roy Moore, of Ten Commandments fame, is running for governor of (where else) Alabama. He shares many views of the Constitution Party which attempted to recruit him to run for president in 2004.

Example from Southern Poverty Law Center:
In 2002, Moore wrote a lengthy concurrence in a custody case involving a lesbian mother. After describing homosexuality as "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature," Moore asserted that "[t]he State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit [homosexual] conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle."

Since Lester "Mad Ax" Maddox was elected Governor of Georgia after closing his restaurant rather than serve Blacks in the sixties (he sold ax handles at the door instead), the idea that Roy Moore might be elected is not so far fetched.

Politicians getting elected based on hatred of Blacks in the 1960's. Now politicians seeking votes based on the hatred of Gays. In the South, at least, some things never change.

X Chromosome Inactivation in the Mothers of Gay Sons

2006-02-22T13:48:00.000-05:00

A study reported in Human Genetics finds a relationship between X chromosome inactivation in mothers and the likelihood that their sons will be gay.

As I have mentioned previously, men have the classic XY chromosome combination. The single X chromosome, by necessity, performs all of this chromosome's genetically necessary functions.

In women, who have the XX chromosome combination, one of these X chromosomes is inactivated. Otherwise, a superfluous duplication of gene expression could have negative effects as it does in Down syndrome, where an extra chromosome 21 is present in the genome.

One of these X chromosomes came from the female egg, the other from the male sperm. Researchers found that in general, which one of the pair is left on, which is turned off, in the various tissue cells they sampled from the mothers in their study, is a more or less random 50/50 event. In some women, though, the same member of the pair is inactivated in every sampled cell in her body, an effect referred to as "extreme skewing."

When examining mothers who had no, one, or more than one gay son, they found the incidence of this effect in 4%, 13% and 25% of these samples respectively. Clearly there is a relation between how a woman's cells go about X chromosome inactivation and the likelihood that she will have a son who is gay.

Observations:

The study provides no insights as to the existence of a "gay gene." If anything, it attests to the complexity of the genetic factors which contribute to sexual orientation determination. In fact, nothing in the study is in conflict with my previously cited reference.

People who still argue that a person becomes gay due to environmental factors would find it hard to explain how a child's upbringing could retroactively go back and change the mother's X chromosome inactivation propensity.

If we take a man who is gay and compare him with another unrelated man, we find that the chances that this other man is gay are the same 4%-5% we would expect for any man randomly chosen from the population. If we look at a gay man's fraternal brother, the likelihood that he too will be gay goes up to 11%. If the brother is an identical twin, the likelihood that he is also gay jumps to 22%. Hmm, 4%, 11%, 22% vs. 4%, 13%, 25% is this study. I see more than just a coincidence in these figures.

While this study leaves many questioned regarding the genetic factors that influence sexual orientation unanswered, I'm pleased to see progress being made in this important area.

Positive Trends in Support for Gays

2006-02-20T07:52:00.000-05:00

The Federal Marriage Amendment has less support this year than last, when it received only 49 votes in the Senate, 18 less than required for passage. I see that the latest Zogby pole has support for gay marriage at 36%, up from 32% in 2004. The majority approve of either marriage or civil unions for gays.

I see that the Republican leadership in states like Ohio, Penn and Kansas have quashed anti-gay legislative proposals by their more right wing colleagues. They fear a backlash against the party as a whole by their states more fair minded citizens. Business leaders appreciate that having a gay friendly state is good for the state economy as a whole and their businesses in particular. Conservative Republicans in the traditional "small government is better" sense see some of these anti-gay proposals as unwarranted government intrusion into areas which are none of the government's business.

I note that clergy groups against anti-gay proposals are gaining strength in states like Mass, New Jersey and Colorado, reminding us that anti-gay sentiment exists in some religious sects, but is not characteristic of Christians in general. I'm glad to see that gay affirming Christian blogs like Jim Johnson's Straight Not Narrow site are becoming more popular.

Last year Jerry Falwell came out in support of non-discrimination policies for gays in housing and employment. Now James Dobson supports including gays in this reciprocal benefits proposal. More people are coming to realize that treating the few unfairly adversely effects the rest of us as well. The position "We've always done it that way" is no longer seen as a valid excuse for discriminating against gay couples and their children.

I hope and pray that these gay positive trends will continue.

Marriage has Health Benefits for Gays as Well

2006-02-18T22:47:00.000-05:00

An article from the UK News-Telegraph reviews how marriage provides both physical and mental health benefits for the couples involved. They look at other countries who have had civil partnerships for gays for some years and expect that these benefits will accure for same sex couples in the UK as well.

We don't need to wait to see if civil unions benefit gay couples to appreciate the health improvements that result when gays are more accepted in society. We need only look at the marked improvements that have occurred over the last 12 years or so for our gay and lesbian youngsters as a result of the safe schools program and the inclusion of sexual orientation as a part of a school's anti-bullying programs. Gay-straight alliances have also been a great help.

Insisting that gay and lesbian students be treated with the same respect that all students deserve has gone a long way in reducing suicide rates and other self destructive behaviors among gay and lesbian teens. Fewer need counseling and problems are resolved more quickly when anti-gay attitudes in the community are reduced. I hope we continue to make progress in this area.

Similarly, as civil unions and gay marriage become more common and greater community acceptance results, this will have a positive effect, not only on the health of the couples involved, but also on the community as a whole. Carrying around hate in your heart for blacks, gay, or others leads to a chronic increase in stress levels which can lead to the cardio-vascular problems that Dr. King describes in the article.

As more of our citizens put aside the misinformation spewed out by anti-gay groups and come to the better understanding of gays that legitimate science provides, gays will become a more integral part of our communities and the healthier for everyone involved in the process.

So yes, these unions will result in these couples being healthier, and as we are more accepting of these gay and lesbian couples in our communities, the rest of us will be healthier as well.

In Life, All Other Child Rearing Factors are Not Equal

2006-02-15T00:44:00.000-05:00

Mrs. H said: "There is plenty of research to the contrary mythago. Children statistically fair better in married households than in any other situation."

Yes, if all other factors are made equal then that's what studies show. It's important to keep this "all other things equal" in the back of our minds, or we may make some glaring errors in judgement about how children are best raised.

Marriage may lead to higher family income, better educated parents, double the chance that the child may have health insurance, more likely the residence will be in a location that has better schools and other community resources and so on. A child in this situation is more likely to do well, but this is true because all the factors I listed are much more important than who constitutes the family, and they are more likely in a two person rather than a one person household.

Yet we must appreciate that it is these other, more important, coexisting factors that make the difference, not the two v one parent situation in and of itself. If we don't keep this in mind, then we might make these mistakes:

1. Criticizing a well educated, high income woman who has health insurance and owns a home in a good neighborhood, for being a single mother, when in fact, her child is likely to fair far better than average. If we are concerned about children being raised successfully, we should be saying "Brava! you go girl!" and encouraging other women like her to do likewise.

2. Criticizing gay partners for wanting children. Census figures for 2000 show that gay households, on average, have incomes about $5,000 higher than households in general, and income is the #1 factor in child rearing success. Gays also fair better at #2 which is education level of the parents. Most importantly, gays who want to settle down and have children do so intentional. They wait longer to do so and are in a better financial situation as a result. Don't we wish straight teenagers were more like these gays, instead of making babies in the back seat of the car willy-nilly. Because of these many advantages, children raised by the average gay parents are likely to be more successful than with the typical opposite sex parents.

For example, in combing through the 165,000 records in the national adolescent survey, researchers found 22 children being raised by lesbian couples. They carefully paired these with 22 children being raised by opposite sex parents. In order to make "all other things equal," so they could focus on just the one variable of interest, they ended up having to choose opposite sex parents who were above average in almost every way just so they would be "equal" to these lesbian couples.

So when we make general statements about child rearing, let's be mindful of when "all other things being equal" applies and when it doesn't. Children with a single parent of means and children of SS couples are likely to turn out better than average since, in these cases, all other things are not equal.

Also on Family Scholar's Blog

Overcoming Homosexual Urges

2006-02-14T13:15:00.000-05:00

At Marriage Debate, José made the quote below. In the next comment, Lynn indicated she didn't know what the quote meant, so I replied:

Lynn Gazis-Sax,

As you mentioned, José said: The APA, recognizes the right of the patient to self-determination in selecting therapy to overcome unwanted homosexual urges.

This is a great example of quote mining, taking a quote out of context to make it seem to mean exactly the opposite of what the author meant. The APA defines obsessive-compulsive disorders like excessive hand washing. This would also include a compulsion to have sex. This is found to effect gays and straights alike. The person becomes obsessed in thinking about these behaviors and feels compelled to engage in these activities excessively, even thought they may not want to or enjoy doing what they are doing.

Hidden, irrational fears drive these behaviors. Therapy brings these fears to the surface where they can be dealt with successfully. The desired outcome is to reduce thoughts of these behaviors and their incidence to a more typical level. We still need to wash our hands regularly, after all.

So we see that the quoted APA statement is true. Yet we see that it would apply to heterosexuals too, and in fact anyone who has the urge to do any behavior to an excessive degree. Notice too that it doesn't say "eliminate" these urges. Therapy is to bring the frequency into the normal range, not to eliminate these behaviors all together.

Does the APA allow therapists to help clients "overcome unwanted homosexual urges?" Yes it does.

Does the APA allow therapists to help clients change their innate sexual orientation? From the APA web page about sexual orientation:

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

That conversion therapy is both harmful to the patient and an unethical practice for the therapist is a fact about which we should all become more aware.

Counseling Parents with Gay Children

2006-02-13T07:26:00.000-05:00

Eve,

Good points. The position of the APA and the other groups who have provided guidelines for their members regarding sexual orientation is to allow youngsters to discover and grow into the person that they are.

There is no particular pressure encouraging children to become gay despite the hysterical ranting by some. Instead there is societal pressure to conform to the heterosexual norm, which is understandable. No parent wants their child to be different in a world where there are people who would use these differences to divide us.

Children are to be loved and accepted for who they are when it comes to sexual orientation. They cannot be asked to change or pretend they are something they are not simply because of their parents discomfort. VP Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynn, accept the fact that their daughter is gay and hope she finds happiness with her partner. Alan Keyes does not. Instead he kicks his daughter out of the house and refuses to pay for her college. Being a good neighbor begins by being a good parent.

Counseling a gay child often involves forming a buffer between the child and the social pressures which might otherwise try to change the child or force the child to pretend to be something he or she is not. In working with children, a therapist stops by the child's school to confer with the child's teachers and school administrators. If the family attends church regularly, visiting the child's pastor and Sunday school teacher may be appropriate if what they are saying relates to the child's problems. Most church leaders I've talked to are willing to tone down the anti-gay rhetoric when they learn how hurtful it is to both the child and the parents. Talking about the sins that all children should avoid, rather than singling out gays, is the solution we often come up with.

Saying that being gay is a choice or that one can change, implying orientation rather than just some outward behavioral manifestations, is the most insidious and hateful of all the anti-gay propaganda. Twelve years ago, the rate of teen suicide was three times higher among gays that among others. Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature think that these youngsters would choose to be gay and commit suicide if they could simply choose to be straight and live happily ever after? The gullibility of some who swallow this "choose to be gay" nonsense is amazing. This suicide rate has decreased markedly since then, as schools have initiated their gay affirming anti-bullying programs.

People who are not in counseling may not realize it, but when we have something like this from the Love Won Out web site that Sara linked to: "Focus on the Family is promoting the truth that homosexuality is preventable and treatable - ..." is how devastating this can be to the parents of a gay child. Look, mom and dad, you really screwed up your kids life by not preventing your child from becoming gay. He'll probably enter the "gay lifestyle" (whatever that supposedly is) and die a premature dead from some horrible disease, and it's all your fault, mom and dad, because you didn't raise your child to be a God fearin' heterosexual.

Much of the counseling that deals with the problems that gay children have involves discussing the best scientific information we have about homosexuality with their parents. Homosexuality is not a "disease" so it's not something that can be "cured." It appears in all populations in a near random fashion. No factors relating to a child's upbringing have ever been linked to the sexual orientation that a child manifests later. What a relief it is for parents to find out that their child's sexual orientation is not of their doing, that those who say otherwise are not being truthful.

Once parents understand that having a child who is gay is not their fault, it's a natural part of the world we live in, and schools do their part in preventing gay harassment, and churches provide loving acceptance for all of God's children, then we will have gone a long way in dealing with the problems that our gay children are facing.

Also on Family Scholar's Blog Ex-Gay Marriage thread (if it comes out of moderation).

Realistic Options in Therapy

2006-02-12T18:37:00.000-05:00

George,

I promote reality based, client centered therapy. Presenting new options and new ways of thinking goes a long way towards allowing clients to choose behaviors which will lead to more successful outcomes in their lives. However, reality does not permit me to suggest that someone pretend to be something they are not. This prayer is a guide in many situations we encounter in life:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Sexual orientation is an innate quality which cannot be changed. Surely the excerpts from the Exodus marriage workshop make it clear that even they understand this basic fact. The change they brag about involves only behavior as they attempt to convince people that they should deny what is an integral part of themselves and pretend to be heterosexual.

Believe me, gays have a long history of pretending that they are not gay, and they learned this on their own without any help from Exodus or anyone else. The tragedies, large and small, that have been the result are beyond any human comprehension.

Therapy often involves providing others with knowledge that will help them meet their human needs in a responsible way. As Maslow pointed out, needs form a hierarchy. After food, clothing and shelter, we have an urge to have sex which can be satisfied in various ways. Above these, more importantly, are the ones which best define what it means to be human. Intimacy provides the means to have our highest needs met. To suggest that gays should abandon the same human needs we all share and "make do" with someone of the opposite sex is unconscionable.

You're right. Marriage is much more than just sex. Promoting lifelong, committed relationships where our highest human needs are fulfilled in a responsible way is a valid government goal. Gays should not only be allowed to marry but also be encouraged to do so for the same reasons that marriage is encouraged for the rest of us.

Also posted at Family Scholar's blog. See other comments there and my posts below.

Intimacy in Marriage

2006-02-12T17:33:00.000-05:00

After my post to Family Scholar's Blog that I noted below, I added this note:

The fact remains that people do best when they marry someone of the same sexual orientation. When someone who is straight marries someone who is gay and the marriage falls apart, there is nothing even the best therapist can do to put humpty dumpty back together again.

George decided these posts merited a response:

Bill your comments are symptomatic of the problem with so many marriages — that sexual fulfillment is a primary goal, or the result of, or even a “significantly important part” of the relationship itself. This unrealistic expectation is not to the credit of same-sex relationships, it is to the detriment of all committed partnerships. Lifelong commitment to one’s spouse is only tangentially related to sexual attraction, much less sexual ability.
Even the best therapist would do well to remind a married couple of this fact.

That challenged me to make this reply:

George,

Intimacy, not sexual fulfillment, is the primary affect of marriage. One could get sexual fulfillment from a blow up doll or, if you're Woody Allen, an “Orgasmatron.” Intimacy, in contrast, is something one can only experience with another human being. Intimacy is more than just a relationship based on physical attraction, it has emotional, intellectual and spiritual components as well.

The bonds which form through intimacy are the glue that hold a marriage together. It’s nearly impossible for this pair bonding to occur if one finds having sex with the other an unpleasant duty. Imagine having sex with your sister. Yuck! (I hope).

That’s what is so disturbing about the statement from the Exodus marriage workshop, “A wife needs to be prepared to offer extra help so that her husband can have an erection, [Anita] said.” Why so? So he can have sex with her as he would with a blow up doll. Do you not find something terribly wrong with this arrangement?

Accepting who we are, planning, and going ahead with our lives is the essence of psychological health. Pretending we are something we are not, is just the opposite. Those who encourage such pretence are engaging in unethical practices as the American Psychiatric Association has noted.

Is it just me, or do you too find something terribly wrong with what Exodus is doing with these mixed orientation couples?

Family Scholars Respond to Savage on "Brokeback"

2006-02-12T14:20:00.000-05:00

The responses to Dan Savage's NYTimes article Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys continue to appear. This one from our friends at Family Scholar's Blog is titled "Ex-Gay" Marriage?

After quoting some of the same paragraphs as in my first post on this topic, Tom Sylvester asks:

Do mainstream evangelicals really urge gay men to marry women? Here’s NY Blade coverage of an “ex-gay ministry” event that gives advice to ex-gays on how to build a successful marriage (for some reason, most of the tips centered on sexual issues)...

I just had to take some quotes from the NY Blade article for my first comment:

I find the Blade story about the Exodus convention to be pitiably sad. From the marriage workshop:
The Worthens said physical intimacy should proceed slowly, and it is best to wait until marriage to experiment with deep kissing.

There should be no commitment to sexual performance on the wedding night, they said, and some prudent couples wait a year after marriage before even attempting sexual intercourse.

A wife needs to be prepared to offer extra help so that her husband can have an erection, [Anita] said. Also, she added that some men do not enjoy the feel of a woman’s skin.

[ Frank] recommended that couples avoid oral sex, which could stimulate gay fantasies.

“What should be done if a man begins to have same-sex fantasies while making love to his wife?”

Good question. It’s clear that they have no expectation that a person can actually change hsr sexual orientation. Yet this is what they imply when they go around the country giving their talks. Instead, it has everything to do with pretending to be something you're not. This is a psychologically unsound practice to say the least. No wonder the APA condemns these “therapies” for the harm that they do. As the book and movie point out, these sham marriages are a recipe for disaster.

So a big Hoo Rah to Dan Savage. He certainly expressed what is wrong with the whole “ex-gay” fallacy in a way that is both humorous and easy to understand when he says, “Would you want your daughter to marry one?”

The answer is emphatically no.

If this Marriage Workshop is representative of the best that Exodus can do, then it certainly gives the word "change" an entirely new meaning. But then lots of words they use in referring to gays don't mean the same thing to them as they do to the rest of us who speak English, not psychobabble.

Gallagher on Savage on "Brokeback"

2006-02-11T22:06:00.000-05:00

Maggie Gallagher, in a post at the Marriage Debate blog remarks on Dan Savage's "Brokeback Mountain" article I mentioned below.

Its not clear the absence of trully wholehearted, fully heterosexual sex passion was the really big problem in Almah's life, or that this was the great attraction of that chubby nice grocer fella she later married. The question of how (if at all) eros is related to normal life, esp. under hard living conditions, is one of the unexplored themes of the movie and the book.

In the comments, several posters alluded to the selective inattention to the rest of the movie required to prompt such a sculpted response on her part.

A different comment got more of my attention. José Salano writes:

No need trying to refute point by point the clever and cute but baseless beliefs of Don Savage's non-film review. Dr. Robert Spitzer, the thousands of ex-gays themselves, and many others demonstrate how far off he is. Granted, overcoming homosexuality is difficult, but no more difficult than overcoming adultery, pedophilia, alcoholism, gambling addiction, etc. [...and so on...]

So I felt I had to respond:

José,

Homosexuality is not something to be "overcome." It's simply the biological norm for a small portion of the population. Attempting to change one's sexual orientation is harmful as this can lead to depression, suicide and other self-destructive behaviors when the person discovers that such change is impossible. It is considered to be a violation of professional ethics by a wide range of health, mental health and educational organizations. These include:

* American Academy of Pediatrics
* American Counseling Association
* American Association of School Administrators
* American Federation of Teachers
* American Psychological Association
* American School Health Association
* National Association of School Psychologists
* National Association of Social Workers
* National Education Association
and others.

I would hope as a school board member, you would leave any 19th century view of homosexuality behind and support the school personnel in your district in following theses guidelines in regard to how they deal with their gay and lesbian students.

"Brokeback Mountain" is an example of what happens when people try to be something they are not. Please support your school personnel as they encourage their students to be who they are.

So far I haven't heard back from José.

BTW, Maggie's post includes nearly the entire Savage article, so if the one at the NYTimes disappears into archive purgatory, checkout her copy.

Update: José and I exchanged another pair of comments.

"Brokeback Mountain" - Dan Savage's Take

2006-02-10T16:20:00.000-05:00

I have been following the "Brokeback Mountain" saga, of course: the awards, the appeal to a wide audience and so forth. Now I find a NY Times article by Dan Savage titled "Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys" about the movie which deserves a large Hoo Rah!

These gay cowboys try, as best they can, to quit one another. They marry women, start families. But their wives are crushed when they realize their husbands don't, and can't, ever really love them. "Brokeback Mountain" makes clear that it would have been better for all concerned if Jack and Ennis had lived in a world where they could simply be together.
Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen [in the movie "End of the Spear"] can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?
Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce.

If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies.

"Would you want your daughter to marry one?" What a hoot. At times, it's not our opinion that matters as much as the questions we ask. This one is a classic. Read the whole piece.

Hat tip to Ex-gay watch for pointing to the Dan Savage article.

Houses Designed for Two Families

2006-02-02T11:43:00.000-05:00

On Family Scholar's Blog, Elizabeth Marquardt posted about an interesting article regarding how unmarried siblings are often living together to save on expenses and how this had advantages compared to having an unrelated roommate.

In a comment she remarked:

Come to think of it, recently in the NYT house and home section, I think, there was a story about two brothers and their wives buying an old place in Brooklyn, rehabbing it and living in it together. One wife was Italian, the other from somewhere in Asia (forgive me, I forget where) and their wives commented that this seemed like a very natural thing to do, given their experience of extended families. One of the couples had a toddler and I was thinking what a dream childhood that would be, growing up in a big old house with your mom, dad, aunt, and uncle — and probably some more siblings and cousins along the way.

I responded with a comment of my own:

Elizabeth Marquardt,

I'm glad you mentioned the two brothers and their wives sharing the same house. How nice for the children to have an aunt and uncle in addition to their parents in the house.

Since this came up in a different context a few months ago, I've been considering the marketability of new homes with two master bedroom suites. The common living, dining and kitchen areas would be in between and the children's bedrooms would be upstairs.

In working with couples, I find they are often in disagreement over how do to something and I'm able to work out a third option which will satisfy both.

So, we have same sex couples who want to express the normal human desire to have children and we have those who remind us of the advantages to the child in being raised by hsr biological father and mother.

What about having a house where the gay couple is in one master bedroom, the lesbian in the other, and the children would be the result of a donation from the former to the latter? The children would be raised by their biological father and mother who are married, just not to each other.

Concerning the two brothers and their wives, you said, "... I was thinking what a dream childhood that would be..." in reference to there being four adults at home. Would my suggested arrangement not have the same advantages you dream about?

So far, she has not provided an answer.

Who is Parent to this Child?

2006-01-25T10:24:00.000-05:00

Family Scholars Blog looks at yet another non-traditional family and as usual finds much to criticize. I provided the following response:

Elizabeth Marquardt,

In response to your comment #11

I have a picture of my father standing on Waikiki beach dated December 7,1942. He served in the Navy in Hawaii during WWII. He left home a few months after I was born. When my father lost his job at the height of the depression in the 1930's and couldn't find another, he started a business of his own. With him away during the war my mother took over running the business.

Mom's parents retired and came to live with us well before I was born, which was typical before social security came into existence. With Pop away and Mom running the business, Grandma looked after me and my older brother each day.

In response to a question, Christ told the story of the Samaritan. He then asked the lawyer, "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

So I ask you:

Who dabbed some formula on her wrist to make sure it was the right temperature before feeding me my bottle?

Who put some ointment on my bottom to ease the rash when she changed my cloth diaper?

Who softly sang:

The cattle are lowing, the poor baby wakes.
The little lord Jesus, no crying He makes.
I love thee lord Jesus look down from the sky,
And stay by my cradle till morning is nigh.

to lull me to sleep for my afternoon nap?

As I grew, who read me "The Pokey Little Puppy," "The Wizard of Oz." and on and on?

Who told me to be respectful of others, to not use the "n" word and to be polite, well before the term "PC" was invented?

Who taught me that God loves all His children without reservation, that we should treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves?

Being a parent takes many skills, lots of patience, willing hands, a hopeful spirit and much more. But most of all it takes a loving heart. There's nothing about biology that guarantees any of this.

In answering Christ's question, the lawyer had to admit that it was the Samaritan, a person who was otherwise despised by Jews in those times, who was the good neighbor to this man.

So in the present context I have to ask, "Who was parent to the child and looked after his needs?"

Do I love my Mom and Pop? Of course I do! Yet, like most children, I cherish even more the person who first raised me, my grandmother.

So when I read about this Russian grandmother, I celebrate the new life she holds in her hands. I feel the joy and love she has for this child and am confident she is more likely to succeed than many other parents I know.

Yet no matter how advantaged a child is in some, most or even all of the more important factors that lead to successful child rearing outcomes, if the family situation is non-traditional, a factor which ranks 8th or 9th in importance by any objective measure, you consider the child's situation to be tragic.

So I ask you, like the lawyer, to put your prejudices aside, and acknowledge that family composition is one of the least important factors in successfully raising children when compared to the many other factors which are far more important. Then, where these other factors are so positive, to rejoice that the child is being raised in these beneficial, though non-traditional circumstances.

Maryland Court Finds SSM Ban Unconstitutional

2006-01-21T09:45:00.000-05:00

I see the Circuit Court for Baltimore City has declared the ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

After carefully considering Plaintiffs’ various arguments, this Court finds that Family Law §2-201 constitutes unjustified discrimination based on gender, in violation of Article 46 of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights.4 The mere creation of a sex-based classification triggers application of the Equal Rights Amendment, under which distinctions drawn based on sex are suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. Because this Court does not find that §2-201 is narrowly tailored to serve any compelling governmental interests, this Court must conclude that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The ruling can be found here (pdf file 20pgs).

Section 2-201 is part of the Family Law which was amended in 1973 to include: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.” Plaintiffs agreed that the defendants (county clerks) were following the law when they refused these same sex couples marriage licenses, but they argued that the law itself was unconstitutional. It arbitrarily discriminated against persons who wanted to marry someone of the same gender.

Maryland passed an equal rights amendment to its constitution in 1972 prohibiting discrimination based on gender. It states, “equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.” Defendants argued that this did not apply in this case since both men and women were equally allowed to marry as long as (of course) they married someone of the opposite sex. This is similar to the argument in Loving v Virginia in defense of the state anti-miscegenation statute, that both blacks and whites were free to marry, as long as they married someone of the same race.

The court found this argument unpersuasive. To simplify: If Jill, a female can marry Jack, a male, but John, a male, cannot marry Jack, then John is being discriminated against based on his gender. Gender is a protected class and discrimination based on gender is subject to strict scrutiny.There must be a compelling state interest that a law which discriminates based on gender must satisfy in order to stand up to constitutional muster.

Even laws that do not involve a protected class, are still required to have a rational basis. They cannot be arbitrary, they must serve some useful purpose.

The court found that the law banning gay marriage met neither the compelling state interest nor the rational basis criteria.

Defendants claimed that the ban was in support of the state's interest in the traditional family unit, a married mom and dad raising their biological children. Gay and lesbian couples, some with children, already exist. Any suggestion that allowing these couples to marry would have some specific negative effect on the behavior of their heterosexual neighbors exceeds "rational speculation."

The Court concludes that the prohibition of same-sex marriages is not rationally related to the state interest in the rearing of biological children by married, opposite-sex parents. Indeed, the prevention of same-sex marriages is wholly unconnected to promoting the rearing of children by married, opposite sex-parents. This Court, like others, can find no rational connection between the prevention of same-sex marriages and an increase or decrease in the number of heterosexual marriages or of children born to those unions.

I suggested instead that Gay Marriage Reinforces Straight Marriage.

Other defense arguments were similarly dismissed:

Defendants: Allowing SSM would make our laws different then most other states and the federal government. Court: So? Or responsibilities are to the citizens of Maryland.

Defendants: Other laws such as those permitting second parent adoption already protect the rights of gays and their children. Court: If these rights are indistinguishable from those of married couples, then why not simplify things and call it marriage? If not, then the plaintiff's complaint is justified.

Defendants: Promoting and preserving legislatively expressed societal values and the traditional institution of marriage are legitimate state interests. Court:

Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory statutory classification. When tradition is the guise under which prejudice or animosity hides, it is not a legitimate state interest.

All in all, a well thought out decision.

Conversion Therapy - Harmful & Unethical

2005-11-27T16:56:00.000-05:00

Let me summarize the professional consensus on conversion (reparative) therapy (CT):

The American Psychological Association as well as other associations of professional social workers and educators warn that any attempt to change a person's sexual orientation can be harmful, even fatal. The dissonance that is created by any attempt to change an essential part of one's being can lead to depression, suicide and other forms of self-destructive behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse.

We see that the best outcome that CT claims in a few cases is to place a person into an ex-Governor McGreevey type situation. The person has needs which go unmet, the spouse has no person to emotionally bond with and children have no role models of what romantic love and affection are all about. Without models of how love and affection are connected to sex, these children may become promiscuous or engage in other inappropriate behaviors. The harm CT does is not just to the person who is gay, but to the faux spouse, the children and to society as a whole.

The American Psychiatric Association and other associations of physicians condemn CT as unethical.

CT attempts to cure a disease that does not exist. Homosexually was dropped from the DSM over thirty years ago when no relationship between being gay and mental disfunction could be found. Being gay is just the natural way some people are and has no detrimental effect on psychological functioning. This position is supported by all other major health and mental health organizations.

CT attempts to separate these persons' needs from their behavior, a harmful form of psychological dis-integration. This leaves the person less able to function satisfactorily. This is the antithesis of legitimate psychotherapies, which work toward personality integration which produces a person who is more able to function successfully in society.

The idea that being gay is a sin or some mental disorder and CT is a viable treatment, is based on religious belief, not science. As such the idea that being gay is other than the natural way some people are, or that there is something wrong with being gay, or that sexual orientation is something that a person can and should change, cannot be presented in our public school system or promoted by other government agencies where the intrusion of religious beliefs is not permitted. As the Dept. of Education has stated, gays are students too, and deserve a safe environment where learning is possible.

Since CT leads to mental disorganization and can result in great harm, including suicide, it should not be recommended by anyone serving in a professional capacity for liability reasons as well.

The best way to treat those who realize they are gay, both in school and otherwise, is to follow the guidelines set forth by the major health, mental health and education organizations as endorsed by their
nearly half million members, by the AFT, the NEA, mainstream religious groups and others.

Treating gays as second class citizens is not an option.

School Suicide Prevention Programs for Gay Students

2005-11-21T10:20:00.000-05:00

July 18, 1994

To the Editor:

We find that the number of teen suicides has doubled since 1981. These deaths have a tragic effect on the families involved and the community in general. They also effect teachers and students at the schools these youngsters attended. Schools are trying to do something to reduce these numbers. Teachers and administrators work to identify students who may be having problems and direct them to places where they can get help.

About a third of these suicides involve students who discover they are gay. Many school districts across the nation have programs which provide counseling and support to help their gay students adjust to their life situation.

Governor William Weld recently signed into law a bill that would require all schools is Massachusetts to provide these services for their gay students. Other states are considering similar proposals.

These programs are run according to the American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines. As we recall, in 1974 the APA dropped homosexuality from its list of disorders. The scientific and clinical evidence to that time and since indicates that sexual orientation is an inborn characteristic. Being attracted to persons of the same gender is just the way some people are.

That this is the case for these teens should be obvious. Why would a teen choose to be gay and commit suicide if he or she could simply choose to be straight and live happily ever after? To suggest that these youngsters had a choice defies all reason.

Since homosexuality is not a disorder, it cannot be cured. In fact, trying to do so can be quite harmful. The false hope that one can change one's orientation can prove devastating later when one realizes that this is impossible.

So schools which provide counseling for their gay students provide them with a better understanding of their homosexuality and help then develop the skills they need to cope with their circumstances.

It may be some time before schools here in Rhea County have counseling programs which appropriately address the needs of our gay youngsters. In the meantime, let us not be among those whose rantings and ravings against gays do great emotional harm and push the teen suicide rate even higher.

Instead, let us be like the Good Shepherd who looks after every one of His flock and provide understanding and support for our children who discover they are gay.

Sincerely,
William J. Ware

The Human Need to Parent

2005-11-10T14:22:00.000-05:00

There is a natural parenting or child rearing instinct to one degree or another in all of us.

If we mistakenly assume there is an urge to have sex only, and that having children is merely the inevitable outcome that we must deal with when it happens, then we are neglecting an important factor in human motivation. With the availability of effective contraception, we could satisfy sexual urges while avoiding the consequences if becoming a parent were not a motivating factor on its own.

When we have poor urban teenagers having children, it is not that contraceptives are not available or knowledge of their use lacking, it's that becoming a mother is desirable on its own despite their disadvantaged situation.

Women who have focused on a career who find that even the marginally acceptable men have already been taken, none-the-less find a way to have children, on their own, if necessary, when they are ready.

People who are asexual may marry due to their desire to have children in the socially prescribed manner. Some asexual women may not be aware of the sexual attraction that other women have for men. They may accept having sex as a duty rather than a pleasure and would rather avoid sex with their spouse if they could. This displeasure may reach the point where they refuse to have sex any longer. Their partner will either have to live with that fact or find someone new.

More in the past than today, gays have married someone of the opposite sex to fit in by having a spouse and as a means of having children. Sex with their spouse is no more a pleasure to them than it is to an asexual person.

Neither a fatherless home nor a loveless marriage can prevent some from being a parent. Now that gays have more choices, it's not surprising that they would want have children as before, but to love the person they marry as well.

Jason Kuznicki on the Purpose of Marriage

2005-10-30T18:38:00.000-05:00

I read a post on Family Scholar's Blog, where David Blankenhorn discusses his recent debate with Andrew Sullivan and Sullivan's comments about it on his blog.

In a post related to the debate topic, What is Marriage?, Blankenhorn asks:

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that what happens in the U.S. regarding SSM will hinge essentially on our collective answer to the basic question, what is marriage? Is marriage essentially a private emotional bond between consenting adults, or is it also society’s most pro-child social institution?

Even when I put the two together, it still didn't add up.

Then I saw that Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty has a well thought out post: On Nurturing as the True Purpose of Marriage. He begins,

Here I argue that the reason for marriage is neither solely to produce children, nor to seek romantic fulfillment, nor merely to contract with the government for rights or benefits. I propose another model, arguing that it explains the institution of marriage much better than the common reasons given for it in the same-sex marriage debate.

It's well worth reading. Here are two of Jason's other posts that are also favorites of mine:

Without Pain or Fear or Guilt

How Not to Make Me Ex-Gay

Update: Jason has a followup post describing some of the responses he got to his first post.

Pair Bonding is Important to Marriage

2005-10-30T18:25:00.000-05:00

Sarah,

Marriage is based on the pair bonding that results from and is maintained by sexual intimacy. This does not obtain for mere friends or other relatives. Laws extending child care deductions to include that provided by relatives and other considerations for the help that others give is appropriate and welcome, but merely helping in the raising of a child is not marriage.

While pair bonding stems from intimacy, the sexual activity that produces it is only one aspect of the many interactions and behaviors that comprise the totality of a loving relationship.

It's bumping your hips against hers when your doing the dishes. It's bringing him a tall glass of orange juice when he's in bed with the flu. It's holding hands at church or at the movies. It's going with her to the doctor's when she gets the results of her biopsy. It's washing her back in the shower after she washes yours. It's buying him his favorite CD for Christmas. It's giving her a long hug when she gets home from a hard day at the clinic. It's all these things and a thousand things more which evolve from the bonds of love and affection that we share with that one special person. And all of these things apply equally to a same sex or opposite sex couple.

Yet some would ignore all this and peek in the bedroom to see how their parts fit together, as if the love they share the other 167 hours each week has no meaning. Yet the nearly 60 years of scientific research and my own 30 years of experience in this area tells me that romantic love is more than just how we do sex.

We do not know what underlying biological factors lead to the small portion of the population who cannot form bonds of love and affection for those of the opposite sex. I have my own speculations and research in this area continues. I do know that the failure to acknowledge the gay situation is not only harmful and unjust to those who are gay, but also harms those who perpetuate this misunderstanding and malice. A hateful heart is the devil's creation.

Psychological health requires that we acknowledge the reality of the world that we live in. Gays exist and are capable of the same range of human emotions and experiences as the rest of us, but with someone of the same gender. We can celebrate our shared humanity by treating gay relationships with equal admiration. All of us will be better off when we do.

Also posted at Family Scholar's Blog comment #110

Gay Marriage Reenforces Straight Marriage

2005-10-29T10:10:00.000-05:00

Jesurgislac,

You said:

Surely if you're a person who is concerned that people aren't getting married as much as they used to, or aren't bringing up children inside families headed by a married couple, you would actively welcome allies who believe that marriage is important, who feel strongly about its symbolic and its practical value, and who appreciate the benefits to kids of having parents who are married?

Exactly my question.

The fact that couples and groups are going through the political and legal process to have the right to marry include them would certainly leave an unbiased observer to see that they believe that the institution of marriage is valuable. Otherwise, why would they be fighting so hard to join it?

The idea that allowing SSM would somehow dissuade heterosexual couples from marrying seems far fetched. Suppose we have a young couple who have lived together for several years and are thinking about starting a family. They wonder whether or not they should marry first.

The way it is now, they might say, "Well, look at that gay couple down the street. They are successful in living their lives and raising their family without being married, so why should we bother?"

Were the situation different, they might say, "Well, look at that gay couple down the street. Why, they can't even have a baby together! Yet they thought it important enough for themselves and their children to get married anyway. We should consider doing the same."

If marriage is a universal good, as proponents claim, then couples should be allowed to marry universally. The fewer exceptions the better.

Also posted at Family Scholar's Blog Comment #13.

Psychologists Enlist Community Support for Their Clients

2005-10-28T14:00:00.000-05:00

Maggie,

You said, "One example of an institution she gives is the discipline of psychology, which is structured in such a way that its practitioners have a very hard time remembering that human beings are social creatures, and cannot be adequately conceptualized by intrapsychic processes."

This characterization is just plain silly. Perhaps you are thinking of some psychoanalysts who are left over from the Freudian era. Today, psychologists often work with doctors, nurses, social workers and other staff members as part of a team which provides a holistic approach to the clients' wellbeing. In any case, psychologists work with local schools, churches, community centers and government agencies in the interest of the client. Relatives and friends, who may be part of the problem at times, are also enlisted to be part of the solution instead.

With formal therapy limited to perhaps one hour a week, building a social network to help support the client the rest of the time is essential. Just as the therapist helps the person become more integrated and better able to function as a person, he or she helps the person become more successful in his or her personal relationships and a more integral part of his or her community in general.

If there is one person in town who knows more about the local support systems and services than just about anyone, it's likely to be the psychologist who employs these resources generously for the benefit of his or her clients. After all, when therapy ends, it is these societal resources as well as the person's own new found capabilities that will sustain the person into the future.

So, not only do psychologists "remember" that human beings are social creatures, they actively employ these interpersonal and societal resources as part of a successful treatment regimen.

Also posted at Marriage Debate as comment #10

My "Ex-Gay" Lawsuit? Response

2005-10-19T17:35:00.000-05:00

Regan DuCasse,

Thanks for your heads up on the Williams Project and their work. We're dealing with a real slippery bunch, that's for sure. I see that "Love in Action" in Memphis has modified it's web site since the Zack incident took place. They've removed any reference to "therapy" for example. If they say, "We're just warning youngsters about the risks inherent in the gay lifestyle," it would be hard to find fault in that.

I agree with your points:

1. Freud had some keen insights, but his speculation that sexual orientation (as we now know it) had something to do with how a child was raised was way off the mark. Rigorous scientific studies showed that there is no correlation between sexual orientation and any factor in the environment in which a child is raised, and these studied established this fact over fifty years ago. Yet proponents of RT still pull out these discarded Freudian theories, throw in some speculation of their own regarding some nebulous "abuse" they assume must have happened and presume that since some societal (family) interaction caused this "disorder" that some societal interaction (therapy) can cure it. What a crock!

2. Religions differ. In its encyclical on human sexuality, the Catholic Church stated, "Homosexuality is not a sin... since in is not freely chosen." Since they consider all sex outside of marriage sinful, they recommend that gays remain chaste throughout life and have support groups to aide in this objective. Many mainline Protestant Churches are coming to grips with the fact that some people are gay "by nature" and are adjusting their approach to gays accordingly. The point being that these churches acknowledge that gays exist. None supposes that one could wave a magic therapy wand and make homosexuality disappear. In contrast, some Islamic and Christian fundamentalists attack gays for their "chosen" behavior and suggest that if they can't control themselves, then they ought to get therapy to "straighten" themselves out. All of which flies in the face of fifty years of medical research which confirms that such therapies are useless.

3. & 5. There is no psychological testing that can distinguish gays as a group from straights as a group. Other than the gender that one is attracted to, gays are in the main just like everyone else. We are all subject to the many pathologies that define the human condition. There is no internal relationship between any of these pathologies and being gay. The difficulties that some gays have are directly related to the abominable way these gays are treated by some in today's society.

4. Counseling professionals have an ethical obligation to provide individual clients with a realistic estimate of the outcome they might expect from their treatment. Unfortunately, the boastful claims these RT proponents make in public are not covered by these professional ethical standards. Many in the RT field avoid these ethical standards altogether by having unqualified non-professionals provide the counseling. A large number of these are "ex-gays" themselves. Yet denying ones own sexuality which is an essential part of ones being is one of the defining characteristics of a mentally ill individual. Even Freud correctly realized that. So we have those who are psychologically crippled in denying their own sexuality advising others to become as psychologically crippled as they are. Religion can never be used as an excuse to harm people like this.

So good luck with your group's efforts to end this madness.

Class Action Suit Against "Ex-Gay" Therapists?

2005-10-19T17:10:00.000-05:00

This message is from Regan DuCasse:

I have been working towards a class action suit against RT* and ex gay ministries and the merits thereof.

The Williams Project is the gay and lesbian legal issue institution within UCLA Law School. I have discussed this with advocate Gloria Allred, a prominent attorney local to Los Angeles. I might be able to get the Anti Defamation League in on it.

The class action to have these things shut down is warranted this way:

1. When new and viable techniques for care from medical or psychiatric care givers come along to apply, it's their duty to apply them and not older, unreliable and BIASED ones. Ex gay therapy is not only archaic, but it's been rejected by all legitimate and well informed doctors.

2. Much of what motivates RT is almost exclusively religious and this is a fluid and non objective application. Religion is a separate discipline from mental health counseling.

3. Pathologies that are life threatening and harmful not only to the individual, but also those around them are evident in heterosexuals. Blaming pathologies equal in both groups on gay sexual orientation is confusing and raises or exacerbates conflict regarding sex, period.

4. Doctors have to have accurate cure rates and treatment processes open to the public to make informed decisions about practitioners. Religious counselors require licensing to cure something considered a mental or emotional disorder otherwise left to mental health care professionals to address. Most people in the ex gay business have neither.

5. Most importantly, doctors or counselors must be accurate in their diagnosis of a problem. And be unbiased in their approach to it to maximize effectiveness. Homosexuality in and of itself isn't a problem to the individual or others. Opposition to homosexuality is a bias inappropriate to be effective when dealing with other pathologies present in the individual.

These alone make these therapies and ministries immediately incompetent, biased and dangerous to those at risk. We wouldn't accept this from any other care giver-it shouldn't be any less true for the ex gay business.

Regan DuCasse

* reparative therapy - The bogus attempt to change a person's sexual orientation from gay to straight.

From the comments at Ex-Gay Watch

Update: See my response above.

Linking to Anti-Gay Sources

2005-10-19T11:44:00.000-05:00

I followed the link at comment #342 and I found that this is just some fellow's biased opinion, it's not research. The legitimate scientific research he attempts to trash, in fact, supports what I posted in comment #339. And who runs this web site?

The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps track of over 700 hate groups in the country: neo-nazis, skin-heads, various Klans. The sponsor of this web site, the Family Research Institute, is one of three anti-gay groups on the SPLC list.

Then we see on the bottom of the web page, that this report is published by none other than the notorious Paul Cameron, who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for ethical violations (lying about gays) and disowned by the American Sociological Association for using improper methodology in his efforts to misrepresent (lie about) gays in his continually discredited research.

If someone here seeks support for their views by associating with a designated anti-gay hate group or relies on the bogus work of Paul Cameron and his ilk, then why should we believe anything else that they say? We should know better. Yet how are we to have the people vote based on the truth of these important matters when there are politicians, preachers and posters who continue to spew out such hateful nonsense about gays?

Also posted at Family Scholar's Blog, comment #360

Were Priests who Abused Boys Gay?

2005-10-18T09:54:00.000-05:00

Marty said: "Unsubstantiated slur? It’s actually well documented fact that approximately 80% of the abuse cases involved in this scandal were same-sex, male-male abuse."

This is exactly the discredited Paul Cameron type misuse of "facts" that we all should condemn. Child predation has everything to do with the availability of the victim and nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. About one third of child molesters, for example, are the live in boyfriends of women who have custody of their children. Half of these children are boys, half are girls. To say that half of those who molest these children are "gay" because the victim is a boy is just nonsense. Obviously none of these perpetrators is gay since the whole reason they are there is to have sex with the child's mother. The fact that many of the victims are boys is just a matter of happenstance.

This Cameronesque illogic is mis-used in other situations. One study found that in 32% of the cases of male pedophilia, the victim was a boy. Using the guestimate that 3% of the population are gay, proponents of Colorado Proposition 2 often and loudly proclaimed, "Studies [sic] show the gays are ten times more likely to molest children."

When the researchers in this and other studies actually look into the backgrounds of these pedophiles, they have a hard time finding perpetrators who are gay. Instead almost all are heterosexuals, most have wives and many have children of their own. What these and other legitimate studies confirm is that gays are a third to a half less likely to abuse or molest children.

Suggesting that since 80% of the cases in this scandal involved male-male abuse, this implies that the Priests involved were gay is as absurd as saying that 50% of abusive live in boyfriends are gay. Abuse has everything to do with availability and nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Also posted at Family Scholar's Blog Comment #22

Male-Male Pedophilia not Related to Gay Orientation

2005-10-18T09:35:00.000-05:00

EW,

Sexual orientation and sexual behavior are not the same thing. As we note from the American Psychologic Association's Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality:

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

In psychosexually mature persons, behavior follows orientation. Straights are attracted to and have sex with straights of the opposite gender. Gays are attracted to and have sex with gays of the same gender. This is a sign of normal sexual maturity.

Persons who molest children are engaging in abnormal behavior which has nothing to do with the love, caring, affection, concern, romance, and so on that is involved in a mature relationship. Pedophilia (or molesting other prisoners in jail) is abnormal, sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

It is just this attempt to illegitimately equate behavior with sexual orientation that discredited researcher Paul Cameron* was expelled from the APA for unethical conduct, i.e. lying about gays in this and any other way he could think up.

Again, the sex of the victims of these abnormal behaviors has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. Instead, studies show that gays are less likely, not more likely, to molest or abuse children.

Please do not perpetuate Paul Cameron's unethical misuse of the data by confusing behavior with sexual orientation. They are not the same thing.

*see 1980

Also posted at Family Scholar's Blog Comment #58

Culture does not Determine if a Person is Gay

2005-10-17T22:56:00.000-05:00

Negro, black, African-American
homosexual, gay

These are the same people. They feel empowered by choosing a name for themselves from within their own culture, rather than having one imposed on them from the outside. The name is derived from the culture, but the underlying sexual orientation is not.

The culture does not determine if a person is gay or not. This is the finding that came out of research in the period following WWII. As I previously stated here:

Imagine the surprise then, when study after study came back showing not even a correlation, let alone a hint of causation between any of the upbringing factors which Freud had suggested lead to a person ending up gay. No "distant father." No "overbearing mother." No this, no that, no anything whatsoever. Being gay is an all but random happenstance like left-handedness. Environment can modify its expression, but it cannot change its intrinsic nature.

Culture can influence homosexual behavior, as it did with the Greeks and the Romans, but it cannot effect homosexual orientation itself.

The physiological test for sexual orientation I describe here was around long before I was a graduate student. I have stated that the government not be allowed to require this test, any more than it can require a lie detector test. Both would be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. However, persons could always volunteer for this test if they wish. That's how we get subjects for these clinical studies.

Where large scale testing is impractical, self-reporting by men and women who say they are gay has been shown to be highly reliable. There is no confusion in the scientific community regarding how to identify people who are gay.

Ex-Governor McGreevey had sex with his wife the way that men can have sex with a blow-up doll. All it takes in fantasy and friction. This does not mean that he was straight at the time. It only means that his fantasies were sufficient to overcome his repugnance. His obligation as a gay was not to marry someone of the opposite sex in the first place. In order to prevent these tragedies and encourage gays to do the right thing and commit to someone of the same sex, we should make same sex marriage legal everywhere.

Also posted at Family Scholar's Blog Comment # 330.

Queer Theory, what's that?

2005-10-16T15:28:00.000-05:00

John Howard said (in italics):

Bill you know that queer theory is all about how sexuality is socially constructed, don't you?

Well, no. I began my studies in clinical psychology over 30 years ago, and I must confess that I've never heard of "queer theory" before.

They of course take that knowledge, which is pretty much uncontested, and use it to say that therefore, everyone is bisexual by nature and we shouldn't socialize people to be straight anymore.

Huh? First we have the "arrested development" hypothesis that everyone was once gay. Now you suggest that everyone is/was bisexual? Are you suggesting that we resurrect Freud's old idea that all babies are born in a state of polymorphic perversion?

But we are saying that we should continue to socialize people to be straight, because...

So this is the reason we should allow bullies to continue to harass gay students in High School? In a letter to the editor about ten years ago I referenced a then released study which found that gay teenagers were three times more likely to commit suicide than their straight classmates. I stated, "Why would these youngsters choose to be gay and commit suicide if they could simply choose to be straight and live happily ever after? The idea that these youngsters chose to be gay is beyond all reason."

Did homosexuals in Nazi Germany chose to be gay so they could be sent to the gas chambers? What kind of "social pressure" can you imagine that would be any greater than that? So despite the fact that gays have been stoned to death, sent to the gas chambers or hanged as happened recently in Iran, a small yet constant portion of any population is gay through all times and cultures.

Do you think that VP Cheney and his wife have a gay daughter because they failed to properly "socialize" her?

That some people are gay is just a fact of nature, and no amount of "socialization" will change that. So the question remains, "How does a fair and just society respond to the fact that a small yet consistent portion of our citizens are inherently gay?"

Also posted at family scholars blog Comment #293

Why the APA Delisted Homosexuality in the DSM in 1975 - Part I

2005-10-14T14:39:00.000-05:00

EW asked:

So when the APA, before 1975, considered homosexuality a disorder, were we then simply to defer to their judgment? Was homosexuality really a disorder before 1975 simply because the APA said so, but not a disorder after simply because they changed their position?

Yes, we defer to the experts since they are best informed about the reality of the situation we are facing. When my wife discovered a lump in her breast, we followed the experts' advice and she had a mastectomy. She's been cancer free for the 18 years since.

Science is an ongoing process. Science is never exact, particularly in the social sciences. We zero in toward the truth through objective research with the results published in peer reviewed journals. I'm fascinated by the many stages researchers went through to determine the age of the earth, for example.

A hundred years ago, most psychiatric diagnoses were carried over from the nineteenth century. Freud's seminal work, The Interpretation of Dreams was published in 1900. Freud did no scientific research after publishing a paper on the sex organs of eels as a student. All of his insights were derived from his keen observations of his mostly neurotic patients. The few homosexual patients he had, truly were suffering from serious psychological problems. Yet if we look at a random sample of any group of people we will find some with psychological problems. To associate these problems with homosexuality, as Freud did, was later shown to be a mistaken inference based on a biased sample. His analysis was based on only those gays with problems serious enough to bring them to his office in the first place.

Little research was done in this area during the first half of the twentieth century, so Freud's armchair speculations stayed on the books, as it were. After WWII, researchers were given access to a train load of information in the form of the Army Alpha series of tests which were given to most who were inducted into the service as a result of the war. The GI Bill produced an influx of money making more available for research, and research funding became available from other sources as well. Many found funding to do verifiable research to scientifically prove that Freud's ideas about homosexuality were correct.

Imagine the surprise then, when study after study came back showing not even a correlation, let alone a hint of causation between any of the upbringing factors which Freud had suggested lead to a person ending up gay. No "distant father." No "overbearing mother." No this, no that, no anything whatsoever. Being gay is an all but random happenstance like left-handedness. Environment can modify its expression, but it cannot change its intrinsic nature.

At the same time, psychometricians used the multiple choice style psychological tests in the Army Alpha series as an example of a test which produced valid results for large numbers of people in a cost effective machine scorable format. This was never to be a substitute for personal interviews by trained diagnosticians, but these tests allowed interviewers to focus on problem areas more quickly.

Yet with none of these new standardized tests, nor with any other tests that researchers and eager graduate students attempted to devise for this specific purpose, could anyone come up with a diagnostic test which could distinguish gays as a group from straights as a group. Sure, gays suffer from all manner of psychological problems, but in no significantly different pattern or proportion than the population in general. So, if we can devise no test designed to identify psychological disorders which can objectively determine who is gay and who isn't, how can we say that being gay by itself is a psychological disorder in the first place?

There are two other compelling scientific findings which, when added to the above, made the delisting of homosexuality in the DSM all but inevitable. Thirty years of continuing research since then fully supports this decision.

I stand behind the experts in this matter, and the nearly 60 years of solid scientific research which confirms their decision.

From a post at: Family Scholar's blog Comment #59

The Tragic Fantasy of Marrying Someone of the Opposite Orientation

2005-10-14T14:10:00.000-05:00

EW said:

This means, that women’s response is more generalized and women may be stimulated by watching sexual situation as such. In men, the arousal is more specific.

It's true it's harder to distinguish general arousal from sexual arousal in women than it is in men. Also, we can never guarantee a one to one correspondence between the pictures and the fantasies they might evoke.

As a favorite professor of mine was want to say, sex requires two basic things, fantasy and friction. That's why clinics that rely on sperm donation have girlie magazines in the rest room. Fantasy may suffice for a time, but a meaningful relationship requires two participating adults where any fantasy is replaced by the total reality of the other.

As the physiological test shows, gay men are aroused by pictures and thoughts of other men, but not women. This is why the suggestion that someone who is gay should just conform to "societal norms" and marry someone of the opposite sex is so ludicrous. At best we have a man who has to fantasize about someone else in order to go through the motions with his wife. She's fully engaged, heart mind and soul, in the reality of the experience while his mind is replacing her with someone quite different.

Or, more likely, he could avoid intimate relations as much as possible leaving both his needs and hers unsatisfied, her love unrequited. The children have no role models for a relationship based on emotional love and affection. How are they to learn how to fill these roles themselves later? Boys in these situations often "learn" that women exist for their sexual gratification. The love and affection that belongs in a relationship is not in evidence. Girls in these situations want affection like we all do, but not seeing this expressed appropriately by their parents, they may become promiscuous trading sex for the affection they need.

A life built on such fantasy is no life at all. The husband has no love in his life unless he finds a man on the side. The wife has a husband but their relationship is superficial, satisfying neither. The children learn that love is little more than gratuitous sex.

If the wheels come off the train, in a classic Ex-Gov McGreevey moment, don't look for someone to put the train back together. It wasn't on the right track to start with. While being raised by one's married biological parents is ideal for heterosexuals, an arrangement like this is a disservice to the children. Anything we can do to discourage gays from marrying someone of the opposite sex will prevent these tragedies from happening in the future.

From a post at: Family Scholar's blog Comment #99

Jim Johnson's Take on a KKK Anti-Gay Protest

2005-09-15T13:26:00.000-05:00

I enjoy Jim Johnson's blog Straight, Not Narrow. He has a straight forward way of expressing his gay affirming Christain beliefs.

In his post about KKK protests at a Methodist meeting in North Carolina where they were discussing ways to be more inclusive of gays in their church activities, Jim said:

That's right, the KKK is branching out and not reserving their message of hate for African-Americans. One of the protesters' signs said "Show me where sin is OK." Sure folks, right after you show me where hate is okay.

There is nothing so eloquent as the truth simply stated.

MA Anti SSM Amendment Fails 157-39

2005-09-14T16:25:00.000-05:00

From the Boston Globe article:

A year after the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex marriages began taking place, the Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.

After less than two hours of debate, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure, far more than the majority vote needed.
The moment the vote was announced, cheers erupted from the gay marriage supporters who watched the proceedings from the House chamber's public gallery...

The large vote against the measure after passing 105-92 last year was stunning. Some noted that SSM has been in effect for a year and none of those terrible things happened that opponents had direly predicted.

"Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees, an East Longmeadow Republican...

In the year-plus since the weddings began taking place, more than 6,100 couples had married.

Anti-gay propaganda based on bogus research doesn't stand up to the light of reality.

Opponents are now gathering signatures for an amendment that would ban both SSM and civil unions. This must garner 25% of the votes in joint sessions of the legislature in two consecutive years before going on the ballot, in 2008 at the soonest. This ideological position which allows no rights for gays whatsoever is doomed if it ever gets to a popular vote. With only 39 votes in support of the compromise amendment in this resent vote, I wonder if the harsher proposal will even get the 50 votes it needs in the two years to come.

Once filed, petitions for the proposed amendment are a matter of public record. In a new take on the exercise of democracy, enterprising individuals propose putting the names and addresses of signers on a web site. Neighbors might then ask signers why they support this anti-gay position. Proponents of the amendment are howling about this, claiming that this might lead to harassment. Are persons not to be held accountable for their actions?

Boston Globe - "What Makes People Gay?"

2005-08-18T13:59:00.000-05:00

We find a comprehensive report in the Sunday Boston Globe Magazine: What Makes People Gay?

The article takes notes of the fact that "the clear focus of sexual-orientation research has shifted to biological causes, and there hasn't been much science produced to support the old theories tying homosexuality to upbringing."

The article takes note of the research in Sweden which was the subject of my Gay Limbic Reaction to Pheromones post as well as my Of Fruit Flies and Men post. In addition, the article discusses other completed studies and most interesting, some that are ongoing at present.

In discussing the possibility of a genetic component of sexual orientation, he mentions the evolutionary paradox, the idea that since gay men have 80% fewer offspring, why would a "gay gene" not inevitably disappear. Other research, though, has shown that the inheritability of homosexual orientation is passed along on the mother's side of the family as it is associated with the female X chromosome just like left handedness, and is therefore not dependent on gay males having children.

When it comes to hereditary, it is important to note that in the case of sexual orientation, as in handedness, these genetic factors provide only a bias in one direction or the other. Other conditions such as the chemical and hormonal environment that exist after fertilization are also determinate.

The article points to work by Eric Vilain and Sven Bocklandt at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Instead of looking for a gay gene, they stress that they are looking for several genes that cause either attraction to men or attraction to women... It's not a question of what genes you have, but rather which ones you use, says Bocklandt. "I have the genes in my body to make a vagina and carry a baby, but I don't use them, because I am a man."

Well! It's nice to see that what I wrote about ten years ago is now the subject of serious scientific research. The main idea is that we all have the same sets of genes which would result in our being attracted to males or attracted to females (or both or neither) so it's a matter of which set(s) are left turned on during the complex interactions which occur after fertilization.

When we consider identical twins, we know the the original zygote splits in two yielding two distinct individuals with an identical genetic makeup. What we don't know is how long after fertilization that sexual orientation is established. If it happens before the zygote splits, then the twins will have the same orientation. If it occurs afterward, then the likelihood that their orientation would be the same is that of fraternal twins. I think the articles discussion of "imprinting" was trying to make this point.

All in all a good review of current research into the factors which determine sexual orientation.

In the Garden of Eden

2005-07-24T10:50:00.000-05:00

In my July 16th post, I made reference to the Garden of Eden, hoping alert Herald-News readers would recall a previous letter I had written the month before. For those of you who might have wondered which part of left field I was coming from when they noted this reference, here is the letter:

May 18, 1994
To the Editor:

God created an ideal place when He created the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were created as two true reflections of God's multifaceted image. God saw what He had created and it was good. Then the devil convinced them to eat from the tree of knowledge. This knowledge was the devilish idea that if two people are different then one must be better, the other worse; one must be "good," and so the other, being different, must be "evil."

Suddenly they were ashamed of their differences. They hid from God and sewed fig leaves together to cover the places where their differences were most obvious. The devil knows that if he can divide us over our differences, he can separate us from God as well, since we are each a part of God's marvelous creation. That's exactly what happened.

We see this again with Cain and Able. Cain raised crops; Able raised animals, so their two offerings to the Lord were different. Cain got the idea that since these were different, then one must be better, the other worse. He assumed that his was the worse and in his anger, he rose up and killed his brother.

So it goes through human history. The idea that if two people (groups, races, religions) are different, then one must be good, the other bad, has led to more death, destruction and human misery than any other evil scheme the devil could have devised. The devil has neither the power to create nor destroy, but by convincing us to hate those who are different, he can sit back and gleefully watch as we destroy one another.

Jesus came to change all this. He extended His love to all without reservation.

When people came for help to the house He was visiting, He didn't stick His head out the door and say, "OK, now, all you women get to the end of the line." Instead, He treated both men and women in turn with equal consideration.

When He had His disciples pass out the loaves of bread and the fish He had blessed, He didn't say, "except for those Ethiopians back there in the corner." Instead, He had them give what little they had to everyone, and what was small became great as a result of His kindness.

When the lepers seeking help met Him on the road, He didn't tell the five heterosexuals, "Boys, have I got good news for you," and tell the two homosexuals, "Go jump off that cliff over there." Instead, He sent all seven on the road to recovery.

He didn't ignore the man at the pool of trembling waters because he was too old or allow His disciples to turn the children away because they were too young. Instead, His promise of redemption reaches down to all ages.

He turned no one away because they were too sick or their bodies too broken. Instead, He extended the healing power of His love even beyond death, beyond the grave.

By His words and His actions, Jesus left us with one simple message: That we should love God and love one another. But that's just two ways of saying the same thing! We cannot love God and not love every one of His children.

Only when we follow Christ's example and treat every person with understanding and respect, despite our differences, can we thwart the devil's attempt to divide us and become one again with God our creator.

Sincerely,
William J. Ware

How Do We Treat Our Gay Children?

2005-07-16T05:23:00.000-05:00

I read in the Tampa paper that it's happened again.

TAMPA - Even though the boy would shake and wet himself, his father, Ronnie Paris Jr., would box with the 3-year-old, slapping him in the head until he cried because he didn't want his son to grow up to be ``a sissy,'' the boy's mother testified Monday.
Others corroborated Nysheerah Paris' testimony as the prosecution built its case during the first day of the capital murder trial of Ronnie Paris Jr., 21, accused of abusing 3-year- old Ronnie Paris until the boy slipped into a coma Jan. 22.

He died six days later with swelling on both sides of his brain.

``He was trying to teach him how to fight,'' said Shanita Powell, Nysheerah Paris' sister. ``He was concerned that the child might be gay.''

I addressed this issue before in a letter to the editor:

June 2, 1994

Editor
The Herald-News
PO Box 286
Dayton, TN 37321

To the Editor,

We see that this years gay pride parade is stirring up the usual animosities. The saddest effect of those who encourage us to hate homosexuals is what it is doing to our children.

We read in the paper that a man from Fort Worth was sent to prison for beating his two year old son to death. Why? Because he worried that the boy we becoming a homosexual. We learn that the man pummeled the boy for playing with dolls and holding his hands a certain way.

Few boys who are gay play with dolls, however. Adolescence is the time when most of us become aware of our sexual orientation. Imagine what it must be like when a teenager realizes that he or she is gay and then considers how he or she will be treated by some in today’s society. No wonder one third of our teen suicides are a result of this discovery.

When I was a junior in high school, a classmate of ours found her younger brother hanging in the basement. "If only I had gone down to check on the clothes in the dryer a few minutes sooner, I might have been able to cut him down in time," she told us.

Clearly, ignorance about homosexuality is killing our children. Fortunately, these is some cause for hope: The more education a person has or the more gay people one knows or the younger one is, the more tolerant one is likely to be. Education is the best cure for prejudice.

Beyond education there are two things we can do for our children:

First, we must not support preachers who encourage people to hate our gay sons and daughters. Most churches agree with the scientific findings that sexual orientation is an inborn characteristic. For example, the Catholic Church is its 185 page Guide to Human Sexuality states, "Homosexual orientation is not a sin... because it is not freely chosen."

This does not mean that these churches condone promiscuity among homosexuals any more than they do among heterosexuals. Far from it. It simply means that they extend God’s love to all His children. Like Christ, they accept people as they are; they don’t try to make them into something they’re not.

Second, we must not support politicians who stir up hatred of others to gain votes. This "Willie Horton" approach has no place in America. In the Garden of Eden, the devil convinced us to be ashamed of our differences. He knows that if he can separate us because of these differences, he can separate us from God as well, since we are all a part of God’s marvelous creation. Those who attempt to divide us by race or gender or sexual orientation are doing the devil’s work, it’s just that simple.

Since sexual orientation results from the complex selection processes that occur during conception, which is more or less random, having a child who is gay can happen to anyone.

So what will you do if your young son is gay? Will you try to beat the "sin" out of him if he plays with dolls or holds his hands a certain way?

What will you do if your daughter is gay? Will you tell her to pretend she’s not gay until she’s older and then give her a one-way bus ticket to San Francisco?

What if you realize your teen-aged son is gay? Will you make his life so miserable that he takes care of your problem for you by hanging himself in the basement?

Jesus taught us that God’s love extends to all His children, not just this one or that one. What parent, Jesus asks us, when his child asks for bread would give him a stone?

We cannot change the whole world as Jesus did, but we can follow His example when it comes to our own children. We must replace the stone of ignorance and hate with the bread of understanding and kindness. With the lives of our children at stake, we cannot do otherwise.

Sincerely,

William J. Ware

Gay and Lesbian Adoptions

2005-07-12T12:19:00.000-05:00

Dear Catherine & David,

You mention that we should not try something new like gay adoption or gay marriage until gays can "prove" that this would not lead to some harm in any way. This idea would lead to the end of all progress since one can never prove the negative, of course.

From the 2000 census we find that nearly 4,000,000 children are being raised by at least one gay parent. The majority of these, about 85%, are the result of a previous heterosexual marriage. There are 416,000 children being raised in households led by a same sex couple.

So children being raised by gays and gay couples already exist. These latter are the children in the studies comparing children raised by same sex verses opposite sex couples I mentioned earlier. When a divorced woman later remarries, the laws of every state allow the step-father to adopt the woman's children. Some states allow the partner in a recognized same sex relationship to adopt the partner's children. Many states say that only a person married to the child's legal (biological) parent can be considered in a potential adoption. Since gays cannot legally marry in all but one state, this automatically leaves them out. Other states say that gays in a civil union or who are registered domestic partners can adopt their same sex partner's children. Nine states and DC allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt jointly.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has always encouraged step-parents to adopt their mates children, since having two legally responsible parents serves the child's best interest far better than having just one. The AAP recognizes that these benefits would apply to children of gay couples as well and therefore supports legislation which would allow second parent adoption by gay partners.

Family court matters have always been the jurisdiction of each state. Reciprocity agreements among the states have, in the past, always ensured that domestic matters settled in one state's courts would be honored in every other. Custody, child support, divorce, adoption and so on are each state's prerogative. The Defense of Marriage Act has thrown this civility into abject confusion.

In an adoption, the judges court order, the adoption agency's investigation, the original birth certificate and so on are placed under a seal of confidentiality. The state of birth then issues a new birth certificate listing the adoptive couple as parents. This is needed when entering kindergarten, applying for a passport and so on. This is to ensure that these children are not discriminated against as a result of their status and allows the adoptive parents to determine when and how these children will be informed that they are adopted.

Yet it took a federal court order to get Virginia to issue a new birth certificate for a lesbian couple who adopted a child in one of the 21 states that allows both parents in a gay couple to adopt as recommended by many health organizations. This birth certificate is for the child's benefit, not the parents. It allows the child to be included on either parents health insurance, for example. Delaying this birth certificate certainly showed no concern for the well fare of the child in this instance.

So letting gays adopt would not be an experiment, it's already a fact in the many cases sited above. More information is available at the About Adoption web site.

Love, Dad

Therapeutic and Reproductive Cloning

2005-07-12T10:50:00.000-05:00

David & Catherine,

There are two types of cloning, therapeutic and reproductive.

The idea behind therapeutic cloning is to generate new cells that perform a function that is missing in the patient, such as cells that produce dopamine in those who suffer from Parkinson's disease or those that produce insulin for those with diabetes.

Cells in the early embryo have nearly all their genes left turned on (unmethylated) which allows them to go on to produce all the structures and functions of the body. As the fetus develops, cells differentiate into cell types with specific functions as the genes for unrelated cell functions are systematically turned off.

Embryotic stem cell research attempts to take these poli-potential cells and coax then into producing specific cell types. Heart muscle cells have been produced in this way. The hope is to mass produce cells that produce dopamine or insulin then introduce them into the patients body where they would migrate to the brain or pancreas, settle in and start producing these missing products.

We know from organ transplants that material from someone else is treated as foreign to the recipient's immune system and may be destroyed if care isn't taken to find compatible donors and the use of immune system suppressants.

This potential rejection can be eliminated in these embryotic stem cell efforts if the stem cells used are created with the patients own dna. A cell from the patient, say a skin cell, can be demethylated through chemical means to return it to its poli-potential state, then introduced onto an egg provided by a donor whose own dna has been removed. The cell is then induced to begin dividing like it would after normal fertilization. The stem cells that result are used to grow the cells that produce the products that are missing in the patient. Since these are clones of the patient's cells, they will not be rejected.

I have no problem with this type of embryotic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning since it is designed to produce only specific cell types in an effort to find relief for specific diseases.

Reproductive cloning is not yet feasible. Gametes which come together during normal fertilization have nearly all their sets of genes turned on. This provides the embryo the potential to produce all the body's structures and functions. The exception to this is that one pattern of genes is turned off (methylated) in the egg and a different pattern of genes is methylated in those in the sperm. When these two gametes with complimentary patterns combine, the likelihood of having a healthy full term baby is increased.

When a skin cell, for example, has to be demethylated to return it to a poly-potential state for potential cloning, this indiscriminate process would remove the male and female methylation patterns as well, resulting in all kinds of potential difficulties in the developing fetus which cannot be ethically tolerated.

The same would apply to same sex procreation. No matter how one tried to produce two gametes, at least one would not have the male or female methylation pattern required for success.

In either case, producing an embryo with the same methylation patterns as occur in the natural fertilization process is way beyond our current understanding or abilities. I would be in favor of a ten year moratorium on human cloning and SS procreation which could be extended after review. If results can be produced that are equivalent in safety and efficacy as IVF, then I see no reason for it to be banned from that point on.

Love, Dad

Understanding Sexual Orientation

2005-07-11T07:47:00.000-05:00

Catherine and David,

While homosexuals are attracted to persons of the same gender, they are no different than anyone else otherwise. This is one of the three main reasons that homosexuality was taken out of the DSM. There was no psychological test in use at the time or proposed (and many tried to construct one) that could distinguish gays as a group from straights as a group. Sure gays have problems, but in the same proportions as the rest of the population. Homosexuality is not correlated with any other psychological disorder. Certainly not pedophilia. Sexual orientation is a distinct trait, like eye color, which is separate and unrelated to anything else.

To the extent that gays are anxious and depressed, this is situational anxiety and situational depression due to the way gays are treated by some in today's society. It is not psychological anxiety or psychological depression due to any underlying personality deficiency.

Gays' attraction to other men is exactly the same as a heterosexual woman's attraction to men, no more, no less. It is derived from the same set of genes and effects the same sexual arousal centers in the limbic system. It is a primal autonomic nervous system reaction like the "fight or flight" reaction and produces many of the same hormones and physiological reactions. In addition, sexual arousal produces the hormone oxitocin, the human bonding hormone also found in lactating women, which is required to form the bonds of love and affection necessary in romance. Since women don't stimulate this reaction in gay men, these men are not able to form bonds of love and affection to persons of the opposite gender.

These primitive reactions are not under voluntary control, they occur when the activating stimuli are present, whether we like it or not. They cannot be changed by any type of therapy. This is the second main reason that homosexuality was dropped from the DMS. There is no way to cure such a primitive instinct. The best professionals can do is help gays live with this innate difference.

The way we can apply the Christian "love thy neighbor" principle is to understand the scientific basis for sexual attraction, realize that this physiological reaction is not chosen, and accept gay people as they are the way God does.

Behavior is completely different from orientation, since it is chosen. Yet we can't have a reasoned discussion about behavior if we fail to acknowledge the limits that orientation places on the available options. Love, Dad

PS: Here's the latest article that reviews the current information on gay and lesbian parenting. It appears in the Obstetrics - Gynecology medical journal. It even includes that latest study I listed in my previous e-mail.

Summary: The literature supports the notion that children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not more likely to become homosexual and are not measurably different from children raised by heterosexual parents in terms of personality development, psychological development, and gender identity. Larger longitudinal studies of same sex parents, particularly gay men, are needed, including those who choose to become parents through the use of assisted reproduction.

Since gays are no different than anyone else otherwise, why would we expect there to be any difference in the way their children turn out?

Gay and Lesbian Adoption

2005-07-09T08:09:00.000-05:00

Catherine & David,

Thanks for your reply. I will be quite busy responding.

So first let me just make some overall comments about gay adoption. I'll address individual studies later.

The professional consensus regarding gays, lesbians and children is exemplified by this from the Am Psychological Ass'n web site.

The page has other "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" that are worth reading. I refer you to the first question, "What is Sexual Orientation." Please note the sexual orientation, an emotional arousal reaction, is distinct from sexual behavior. Willfully confounding these two is a common way to arrive at intentionally misleading conclusions about gays.

Organizations which support gay and lesbian children are listed here.

In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports second parent adoption for gay and lesbian couples.

All fifty states and DC allow gay foster parents and all states and DC except Florida allow gay adoptions. These homes are investigated and monitored by the appropriate state agencies. Florida, too, allowed gay adoptions until 1977 when singer Anita Bryant successfully led a campaign to have the law changed.

Here is a web site with a Florida gay couple and the five children they raised in foster care.

This is the couple involved in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals case you mentioned. I agree there is no "right" to be an adoptive parent, family court judges should have great leeway in these matters. Excluding a whole class of people as no other state does seems regrettable. Gays in particular seem more willing to take children with HIV, "crack" babies, and those suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome. We need "those individuals whom [the court] deems most capable of parenting adoptive children and providing them with a secure environment." Yet all 32 of the studies which compared children raised by gay or lesbian couples with those raised by comparable opposite sex couples, there hasn't been even one that suggests that the former do not do as well as the latter. The latest study is reported here.

Included in the Eleventh Circuit's 2-1 decision was recess appointed Judge William Pryor. Alone among other out of state Attorneys General, he submitted a particularly nasty anti-gay amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v Texas supporting the states anti-sodomy laws. He suggested that any kind of homosexual activity is bad and the states have the right to prohibit it. With extreme views like this, how could he fairly judge the Florida adoption case? If he believes that gays are intrinsically evil, of course he's going to keep children away from them. No amount of objective evidence that shows that gays make fit parents is going to persuade him otherwise. More about Judge Pryor is here.

All states allow gay foster care and all states but Florida have permitted gay adoptions for decades. If there were negative consequences to this, surely someone would have noticed and reported it by now. We must separate the anti-gay rhetoric from the facts of the matter. More later, Love, Dad

Discrimination and the Constitution

2005-06-26T15:10:00.000-05:00

My son David's wife e-mailed me after reading Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers by former Senator John Danforth in the 6/17/05 NY Times. This is my response:

Catherine,

It was so nice to hear from you. Thanks for your comments on the article.

from your e-mail: "I agree with the article as it states that in the Gospels love takes precedence when it conflicts with laws, but I don't think you can stretch that to say that as long as love is present...”anything goes.” I disagree with the author’s statement that “for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.” How can he mean that? We as sinners are forgiven for our wrongs and are not condemned by God because of Jesus’ death on the cross, but there are standards of behavior. There are still rights and wrongs."

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Yet our liberty is restrained when it interferes with the liberty of others. We put a thief in jail because we "love our neighbors" and don't want their property stolen.

We discipline our children for their misbehavior so that they might grow up to do right not wrong by their neighbors. Yet we recall that to discipline means to teach, not to punish. We discipline out of love, not anger. We discipline the thief hoping he'll change his behavior.

If our behavior harms no one else, then we are at liberty to do it. As Jefferson said, "If it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket, then it's not the government's business."

So all our laws are (or should be) grounded on the love thy neighbor principle since they protect our neighbors from loss or harm.

From your e-mail: "Clearly, the article is focused on the issues of faith and political agendas. I have some more thinking to do to gather my arms around the whole issues....as I'm not the most politically savvy. However, I do believe that Christian politicians have an obligation to God to do all in their power to preserve the moral state of our society."

Christians, like all citizens, have the right and duty to express their opinions regarding public policy. Yet all laws are subject to constitutional limits.

Our Constitution grants certain powers to the government. The 9th and 14th amendments remind us that all other rights are retained by the people. If a conflict arises concerning a law which denies rights to a specific class of people, then it is up to the state to prove that there is a rational basic for the law in support of a compelling state interest. Does it prevent harm or loss to other members of the public in some way?

Religions are a source of moral instructions. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal fit into our constitutional requirements since they are designed to prevent harm or loss to others. The first three commandments are not in the laws since the first amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion or religion in general. At the same time, the first amendment allows all religions to prosper on their own. Similarly, laws that stem from religious beliefs alone, which serve no secular purpose, are not constitutional. Prohibiting people from eating pork or working on Sunday as the Bible commands are not permitted since they serve no useful purpose otherwise. One can preach, teach and beseech as one wishes, the first amendment allows for that too, but one cannot use the power of government to force one's purely religious views on everyone, even if one's views are held by the majority.

States have laws that discriminate against gays in various ways. When these laws reach the courts, the state has to present a rational basis for the laws. They have to show how this discrimination serves a compelling state interest. It soon becomes all too clear that politicians passed these laws to cater to the prejudices of their more conservative religious constituents because there is no demonstrable secular basis for these laws, whatsoever. If something causes no harm or loss to anyone, there can be no law against it.

To the contrary, the 416,000 children (2000 census) who live with gay and lesbian couples are being harmed by this unwarranted discrimination since they do not have the same rights and protections that children of married couples have.

Since five State Supreme Courts and several US Appellate Courts have found no Constitutional (secular) justification for laws that discriminate against gays, and more will inevitably follow, an amendment would have to be passed which would write discrimination into our Constitution for the first time in our country's history! Of course this would be humiliating. It's like saying that blacks were worth 3/5 of a person. It saying that gays and their children don't have the full rights of citizenship that the rest of us have. It shows the animous toward gays that Justice Kennedy spoke of in the Romer v Evans decision.

In His example of the good neighbor, Jesus told us of the Samaritan, a person who was dispised by almost everyone in his day. How apt a description of how gays are treated by many in our own time. "Who was a good neighbor to this man?" Jesus asked. "The one who showed mercy," the lawyer replied. "Go and do likewise," Jesus told him.

This seems pretty clear to me. Sometimes I wonder, what part of "love thy neighbor" do some people not understand? Love to both, Bill

Of Fruit Flies and Men

2005-06-12T19:09:00.000-05:00

An article on fruit fly mating behavior was announced in the June 3, 2005 journal Cell. From the NY Times article For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sex Orientation of the same date:

"Both male and female flies have the same genetic material as well as the neural circuitry required for the mating ritual, but different parts of the genes are turned on in the two sexes. But no one dreamed that simply activating the normally dormant male portion of the gene in a female fly could cause a genetic female to display the whole elaborate panoply of male fruit fly foreplay."

The important point here is that all fruit flies, male and female, carry the genes which, when activated, produce either male or female orientation and mating behavior. This includes the "master gene" which produces a different sex specific protein based on other male v female signals that direct mRNA splicing to produce either the male or female version of this protein. Then this one protein controls the activation of one of the two sets of genes that alternately produce either male or female orientation and behavior.

This study parallels what I was saying in my previous post Genetic Basis for Sexual Orientation. We all carry the sets of genes which would lead us to be attracted to either males or females. It is the signal provided by the presence or absence of the Y chromosome after fertilization which usually selects the set associated with the opposite sex. Yet our experience shows that at times this signaling can go awry and we experience others who are attracted to the same sex, to both sexes or neither.

While human behavior is more complex than that in these flies, we cannot deny that the sexual arousal response that is programmed in the limbic system by our genes is by its primitive nature quite compelling. More importantly, it leads to the bonds of love and affection that cannot form when this genetic predisposition is absent.

There is no one gene for homosexuality. We all have the sets of genes that, when selected like in these flies, would result in our being attracted to and reacting to either males or females, our biological sex not withstanding. Sexual orientation is an inborn characteristic based on these genetic factors that cannot be changed. The sooner we all understand and accept this the better.

Procreation is not the only Reason for Marriage

2005-06-11T14:22:00.000-05:00

The relationship between procreation and marriage seems to be a rather weak point to make as an anti-SSM argument.

This relationship has been brought up in several of the state arguments attempting to justify laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians and has been summarily dismissed.

Some states, in fact, allow first cousin marriages only if the couple can prove through age or other evidence that they cannot procreate. On the other side, I'm aware of no state marriage law that mentions the ability to procreate in any way or fashion.

Any suggestion that we now add such a radical provision would meet with little public support if any. Think of how insulting it would be to all those couples we allow to marry now, whose inability to procreate is so obvious. We consider all these marriages valuable, not just those that may produce children.

The courts position, simply stated is: procreation is not a requirement for marriage any more than marriage is a requirement for procreation. Considering all those who now marry where procreation is not possible, it has to remain this way.

Yet procreation is only the first step in an 18 plus year process of raising a child. While we may fully support the ideal of having a child raised by his or her two married biological parents, we cannot abandon any children simply because they do not find themselves in this ideal situation. We support adopted children and their parents. We support step children and encourage step parents to adopt their spouse's children, the idea being that having two legally responsible parents is better than having just one.

For this same "two parents are better than one" reason and others, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports second parent adoption for gay and lesbian couples as related in their news release AAP supports second-parent adoptions by homosexuals. This, they sincerely believe, is in the best interest of the children they serve.

For these same valid reasons, it would be in the best interest of the 300,000 or so children who are being raised by these lesbian and gay couples to be provided with all the same rights, privileges and community support that the children of heterosexual couples now have by allowing their parents to marry.

We should never let the "ideal" prevent us from doing what is best to support all the children in our communities.

Also posted at: Family Scholar's blog Comment #49

SSM and the APA

2005-05-23T15:21:00.000-05:00

From a comment at the Family Scholars Blog SSM and the APA:

Chairm wrote:

"Bill, do you mean to claim that 5% of the adult population is sexually attracted, exclusively, to their same sex? That is different from what you first claimed, as others have pointed out."

Where? Who? I usually say up to 5%. Estimates vary. How can we say when we can't know how many gays are still closeted? If it's 2%, not 5% does it make any difference? Funny thing, I've never seen any estimates regarding what % of the population are asexual, not attracted to either men or women, yet I've met a number, usually women. The difficulty is, they have no idea what they're missing. The greater pleasure is pleasing the other. Imagine how frustrating this is to their partner.

"By far, most same-sex households with children include at least one adult who had previously been in a procreative relationship with someone of their opposite sex (i.e. marriage) and have brought the children with them."

That's right, about 85%

"So it is demonstrably untrue that such people are incapable of forming positive marital relations with the other team."

Well... They did divorce, didn't they?

Note from the APA Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality web page:

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors. (Emphasis added)

Behavior is voluntary, so a gay man could marry a women in order to adhere to "cultural norms for masculine behavior." Other considerations besides romantic love for the woman would be factors. What happens when this charade ends? The wife and the kids realize that the marriage was a sham the whole time. There's an ex-Governor McGreevey moment when everything comes apart. There's no way a counselor can put humpty-dumpty back together again. Far better to avoid this catastrophe by marrying someone of the same sexual orientation in the first place. A loveless marriage does everyone ill.

"Bill, where did you get the statistic of 300,000 same-sex couples with children? That number looks about twice the estimate of the Census, for example."

Pollsters are plagued by the "socially correct answer" problem. For example, in an in depth survey of why people voted as they did in a presidential election where 52% actually voted, 64% of respondents said they had. About 12% said they did when they didn't rather than admit they did the socially incorrect thing by not voting.

Surveys of gays and lesbians have the opposite problem. The social stigma prompts many to say that they are heterosexual. Surveyors have ways to help correct this problem, doing face to face interviews where they can gain the persons trust and elicit more honest answers and so on. They add history from prior surveys and computer analysis and they come up with an estimated correction factor. The census provides raw data with no corrections as Congress requires. The correction factor raises the census figure to 300,000 give or take. I was also interested to see that the census reported that the mean income for gay households was $5,000 above the overall average.

Jon Rowe deals with Dishonest Data about Gays

2005-05-18T09:25:00.000-05:00

Jon Rowe deals with the dishonest way that too many anti-gay writers distort facts and figures as a way to stir up unwarrented hatred against gays in his post Cramer Knows Better.

I posted this comment there:

Jon,

Your posts on this subject are getting better over time. This one was especially good. From the American Psychological Association pageAnswers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality:

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior)...

Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.

Please see my post The APA on Sexual Orientation for comments I made on these and other of their Questions and Answers.

This sexual arousal occurs in the hypothalamus, a part of the limbic system which deals with emotions in general. This autonomic nervous system response to gender specific cues is not under conscious control and has many of the same hormonal and other physiological characteristics of the "fight or flight" reaction, except instead of a feeling of fear, the release of oxytocin produces a feeling of euphoria and a desire to be closer.

My post Gay Limbic Reaction to Pheromones refers to a study which shows that sexual arousal in the hypothalamus is similar between heterosexual women and gay men and both are different than that in heterosexual men. More practically, in my post An Objective Criteria for Sexual Orientation I describe a test that determines sexual orientation for clinical studies.

Yet polls and surveys are limited to estimating orientation through self reporting and questions regarding behavior. Sexual orientation as clinically defined and sexual behavior which is entirely under voluntary control are certainly related, but they are NOT the same thing. Your description of situational homosexual acts, young teenage boys playing with each other, prisoners using others for sexual release, and so on, indicate no sexual feelings for the partner other than the friction they provide for their own sexual gratification. Pedophilia, necrophilia, and other disorders also fall into this sex purely for gratification category.

Those whose orientation is gay are capable of forming deep bonds of love and affection with another gay person, just like heterosexual couples do, since these are based on the same sets of genes in both cases as I describe in Genetic Basis for Sexual Orientation.

When dishonest people like the one you discuss here, try to cloud the issue by conflating all kinds of deviant sexual behavior that happens to involve two persons of the same sex, with sexual orientation which has nothing to do with these behaviors, then this willful deceit must be brought to light and soundly condemned.

Thanks for your efforts in this area. Bill Ware

Sanjai Tripathi on ID

2005-05-18T04:25:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite blogs about evolution, The Panda's Thumb, had a post about an article by Sanjai Tripathi in the Oregon State Daily Barometer which he titled, "ID for faithful, evolution for scientists."

Sanjai is close to completing an advanced degree in molecular microbiology. He took proponents of intelligent design to task on scientific grounds:

First, their examples of "irreducible complexity" are in fact reducible. The bacterial flagellum is the most frequent example cited by ID proponents.

He goes on to explain how combinations of a lesser number of the 30 proteins which make up these flagella serve several other useful functions, so it is not true that they have to "suddenly appear all at once" as IDer's claim.

He goes on to say:

The second flaw in ID is more fundamental. That is, their basic argument has no logical basis; because something is very complex, it doesn't necessarily have a "designer."

Sure there's still lots to learn in biology. We're talking about all living things on the planet, after all. Yet we don't look at some cellular structure or function, say "that's too complex for me, God musta dunnit," throw up our hands and abandon research in the area. That's like saying that God created the weather, so why bother studying meteorology. It just isn't useful.

I left a comment about his article:

Good article, Sanjai.

I despair at the header, "ID for faithful, evolution for scientists"

For those of us who believe in the God of reality, there is no conflict between faith and science. We are in awe as we find out more about the universe that God created through the knowledge that science continues to provide us.

It is only those who believe in the God of Biblical Mythology who have a problem with science. Those ID creationists who turn a blind eye to scientific observations such as the age of the earth, and scientific theories such as the theory of evolution not only show disrespect for God by turning their backs on the realities of His marvelous creation but also embarrass the rest of us who base our belief in God on reality not fantasy.

He responded as part of a comment later:

Re Mr. Ware's post; I agree that the title unfairly characterizes "faithful". I used it to mean those who reject empiricism, but that description certainly doesn't describe all people who are faithful. My apologies for the imprecision.

Accepting the reality of God's creation allows us to believe in a real God. There is no other.

Gay Limbic Reaction to Pheromones

2005-05-12T06:56:00.000-05:00

In a study published on May 10, 2005 in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science , Dr. Ivanka Savic and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm found that homosexual and heterosexual men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the gay men respond in the same way as women.

An estrogen-like steroid, EST, found in female urine, and a testosterone derivative, AND, found in male sweat, were presented to subjects during a PET scan. While these odors and the odor of cedar produced increased neural activity in the olfactory regions in all subjects, the EST produced an additional response in the anterior portion of the hypothalamus associated with sexual arousal only in heterosexual men, and the AND produced similar arousal only in women and homosexual men.

From the abstract:

These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.

From an article about the study in the New York Times:

The gay men responded to the two chemicals in the same way as did women, Dr. Savic reports, as if the hypothalamus's response is determined not by biological sex but by the owner's sexual orientation.

The finding is similar to a report in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay that a small region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in straight men as in women or gay men.

If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that permanently shapes which sex a person is attracted to.

See my previous post Genetic Basis for Sexual Orientation which has links to other relevant information.

Genetic Basis for Sexual Orientation

2005-05-12T06:53:00.000-05:00

The mechanism of gene selection

Physical, physiological and behavioral traits are a result of a complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors.

Forming the basis for these biological characteristics are the genes. The genes which make up the human genome are contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes. One set of these chromosomes comes from the male gamete while the other comes from the female gamete.

During fertilization the genes from the male and female gametes come together to form complimentary pairs. Except for a few gamete specific genes, all other genes are left in an activated or unmethylated state after fertilization. This allows the embryonic stem cells to have the poly-potential to become any of the cell types required to form all the structures of the body. This set of potential characteristics is the person's genotype.

However, the presence of two genes, each attempting to specify the same characteristic, is not only unnecessary but may also be harmful. Therefore, for most pairs of genes, one is left active while the other is deactivated through the process of methylation. The set of genes which are left active determines the person's actual characteristics or phenotype. If the father has blue eyes and the mother has brown eyes, each of their children are likely to have either blue eyes or brown eyes, but never blue-brown eyes. This process of gene selection takes place for the thousands of gene pairs. Once in place, this pattern of methylation is preserved during cell division so that the initial set of characteristics is replicated in every cell of the body.

A person's sex is specified by an entire chromosome. The presence of the male Y chromosome in the XY combination results in a male offspring while the repetition of the female X chromosome in the XX combination produces a female offspring.

In addition to characteristics which are determined by a single gene or an entire chromosome, many are determined by a related set of genes, known as a gene complex (gc). Control areas preceding these gc's are such that the entire set of genes can be switched off or left on as a whole.

Since autonomic nervous system responses like the "fight or flight" reaction are preprogrammed in our genes, there must also be a genetic basis for the similar physiological reactions which occur when one person is sexually attracted to another. Since most people are not attracted to members of both sexes, there must be one set of genes which would lead a person to be attracted to males (AtoM) and another set which would lead a person to be attracted to females (AtoF).

The hypothalamus and other portions of the limbic system play an integral role in emotional responses including those related to sexual attractedness. Studies of the fragile X syndrome show that the X chromosome is involved in brain development and function in this portion of the limbic system. The AtoM gc and AtoF gc may be located on the X chromosome as well.

Like almost all genes in the gametes, those in the X and Y chromosomes are all initially found in an activated state. However, the Y chromosome's role is limited, after all females don't even have one, and males do fine with only one X chromosome, so the second X chromosome in females is all but superfluous. So at some time during embryonic development, the Y chromosome in males and one of the two X chromosomes in females are inactivated with the exception of a few complimentary areas.

Yet these sex chromosomes must perform a role in determining primary and secondary sexual characteristics. After all, men and women are different. They must also play a role in determining sexual orientation. When the Y and X chromosomes from the male and female gametes form a pair during fertilization, the presence of the Y chromosome may provide the signals which would usually result in the AtoM gc on the X chromosome being turned off while the AtoF gc is left on. This would result in a man who is attracted to females. When the male gamete provides a second X chromosome instead, the signals would usually result in the AtoF gc being turned off while the AtoM gc is left on. This would result in a woman who is attracted to males.

However, if the pairing of the Y and X chromosomes is such that the usual Y signals are weak or poorly responded to by the X chromosome receptors, this could result in the AtoF gc being turned off while the AtoM gc is left on. This would result in a man who is attracted to males. Similarly, the pairing of two X chromosomes may provide similarly ambiguous signals and the AtoM gc may be turned off while the AtoF gc is left on. This would result in a woman who is attracted to females. In either the XY or XX combination, the signaling could be such that both the AtoM and the AtoF gc's are left on. This would result in a man or woman who is attracted to both males and females.

Since all the necessary biological functions are provided by a single X chromosome, the second X chromosome in females is all but completely turned off. However, this may not always be the case. In certain rare instances the AtoM gc on the usually inactive X chromosome may be active. With both AtoM gc's active, the result would be a woman who is doubly attracted to males, a condition know as nymphomania. Since the attractedness gc's are located on the X chromosome and men have only one X chromosome, there is no corresponding condition among men.

Another possibility exists. We may have a man with both the AtoF and the AtoM gc's turned off. This person may have dated some in high school but he soon loses interest in this ritual. Content in other areas of his life, he becomes the perennial bachelor who is simply not inclined toward forming an intimate relationship with anyone.

Last we may have a woman with both the AtoF and the AtoM gc's turned off. She may still have a strong maternal instinct and may therefore marry in order to have children, but sexual relations beyond that are considered more of a duty than a pleasure. Or she may be the maiden aunt that is somewhere in every family.

These asexual conditions are rarely studied since a lack of sexual interest is unlikely to result in the type of problems which would lead one to seek therapy. Yet these can cause problems when it comes to public policy regarding such things as sexuality education in our schools. When one mentions the powerful urges that occur as girls and boys mature, they haven't the foggiest notion what one is talking about. Having never experienced being sexually attracted to anyone themselves, they cannot understand why our youngsters can't "just say no" to sexual activity as easily as they did when they were their age.

General conclusions

If sexual orientation is determined by the post conception activation of certain gene complexes on the X chromosome, then the following would apply:

1. Everyone has an X chromosome and all X chromosomes carry both the AtoM and AtoF gc's. There is no unique "homosexuality gene."

2. Since current testing can detect the presence of genes, not which ones are turned off or left on, there is no genetic test for sexual orientation. A physiological test is used in clinical studies.

3. Since these gene sets are either on or off, there is no spectrum of limbic system reactions going from mostly heterosexual to mostly homosexual. A person is all one or the other (or both or neither.) Behavior is voluntary and is an entirely different matter as described here.

4. A person cannot change his or her sexual orientation. No amount of intellectual introspection or prayerful reflection can change the sex specific imprinting that leads to the sexual arousal response in the limbic system. Such "Magical Thinking" is described here.

5. Being around someone who is gay will not encourage someone else to become gay. If one is not born gay, one will not become gay later.

6. A person's sexual orientation is nobody's "fault." It is not the person's fault or his or her parents' fault or society's fault. Homosexuality is not a "sin" since it is not freely chosen. Excerpts from the American Psychological Association's Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality are discussed here.

7. Since the same AtoM gc is active in gay men as in heterosexual women, the limbic system responses will be similar and can be managed as easily by gays as they are by females.

This material has been revised since its original 1995 publication. Any suggestions for further revision would be welcome.

Update See my recent post Gay Limbic Response to Pheromones which relates how the sexual arousal response in the hypothalamus to odors is the same for homosexual men as it is for women.

The God of Reality vs ID

2005-04-22T22:03:00.000-05:00

I really can't understand those who believe in the God of Biblical Mythology. The more we learn about the reality of the universe God created, the more irrelevant these creationist stories become. Before long they'll be regarded on a par with the stories form Greek and Roman mythology.

Being out of touch with reality is a way of describing someone who is insane. Trying to reinterpret reality to fit one's preconceived notions is an attempt to preserve whatever sanity these people have left. No wonder they're so fanatic about it. Facts and logic will never convince them. The fear of going crazy defies all reason. Preserving one's sanity is more important than recognizing the truth.

In Sunday School I remember how excited I was to learn about the Biblical stories, something we didn't talk about in public school. The coloring book with the animals on Noah's ark was a favorite. Yet the understanding was that the Bible was written long, long ago. There were libraries worth of information we had learned about the world since this one book was written. If we wanted to know more about God's marvelous creation, we should study as much science as we can.

So how can someone worship "God the Creator," then turn around and deny the reality of the world they say their God created? How can these believers pretend to love God, while closing their minds to the knowledge of His world that our scientists provide us? Denying the reality of God's creation is not only disrespectful of God but also makes these people look silly.

If we're ever going to get rid of this ID infection, it's going to be done by believers in the God of reality. Scientific knowledge can't dissuade someone whose sanity depends on believing the contrary.

God's existence is everywhere around us, we see it in the reality of His creation. How dare these ID goons insult God by finding evidence of His existence only in a few obscure cell structures and functions? And what happens as scientists discover, one by one, how these came into existence through evolutionary processes? Does that mean, when the last one is accounted for, then "poof" God disappears? Who could be so foolish as to introduce something into science class that will eventually show that God doesn't exist?

That would be my approach. Thanks ~DS~ (Also posted here.

Thoughts on Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors

2005-04-19T08:11:00.000-05:00

Simpson was asking to be allowed to give a Wiccan invocation before one of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors meetings as volunteers of other religions were allowed to do. The board refused to allow her to do so because, as they put it, their invocation prayers "are traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition." The appeals court sided with this County restriction.

Marsh v Chambers abstracted here, appears to give the precedent for the case. If the Nebraska legislature is allowed to pick the chaplain to hire based on the persons religious background, then the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors can choose volunteers for their invocation based on religious considerations as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court in Marsh. This practice was justified almost entirely on historical precedent:

The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country...

This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged...

In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society.

JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting.

I now believe that the practice of official invocational prayer, as it exists in Nebraska and most other state legislatures, is unconstitutional. It is contrary to the doctrine as well the underlying purposes of the Establishment Clause, and it is not saved either by its history or by any of the other considerations suggested in the Court's opinion....

From Lemon: "Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute [at issue] must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster `an excessive government entanglement with religion.'"

The Court's main argument for carving out an exception sustaining legislative prayer is historical. This is a case, however, in which - absent the Court's invocation of history - there would be no question that the practice at issue was unconstitutional. And despite the surface appeal of the Court's argument, there are at least three reasons why specific historical practice should not in this case override that clear constitutional imperative...

To my mind, the Court's focus here on a narrow piece of history is, in a fundamental sense, a betrayal of the lessons of history.

Until the Supreme Court decides a case more in line with the Brennan and Marshall dissent, the Appeals Courts would have to follow Justice Burger's historically based first amendment exception.

The APA on Sexual Orientation

2005-04-14T15:26:00.000-05:00

Marty,

Here are excerpts from the APA Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality web page. I hope you will read the whole page.

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person.

Homosexuals can form bonds of love and affection with persons of the same sex just as heterosexuals do with someone of the opposite sex. Gays’ love for each other is the same in magnitude and affect as a heterosexual woman’s love for a man, since these derive from the same gene set on the X chromosome in both cases. THere is no “tragedy of monumental proportions” here. It’s who one can love, not who one can’t love that matters.

There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexual [orientation].

There’s nothing “so 1950’s” about the genetic evidence.

[H]uman beings can not choose to be either gay or straight… Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such [reparative] therapies and their potential harm to patients.

No, I haven’t seen anyone change. The one person I saw interviewed finally admitted he still felt attracted to men, but through the love and support of his dear wife, a “former” lesbian, he was able to resist these urges. Don’t you see this poor tortured man’s problem? If he’s still attracted to men, then he’s still gay, isn’t he? One cannot change the autonomic nervous system reactions of the limbic system.

Neither I nor the APA is responsible for this man’s plight. It is they who told him he could change when he couldn’t that are responsible for his distress. A “marriage” where neither person has love and affection for the other is where the true tragedy lies.

Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem.

Only persons who are taught to be prejudice towards guys would suggest otherwise. Weren’t many once taught that blacks are inferior?

For this reason, psychologists believe negative attitudes toward gay people as a group are prejudices that are not grounded in actual experiences but are based on stereotypes and prejudice.

Politicians and preachers who shamelessly promote these prejudices to gain votes or add to the church coffers are to be condemned for their actions just as those who exploit racism for the same reasons.

Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice.

I participate in community outreach for this purpose. (From: Family Scholar's blog Comment #71)

Magical Thinking vs Gay Reality

2005-04-11T11:34:00.000-05:00

John wrote: "All people should be equal, and to create equality, all people should truly love and become fully human by joining with a person of the other sex into a single fully human entity."

In therapy, this is known as "magical thinking." When confronted with a difficult situation, instead of dealing with the issue, the person simply waves a magic wand, changing the world into one where the problem no longer exists. Needless to say, reality doesn't change to conform to our wishful thinking, so pretending otherwise isn't helpful. The sooner the person leaves their fantasies behind and deals with the world of reality the better.

The reality is this:

About five percent of any given population is attracted the persons of the same gender. They cannot form bonds of love and affection with persons of the opposite sex.

The gender of the person one is attracted to is hard wired into to limbic system before birth at the same primitive level as the fight or flight reaction. As an autonomic nervous system function, this emotional reaction is not subject to conscious control.

Sexual orientations are distributed though the population in a nearly random fashion. The proportions represented have held true over time and across cultures. Anyone can have a gay son or a lesbian daughter, VP and Mrs. Cheney, for example. Upbringing has nothing to do with it.

Sexual orientation cannot be changed. This is one of the three main reasons that the American Psychological Association and other reputable organizations removed this category from the list of mental disorders in the 1970's. The evidence in support of this decision is overwhelming.

While we can moderate our behavioral response to an emotional reaction, we can no more eliminate the reaction itself than we can hold our breath indefinitely. Trying to "cure" someone of their homosexuality is not only futile but also dangerous. When a person realizes that no "cure" is possible despite their most sincere efforts, they can become depressed and suicidal. Anyone who encourages a person to attempt such a change is also responsible for the tragedy that follows.

Teens are subject to peer pressure to conform to the norms of the group, which is predominately heterosexual. This is impossible for gay and lesbian students. Fortunately, schools have made efforts to inform students about the homosexual situation, yet prejudice and harassment continue. The rate of suicides among gay teens is still three times the average.

In the same way, pressuring someone who is not heterosexual to give up their emotional needs for love and affection to enter into a heterosexual marriage, not only does the couple involved an injustice and their children, but does harm to society in the long run as well.

The propensity of some politicians and preachers to play to the homophobic prejudices of ill-informed people for political or personal gain is still rampant in many areas of the country as we saw in the last election and in too many TV ministries. We need to celebrate our differences, not exploit them.

So waving a magic wand as if this will make homosexuals disappear or to ignore them or tell them to act like everyone else, is not a realistic approach to the situation. If you can't provide positive solutions in these matters, then you are just another part of the problem.

And no, I'm not in the public square trying to drum up business. Frankly I'm tired, very tired of the time spent to repair the lives of those whom a thoughtless and unjust society have torn apart due to unwarranted prejudice. I look forward to the day when a better understanding of homosexuality, as presented above, will make this less necessary. (From: Family Scholar's blog Comment #66)

Cuba's Communism vs Haiti's Capitalism

2005-03-30T13:01:00.000-05:00

From a letter to the Editor of The Dayton, TN Herald-News, published in March, 1994

To the Editor:

A pure communist system "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need," does not lead to economic prosperity. When no person receives higher wages than any other, there is no extra incentive to develop one's talents to the fullest. When wages paid are unrelated to value produced, there is no reason to become more productive. As productivity goes down, fewer goods and services are available for purchase. Rationing of basic goods becomes necessary. Finally, even the government lacks the resources to provide the "free" services it promised.

Cuba is an example. People have wages but there is less and less to buy. The result is an ever decreasing standard of living. Health care is free, but the government lacks the ability to provide many of the basic services that we take for granted.

An unbridled free market system is no better. Unrestrained by social values, businesses engage in cutthroat practices that concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of fewer people. With no government safety net, workers are forced to accept any wage offered in their desperate attempt to feed their families. As more and more workers end up with less money to spend, production is cut, which leads to ever increasing levels of unemployment.

Haiti is an example. Less than 2% of the people control almost all the wealth, 90% of the people live in shacks without electricity or running water. Unemployment is around 40%.

The premise in a recent letter that countries with the freest markets are the most prosperous is false. A completely free market leads to poverty for all but the few. The lack of a minimum wage in Haiti did not save these people their jobs, it ultimately led to their loss. And the idea that the moneyed few, those who exploited these people in the first place, would turn around and provide enough charity to help meet their needs is far fetched at best. In any case, these people don't want charity, they want jobs that pay decent wages.

In contrast, the world's most prosperous economies avoid these two extremes. They insure that business is conducted in a way that is consistent with community values. They provide a social safety net for their citizens. A lynch-pin of these systems is a minimum wage which provides the least skilled workers with an adequate living. Wages are higher for others based on skills and education. These good wages produce a large and prosperous middle class. The money they spend is good for business and leads to high levels of employment.

A main function of government then, is to maintain the optimum balance between free market forces which would hold down wages and leave more people in poverty, and social pressures which would compensate people in ways that are unrelated to productivity.

Stagnant middle class incomes tell us we are not at the optimum. Why?

Productivity is at an all time high, the best in the world, so we are not becoming more like Cuba. Instead, since the early eighties, we've had an ever widening gap in the incomes of the rich and the poor, driving more middle class people below the poverty level. We are becoming more like Haiti.

Now we have politicians promising more tax cuts for the rich and more cuts in social services to pay for them. They promise to finish what Reagan started. Good grief!

We need policies that increase the number of people in the middle class and their incomes, not the opposite. We've had about all the Reaganomics we can stand.

Sincerely,
William J. Ware

1000 Legal Incidents of Marriage

2005-03-28T10:13:00.000-05:00

Chairm,

Thanks for clarifying that the 1000 plus rights I referred to are the "legal incidents of marriage," the rights and privileges that our legislature has provided. I note that these are in association with a requisite set of obligations and requirements as well. The spouse who has the right to make medical decisions (unless Jeb Bush is your governor) also has the obligation to do so.

These legal rights can be subject to predetermined conditions. The benefits afforded the spouse of a veteran do not obtain if one's spouse never served in the military, for example.

The government has certain powers as determined by the consent of the governed through the ratification of our Constitution and it's amendments. All other civil rights and liberties are retained by the people. To deny an individual such rights requires that the government provide a "compelling state interest." We discourage thievery by putting those who steal things in jail, for example.

Those who would deny same sex couples the right to marry have provided no compelling (nor even rational) reason to do so. Courts in six of the nine Canadian Provinces and five of our own state courts have confirmed this. Quite the contrary. Those who promote the value of marriage should encourage as many couples as possible to enter such a commitment. The fact that many same sex couples are willing to marry affirms that marriage is valuable. This is good for marriage and ought to be supported. (From: Family Scholar's blog Comment #61)

Genetic Factors in Sexual Orientation

2005-03-19T17:59:00.000-05:00

Hereditary traits are those which are passed on through the transfer of genes from one generation to the next. We can test for these traits by examining the DNA to see if the genes that define these traits are present or not. Unlike hereditary genes and the traits they represent, the sets of genes that determine sexual orientation are present on everyone’s X chromosome. One’s sexual orientation then becomes a matter of which set(s) of genes are left on and which are turned off (methylated) as the result of the signaling that occurs based on the presence or absence of the Y chromosome.

Current methaylation studies provide us with only overall estimates, such as the percent of the genome which is mentylated during various early stages of embryonic development. Determining whether or not a specific gene set is methylated or not is well beyond our present capabilities.

The observation that sexual orientation is a nearly random occurrence and that there is almost no correlation between a person’s sexual orientation and that of his or her parents or siblings indicates that the genes that determine orientation are not inherited, but rather are universally present in each person’s genome.

The study of identical twins who share the same genome bears this out, their orientations may be different. Yet we also find that identical twins are significantly more likely to have the same orientation than random chance would allow. Identical twins occur when the zygote that results from a single fertilized egg splits in two and each develops into a separate person. If the zygote splits after the methylation has occurred which determines the orientation, then the twin’s orientation will be the same. If, instead, the zygote splits before the orientation is set, then they are as likely to be different as with any other sibling.

As to your first question, it refers to behaviors which we are all free to choose as we wish. Sexual orientation applies only to the gender of those who set off an sexual arousal response in the limbic system. Like the fight or flight reaction, this results in a faster heart rate, more fixed attention, increased blood flow to the musculature and other effects that result from an increase of norepinephrine in the system. In contrast, though, sexual arousal includes the release of phenylethylamine and oxytocin which creates an overall feeling of wellbeing and a wish to be closer to the source of this stimulation, rather than farther away.

The gender associated with the template in the limbic system which represents the primary and secondary sexual characteristics which trigger this response is determined by which set(s) of genes are left active on the X chromosome, and this response becomes manifest with the increased production of sex hormones after puberty. W (From: Family Scholar's blog Comment #29)

Problems with Same Sex Procreation

2005-03-19T17:56:00.000-05:00

As in other areas where ethics and technology meet, I would be in favor of a ten year moratorium on human SSP which could be extended after review. If results can be produced that are equivalent in safety and efficacy as IVF, then I see no reason for it to be banned from that point on.

The problem with SSP is the same one involved with cloning. Gametes which come together during fertilization have nearly all their sets of genes turned on. This provides the embryo the potential to produce all the body's structures and functions. The exception to this is that one pattern of genes is turned off (methylated) in the chromosomes in the egg and a different pattern of genes is methylated in those found in the sperm. When these two gametes with complimentary patterns combine, the likelihood of having a healthy full term baby is increased.

With SSP, there is no gamete with the male methylation pattern. I believe this is the main source of the problems that have shown up. Normally, for example, the X chromosome from the egg remains dominant, while the X or Y chromosome provided by the sperm is eventually all but shut down. If the X chromosomes both come from an egg, both may stay on, resulting in the duplication of function, and all kinds of problems can ensue.

In cloning, a skin cell, for example, has to be demethylated to return it to a poly-potential state. This indiscriminate process would remove the male and female methylation patterns as well, resulting in the same sort of difficulties as with SSP described above. Producing an embryo with the same methylation patterns as occur in the natural fertilization process is way beyond our current understanding or abilities.

Marty,

The sets of genes that later produce a template in the limbic system which would determine the gender of the person which produces an automatic sexual arousal response are on the X chromosome. The presence or absence of the Y chromosome from the male gamete usually leaves the set of genes which would result in a person being attracted to females turned on and the set which would result in a person being attracted to males turned off (Y present) or vice versa (Y absent.) This results in a heterosexual orientation. A small percentage of the time, this signaling goes awry, resulting in a person with a homosexual orientation. If both sets of genes for sexual attraction are left on, the person will have a bisexual orientation; if neither, an asexual orientation. On those rare occasions when the attracted to male sets of genes on both X chromosomes are left on, this female would be "doubly" attracted to males, a condition known as nymphomania. Since men have only one X chromosome, this doubling effect cannot occur, so there is no corresponding condition in males.

John,

Since sexual orientation is determined by the gene selection which occurs after fertilization as described above, no amount of socialization can coax a person who is gay to be straight, and no amount of "indoctrination" (as some put it) can result in a straight person becoming gay.

How we treat people who have a different orientation than most of us is our choice. My moral system tells me to treat others with understanding and respect, and in all fairness and compassion, to allow lesbian and gay couples to have the same right to a civil marriage for all the same reasons that I have. (From: Family Scholar's blog Comment #24)

Procreation: a Prerequisite for Marriage?

2005-03-19T17:36:00.000-05:00

John Howard,

My point was to avoid “sham marriage” by marrying a person with the same sexual orientation in the first place. Ex-governor McGreevey of New Jersey comes to mind as an example of what happens should we not. When sex is not based on love, but is just another chore, like cleaning the bathroom, then this is neither good for the couple nor the children.

Planning for children is the best way to guarantee that they will be well loved and cared for, no matter the orientation of the parents. Letting children “just happen” is better suited for rabbits and monkeys.

The right to have children is well established in case law. This applies, we find, to felons in prison and persons in mental institutions. But not to gay and lesbian couples, according to your philosophy? Your proposal would not meet constitutional muster.

Res Ipsa points out in comment 3, above, that homosexual couples have children for the same reasons that heterosexual couples do. Your “selfish” characterization applies to neither or both equally well. Your prejudice tells you that people who have a different sexual orientation are different in other ways as well when they are not.

You say that children should come first, but you don’t want the children of same sex couples to have the same protections under the marriage laws that the children of opposite sex couples have. Instead, you want to prevent same sex couples from having or adopting children so they can’t use the fact that they are parents to assert their right to be married. Yet the case law is clear here as well. The ability to procreate is not a prerequisite for marriage.

Denying marriage to people with a different sexual orientation makes no more sense that denying marriage to those with a different skin color, ethnicity, or any other irrelevant factors. This would go far in eliminating the “tragedies” you say you deplore. So explain to me again, how your opposition to same sex marriage is anything more that animosity towards lesbians and gays. W (From: Family Scholar's blog Comment #24)

Marriage between Persons of Opposite Orientations

2005-03-17T22:02:00.000-05:00

While there is a great deal of variability among individuals regarding their desire to have children, there is little difference between groups based on their sexual orientation. The concern, from a marriage counseling point of view, is that one should not let one's desire to have children (or for social reasons) enter into a heterosexual marriage if one does not have a heterosexual orientation.

One partner engages in an activity they don't like and would rather avoid. The other doesn't understand why there is nothing they can do to sexually satisfy their partner. With neither one satisfied, the chances of looking for satisfaction outside the relationship are great.

When the situation becomes untenable, which it almost always will, any children will be devastated, not just as any children are when their parents break up, but also in knowing their parents have been living a lie the whole time they were married. There is nothing a counselor can do to help in this situation where one partner enjoys sex while the other finds it disgusting.

To avoid this tragedy we must allow those who are not heterosexual to have the joy (and pain) of having and raising children by various other methods. To deny them the right to have or adopt children due to some irrationally based animosity towards those who have a different sexual orientation is simply unacceptable. (From: Family Scholar's blog Comment #13)