It is important, as individuals, we recognize that biases and prejudices are a normal facet of being human. Through thousands of years, our tendency to catagorize and stereotype like things has helped us to find beneficial opportunities and avoid danger or trouble. It has helped us to survive.
Carried to the extreme, this natural tendency to categorize and stereotype becomes destructive. It allows us to justify slavery, segregation, wars, riots, marginalization of various groups of people, and violence against individual people belonging to the group of "them."
There's a fine line between bias and prejudism. There's a fine line between prejudism and bigotry. And there's a fine line between bigotry and a racism/homophobia.
As individuals, no matter how open-minded we may believe we are, we need to be truthful with ourselves and accept that we all carry our biases and prejudices inside us. Once we accept that, then we have to recognize when our prejudices are coloring our thinking and what we are saying.
At this point one might be thinking, "This guy is full of it." Let's take a simple example to illustrate what I have just stated.
An avid gardener takes a road trip every weekend looking for plants to add to his garden. Since he knows the habitat where the plants normally grow, he knows what he is looking for. As he winds down back country roads, he passes many side roads. Some he takes, some he passes up. Initially, how he makes these decisions is purely random. A road is a road to him and all are equal. He exhibits no bias.
After a couple of weekends of searching for plants and finding some really cool ones, on his next trip he starts consciously making a decision of which roads to turn on and which ones to pass up. Specifically, he has learned from his past trips that winding roads, roads with cool sounding names like Snake Creek Road and roads that slope slightly downward through a forest of thick trees hold the most promise to finding really unique plants. If the road holds all three qualities, he knows he will almost definitely find something really cool. As he drives through the country, he specifically looks for these roads. He is now showing his bias by ignoring roads that don't have at least one of the three characteristics he's looking for. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you might have better luck finding them if you go down winding roads or roads with cool names or roads that slope downward into a forest," he is expressing his bias.
His bias moves towards prejudism when he exclusively searches for the roads with at least one of those characteristics and almost always turns down any other road. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you're best bet is to find roads that are winding or have really cool names or slope downward into a forest. If you find a road with all three characteristics, you'll surely find the plants you want," he is expressing his prejudism. The switch is subtle, but now he promotes roads having at least one of the three characteristics to the exclusion of any other road and even implies that any other road just isn't good enough.
His prejudism moves towards bigotry when he turns down a road that doesn't have any of those characteristics despite being told that the road might have what he is looking for. When he tells his friends, "Oh no. That road isn't a winding road, has a plain name, and doesn't slope downward into a forest so the plant I want can't be down there," he is expressing his bigotry.
His bigotry moves towards racism/homophobia when he seeks out roads with all three characteristics, settles on roads with at least two of the characteristics, begrudgingly accepts roads with one characteristic without holding high hopes for it, and refuses to go down any other road. When he tells friends, "If the road is winding, has a cool name, and slopes downwards through a forest, those are the best roads to find cool plants. A road with two of those characteristics ain't bad, and if it only has one, you'll most likely be wasting your time. Forget about going down any other road. You'll only find trash plants on them," he is expressing his racism/homophobia.
Notice how there is a kernel of truth to his assumptions about the roads where he thinks he will most likely find some cool plants. Winding roads are usually less travelled because they take longer to get through than straight roads. A lot of times, the cool sounding names imply something about the characteristic of the road. Snake Creek Road, for example, might have been named after the winding creek the road parallels. Cool plants can be found along creeks. Roads sloping down through a forest implies two things: first, the area might not be developed and the downward slopes implies a possible creek, stream, or fertile valley where cool plants love to grow.
Notice, though, that as he moves from bias to racism/homophobia, he moves away from the assumptions above, and begins judging good roads from bad roads based on those assumptions and the assumptions, themselves, move from assumptions to facts.
If one were to point out to him that he can't judge the likilihood of finding cool plants based on the appearance of the first couple of hundred yards of the road because any or all of those characteristics can change a mile or two down the road, his response would be a good clue as to how much faith you should put in his advice.
If he responds, "True, but there's only so many hours of daylight and you want to increase your chances of finding cool plants, try to pick the roads with any of those characteristics," you can probably believe him because he appears to have used reason and logic to come to his conclusion.
If he responds, "True, but a lot of times you'll come up empty-handed whereas if you stayed on the road you were on, a couple of miles down might have been the better road to choose," you can still probably believe him because he is still using reason and logic. Notice, however, the subtle switch in his judgment. I biased person will agree with you about judging the road prematurely, but just wants to increaase his odds, the prejudiced person slips in the nuance that roads that hold none of the three characteristics are a waste of time. It's subtle, but it's there.
If he responds, "True, but most of the times those other roads will get you nothing so why waste your time?", you probably should start questioning his judgment. Unlike the prejudiced person, the bigot is now making a firm, negative judgment on roads that don't possess certain characteristics.
If he responds, "True. I know a road that didn't appear to have any of those characteristics and it turned out that a few miles down, I found a perfect spot with a lot of cool plants. Most roads, though, if they don't have all three characteristics, or at least two of them, are roads that the state may as well as build malls on because you ain't going to find any decent plants on them," you probably already know who you are dealing with and will ignore anything he has to say. He's made it clear there are good roads and bad roads all based on three characteristics.
No matter what topic one is talking about, the critical thinker will pick up on the clues to help him determine just how much faith he should put into what one is saying. And, being honest with ourselves and accepting that we, too, hold the same biases and prejudices as anyone else, we can carefully choose our words and organize our thoughts so as not to be incorrectly judged as a bigot or racist/homophobic.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Repeat Play of 2004?
Flashback, election year 2004: stalemate in Iraq with hundreds upon hundreds of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, thousands upon thousands of jobs outsourced to India and other developing countries, social security being held together with duct tape, and an overall gloomy outlook by the average American.
Despite the real problems facing the nation, Massachusetts stood on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage. The republicans, seizing the opportunity to divert attention from their failures, mobilized the far right and fundamentalist. Election year 2004 will go down in history as the gay bashing year. The only real problem facing America in 2004 was the homosexuals wanted to marry. The public gay bashing blamed homosexuals for everything from destroying the American family to soiling the great institution of marriage to unraveling the very fabric that holds our Great Nation together.
The fear that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean Mom, baseball, and apple pie would be replaced with two mommies, gay pride parades, and lattes topped with whipped cream and a cherry on top mobilized the far right. The world was fine, but the homosexuals were coming! Sixteen states adopted anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. Republicans playing on the homosexual fear retained majority control. President Bush may have even been helped at the polls by the gay bashing frenzy.
Fast forward to election year 2006 and beyond: stalemate in Iraq with thousands upon thousands of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, America becomes the largest exporter of jobs, social security is held together with band aids since duct tape is too expensive, energy prices soar higher than a bald eagle can fly, and the average American’s outlook has sunk from gloomy to pessimistic doom.
The average American wants change. Here’s what he’ll get: heavy hitting gay bashing.
The stage is already set. Fundamentalists in Massachusetts have scrapped the referendum that would have nullified same sex marriage - but granted civil unions to homosexuals - in favor of a referendum that would ban any legislation that potentially treated same sex couples as a married couple. That means no marriage, no civil unions, and no domestic partnership benefits. Six other states will decide whether or not to add a ban on same sex marriage to their constitutions and sixteen states will decide if same sex couples should be allowed to act as foster parents or adopt children. And next month, the Senate is expected to vote, again, on adding an amendment to the Constitution banning same sex marriage.
As election time nears - and beyond - expect the gay bashing to take center stage in a repeat play of election year 2004.
Republican candidates will take a firm stand on the side of the traditional family. They’ll kow-tow their way around the issues of civil unions, foster parents, and adoptions by same sex couples without ever giving a firm stand for or against. Only in states overwhelmingly homophobic will they dare to openly join the gay bashers, like Georgia. Voters in Georgia overwhelmingly passed a ban on same sex marriage by a margin of 76%, but a lower court ruled the proposed amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds. The State Supreme Court has put a rush on hearing the case to clear the way for a new referendum. With such overwhelming support for a ban, you can bet Republican candidates from that state will have no problem jumping on the gay bashing bandwagon.
Democrats, feeling the sting from the 2004 election, will be more discreet in handling the same sex issues. In more liberal states, like Vermont, which already has civil unions, they’ll most likely agree to civil unions, but stand firm against marriage. In more conservative states, they’ll quietly cheer the gay bashing bandwagon. In Georgia, for example, the Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, quickly announced he would have a new, more constitutionally sound referendum to ban same sex marriage before the voters in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox rushed to support the Governor’s move.
Don’t be swayed by the gay bashing sideshow. It’s a ploy to distract the average voter from the real failures of our incumbents and the real problems facing our country. Tune out the candidates on the homophobic bandwagon and the candidates cheering the bandwagon on. Perk your ears up to the candidates who distance themselves from the sideshow by downplaying the significance of same sex issues and, instead, try to address the genuine problems the average American faces. Really perk your ears up to the candidate who dares to jump in front of the bandwagon and declare the rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to enshrine bigotry in our laws, state constitutions, and US Constitution. That candidate may be the closest thing to an honest politician we could ask for.
On the other hand, we could let the rhetoric blind us and have a repeat of 2004 in November 2006 and 2008. The losers, of course, will be homosexuals who will once again be relegated to the margins of our society and denied basic rights most everyone else takes for granted. The real losers, however, will be the average American who will be stuck with homophobic conservatives and wishy-washy liberals who are keen on public opinion, but empty on solutions to the real issues.
If you're gay in America, it'll be a rough two and a half years ahead.
Despite the real problems facing the nation, Massachusetts stood on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage. The republicans, seizing the opportunity to divert attention from their failures, mobilized the far right and fundamentalist. Election year 2004 will go down in history as the gay bashing year. The only real problem facing America in 2004 was the homosexuals wanted to marry. The public gay bashing blamed homosexuals for everything from destroying the American family to soiling the great institution of marriage to unraveling the very fabric that holds our Great Nation together.
The fear that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean Mom, baseball, and apple pie would be replaced with two mommies, gay pride parades, and lattes topped with whipped cream and a cherry on top mobilized the far right. The world was fine, but the homosexuals were coming! Sixteen states adopted anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. Republicans playing on the homosexual fear retained majority control. President Bush may have even been helped at the polls by the gay bashing frenzy.
Fast forward to election year 2006 and beyond: stalemate in Iraq with thousands upon thousands of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, America becomes the largest exporter of jobs, social security is held together with band aids since duct tape is too expensive, energy prices soar higher than a bald eagle can fly, and the average American’s outlook has sunk from gloomy to pessimistic doom.
The average American wants change. Here’s what he’ll get: heavy hitting gay bashing.
The stage is already set. Fundamentalists in Massachusetts have scrapped the referendum that would have nullified same sex marriage - but granted civil unions to homosexuals - in favor of a referendum that would ban any legislation that potentially treated same sex couples as a married couple. That means no marriage, no civil unions, and no domestic partnership benefits. Six other states will decide whether or not to add a ban on same sex marriage to their constitutions and sixteen states will decide if same sex couples should be allowed to act as foster parents or adopt children. And next month, the Senate is expected to vote, again, on adding an amendment to the Constitution banning same sex marriage.
As election time nears - and beyond - expect the gay bashing to take center stage in a repeat play of election year 2004.
Republican candidates will take a firm stand on the side of the traditional family. They’ll kow-tow their way around the issues of civil unions, foster parents, and adoptions by same sex couples without ever giving a firm stand for or against. Only in states overwhelmingly homophobic will they dare to openly join the gay bashers, like Georgia. Voters in Georgia overwhelmingly passed a ban on same sex marriage by a margin of 76%, but a lower court ruled the proposed amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds. The State Supreme Court has put a rush on hearing the case to clear the way for a new referendum. With such overwhelming support for a ban, you can bet Republican candidates from that state will have no problem jumping on the gay bashing bandwagon.
Democrats, feeling the sting from the 2004 election, will be more discreet in handling the same sex issues. In more liberal states, like Vermont, which already has civil unions, they’ll most likely agree to civil unions, but stand firm against marriage. In more conservative states, they’ll quietly cheer the gay bashing bandwagon. In Georgia, for example, the Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, quickly announced he would have a new, more constitutionally sound referendum to ban same sex marriage before the voters in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox rushed to support the Governor’s move.
Don’t be swayed by the gay bashing sideshow. It’s a ploy to distract the average voter from the real failures of our incumbents and the real problems facing our country. Tune out the candidates on the homophobic bandwagon and the candidates cheering the bandwagon on. Perk your ears up to the candidates who distance themselves from the sideshow by downplaying the significance of same sex issues and, instead, try to address the genuine problems the average American faces. Really perk your ears up to the candidate who dares to jump in front of the bandwagon and declare the rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to enshrine bigotry in our laws, state constitutions, and US Constitution. That candidate may be the closest thing to an honest politician we could ask for.
On the other hand, we could let the rhetoric blind us and have a repeat of 2004 in November 2006 and 2008. The losers, of course, will be homosexuals who will once again be relegated to the margins of our society and denied basic rights most everyone else takes for granted. The real losers, however, will be the average American who will be stuck with homophobic conservatives and wishy-washy liberals who are keen on public opinion, but empty on solutions to the real issues.
If you're gay in America, it'll be a rough two and a half years ahead.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Hypocrits Exposed
Wow! Two in one week. And this one's related to the last one! Sometimes, the far right just makes it too easy....
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
This time around, he decided to tackle a University's outcry over the librarian's desire to make the homophobic book, The Marketing of Evil, mandatory reading for all incoming freshman.
He certainly doesn't want California adding sexual orientation of historical figures to its textbooks, but has no qualms about stating the sexual orientation of newsmakers in his editorials if it casts them as raving lunatics - or at least unreasonable.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Faculty members at the Ohio State University at Mansfield voted 21-0 to condemn librarian Scott Savage. Professors threatened, attacked and called him names in emails. A pair of openly homosexual professors filed a sexual harassment complaint against Savage alleging fear and unease about being gay while Savage was still on campus. The school began an investigation.
Did Savage touch someone inappropriately? Did he use foul or degrading language? What was his unspeakable offense? Scott Savage submitted the titles of four books for possible inclusion in the school's freshmen reading list. That's it.
One book uncovered intellectual frauds such as Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist that is someone who studies insects who called himself a "sex researcher," and who used convicted sex felons and pedophiles in his studies.
After intense public pressure and a threatened lawsuit, the school dismissed the sexual harassment complaint. However, the problem still exists. A neo-fascist attitude exists among several of the faculty at OSU Mansfield. Tolerance and diversity are simply disingenuous slogans used by academics who are neither tolerant nor accept diverse ideas.
The question now is whether the school will sanction those professors who engaged in witch hunt tactics against Scott Savage.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
Two days ago, you objected to California including the sexual orientation of historical figures in its text books. Today, your editorial explicitly states the sexual orientation of two professors. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe the answer lay hidden in your editorial.
A devout Christian librarian wanted a book, The Marketing of Evil, to be required reading for all freshman. Note the key word required - not suggested. The book is the conservative Christian right’s homophobic explanation of the gay agenda, a make believe agenda.
The first clue of homophobia is its desire to rely on, and greatly exaggerate, rumors about Kinsey’s sex life and mental state. Gay hate groups such as Concerned Women of America and the American Family Association give it rave reviews. Kinsey is the archenemy of the far right because his research led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness.
The second clue is "World Net Daily" published the book. For the critical thinkers in your audience, "World Net Daily" is better known as "World Nut Daily". Enough said.
Now we have our answer why text books shouldn’t mention the sexual orientation of historical figures, but mentioning sexual orientation in editorials and the news is perfectly acceptable. If mentioning the sexual orientation casts homosexuals as raving lunatics, or in even the slightest negative light, tell everyone; otherwise, don’t mention it because everyone might start thinking homosexuals are normal.
That’s why the news will report stories about pedophiles and gay pedophiles as if there’s a difference. Critical thinkers in your audience don’t miss that one, either. I hope your reporters rely on more reputable sources for their stories than the crap…ooops… "questionable" sources you base your editorials on.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
This time around, he decided to tackle a University's outcry over the librarian's desire to make the homophobic book, The Marketing of Evil, mandatory reading for all incoming freshman.
He certainly doesn't want California adding sexual orientation of historical figures to its textbooks, but has no qualms about stating the sexual orientation of newsmakers in his editorials if it casts them as raving lunatics - or at least unreasonable.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Faculty members at the Ohio State University at Mansfield voted 21-0 to condemn librarian Scott Savage. Professors threatened, attacked and called him names in emails. A pair of openly homosexual professors filed a sexual harassment complaint against Savage alleging fear and unease about being gay while Savage was still on campus. The school began an investigation.
Did Savage touch someone inappropriately? Did he use foul or degrading language? What was his unspeakable offense? Scott Savage submitted the titles of four books for possible inclusion in the school's freshmen reading list. That's it.
One book uncovered intellectual frauds such as Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist that is someone who studies insects who called himself a "sex researcher," and who used convicted sex felons and pedophiles in his studies.
After intense public pressure and a threatened lawsuit, the school dismissed the sexual harassment complaint. However, the problem still exists. A neo-fascist attitude exists among several of the faculty at OSU Mansfield. Tolerance and diversity are simply disingenuous slogans used by academics who are neither tolerant nor accept diverse ideas.
The question now is whether the school will sanction those professors who engaged in witch hunt tactics against Scott Savage.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
Two days ago, you objected to California including the sexual orientation of historical figures in its text books. Today, your editorial explicitly states the sexual orientation of two professors. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe the answer lay hidden in your editorial.
A devout Christian librarian wanted a book, The Marketing of Evil, to be required reading for all freshman. Note the key word required - not suggested. The book is the conservative Christian right’s homophobic explanation of the gay agenda, a make believe agenda.
The first clue of homophobia is its desire to rely on, and greatly exaggerate, rumors about Kinsey’s sex life and mental state. Gay hate groups such as Concerned Women of America and the American Family Association give it rave reviews. Kinsey is the archenemy of the far right because his research led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness.
The second clue is "World Net Daily" published the book. For the critical thinkers in your audience, "World Net Daily" is better known as "World Nut Daily". Enough said.
Now we have our answer why text books shouldn’t mention the sexual orientation of historical figures, but mentioning sexual orientation in editorials and the news is perfectly acceptable. If mentioning the sexual orientation casts homosexuals as raving lunatics, or in even the slightest negative light, tell everyone; otherwise, don’t mention it because everyone might start thinking homosexuals are normal.
That’s why the news will report stories about pedophiles and gay pedophiles as if there’s a difference. Critical thinkers in your audience don’t miss that one, either. I hope your reporters rely on more reputable sources for their stories than the crap…ooops… "questionable" sources you base your editorials on.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
It's Not About Sex, Dummy
I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point)
Sometimes, he just makes it too easy. His recent Point: gripes about California proposing to include gays and lesbians in the school's history textbooks. Now, you didn't think I'd be silent on this one, did you?
By all means, click on the links above and let Mark Hyman, General Manager, know how you feel about his Point.
Mark Hyman wrote:
How many children did Alexander Graham Bell have? Was Eli Whitney married? Was Susan B. Anthony a homosexual?
The answers to these questions don't matter. Would Susan B. Anthony's contributions to the women's suffrage movement have been of any greater or lesser value if she were a homosexual? Of course not.
Yet, California state Senator Sheila Kuehl believes public school textbooks should identify sexual orientation when cataloging someone's accomplishments. Her bill, SB 1437, is intended to accomplish just that. Kuehl claims her bill will "ensure that social science curriculum includes the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peoples." Kuehl argues LGBT people merit special recognition in California school textbooks.
As the most populous state, changes in California textbooks will have a spill-over effect in other states, particularly smaller, rural states that do not have the buying clout to dictate how textbooks are to be written.
Kuehl's obsession with sex overshadows the important lessons of history. And it runs counter to the position held by some people practicing alternative lifestyles who argue their sexual orientation doesn't matter. However, it looks like it may in the California public school system.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
First, homosexuality is no more an "alternative lifestyle" than heterosexuality is a "mainstream lifestyle".
Now a history quiz:
1. What ethnic heritage was Eli Whitney?
2. Was Susan B. Anthony male or female?
3. What color was Albert Einstein?
You should pass easily. If you didn’t know the answers, history books show their pictures.
Let’s make it harder:
1. Was George Washington a heterosexual?
2. How about Abe Lincoln?
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Maybe that was too easy for you too. History books tend to mention wives of historical figures even if the wife made no significant contribution to history other than marriage. You don’t think mentioning the wives is teaching our children about sex, do you?
Before awarding a passing grade, you must answer the bonus question. (No cheating off Google to look smart.)
1. Who was our only bachelor President?
If you had a good history class - something difficult to find in our public schools nowadays - you may have been taught all of our Presidents were married except one. What you most likely weren’t taught is he lived with his male "partner", a senator from Alabama, for sixteen years. You definitely weren’t taught that because of prejudices and hatred towards homosexuals in those times, we may never know if he were gay, despite strong evidence suggesting he was.
If our history books mentioned this president had a male partner of sixteen years, do you really think that’s teaching our children about sex?
Let’s face it. Refusing to mention anything about a gay historical figure’s partner is your way of ensuring that our children won’t think homosexuals are normal people who can grow up to be President.
Not much has changed in attitudes towards homosexuals since James Buchanan’s time.
Sometimes, he just makes it too easy. His recent Point: gripes about California proposing to include gays and lesbians in the school's history textbooks. Now, you didn't think I'd be silent on this one, did you?
By all means, click on the links above and let Mark Hyman, General Manager, know how you feel about his Point.
Mark Hyman wrote:
How many children did Alexander Graham Bell have? Was Eli Whitney married? Was Susan B. Anthony a homosexual?
The answers to these questions don't matter. Would Susan B. Anthony's contributions to the women's suffrage movement have been of any greater or lesser value if she were a homosexual? Of course not.
Yet, California state Senator Sheila Kuehl believes public school textbooks should identify sexual orientation when cataloging someone's accomplishments. Her bill, SB 1437, is intended to accomplish just that. Kuehl claims her bill will "ensure that social science curriculum includes the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peoples." Kuehl argues LGBT people merit special recognition in California school textbooks.
As the most populous state, changes in California textbooks will have a spill-over effect in other states, particularly smaller, rural states that do not have the buying clout to dictate how textbooks are to be written.
Kuehl's obsession with sex overshadows the important lessons of history. And it runs counter to the position held by some people practicing alternative lifestyles who argue their sexual orientation doesn't matter. However, it looks like it may in the California public school system.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
First, homosexuality is no more an "alternative lifestyle" than heterosexuality is a "mainstream lifestyle".
Now a history quiz:
1. What ethnic heritage was Eli Whitney?
2. Was Susan B. Anthony male or female?
3. What color was Albert Einstein?
You should pass easily. If you didn’t know the answers, history books show their pictures.
Let’s make it harder:
1. Was George Washington a heterosexual?
2. How about Abe Lincoln?
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Maybe that was too easy for you too. History books tend to mention wives of historical figures even if the wife made no significant contribution to history other than marriage. You don’t think mentioning the wives is teaching our children about sex, do you?
Before awarding a passing grade, you must answer the bonus question. (No cheating off Google to look smart.)
1. Who was our only bachelor President?
If you had a good history class - something difficult to find in our public schools nowadays - you may have been taught all of our Presidents were married except one. What you most likely weren’t taught is he lived with his male "partner", a senator from Alabama, for sixteen years. You definitely weren’t taught that because of prejudices and hatred towards homosexuals in those times, we may never know if he were gay, despite strong evidence suggesting he was.
If our history books mentioned this president had a male partner of sixteen years, do you really think that’s teaching our children about sex?
Let’s face it. Refusing to mention anything about a gay historical figure’s partner is your way of ensuring that our children won’t think homosexuals are normal people who can grow up to be President.
Not much has changed in attitudes towards homosexuals since James Buchanan’s time.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Major Change to This Blog
I've neglected this blog because, simply stated, I'm much too busy to post something fresh every day that is gay-related. I am busy writing about many other things. My world quite simply does not revolve around gay issues.
I've decided to expand the blog's scope. Starting today, any of my editorial writing may get posted here whether it is a gay-related topic or not. I'll probably even start talking heavily about native gardening. I've been meaning to write that book for some time now.
So please stay tuned for the coming changes...
I've decided to expand the blog's scope. Starting today, any of my editorial writing may get posted here whether it is a gay-related topic or not. I'll probably even start talking heavily about native gardening. I've been meaning to write that book for some time now.
So please stay tuned for the coming changes...
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
AFA Unhappy With Ford, Again
The gay hate group, American Family Association, is upset with Ford because the company has decided to advertise its vehicles in gay publications and, get this, offers diversity training classes to its employees.
Horrors.
Let's counter the boycott:
Horrors.
Let's counter the boycott:
News Update: The AFA has renewed its call for a boycott of Ford (story). Please support Ford and let them know you aren't paying attention to AFA's call for a boycott.
The American Family Association, a gay hate group, has called on its 2.2 million members to boycott the Ford Motor Company because of Ford's perceived support of the "homosexual agenda" and gay marriage. Following the link, one becomes aware of the main complaints the AFA has of Ford:
- Ford advertises in gay publications with ads tailord to the gay market.
- Ford wishes to sell its vehicles to homosexuals.
- Ford supports diversity training throughout its company and subsidiaries.
- Ford financially contributes to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Commision.
Specifically, they are asking their members to contact their local Ford dealers and tell them that they will no longer buy Ford products as long as the Ford Motor Company supports the homosexual agenda and gay marriage.
The AFA is the same group who boycotted Disney World because Disney offered domestic partner benefits and held a "gay day." That nine year boycott officially ended practically the same day they announced the Ford boycott.
Show Ford that not everyone is as homophobic as members of the AFA. Contact your local Ford dealer and tell them that despite the boycott call, you plan on remaining or maybe becoming a Ford customer.
To find your local dealer, click on the make of your vehicle below:
Ford Jaguar Lincoln Land Rover Mercury Mazda Volvo
You may also contact the corporate headquarters in Deerborn, MI and tell them what you think about their contributions to the gay community and their push for diversity training in the automotive industry: The link provides an easy to use, online form submission. You may also contact them the old fashioned way:
In United States:
Phone:800-392-3673
800-232-5952 (TDD for the Hearing Impaired)
Mail:
Ford Motor CompanyCustomer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126
Hours of Operation:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday-Friday)
In Canada:
Phone:800-565-3673
Mail:Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
Customer Relationship Centre
P.O. Box 2000
Oakville, Ontario L6J5E4
Hours of Operation:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday-Friday)
9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET. (Saturday)
Be sure to let the AFA know how you feel about their boycott, too. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. (The link takes you to an easy online feedback form for the AFA.)
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Soundoff to Maryland Delgate Dwyer
Last month, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdoch sided with nine gay couples and ruled Maryland’s law defining marriage as between a man and a woman unconstitutional and discriminatory, stating that the law “cannot withstand constitutional challenge.”
Maryland state delegate Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) immediately vowed to remove the judge from the bench. He made good on his promise the other day. (-story)
It should be noted that Dwyer’s quest to herd the homosexuals back into the closet didn’t start with the judge’s ruling. He also authored legislation to be put on the November ballot that would have banned gay marriages and civil unions. The measure was defeated.
He has found a friend with the gay-hate group, Family Focus. Family Focus wasted no time reporting how Dwyer proposed to “rein in” the activist judges and encouraged their members to contact Dwyer and show their support for his efforts. (“Activist judges”, by the way, is the buzz phrase that defines any judge who, after evaluating the law, rules contrary to how one believes they should have ruled. It’s a favorite phrase among the far right conservatives and conservative Christians.)
Whether or not one favors same sex marriage, alarm bells should be sounding off over Dwyer’s answer to “activist judges.” The legislature’s job is to make laws. The court’s job is to interpret those laws based on current law and prior precedence. If the law is “no good”, it’s the legislature’s job to rewrite the law to address the court’s legal concerns. It is not the legislature’s job to throw out judges who don’t agree with their laws. Otherwise, there would be no point in maintaining a court system.
Please take the time to tell Delegate Don Dwyer how you feel about his latest effort against homosexuals.
·Email: Don_Dwyer@house.state.md.us
·Postal mail: P. O. Box 667
Glen Burnie, MD 21060 – 0667
·Phone: (410) 768-0945
As always, please be professional, courteous and polite in expressing your views. Postal mail carries the most weight with politicians. Phone calls are a close second, emails are a distant third, and anonymous submissions, such as provided here, are at least tabulated if nothing else. Including your real name and contact information always gets the attention of politicians and possibly a thoughtful consideration and sometimes a reply, even if it is a standard form acknowledgement.
To submit a comment anonymously or to use a sample letter, please click here.
Maryland state delegate Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) immediately vowed to remove the judge from the bench. He made good on his promise the other day. (-story)
It should be noted that Dwyer’s quest to herd the homosexuals back into the closet didn’t start with the judge’s ruling. He also authored legislation to be put on the November ballot that would have banned gay marriages and civil unions. The measure was defeated.
He has found a friend with the gay-hate group, Family Focus. Family Focus wasted no time reporting how Dwyer proposed to “rein in” the activist judges and encouraged their members to contact Dwyer and show their support for his efforts. (“Activist judges”, by the way, is the buzz phrase that defines any judge who, after evaluating the law, rules contrary to how one believes they should have ruled. It’s a favorite phrase among the far right conservatives and conservative Christians.)
Whether or not one favors same sex marriage, alarm bells should be sounding off over Dwyer’s answer to “activist judges.” The legislature’s job is to make laws. The court’s job is to interpret those laws based on current law and prior precedence. If the law is “no good”, it’s the legislature’s job to rewrite the law to address the court’s legal concerns. It is not the legislature’s job to throw out judges who don’t agree with their laws. Otherwise, there would be no point in maintaining a court system.
Please take the time to tell Delegate Don Dwyer how you feel about his latest effort against homosexuals.
·Email: Don_Dwyer@house.state.md.us
·Postal mail: P. O. Box 667
Glen Burnie, MD 21060 – 0667
·Phone: (410) 768-0945
As always, please be professional, courteous and polite in expressing your views. Postal mail carries the most weight with politicians. Phone calls are a close second, emails are a distant third, and anonymous submissions, such as provided here, are at least tabulated if nothing else. Including your real name and contact information always gets the attention of politicians and possibly a thoughtful consideration and sometimes a reply, even if it is a standard form acknowledgement.
To submit a comment anonymously or to use a sample letter, please click here.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
A Couple of Notes About This Site....
I've been gone awhile. My apologies to any readers who may have started an interest in this site. Little Guy Protest has been taking a huge chunk of my time and I've neglected this site. Hopefully, I'll get back in the swing of things and begin posting on a more regular basis again.
Headliners will no longer be a regular feature of this site. The few I have done were fun, but it just plain takes too much time searching for a photo to showcase a oneliner. Once in a blue moon, I may post a headliner, but certainly not on a regular basis.
A big chunk of my time has been occupied with building an online store to help finance the website. Hopefully a grand opening will be announced soon. Once it is opened, I'll definitely be able to spend a bit more time here.
Thank you to my few readers and please, stay tuned....
Mark
Headliners will no longer be a regular feature of this site. The few I have done were fun, but it just plain takes too much time searching for a photo to showcase a oneliner. Once in a blue moon, I may post a headliner, but certainly not on a regular basis.
A big chunk of my time has been occupied with building an online store to help finance the website. Hopefully a grand opening will be announced soon. Once it is opened, I'll definitely be able to spend a bit more time here.
Thank you to my few readers and please, stay tuned....
Mark
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"Hey, Bush, I'm one of your biggest supporters! Surprised?"
Gay Republican Rebel - story
Friday, October 07, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"You know, I bet a little blush on the cheeks, darken the eyebrows, some false eyelashes, and let my hair grow out a bit and I could pass for the Church Lady. Maybe I could get one of my preists to doll me up." -
Gay Men Can Be Catholic Priests - story
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"I'm mean. I'm a queen. I'm an Aids fighting machine."
Elton donates to Nepal's HIV fight - story
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"Hmmm, filled out a gay questionaire, huh? Funny, you don't look lesbo to me."
Court Pick Is Unknown Quantity - story
Monday, October 03, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"If I can't have sex, I'll be damned if I'm going to let those homos have it."
Catholic churches lead signature drive for ban on gay marriage - story
Friday, September 30, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people who are in it....
"Wow, this butt plug really does make one feel special!"
Roberts Confirmed Chief Justice - story
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people who are in it....
"I just know those fags are behind this push against me."
Bush Loses Ally as Delay Resigns - story
Monday, September 26, 2005
The Tale of Two Penguins, Betrayal, and the Christian Right Frenzy
Remember Roy and Silo? The couple made headlines a few months back as the loving pair of gay penguins. During their six year relationship, they adopted a rock and tried to hatch it. Zoo keepers, after trying to break them up first by introducing some swanky female penguins, finally gave up and supplied them with a real penguin egg to hatch. They faithfully hatched the egg and successfully raised Tango, a baby girl penguin.
Normally, this would be a story zoo keepers would joke and laugh about over a few beers at Happy Hour.
Not quite.
Somewhere along the way, the Happy Hour story made headlines. Gay activists proudly pointed to the pair as proof that homosexuality is a natural state, not a perverted choice as some would like us to believe. International protests broke out when zoo keepers tried to convert Roy and Silo using their own version of an ex-gay ministry - by separating them and introducing female penguins.
Christians and the conservative right brushed the story off. "Penguins are animals," they said. Animals do all sorts of things people would never do. That's what separates us from the animals.
Then along comes the summer surprise hit - March of the Penguins. The documentary tells the tale of the emperor penguin and how the male and female battle the harsh Antarctic winter for months on end to raise their little penguin. Christians latched onto the story as being symbolic of the importance of monogamous relationships and the need for a devoted mother and father in raising children. If we all were more like the emperor penguin, God would smile upon us and we would be blessed as individuals and as a nation.
While the Christians were busy praising the emperor penguin as being good role models for people to learn the God-inspired lesson of monogamy, faithfulness, and parental devotion to the children, something quite extraordinary transpired in Roy and Silo's household.
First, their daughter, Tango, grew up and paired off with another female penguin. Then Silo's eye began wandering after the pair were kicked out of their nesting area by more aggressive penguins. This past mating season, he caught glimpse of a female penguin from California named Scrappy. Silo left Roy for Scrappy and Roy has been left standing in the corner, alone and staring at the wall.
The Christian Right are beside themselves with joy. On the Focus on the Family website - a gay hate group founded by the influential radio host James C. Dobson - a commentator, Warren Throckmorten, wrote: "For those who have pointed to Roy and Silo as models for us all, these developments must be disappointing. Some gay activists might actually be angry."
Not exactly, though.
As Roberta Sklar, a spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, put it: "There's almost an obsession with questions such as, 'Is sexual orientation a birthright or a choice?' And looking at the behavior of two penguins in captivity is not a way to answer that question."
Of course, that doesn't stop the Christians from pointing the accusatory finger. Silo and Roy went through a phase and in the process of going against nature, hurt a child by turning their daughter into a lesbian. If that isn't proof enough that homosexuality is unnatural and that homosexuals make bad parents, then the Great Social Experiment of allowing gay marriages and gay parents will surely bring the wrath of God upon us.
At least the penguins are dressed in formal attire for the Coming of the Lord's Wrath.
Oh, and in case you've read this far and are a little concerned: just because penguins waddle around all prim and proper in their tuxedos, that doesn't make them sophisticated Messengers of God trying to teach us moral behaviors.
They are living their life the way God created them to live it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Be sure to visit Little Guy Protest and submit your bill to Congress asking them to repeal the Defense of Marriage act and reaffirm states' rights by honoring, without prejudice, individual state marriage laws.
Normally, this would be a story zoo keepers would joke and laugh about over a few beers at Happy Hour.
Not quite.
Somewhere along the way, the Happy Hour story made headlines. Gay activists proudly pointed to the pair as proof that homosexuality is a natural state, not a perverted choice as some would like us to believe. International protests broke out when zoo keepers tried to convert Roy and Silo using their own version of an ex-gay ministry - by separating them and introducing female penguins.
Christians and the conservative right brushed the story off. "Penguins are animals," they said. Animals do all sorts of things people would never do. That's what separates us from the animals.
Then along comes the summer surprise hit - March of the Penguins. The documentary tells the tale of the emperor penguin and how the male and female battle the harsh Antarctic winter for months on end to raise their little penguin. Christians latched onto the story as being symbolic of the importance of monogamous relationships and the need for a devoted mother and father in raising children. If we all were more like the emperor penguin, God would smile upon us and we would be blessed as individuals and as a nation.
While the Christians were busy praising the emperor penguin as being good role models for people to learn the God-inspired lesson of monogamy, faithfulness, and parental devotion to the children, something quite extraordinary transpired in Roy and Silo's household.
First, their daughter, Tango, grew up and paired off with another female penguin. Then Silo's eye began wandering after the pair were kicked out of their nesting area by more aggressive penguins. This past mating season, he caught glimpse of a female penguin from California named Scrappy. Silo left Roy for Scrappy and Roy has been left standing in the corner, alone and staring at the wall.
The Christian Right are beside themselves with joy. On the Focus on the Family website - a gay hate group founded by the influential radio host James C. Dobson - a commentator, Warren Throckmorten, wrote: "For those who have pointed to Roy and Silo as models for us all, these developments must be disappointing. Some gay activists might actually be angry."
Not exactly, though.
As Roberta Sklar, a spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, put it: "There's almost an obsession with questions such as, 'Is sexual orientation a birthright or a choice?' And looking at the behavior of two penguins in captivity is not a way to answer that question."
Of course, that doesn't stop the Christians from pointing the accusatory finger. Silo and Roy went through a phase and in the process of going against nature, hurt a child by turning their daughter into a lesbian. If that isn't proof enough that homosexuality is unnatural and that homosexuals make bad parents, then the Great Social Experiment of allowing gay marriages and gay parents will surely bring the wrath of God upon us.
At least the penguins are dressed in formal attire for the Coming of the Lord's Wrath.
Oh, and in case you've read this far and are a little concerned: just because penguins waddle around all prim and proper in their tuxedos, that doesn't make them sophisticated Messengers of God trying to teach us moral behaviors.
They are living their life the way God created them to live it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Be sure to visit Little Guy Protest and submit your bill to Congress asking them to repeal the Defense of Marriage act and reaffirm states' rights by honoring, without prejudice, individual state marriage laws.
Monday, August 29, 2005
The Christian Agenda Exposed Part II
In Michigan, they're pushing to eliminate domestic partnership benefits. (story) In California, they're pushing to ban same sex marriage and civil unions, eliminate domestic benefits, and deny children of same sex couples the same legal protections every other child is afforded. (story).
In Massaachusetts, they're willing to throw out a refernedum that would give voters a chance to ban same sex marriage, but leave provisions for civil unions in favor for an outright ban on same sex marriage and civil unions.
Who are they? Various Christian groups and "concerned" citizens. In all three states, the leading opposition groups are headed by an organization usually having some positive name that includes key words like "family" and "concerned" conjoined with official sounding terms like "institute" or "research". These organizations all have their roots with the national organization, The Family Research Council, a known homophobic organization.
The Michigan Family Institute is no exception.
In 2004, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution allowed same sex marriages and gay couples could not be denied the basic civil right to marry, the Michigan Family Institute kicked into high gear. They worked hard to gain enough signatures to put a referendum through the state legislature that would ban same sex marriage, but allow civil unions.
Call it panic mode. They needed something fast to counter the gay threat to marriage.
On September 14, the state legislature is set to vote on the referendum to allow it to be put before the voters. Not surprisingly, in the almost two years since the Christian groups pushed for the referendum, they are now abandoning it. In their own words, "This amendment must be defeated."
They shout that commandment in bold face letters on their website followed by a step-by-step plan to defeat the 2006 referendum and get the more restrictive 2008 referendum in its place. They've had almost two years to come up with an alternative that not only bans same sex unions, but would also ban civil unions. The implication, of course, is that same sex couples would then be legally denied many of the state benefits of being married - including domestic partnership and legal protection for the children of same sex couples.
The argument has never been about protecting marriage. It has always been about marginalizing homosexuals to the fringes of society. It has always been about sweeping the gay problem back into the closet - and throwing the key away.
Don't be fooled by their positive spin. The Christian agenda is clear. Demonize homosexuals as a threat to society. Once the threat is established in the minds of the average person, controlling the gay problem becomes easy.
And it will still be socially acceptable to preach against their sins, blame them for the ills of society, and to hate them.
Without the legalized discrimination, more and more people will see their rhetoric for what it is - intolerance, bigotry, and/or hate.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
The Christian Agenda Exposed
Related Stories: Michigan Denies Domestic Benefits
Even though the push for legal, same sex marriage got its start back in the early 1970's, it wasn't until 1993 that the battle began in full force. That was the year that the Hawaii Supreme Court suggested that a ban on same sex marriage may violate the state constitution.
Conservatives and the religious right gathered in full strength. Since then, their battle cry has boiled down to an argument of preserving the sacred institution of marriage and nothing about denying anyone rights.
In 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same sex marriage, a firestorm swept the country. That code phrase for legalized discrimination, "protect the sanctity of marriage" mobilized 11 states to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, only.
"It's not about denying rights," the voters were told. "Gays can enjoy all the rights they want in some form of legal civil union."
Voters bought that cheap slogan hook, line, and sinker. Some still do.
But now the truth of the Christian agenda is being exposed. The same sex marriage arguments are all about rights. No matter what you call a same sex relationship - marriage, civil union, a couple with some marriage rights - the fear of the Christian Right is that those people will become acceptable in society. No society can ever accept that - at any cost.
Now, the Christian Right isn't even bothering to hide their true agenda.
In Michigan last year, voters passed an amendment to the state constitution which read "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose."
Those last six words, or similar union for any purpose, were used to negate the domestic partnership benefits already set into law. While the judge as not yet ruled on the challenge to the legal opinion from the state's attorney general that negated the domestic benefits laws, one of the arguments presented was that the intent of the law had nothing to do with denying benefits to same sex couples. An attorney for the governor of Michigan even presented a brochure put out by backers of the amendment - primarily an offshoot of the group, Focus on the Family - that clearly said the amendment would maintain the status quo of Michigan, i.e. domestic benefit laws weren't in jeopardy.
Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan - a primary backer of the amendment, had another story to tell the reporters. The secondary intent of the amendment, and the purpose of those six words, were to ensure the traditional marriage would be honored "including the provision of taxpayer-financed spousal benefits," he claimed.
He just may be the first person to publically expose the real Christian agenda.
Jumping over to California, the state Supreme court just ruled that same sex couples have the same parental responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts, including child support and custody rights.
Now one would think this is a clear cut case of protecting the children and has nothing to do with same sex marriage.
Wrong.
After the ruling, Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which opposes gay marriage, said the court's position "goes against nature."
"Despite junk science and frustrating rulings like this, children still need a mother and a father," Thomasson said. "A child does not have two mommies or two daddies; a child comes into this world because she has a mother who gave her egg and a father who gave his sperm."
The court's stand "ignores the self-evident truth that God designed a man and a woman to fit together and participate in the miracle of procreation," he said.
What's he saying? The children of same sex couples are less deserving of protection of the law than children born to a man and a woman.
Still think it's not about keeping homosexuals as second class citizens? Denying them equal footing in our society? Consider this. Opponents of same sex marriage in California are diligently trying to get several referendums on next year's ballot that would roll back many of the gains in domestic benefits.
The Christian agenda is clear. After more than twelve years of lying to the voters, their real goal on the same sex marriage issue has nothing to do with "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and everything to do with sweeping homosexuals back into the closet.
And at least in Michigan and California, at the expense of the children if need be.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
A Ray Of Hope?
On a follow up about the two gay Iranian teens who were hung (story):
A ray of hope? An excerpt from an article on 365gay.com covering this story:
Is gay life in Iran as dire as some reports on this case suggest?
According to a new interview with the publishers of the Iranian gay magazine MAHA conducted by the Web site GayRussia.ru, it is not.
The magazine is distributed from inside Iran via e-mail in PDF format. (If it were published on the Web or in traditional magazine format, it likely would be blocked or banned by the government.) The magazine has 600 subscribers.
"After eight months of hard work, eight issues and four supplements have appeared, covering issues such as gays and family, depression among GLBT, a report about lesbians in Iran, etc.," the publishers wrote in the e-mail interview. "MAHA also publishes a separate supplement for gay aid and to help GLBT to find a friend. Today MAHA has two editors, one gay and one lesbian, and MAHA's readers are all over the country and even some Iranian GLBT in exile."
The publishers said gays are no longer routinely persecuted in Iran.
"The regime does not systematically persecute gays anymore, there are still some gay Web sites, there are some parks and cinemas where everyone knows that these places are meeting places for gays," they wrote. "Furthermore it is legal in Iran that a transsexual applies for sex change and it is fully accepted by the government.
"There are some media which sometimes -- not often -- write about such issues. Having said that, the Islamic law, according to which gay punishment is death, is still in force, but it is thought [to be] not much followed by the regime nowadays.
"Thanks to the Internet and contact with the international community, people get the info, and Iran society has changed a lot, and support for GLBT rights is growing in Iran, though we still have a long way to go," the publishers said. "On the whole, we are optimistic about the future as Iran's situation cannot continue [as is] and people are pushing for reforms and changes."
A ray of hope? An excerpt from an article on 365gay.com covering this story:
Is gay life in Iran as dire as some reports on this case suggest?
According to a new interview with the publishers of the Iranian gay magazine MAHA conducted by the Web site GayRussia.ru, it is not.
The magazine is distributed from inside Iran via e-mail in PDF format. (If it were published on the Web or in traditional magazine format, it likely would be blocked or banned by the government.) The magazine has 600 subscribers.
"After eight months of hard work, eight issues and four supplements have appeared, covering issues such as gays and family, depression among GLBT, a report about lesbians in Iran, etc.," the publishers wrote in the e-mail interview. "MAHA also publishes a separate supplement for gay aid and to help GLBT to find a friend. Today MAHA has two editors, one gay and one lesbian, and MAHA's readers are all over the country and even some Iranian GLBT in exile."
The publishers said gays are no longer routinely persecuted in Iran.
"The regime does not systematically persecute gays anymore, there are still some gay Web sites, there are some parks and cinemas where everyone knows that these places are meeting places for gays," they wrote. "Furthermore it is legal in Iran that a transsexual applies for sex change and it is fully accepted by the government.
"There are some media which sometimes -- not often -- write about such issues. Having said that, the Islamic law, according to which gay punishment is death, is still in force, but it is thought [to be] not much followed by the regime nowadays.
"Thanks to the Internet and contact with the international community, people get the info, and Iran society has changed a lot, and support for GLBT rights is growing in Iran, though we still have a long way to go," the publishers said. "On the whole, we are optimistic about the future as Iran's situation cannot continue [as is] and people are pushing for reforms and changes."
Monday, August 15, 2005
Why NARTH Is a Hate Group
Note: This is a rough draft that some day I'll polish up for my website.
From Narth's own website:
...says Nicolosi. "And, when the research comes in--as indeed it has--showing gays and lesbians to be less psychologically healthy than straights."
"Also, many people coming from a homosexual background have, sadly, spent so many years in self-protection and self-absorption that they have difficulty in giving to others."
"That doesn't make the reality of change any less valid than it does for the alcoholic who returns to drinking, or the anorexic who returns to unhealthy eating patterns." (Reinforces NARTH's position that homosexuality is a disease or disorder that requires treatment.)
"The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships 'is a very serious public health problem.' The study compared the rate of abuse among homosexual men (22%) to the rate of abuse to heterosexual men (8%) and concluded that homosexual men are more violent.
"Unfortunately, the AMA appears to have accepted the unsubstantiated claim that the numerous psychological problems and self-destructive behavior found among persons who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) are caused by social discrimination. It has ignored substantial evidence that these negative outcomes are related to the homosexuality itself."
Citing Stein (1999, Oxford University Press), they find corroboration in his conclusion that "Even if one's sexual orientation is primarily biological and not a choice, much of what is ethically relevant about being a lesbian or gay man is not biologically based and is not determined, [such as] engaging in sexual acts with a person of the same gender."
"The Concept of Disorder Derives from a Moral Concept" - Subtitle to an article that links homosexuality to pedophilia. The article goes on to explain that the APA ignores moral considerations when determining what is and what is not psychological disorder. In simple terms, if you believe something is morally wrong, then it is a disorder that requires treatment. That is their philosophy with homosexuality - they believe it is morally wrong so they fix it. See above quote.
Ok, you get the idea. Let's face it. Hate groups are smart, today. The KKK doesn't go around saying "The niggers are inferior to Whites." Nope. They couch politically correct language between questionable studies and personal testimonials to "prove" their stance that Black people are inferior to Whites.
Narth uses the same technique. They use professional sounding language to hide their two basic principles:
From Narth's own website:
...says Nicolosi. "And, when the research comes in--as indeed it has--showing gays and lesbians to be less psychologically healthy than straights."
"Also, many people coming from a homosexual background have, sadly, spent so many years in self-protection and self-absorption that they have difficulty in giving to others."
"That doesn't make the reality of change any less valid than it does for the alcoholic who returns to drinking, or the anorexic who returns to unhealthy eating patterns." (Reinforces NARTH's position that homosexuality is a disease or disorder that requires treatment.)
"The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships 'is a very serious public health problem.' The study compared the rate of abuse among homosexual men (22%) to the rate of abuse to heterosexual men (8%) and concluded that homosexual men are more violent.
"Unfortunately, the AMA appears to have accepted the unsubstantiated claim that the numerous psychological problems and self-destructive behavior found among persons who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) are caused by social discrimination. It has ignored substantial evidence that these negative outcomes are related to the homosexuality itself."
Citing Stein (1999, Oxford University Press), they find corroboration in his conclusion that "Even if one's sexual orientation is primarily biological and not a choice, much of what is ethically relevant about being a lesbian or gay man is not biologically based and is not determined, [such as] engaging in sexual acts with a person of the same gender."
"The Concept of Disorder Derives from a Moral Concept" - Subtitle to an article that links homosexuality to pedophilia. The article goes on to explain that the APA ignores moral considerations when determining what is and what is not psychological disorder. In simple terms, if you believe something is morally wrong, then it is a disorder that requires treatment. That is their philosophy with homosexuality - they believe it is morally wrong so they fix it. See above quote.
Ok, you get the idea. Let's face it. Hate groups are smart, today. The KKK doesn't go around saying "The niggers are inferior to Whites." Nope. They couch politically correct language between questionable studies and personal testimonials to "prove" their stance that Black people are inferior to Whites.
Narth uses the same technique. They use professional sounding language to hide their two basic principles:
- Homosexuality is a disease that can be cured either through "incremental change" to heterosexuality or by celibacy
- Homosexuality is a moral choice even is a biological component can be proven
They believe homosexuality is caused by one of two factors: either the failure of the self-identified gay to have formed a meaningful relationship early on with his/her same-gender parent or they were victims of childhood sexual abuse.
Both presumptions are easily disputed, especially in today's world where many heterosexual children grow up in single-parent households. Why aren't they all gay?
So yes, NARTH is nothing more than a prejudicial hate group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
