Today I'll be continuing our multi-part ongoing series responding to Susan and her ebook "Homosexuality:The Untold Story" on CatholicEducation.org. The first three entries can be found here, here, and here, chronologically. We left off the other day with Susan's list of "known causes" for homosexuality. So far we'd dealt with Weak Masculine/Feminine Identity and Distrust of Men/Women. Today we get into full-scale homophobia.
Gender Identity Disorder "Gender identity disorder in children regularly leads to same-sex attraction in adolescence," writes Fitzgibbons. "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Medical Disorders DSM-IV" of the American Psychiatric Association defined "Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in children as a strong persistent cross-gender identification, a discomfort with one's own sex, and a preference for cross-sex roles in play or in fantasies."
Homosexuality and transsexuality are not synonymous. I had a neighbor (we'll call her "Patty") who was born with male sex organs, identified as a woman, and who was in a long-term monogamous relationship with her partner, who was a cis sexual (not transsexual) woman. Would Fitzgibbons here consider Patty to be gay? Then there are all those lipstick lesbians and macho gay men. They identify strongly with their physical gender, yet are also homosexual.
Another theory is put forth by Linda Nicolosi of the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality in her article entitled, "Does Born That Way Mean Designed Way?"
"… In some individuals, prenatal hormones may abnormally masculinize or feminize the developing fetus. … When a pregnant woman is exposed to certain environmental pollutants which are known to have a hormone-like effect on the body, some writers theorize that differences are blurred in her developing fetus. The resulting gender distortions could affect the child's sense of himself or herself."
Okay, now that we've gotten the NARTH perspective (NARTH consisting of less than 1% of both APAs) let's see what somebody else has to say. Oh look, here's the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association HBIGDA) saying GID shouldn't even be classified as a mental health disorder, because the best treatment involves bringing the body in line with the mind, not the other way around. This is different from the body dysmorphia of say, a bulimic. I am periodically under the intense delusion that I am fat. I know rationally and factually that this is not true - I'm a size 4. My mind is what needs to be fixed, because attempts at making my body smaller didn't make me feel better. Whereas a trans gendered person who can dress, identify, and behave as the gender they feel they are do find intense relief from doing so. My body dysmorphia is a mental health condition; the body dysphoria of a transsexual is a bodily mismatch condition. Also? The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism published a paper in 2000 showing that male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus (girly brains.)
Narcissism and Profound Selfishness
I told you this was gonna get insulting. Sorry to even have to copy-paste that.
Fitzgibbons describes the narcissistic person as a person who is "preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love. For the homosexual narcissist, the goal is the pursuit of pleasure. A certain segment of the homosexual community expresses narcissism by promoting total and absolute sexual freedom. They advocate anonymous sex and extreme sexual behaviors that may explain the presence of a high degree of promiscuity in this segment of the population."
Ugh. Okay, his description of a narcissist comes straight (heh) out of the DSM-IV. I know, because I was raised by a narcissistic cult leader, and I've probably gone over that list of 9 criteria a few dozen times. However, the DSM-IV doesn't go on to make Fitz's claims about specifically homosexual narcissists. Because Fitz is making this up. A certain segment of the heterosexual community advocates the persuit of pleasure and total sexual freedom. Are you going to say this is accurate of all heterosexuals, Fitz? How about you, Susan? Are you profoundly selfish if you want to enjoy sex, or is that just the queers?
"These are the activists," Fitzgibbons said. "They want unlimited promiscuity. Their goal is to undermine Judeo-Christian morality."
Their goal is to live their lives unmolested by you and your bronze age morality. And why would anyone want to cling to such man-myths and monsters to tell them right from wrong, when we have such superior morals within secular humanism? Hundreds of atheists have composed their own, new and vastly improved ten commandments. The morality of the Bible is sorely lacking.
Dysfunctional Family Life
*Facepalm*
In the book, Same Sex Attraction: A Parent's Guide, edited by Father John Harvey and Gerald V. Bradley, Father Harvey agrees with researchers who see faulty family relationships as the source of same-sex attraction.
And which researchers would these be? Are they credible? Are they respected? Was their methodology sound, or did they start out with an agenda?
Referring to the work of Don Schmierer, Father Harvey writes, "He makes use of case histories to illustrate ways in which adolescent boys and girls can have a confused perception of their gender identity. … The fatherless home or the emotionally unavailable father joined with the dominant mother contributes to the development of same-sex attractions. … Often where divorce has taken place, the mother portrays her ex-husband in very negatives ways, and; consequently the son loses respect for the father. … In merged or foster families, one notices relationships among siblings, cousins, or neighbors that are compulsive and secretive and that can foster same-sex attractions. …"
Wow, with that kind of list it's a wonder more people aren't gay! Also, no one in the grown-up world of sexual psychology thinks this true anymore.
Spouses who verbally abuse one another in front of children may inadvertently force the children to "take sides," and, especially if there is already a distance between a child and a father, a son may begin to see his masculinity in a negative light. Marital infidelity is also a contributing factor, especially if it impacts on an adolescent boy or girl.
Again, there's no evidence. These are wild assertions, and it's a bit like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.
Other causes of SSAD are sexual abuse and pedophilia, separation from a parent during the critical time of development, or the failure of parents to encourage same-sex identification and friendships.
So let's see, children who are at risk of becoming homosexuals (according to Susan at least) are kids who: are confused about their gender identity; have domineering mothers or emotionally unavailable fathers; have foster or step families, or cousins they think are hot; experience cheating in the home, divorce in the home, bitchy moms who whinge on and on about their absentee dads, and verbal abuse between parents; are sexually abused, away from a parent, or lacked friends of their own sex to play with. Again I say, with a list like this it's a miracle anybody is straight.
In a recent interview with ZENIT News, Fitzgibbons said, "The absence of a father in the home leads to sadness, anger, difficulty in trusting and disruptive disorders. The absence of a mother is worse.
One's mother is one's fundamental basis of feeling safe in relationships; denying a child of its mother wounds the child's ability to trust and have faith in the world, which can lead to anxiety and attachment disorders."
Lacking positive role models and loving figures can seriously impact a child's life and development. But this has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
This is why same-sex marriages and adoption can be so devastating on society, because of their effect on children. Fitzgibbons points out that even in Belgium where same-sex unions are approved, same-sex couples are not permitted to adopt.
"Not all adults have the inherent right to have a child," he said, "but all children have a right to a mother and a father."
Want.To.Scream! In case I haven't shared them already with you fine folks, here are my views on same-sex marriage and adoption.
Tomorrow we'll take a look at the "health risks of the homosexual lifestyle" (and a few other "lifestyles" besides.) Tata for now. Go be *FABULOUS!*
Oh look, there's more Catholic bigotry! (We started it here and continued it here, but there's always more bigotry.) In case anyone would like to say I can't blame the Catholic Church for Susan's writings, I'll concede that this e-book is found on CatholicEducation.org, which is not an official Vatican site. However, Vatican.va is and here's what it has to say about homosexuality.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
and
Homosexual persons are called to chastity.
CatholicEducation.org also features a number of clerical endorsements on their site. So now let's go on with at least a few Catholics' views on homosexuality.
Assuming that there is a gay gene, it would therefore be logical to conclude that the homosexual condition is irreversible. Acting on this premise, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer of Columbia University, a champion of gay activism, pioneered a successful movement to have homosexuality removed from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders in 1973.
Yes, because being gay isn't a mental disorder. Medical science, including psychiatry, adjusts its views over time as evidence is revealed. I expect gender identity disorder (GID) to also be removed from the list of mental disorders at some point in my lifetime. And while the presence of a specific "gay gene" might well indicate that homosexuality is "irreversible" we have not yet been given sufficient reason to think a gay person should want to be straight (other than the fact that Susan would prefer it.) Also, "irreversible" is an odd word, as it suggests homosexuality is somehow "reversed" from its "natural" state, which of course does not apply to genetic traits, which simply are as they are.
Oh, one further point. Notice how Susan calls Spitzer a "gay activist" while leaving out that important word "rights." He was a gay rights activist. Rights - they matter.
Spitzer himself seems to have changed his mind and published a new study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, Oct. 2003, pp 403-417). His new study surveyed 200 respondents (143 male and 57 female). After therapy, 61 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women reported a marked changed toward heterosexual attraction that lasted at least five years.
What exactly is a "marked change?" No matter. When Spitzer first presented this paper at the APA conference in 2001, the APA immediately released a statement noting that Spitzer's paper had not been peer-reviewed and saying, "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."
A brief analysis of the problems with Dr. Spitzer's study can be found here, but the Cliff's Notes version is that the individuals he asked survey questions of were self-selected and referred by conservative Christian groups with an anti-gay agenda (including 46 out of 200 from NARTH); it is unknown if survey participants were homosexual or bisexual; and the majority still report attraction to members of the same sex. In a Washington Post interview in 2005, Spitzer said his findings had been misrepresented by groups such as NARTH.
"It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right...What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare."
He noting [sic] that the subjects of his study were not representative of the general population because they were considerably more religious. He calls as "totally absurd" the beliefs that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.
From ReligiousTolerance.org (a great reference site) I found this, from Dr. Jack Drescher of the APA's Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues:
As for the scientific merits of his study, I believe it is significantly flawed. One flaw is that the majority of subjects in the study had one 45-minute telephone interview with Dr. Spitzer and no follow-ups. Other than Dr. Spitzer, I can find no reputable researcher who will agree that this is an accurate way to assess whether a person has changed their sexuality. That point was underscored in another study presented at the same symposium. Schroeder and Shidlo's study (in press) found that many individuals who claimed to have changed sexual orientation during a first telephone interview changed their story at a second, follow-up interview
Okay, so now that we know the study Susan is claiming proves her point is bogus (and not even as pro-her-view as she pretends: 86% of men and 63% of women surveyed reported they still felt attraction for members of the same sex.) Back to Susan.
In Spitzer's conclusions, he writes, "The mental health profession should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation."
In Spitzer's 2001, highly contested, methodologically unsound, self-selected biased, study he made this conclusion, which 99% of the psychological community disagrees with. Okay - bully for him.
He discounts those who believe therapy to reverse same-sex attraction is actually harmful to the individual. "To the contrary," he writes, "they reported that it was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation itself." For this reason, he urged the American Psychiatric Association to stop discouraging reorientation therapy, while encouraging treatments that affirm the gay-identity in people.
Do you realize that Susan is trying to play the "expert" card with Spitzer, while simultaneously playing the "martyr" card because no one agrees with him and the big bad APA thinks we should stop hurting gay people? Specifically, regarding reorientation therapy the APA says, "Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." So the fact that Susan was able to find one guy who (kind of) agrees with her is hardly earth-shattering or so valuable it justifies throwing out the conclusions of virtually every other psychologist.
It's important that people understand that the gay gene remains a phantom. It's important to those who believe they have the "gene" and, therefore, cannot change. It's also important to the American public, which is far more likely to give in to demands for change in law and religious teaching if they believe sexual attraction is genetically determined and unchangeable.
Whether or not there is a single "gay gene" does not answer the question of whether or not sexual orientation is genetic. There is not a single "OCD gene" although there are genetic factors associated with it. The fact that I lack an OCD gene does not mean that I either do not have OCD or that my OCD is a "choice" that I should go be cured of through insane theories on gender roles (or anything else.) Susan either lacks understanding of genetics, or is intentionally misrepresenting information on the basis of her biases.
Also, even if gay people choose to be that way, so what? How are you, Susan, harmed by ATAT reader Buffy and her lovely wife being together? What does it matter to you if Ellen and Portia have a loving family? Why does it get your panties in such a twist if Perez Hilton likes men? What do you think is actually wrong with being gay?
Well, before we can get to that, Susan is going to take us through what she believes (or claims) are the "Known Causes" of homosexuality. I'm sure it will be ridiculous.
Known Causes of Same-Sex Attraction part 2 of 6
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a West Conshohocken psychiatrist and principal contributor to the Catholic Medical Association's book, Homosexuality and Hope, identifies the major causes of same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD) in men and women.
Gee, that SSAD sounds like a real honest-to-gosh medical disorder. Is it one? No. The best site I could pull up by Googling that phrase was Landover Baptist. The medical community (including both APAs) does not recognize this "SSAD" as an actual mental health condition. Funny how old Fitz here and Susan were presenting it like it was real (kind of like "cures" for homosexuality!) Oh, and in case you were thinking Fitzgibbons was someone we ought to take at his word, please review my research on him from earlier this week.
Weak Masculine/Feminine Identity In his contribution to the book by Father John Harvey, The Truth About Homosexuality, Fitzgibbons writes: "Weak masculine identity is easily identified and, in my clinical experience, is the major cause of SSAD in men. Surprisingly, it can be an outgrowth of weak eye-hand coordination which results in an inability to play sports well. This condition is usually accompanied by severe peer rejection."
Wow, so not throwing a ball well makes you queer? How on earth does he handle such cockamamie opinions in the presence of the Gay Softball World Series? Even if it was shown that gay men had poorer hand-eye coordination than the male population as a whole, how on earth does one arrive at the conclusion that the poor hand-eye coordination causes homosexuality? To some degree, gay men have finger-length ratios more like straight women than straight men (yup, gay hands.) Does that mean having gay hands causes you to like men? It may be that both are the cause of something else, or several factors of something else, or that it's only a coincidence and doesn't really mean anything at all. Not all correlations are causations.
In a culture dominated by sports heroes, it's easy to understand how a young boy who can't play ball or run fast may not feel very good about himself — especially when this is accompanied by ridicule from his peers and perhaps even exclusion and isolation. He may escape the resulting loneliness with academics or by cultivating comfortable relationships with girls.
Okay, so now we have an assumption that male homosexuality is actually caused by sucking at sports and who is subsequently lonely. Gay kids don't have friends? Maybe if that's true, it results from their being gay, not from being bad at sports. (Also, what about the millions of straight men who suck at sports? Did they dodge the gay bullet?) Plus, hanging out with girls will make you gay. Uh, huh.
"The sports wound will negatively affect the image of himself, his relationships with peers, his gender identity, and his body image," Fitzgibbons writes. "His negative view of his masculinity and his loneliness can lead him to crave the masculinity of his male peers."
Wait, now if your son is wants to hang out with the guys, it's a sign he's gay? But wait, so was hanging out with girls! And there's no avoiding them, since loneliness has been linked to gayness, too. It's a miracle anybody is a heterosexual if The Gay is so pervasive. Also? Gay men hate themselves. I know it because Fitzgibbons said so and he's a dude that Susan found, so you know. He's "credible" and stuff.
Another major cause for SSAD is when a father is perceived by a child as distant, critical, selfish, angry or alcoholic. This produces yet another crucial conflict in the development of a boy's masculine identity. "As children and adolescents, these men yearned for acceptance, praise and physical affection from their fathers," Fitzgibbons said, "but their needs were never met."
No data to support this proposition is being offered - just Fitz's assertions. And it's a pretty easy target, since a lot of people grow up without a father in the home, or have troubled relationships with their fathers. (Also, he's gotten every type of difficult dad in here, so it's a pretty wide net to cast.)
Another major cause for SSAD is when a father is perceived by a child as distant, critical, selfish, angry or alcoholic. This produces yet another crucial conflict in the development of a boy's masculine identity. "As children and adolescents, these men yearned for acceptance, praise and physical affection from their fathers," Fitzgibbons said, "but their needs were never met."
First, I have to say I hate the idea that the reason fathers should accept, praise and show affection for their sons is so they don't turn out gay. Further, Fitz is continuing in his trend of offering no data, no peer-reviewed studies, no findings - just his claims.
In women, a weak feminine identity leading to SSAD can be caused by mother conflicts, peer rejection or poor body image. Fitzgibbons writes, "This condition is far more rare than weak masculine identity, and this is why, in my view, male homosexuality is much more common than female homosexuality. The female role model, the mother, is much more likely to be more affirming, to be giving, to be nurturing to her daughter than the father to his son."
Oh, this condition he made up isn't as easy to claim in woman. Well, how fascinating. Oh wait, no, it's boring, because it's bullshit. Things which are true are desirable to know.
Distrust of Men/Women Distrust of the opposite sex is the second most common cause of SSAD in men and the most common cause in women. In men, "Feelings of mistrust may develop as a result of a difficult mother relationship or from experiences of betrayal by women," Fitzgibbons writes. "Male children in fatherless homes often feel overly responsible for their mothers. As they enter their adolescence, they may come to view female love as draining or exhausting. They want a relationship that is lighthearted and enjoyable and, by default, turn to male love."
By default, you say? Why, that's what most of us have been arguing all along - that gay men (and women) are predisposed to their sexual orientation, as heterosexuals are predisposed to theirs. It is only "natural" to turn to male love if you are sexually oriented in such a way that you desire men. You know, because homosexuality is natural.
And moms, it's not your "fault" your son is gay, nor is it the "fault" of any dead-beat dad. (Nor is it the "fault" of the person who is gay.) Homosexuality is not "right" or "wrong" - it just is, like heterosexuality just is.
In females, the mistrust of men's love is one of the major conflicts a woman may choose to "resolve" in a homosexual relationship. She may have had a distant, emotionally insensitive or even abusive father and grows up with a fear of being vulnerable to men.
Wow, so lesbian ladies, the only reason you like girls is because you are trying to "resolve" your major conflicts. It couldn't possibly be because you are atracted to women, and maybe even love on in particular. No, no. It's because of your issues. Thus saith Fitz.
Women who have been betrayed in love relationships may also seek safety in a relationship with a woman. Women who are sexually abused or raped as children may find it almost impossible to trust men and turn to a woman instead for affection.
Ah yes. An old man diddled me and that's why I fancy boobs. It would make more sense to say sexual abuse might turn someone away from the sex or sexual organs associated with their abuser, but it does not follow that decreased desire for men would lead to increased desire for women. I don't like boobs because a pervert touched me as a little girl; I like them because they're kind of awesome (and soft and pillowy.)
Loneliness is another major factor in the development of SSAD in females. Many women experience disillusionment in their search for the right man and may turn to women instead.
This is ridiculous (as I'd guessed) and again, there's not a scrap of evidence offered. Just claims and assertions. Maybe the reason all these lesbians couldn't find a satisfying relationship with men was because they're homosexual.
Tomorrow I'll get on to the even more insulting "causes" of homosexuality, as reported by small-town psychiatrist Fitz.
Time to take a little break from Susan the Catholic Bigot for a closer look at Vision Forum. Today I'm looking at one of their annual events - the Father and Daughter Retreat, held in Pine Mountains, Georgia each Spring.
God’s Word speaks volumes to the relationship between fathers and daughters: His most sacred duty is her protection and preservation from childhood to virtuous womanhood.
Um, if you mean he's supposed to get his money's worth out of her virginity, then sure the Bible speaks on it.
Fun! And Biblical.
He leads her, woos her, and wins her with a tenderness and affection unique to the bonds of father and daughter.
Um, no. You aren't supposed to date your daughters, Vision Forum guys, or "woo" them. Parenting is not a romance.
Success in his life mission is directly related to the seriousness and compassion with which he seeks to raise her as an industrious, family-affirming, children-loving woman of God.
You get that dads? Your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to make this little baby girl of yours into a god-fearing broodmare or else you'll be the laughingstock of all the men in your cult!
She, in turn, looks to her father as a loving picture of leadership, of devotion, and of care.
Sure, as long as those things are *true*. But not all dads are great leaders; some of us think devotion (in the religious sense) is
Her relationship with her father will help to define her view of the worth of a woman, the meaning of fulfillment and contentment, and her vision for virtue.
Ha, that explains me then. Grew up without a dad and you all know how promiscuous (the right wing media claims) I am! All that aside, I think we should take a moment to consider what's being said here. We're talking about how a girl will grow up, right? And it looks like our goals aren't for success or riches or academic brilliance - apparently women are supposed to be fulfilled (by what?) content (with what?) and virtuous (asexual to marriage, then on-demand, but not her demand.) Yippee hooray? I realize not all dads have this as a goal for their daughters, and that's good or else I might be more critical of non-single moms.
When these relationships are realized and cultivated, the generational mission of the Christian family is secure.
Well, yes, so long as the "mission of the Christian family" is for women to be repressed broodmares, then of course, brainwashing daughters appropriately into their roles as mothers and servants of men is extremely vital to the mission. But maybe that's not the most desirable outcome after all?
Is it any wonder that Satan is on the prowl seeking to tear the hearts of daughters from their fathers, and driving wedges of indifference between them — fathers with no time for their little girls, and young ladies who have replaced the love of their fathers with the acceptance of peers and inappropriate romantic relationships?
Ooooh Satan wants your little girl! But look, "young ladies" are supposed to go through a separation from their parents and attachment to peers and lovers. So are young (gentle?)men. It's a healthy, normal part of growing up, and while it can be quite tumultuous for some (including me) it serves the ultimate purpose of helping children become adults, capable of carrying on their own lives without the same level of assistance and oversight from their parents. Most of us recognize this, and there are several independence-oriented milestones during the teen years (like dating, and driving, and working a part-time job at the mall.)
The Vision Forum Ministries Father & Daughter Retreat is one step on the journey of recovering the preciousness of this relationship so crucial to the kingdom-building work of the Church.
Jesus needs your daughter's vagina to bring forth the Kingdom of God! Sign her up today.
And in case you're still wondering - this is what the Bible has to say about fathers and daughters.
Your daughters make a great substitute when the townsfolk want to rape your male guest. (Genesis 19:6)
It's okay for your daughters to get you drunk and sleep with you. I mean, your male line needs to pass on! (Genesis 19:30-38)
You can sell your daughter into sexual slavery, as long as you follow these prescriptions (Exodus 21:7-8)
She's dirty a good portion of the time, and you shouldn't go near here (Leviticus 15:19-30,33)
If you misbehave, God will make your daughters "whore after" other gods (Hosea 4:13)
Your wife is going to be "unclean" a lot longer if she has a daughter than a son (Leviticus 12:2-5)
There are more, but this should give you some impression of what God thinks of your precious little baby girl. Oh, and today's picture is from their site. It's not necessarily creepy, until you put it in context of the whole "wooing" thing.
More to come on this and the Catholic bigotry as the week continues!
Read more!
Okay so apparently all of our first day's drivel was just the intro, and we're only now getting into Part 1 of 6 Homosexuality: The Untold Story ? The phantom gene (yes, that question mark is on the page.) Here we go.
Americans are addicted to sound bites. "Short, simple, predigested, emotion-laden, one-stop conclusions," writes Jeffrey Satinover in the book, Same Sex Attraction: A Parents Guide. "We have neither the time nor the ability to sort through the primary information for ourselves in order to arrive at our own considered conclusions. As a result, the deep complexity of the scientific research into homosexuality is easy for people to misinterpret and easier still to misuse."
We're starting with a claim - "Americans are addicted to sound bites." As evidence of this claim, we're given the fact that Satinover (lol) said it. Well, let's check this guy out, and his book. Okay, well his Wikipedia page is flagged for not having good secondary sources, and right now it reads like the "About Me" from his own website. But it looks like he's written a couple books about "Bible codes" (oooh numerology!) and one on quantum physics, and he is of course an MD (and thus, highly qualified to answer theological and quantum physics questions?) *Sniff, sniff* I smell narcissism.
For instance, consider the gay gene. Almost everyone believes it exists. Homosexuals were "born that way," right?
No the first, yes to the second.
Not according to the science. Once inside the venerated halls of disciplined study, one discovers the radical truth ? there is no gay gene.
Homosexuality doesn't reside in a single gene, but in a complex of genes. Again, thanks for questioning your own truth claims - it's comical. (Yes, I imagine it's an html error, and that was supposed to be a dash or something, but it's still funny.)
However, in the absence of actual discovery, newspaper headlines frequently allude to the unfound gene in ways that make it sound real. Consider the October, 2003 Reuters headlines "Sexual Identity Hard-Wired by Genetics." The title sounds much more convincing than the actual facts, even though the article opens with the statement, "Sexual identity is wired into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality is a choice. ?" Not until one reads the article does one realize that the headline and opening sentence have absolutely nothing to do with the study being reported.
Very often, writers don't get to pick the headlines; that's the Editor's job. (Kathryn Joyce did not pick the title for this article about me.) Now let's also look at something: our author Susan is trying to equate a single gene (like the "gay gene") with genetics which is the interplay of all our genes. Genes do not work in a vacuum. I don't know that there's a single gene for obsessive compulsive disorder, although it is genetic. Even height works on an interplay of genes, which is why we don't have a binary "tall vs. short" population, but people across a spectrum of heights. Why should sexuality (or gender) be any different?
In reality, the story is about a University of California, Los Angeles, study of the developmental differences between male and female brains. According to Ray Waller of the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH) the study did nothing more than confirm what had already been known to science, that genes play a role in creating differences between male and female brains. The lead researcher, Dr. Eric Valain, said, "This is not about finding the gay gene." In fact, the word homosexuality is not even mentioned in the study.
Okay, well homosexuality isn't mentioned in the title of the article either, which is what you were objecting to. (So I guess now we're only down to one sentence?) What I don't know from the information provided so far, is what the study authors mean by "sexual identity" - does that mean sexual orientation or gender identity? The two are not the same, by any means. So, I'll do some quick research on this myself.
While the original article URL I found is dead, I was able to glean this quote,
"Our findings may help answer an important question - why do we feel male or female?" Dr. Eric Vilain, a genetics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, said in a statement. "Sexual identity is rooted in every person's biology before birth and springs from a variation in our individual genome."
Oh look, he's not talking about orientation - he's talking about feeling male or female, and where that identity comes from. This conflating of sexual identity with fits with the (erroneous) "ex-gay" concept that gay men just need to be more manly. But gender identity (sexual identity) is not the same as orientation, OR as gender presentation (sex organs.) So it's important to note that Susan isn't talking about an applicable study here. (No wonder it fails to address homosexuality to our satisfaction - it's not about that!)
News services echoed Reuters, most of them omitting one of the most salient facts about the study ? it was conducted on mice. "There is no animal model that accurately reflects human sexuality," said Dr. A. Dean Byrd of NARTH. "Pigs don't date, ducks don't go to church, and mice don't fall in love."
Ugh, NARTH. That's the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. In other words, they are a highly vested interest that makes money off of making gay people feel terrible about themselves. They make me sick (and sad.) Also, it is not rare or silly to conduct experiments on mice, as they are incredibly close to us genetically. Also, we've been studying the same "families" of mice for several generations now, and know quite a lot about these mice. It's important in laboratory conditions to reduce variables, and these mice are lab mice, not garden rats. Fewer variables are introduced, leading to higher validity of the study. That makes sense.
As for the idea that since ducks don't date, studies of human behavior via the study of animal behavior is nonsense, it is only because such studies have been done that this doodoo head can make such a statement. And while pigs may not date, they do have mating rituals, like most (all?) sexual animals. Ducks sure don't go to church, but neither do atheists. It has no effect on our orientation (or anyone else's) regardless. And I'm not sure if mice fall in love (while our genes are similar, their brains are very tiny by comparison) but monkeys do. We are all related, quack-doctor-religious-bigot-dude.
Where rumors start, the truth departs, but it is not irretrievable.
As long as people hold truth-departed beliefs as religious, the truth seems somewhat irretrievable. (For example, I doubt Susan will ever be convinced of any truth that conflicts with her primary delusion.)
The truth about the search for the gay gene begins in 1991 at the Salk Institute in San Diego with a scientist named Simon LeVay. LeVay reported that a group of neurons in the hypothalamic region of the human brain appeared to be twice as large in heterosexual men than in homosexual men.
Okay, I've done my research, but we'll let Susan say a bit more first.
The hypothalamus is a part of the brain involved in the regulation of sexual behavior in non-human primates. Other studies showed that these neurons were larger in men than women. For this reason, LeVay concluded that sexual orientation had a biological basis.
Okay, now here Susan is misrepresenting LaVay's findings. He did not actually "conclude" anything with certainty (science hedges its bets until all the data is in.) Here's what he said about the media attention his study garnered:
It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. The INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior.
Oh, so in other words, this also isn't what Susan claims it is. Wow, her honesty is really stunning (and such a great witness to that objective moral law giver she worships!) Also, why does she assume the hypo has a different function in human primates, versus non-human primates? (Why specify "non-human" without saying what it does in us, if it's something different?)
The study, however, had three major flaws that would later completely discredit it.
Really? And what evidence do you have that the study was completely discredited - your word? Because seriously, that has no purchase power at this point.
First, LeVay claimed to have been comparing the brains of 19 homosexual men and 16 heterosexual men. However, he was never able to confirm that all of the heterosexual men were indeed heterosexual. Six had died of AIDS, a disease whose transmission is often associated with homosexual behavior. Second, all the brain samples he took from homosexual men were taken from men who had died of AIDS, which raises the question whether the size of the neurons was related to AIDS. Third, LeVay concluded that the size difference in neurons explained homosexuality, but this was not a legitimate conclusion. Homosexual behavior may have been the cause, rather than the effect of the different in neuron size.
First, again, we have Susan's erroneous claim (lie) that LaVay claimed or concluded that the hypothalomous proved anything about homosexuality. Second, LaVay himself addressed those very concerns in his book Queer Science.
But it is important to stress several limitations of the study. The observations were made on adults who had already been sexually active for a number of years. To make a really compelling case, one would have to show that these neuroanatomical differences existed early in life - preferably at birth. Without such data, there is always at least the theoretical possibility that the structural differences are actually the result of differences in sexual behavior - perhaps on the 'use it or lose it' principle. Furthermore, even if the differences in the hypothalamus arise before birth, they might still come about from a variety of causes, including genetic differences, differences in stress exposure, and many others. It is possible that the development of INAH3 (and perhaps other brain regions) represents a 'final common path' in the determination of sexual orientation, a path to which innumerable prior factors may contribute.
Another limitation arises because most of the gay men whose brains I studied died of complications of AIDS. Although I am confident that the small size of INAH3 in these men was not an effect of the disease, there is always the possibility that gay men who die of AIDS are not representative of the entire population of gay men. For example, they might have a stronger preference for receptive anal intercourse, the major risk factor for acquiring HIV infection. Thus, if one wished, one could make the argument that structural differences in INAH3 relate more to actual behavioral patterns of copulation rather than to sexual orientation as such. It will not be possible to settle this issue definitively until some method becomes available to measure the size of INAH3 in living people who can be interviewed in detail about their sexuality."
In other words, this was cadavar research, and as such had certain limitations on his ability to interview the subjects (they were all dead and stuff) and also they were adults. Gee, it really doesn't seem like the things Susan is claiming LaVay "concluded" were really such firm statements, and more the general scientific talk of, "possibly" and "might" and "further research is needed." Susan, you lose this round. Epically.
As widely as this study was publicized, there was not a peep about the paper LeVay recently published wherein he backs away from his hoped-for hypothesis that science can explain homosexuality. Appearing in the Spanish journal, Reverso, LeVay admitted, "Science cannot tell us what constitutes core identity." In other words, it can't tell us who we are, a homosexual or a heterosexual.
First of all, science almost certainly can explain homosexuality (and heterosexuality, and maybe even bisexuality) to us, even if it has not conclusively done so yet. Biology is the study of living things - we are living things. I don't doubt it can shed light on what we are, and why we behave or identify in certain ways. I have a feeling Susan and her ilk are content to "move the goal post" and keep demanding more and more specific evidence, or evidence of a kind impossible to produce, so that they can hold onto their beliefs in the face of the evidence that does exist at this time.
Second, she's chosen to redefine "core identity' as homosexuality vs. heterosexuality. My bi-ness is not my core identity. Being female isn't either, although that's closer. My point is that I don't know that LaVay meant sexual orientation when he said "core identity" and I have no real reason to trust Susan's spin on things, at this point.
Another study was done in 1991 by John M. Bailey and Richard C. Pillard and published in the Archives of General Psychiatry (48: 1089-1096) determining a genetic cause for homosexuality after finding it was more likely for identical twins to both be homosexual than it was for fraternal or adopted brothers.
What's with the early years on this study? The "outraged Christians" news stories she used (skewed) at the start were from the early 2000s, but her studies are from at least ten years before. These were the *first* studies on homosexuality. Science is progressive. As we learn more and more about the world, ourselves, the galaxy; as we conduct experiments and perform studies, we improve our knowledge and findings. (And when I say "we" I don't actually mean myself. I mean credible scientists.) Anywho, moving on -
The study found that 29 of 56 pairs (52 percent) of the identical twins were both homosexual; 12 of 54 of the fraternal twins were both homosexual and six of 57 of adopted twins were both homosexual.
I'm not sure if these are the exact numbers from the study, but let's just move on (research gets boring.)
Again, problems with the study arise. First, if homosexuality is genetically determined, why didn't all of the identical twins share the same sexual orientation. How does one explain the 48 percent who did not?
Are you serious? Heterosexuality is vastly more common than heterosexuality, and yet you act as if it is strange that a (significantly smaller) percentage of these twins-of-gay-men would heterosexual.
How valid could the study be, when it was determined that the test sample was not random. Researchers could not rule out the fact that they had recruited twins who were both gay by advertising in homosexual newspapers and magazines rather than from material used by the general public.
Okay, at this moment I'm going to say something that applies across science and life and "they say" situations. One faulty study, or flawed study, or small sample size, or whatever, does not invalidate an entire field of science or a major theory. Climate change is not a conspiracy, evolution is a fact, and sexual orientation is probably determined before birth. Whether this particular study was conducted well or not does not tell us about all the research, certainly not the most recent research.
We don't have one study we point to and say, "Ah ha! This proves it." What we have are a myriad of studies, peer-reviewed and examined and tested and repeated and refined and improved, that suggest, across a broad spectrum of physiological and genetic indicators, scientific consensus. Even if it were not at all genetic, being gay isn't wrong. Sure, Susan tried to scare us about all the Christians not being able to practice their Christian bigotry in the workplace, and she quoted some psychologist quack from the boonies who basically said gayness gives people AIDS. (Okay, so I'm exaggerating for summation.) But at this point Susan has given no moral or ethical reason why a person who finds themselves attracted to another person with the same genitals, they should desire to change it. As far as I can tell, the biggest problem being gay is people being assholes about it.
In the year 2000, Bailey and his colleagues repeated the experiment, but with twins recruited from the Australian Twin Registry. This time, only 20 percent of the twins shared the same homosexual orientation, rather than the more convincing 52 percent.
Sigh, let's go Google. From his Wikipedia page, it looks like there is some controversy surrounding Bailey, though he is well-respected by researchers. Many of his interpretations of data are seen as negative towards transsexual women, and he has a tendency to use small sample size. I don't know if this guy is using good methodology or not. What I do know is that most scientists are, and that through the peer-review process, the ones who aren't get tossed by the wayside. What matters isn't one study, or one scientist. It's the scientific community.
The last and most publicized study was published by Dean Hamer, et al, at the National Institute of Health. Forty pairs of homosexual brothers were studied. It was found that some cases of homosexuality could be linked to a specific region on the human X chromosome inherited from the mother. This study was criticized and Hamer was actually under investigation for alleged fraud, but was eventually cleared of the charges. More importantly, no one has been able to replicate the study.
From SkepticTank, "in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation." Now why exactly is this a study that couldn't be replicated, or is that claim even true? If Hamer was cleared of the charges, why bring it up, other than in a (blatant) attempt to discredit the research so your audience doesn't need to think for themselves?
Let's get to the main point here, the one that really matters: Whether or not sexual orientation is solely genetic, genetic and environmental (either prenatal environment or living environment,) or solely environmental doesn't matter. The fact is, some percentage of humans desire love, intimacy, affection, and partnership with people of the same sex. Most of them report having little or no choice in their desires; they feel they were born gay. I was attracted to boys at a young age, and I remember admiring Joshua Funderburk while I sat on top of the monkey bars. I also remember admiring Lindsay Hall down the street. I'm bi, and as far as I know, I always have been.
I'll get through more of this tomorrow. It's loooooooooong.
I hate to be crass, but this is some vomit-worthy material. It is filled with debunked myths, misconstrued data, and lies. And, at its core, it is hateful and intolerant. So, it is with a heavy heart I turn to Susan Brinkmann's article for CatholicEducation.org (gag) "Homosexuality: The Untold Story - The phantom gene (part 1 of 6 for her.)
Professor Janis Price of DePauw University, Indiana, placed issues of a magazine on a table in the back of her classroom. One of her students was offended by an article that was critical of how homosexuality was being handled in public schools and complained to the administration. Price was accused of providing her students with intolerant material. She was suspended and her salary cut by 25 percent.
Let's see what we can dig up on this with a quick Google search (for example, when this happened.) Okay, so this was in the early 2000s. In 2002, Price filed a lawsuit claiming her freedoms of speech and freedom of religion were violated when the Methodist (private) university she worked part-time for told her she couldn't keep the evangelical magazine Teachers in Focus (brought to you by those fine homophobic, child beating Focus on the Family types) in the back of her classroom for students to read. Methodists are a liberal denomination of Christianity, and most Methodists would probably find Focus on the Family as detestable as I do. Oh, and while a judge smacked down the idea that Price's rights had been violated, a later jury awarded her $10,401 in 2003 for lost wages (you know, the same one's our author is about to get all indignant about.)
Albert Buonanno, a Christian employee of AT&T Broadband, was fired in February 2004 for refusing to go along with a mandatory company policy demanding acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.
Well you know what? Violating mandatory company policies rarely improves one's career. Let's fire up the old Google machine and see what we can find, shall we? Well, it looks like once again we've got a poor beleaguered Christian bigot who... gets paid! Alberto here made off with $146,000 for lost wages and "emotional damages." (Aw, did the poor little bigot not like how it felt?) From NoDNC.com (hardly a liberal website, to put it mildly - this place puts quotes around the phrase "hate crimes")
The judge found that although there was no direct religious discrimination against Mr. Buonanno, AT&T Broadband failed to show it could not have accommodated Mr. Buonanno's beliefs "without undue hardship" to the company he had been with for nearly two year.
Wow, so his refusal to sign a statement in the company handbook to "accept the diversity among us" got him paid even though he faced no religious discrimination! (I'm just pointing these details out because you know Susan won't.)
Rolf Szabo lost his job at Eastman Kodak after he refused to go along with the company's "diversity" program, which required he give support to homosexuals in the work place who wanted to come out.
Yeah, how dare Kodak try to make Szabo treat people like people? He should totally be allowed to devalue his coworkers and torment them when they try to live honestly. In 2002, Kodak sent about 1,000 employees an email regarding National Coming Out Day, giving suggestions on ways someone could be supportive of an out coworker or employee. (Way to go, Kodak!) Szabo fired back a reply-all email saying, "Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive." A Kodak division manager quickly shot back with
As you all know, our strategic thrust to build a Winning & Inclusive Culture drives us to behave in ways that value everyone regardless of differences. While I understand that we are all free to have our own personal beliefs, when we come to the Kodak workplace, our behaviors must align with the Kodak Values. I apologize for the e-mail sent to all of you from Rolf Szabo this morning. Rolf's comments are hurtful to our employees, friends, and family members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. This behavior is not aligned with the Kodak Values and, therefore, is not acceptable.
Szabo was fired and did not pursue a lawsuit (because seriously, what grounds would you use for a spouting off reply all?) Again, way to go Kodak. So far in the More Tolerant Than Susan category we've got Kodak, AT&T and Methodists. Add Motorola to that list now.
Motorola actively promotes a similar agenda through mandatory "homophobia" workshops and homosexual sex-ed courses. One employee told author David Limbaugh that "this push is causing a great deal of tension among employees and the 'quiet anger' of some who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle because of their religious beliefs."
I gotta say, even though the phone sucked royally, I don't regret having been a Motorola customer, now that I know this. (Maybe I should read Christian websites "black lists" more often, to find out which companies to support?) And let me just say this: Work is not about religion. If you need your workplace to be totally in line with your religious views, join the clergy. You have every right to hold your views, and to express them in church, online, and even on street corners. But your employer also has the right (and even the obligation, if ENDA goes through,) to say, "We won't tolerate bigotry here."
Aren't conservatives all about letting private industry do what it wants? (Hell, Rand Paul even thinks private businesses shouldn't be compelled to serve black customers, but he totally hates bigotry and racism. Honest.) A company cannot fire you because you are a Christian, but they can fire you if you choose to be a jerk at the office. You can attribute your assholery to your religion all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that private employers get to decide if they want assholes in the company, and what kind of cultural values they are going to promote.
Episodes such as these are happening by the hundreds across America, every day of the week.
Citation please?
According to medical, social science and especially legal experts, what is being called "diversity" is actually a dangerous new movement by a small group of activists to make the homosexual lifestyle appear as normal and healthy as the heterosexual lifestyle, even if that means deliberately hiding any information to the contrary.
Okay so we have a few claims here. One is that everybody knows diversity is bad (see all those experts? They know!) A second lie premise is that Only a "small group of activists" want acceptance for gays and lesbians. (I'll admit it is a smaller number of people who support full rights and acceptance for trans persons, however, most polls indicate the US population as a whole, and the military, are overwhelmingly in support of, for example, repealing DADT.) Her third claim is that people are intentionally hiding information (which she somehow knows) about the "dangers" of being born gay. Oh wait, silly me, she thinks people choose to be gay and hated!
"The media or major health organizations communicate none of the serious medical and psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality," said Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist from West Conshohocken, who has practiced child and adult psychiatry for more than 20 years.
Where the hell is West Conshohocken? Ah, it's a borough in Pennsylvania with a population of 1,446 according to the 2000 census. (See what we can do when we Google? It's better than prayer!) Okay, so Fitzgibbons isn't working at some of the most esteemed mental health institutions or universities in the US - he's a private practice guy in a small town (less than 2,000 people is a small town to me) and his medical education is 20 years out of date. Got it. Fitzgibbons is gonna be Susan's go-to guy for most of her "data" so I thought it was important to check out his credentials (as her "expert witness.")
Maybe if none of the media and mental health organizations are reporting on these things, it's because they don't exist or aren't relevant?
For instance, a 1997 Canadian study done in Vancouver shows the life span of gay men to be similar to what it was in 1871. The study estimates that one-half of all gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday.
A study in Vancouver - well that certainly narrows it down! Who conducted it? How large was the sample size? What data was examined to reach these conclusions? Is the study credible? We aren't given any of that information, or enough details to adequately Google. We're being given a study to trust, without being given good reason. Even if the results were true, and gay men do not live as long as straight men, how is this relevant? African-American women in the US have a four times higher maternal mortality rate. Does this mean we should urge black people to convert to whiteness? Of course not. For one thing, it would be impossible, just as it is impossible for a gay person to "convert" to heterosexuality. (For another, it's offensive as hell.)
Two recent studies published in the American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirm the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems. Forty percent of people with same-sex attraction were sexually abused as children. Relationship violence is as high as 44 percent among gay men and 55 percent among lesbian couples.
Again, we're just told that there are "two recent studies published" and not given sufficient information to know which studies (ya know, something like a citation!) Now let's examine Susan's points individually.
The rate of teen suicide is four times higher for gay, lesbian, bi, and trans gendered youth. That's a serious concern, but I have a feeling the solution isn't to make people feel worse about their orientation - it's to reduce bigotry. Gay teens aren't suicidal because they're gay; they're suicidal because of how they are treated for being gay (or by their own thoughts on religion and homosexuality.)
Lambda.org has information on domestic violence in same sex relationships, including the additional difficulties victims of abuse may face when attempting to leave a situation, such as isolation from other LGBT individuals, and homophobia from social workers and shelter operators. I don't know if Susan's numbers are true, or how they compare with heterosexuals and I don't care.
Even if there are certain risks associated with homosexuality (as causation or correlation), why does that mean we should be bigoted toward homosexuals? That's like saying, "Having cystic fibrosis significantly decreases lifespan! Warn your children about the dangers of having cystic fibrosis, and if they know anyone who has it, teach your children to despise that person for being open and honest about their CF!" How dare all those queers get abused as kids!
"This is the truth that no one will speak," said Fitzgibbons, "This is the truth that is not spoken in any of the diversity weeks they have in colleges or high schools. Students are made to think the homosexual lifestyle is exactly the same as the heterosexual lifestyle and all the major research coming out today shows that it's not the same. ? But they are specifically choosing to ignore this research because the issue is political correctness, not science."
Fitzgibbons is now claiming that "all" the major research says being gay is... what? Bad for your health? So is sickle cell anemia, but you don't try to cure people of that through guilt and shame and quack theories about hand-eye coordination now, do you? No, because you find sickle cell anemia morally acceptable, and this isn't about science or medicine. It's about religion. (I love how the writer included a question mark typo in there, like ORLY?)
Fitzgibbons recently served as an expert witnesses in a case involving an Ann Arbor Michigan high school student whose Christian viewpoint was deliberately excluded from the schools "Diversity Week" celebration. Part of the week's festivities involved a panel of six clerics from different denominations who were assembled for a discussion about "Homosexuality and Religion." No one on the panel represented the Judeo-Christian view of homosexual relations.
Now does that mean there were no Jews or Christians on the panel? No. It means there were no anti-gay Jews or Christians on the 6 person panel organized by the student group Gay/Straight Alliance. Miss Betty here first attempted to get a Roman Catholic priest on the panel, then the school offered her 2 minutes to read a prepared speech. The school edited (she claims censored) her speech to remove a statement which read, "I completely and whole-heartedly support racial diversity, but I can't accept religious and sexual ideas or actions that are wrong."
Here's a thing you see a lot - the equating of homosexuality with homosexual sex acts. The focus seems to be wrapped up in genitalia* and at times it's as if we (the media, this writer, straight people) forget that gay, lesbian, and trans gendered people want what we all want - love. Sex is just one part of that, for most of us, and to varying degrees. Loving a woman does not mean loving a vagina - it means loving a woman.
Betsy Hanson, an 18-year-old Roman Catholic student, requested that a representative of the Catholic Church be part of the panel. Her request was denied by school officials who claimed her religious views would convey a negative message and would "water-down" the positive religious message that they wanted to convey.
Now remember, it's the GSA who put together this panel, not the school themselves, so I'm not sure who exactly said "No" to the bigot priest idea. Regardless, while I can understand why liberal clergy members and students in the GSA might both wish to have such a panel, I think religion on school grounds is always extremely tricky business. It's not the school's place to promote any religious ideas over others. Being fully in support of LGBTQ students is wonderful; saying god is also supportive isn't.
Hanson and her mother decided to sue and Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen ruled in their favor. "Isn't this cultural hegemony, where you're only going to present one view to the exclusion of others?" the judge demanded of the school's attorneys. "Don't you think that smacks of government and religious totalitarianism? Isn't that how we got to book-burning in Nazi Germany back in the 1930s?"
Nice to see we got in a Godwin! And hot damn, what a mouth foamer Federal Judge Rosen sounds like.
Fitzgibbons believes schools and school psychologists should be held liable when they actively promote the homosexual lifestyle while withholding vital information about mental and physical risks.
Banning bullying of students is not "promoting" anything but tolerance and decent civil behavior. Should students also be informed of the mental and physical risks associated with being born a person of color? Are schools to be held financially responsible if they promote or tolerate black children, despite the fact that black children face higher risks of violence, joblessness, and poverty? No, but we should see what we can do to eliminate or reduce those risks - not strive to defend some arcane right to be a bigot.
"I've dealt with parents whose children were ushered into the gay lifestyle in college who are determined that if their child acquires AIDS, they plan to bring litigation against those universities. If a child was ushered into the lifestyle by the faculty at a school, and were never presented with the truth about the medical and psychological dangers associated with homosexuality, then they should be held liable."
There is no homosexual lifestyle, just homosexual people. Gay people aren't Martians, you know, and they aren't straight people who got "ushered into a lifestyle" either. They're GAY.
Although doctors are obligated to provide informed consent to their patients, educators are not, he said.
Teachers are not making your kids gay! There is no "consent" because homosexuality is not a treatment option you choose. It's genetic, and natural, and normal (although not as common as heterosexuality, like blue eyes aren't as common as brown ones.)
However, in schools where a school psychologist is involved in these groups, then Fitzgibbons said they have the requirement to provide informed consent about the dangers of the lifestyle.
Oh well, if Fitzgibbons says it, then we must take it at face value! I mean, after all, this is the .... guy? Susan is going with the Expert propaganda technique we learned in advertising studies in 6th grade, and she's not even doing it well. This is not a renowned, respected, highly-educated man, or at least, nothing from my Google search of him led me to believe those things, and neither did Susan. He's just one psychologist, spouting his conspiracy theories about how everybody else is keeping the dangerous truth about homosexuals out of the light because they all want to be so politically correct. He's nuts! And by the way, straight people get HIV, too. Everybody is at risk.
"If they don't, and a child experiences some of the medical illnesses that are so highly prevalent, particularly among men involved in same-sex relationships, that school psychologist is liable, the principal is liable and the school superintendent is liable. Just as when a doctor makes a mistake at a hospital, the hospital is also liable."
Um, Fitz is on the fritz. Schools aren't hospitals, and teachers aren't doctors. Also? The school isn't making anybody gay, just by saying that bullying of gay students will not be allowed. And that's what we're really talking about here - whether or not you have a right to be a bigot. That's why this article didn't start out by being concerned about the poor suicidal gay teenagers maybe getting AIDS. It started off with stories of "persecuted Christians" who were prohibited from spouting anti-gay bigotry, by (in all cases but one) privately owned businesses!
Having a faith panel organized by the GSA at a school diversity week was questionable, but the GSA is under no compulsion to offer an anti-gay viewpoint! Just as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes would never be required to make an anti-Christian statement, or provide accommodation for anti-Christian viewpoints. It's absurd to say that in order to protect your right to be a religious bigot, everyone else must lie about who they are, or give you a platform to call them abnormal and immoral. It's absurd and conceited.
Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, has been sending out letters to 2,500 schools across the country who are relying on the "safe-school" programs devised by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network warning them of potential legal liabilities for the tort of negligence "if it is proven that homosexual activist organizations were granted access to students under the school's responsibility and that students suffered physical or mental harm. Under the right circumstances, state authorities could also bring criminal proceedings," he writes, citing Ohio Revised Code 2907.04, 2919.22 and 2919.24.
Okay, Google, here we go! Citizens for Community Values "exists to promote Judeo-Christian moral values, and to reduce destructive behaviors contrary to those values." Well that's not at all creepy and horrifying. Not! CCV started in the 1980s as an anti-porn moral panic group. They were all "concerned" about how pictures of naked women were destroying the moral fiber of America. All their prayer and moral outrage doesn't seem to have done much good. Not only is porn still around, it's now free. No more black bag packaging for you! Just clear the browser history and you're free to find whatever kink or hink tickles you pink. Here's hoping they're just as spectacularly unsuccessful when it comes to harassing gay Americans as part of their "religious" beliefs.
Onto this - "Homosexual activists" being granted "access to students" who then supposedly "suffered physical or mental harm"... Am I the only one feeling the bad after-school-special vibe?
GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network "is the leading national education organization focused on ensuring safe schools for all students." Not quite the fevered dreams of "homosexual activists" Fitz was presenting now, is it? What kind of world would this be if we tried to make sure students were safe from physical harm?! Won't someone please think of the (gay) children?
Beginning here, The Catholic Standard & Times will publish a six-part series that will focus exclusively on the untold side of this issue. We will explore what is known to the medical, social, scientific and religious communities about homosexuality, giving our readers and their loved ones an opportunity to make an intelligent and fully informed choice about their lifestyle.
While you're at it, can you let me know about all those well known totally proven but secretly withheld natural cures THEY don't want me to know about?
She's got a six part series? I've got a six part series. I'll also be continuing with Vision Forum. I'm not well enough to really have my creative juices flowing, but being sick in bed and sarcastic suits me just fine for the moment.
Be well, everyone.
* How's that for a mental image?
**About all the Google love in today's post: First, I'll always be grateful that I was able to use such a simple search engine tool to find out the truth about my childhood. I will never forget that night. Second, I'm trying to show just how simple it is to do a very minimal level of research, and how our atuhor failed to inlcude information negative of her view, while simultaneously accusing non-bigots of somehow stifling her free speech if they did the same.
A reader has asked me to take a look at Vision Forum, headed by Doug Philips. I have, and I think that place warrants a full series. This organization isn't just an apologetics ministry, like CARM, or creationist money making venture, like Answers in Genesis. Vision Forum is about total transformation of American family life and civil liberties, to more closely resemble their interpretation of the Bible. I'm not going to focus so much on the historicity of Jesus, the accuracy of Biblical accounts, the canonization of Scripture, or theological disputes. Since Vision Forum is focused on patriarchy and the family (you know, women and kids, who aren't equal people in their own right,) I'll be focusing on the same issues. I'll explain why I think the Vision Forum prescribed lifestyle is detrimental to women, children, and yes, even men.
Let's just take a look at the Vision Forum Mission Statement from their website at VisionForumMinistries.org. (Note: All materials used are copyrighted, but are reproduced on AngietheAntiTheist.blogspot.com in accordance with Fair Use laws.)
Our Mission - Preserving Our Covenant with God through Biblical Patriarchy and Multi-Generational Faithfulness
Keeping up our end of the bargain with the Man in the Sky by keeping women down and rejecting evolution. Got it.
1. Turning the hearts of fathers to their families.
Well that sounds nice, right? Dads liking their kids seems like a really good thing on its face, but let's see how Doug Philips thinks dads should treat their kids before we pass judgment.
2. Proclaiming the Nobility and Glory of Motherhood
Well motherhood and fatherhood are both extremely important. Not only are children necessary for the survival of the species (thus giving all of us an investment in how children are raised and cared for) but humans are social creatures, and we can expect that we will spend most of our lives interacting with other people who have also been raised by parents. So yes, I think it can be beneficial to recognize the important roles caretakers, teachers, and parents all play in the shaping of children. But that does not mean we should present motherhood as the highest or only aspiration a woman should have in life. (I'll get to why I suspect this of Vision Forum in a moment.)
3. Reviving the Doctrine of “Women and Children First”
Well, as a woman and a mother, I can certainly see the appeal to having my needs met first, or my survival valued. Who among us wouldn't like to live to see tomorrow? But I find "doctrine" to be an odd word choice, and so I will keep one slanted eye on it for a moment while I ponder its meaning in this context.
4. Embracing the Blessing of Children and the Sanctity of Human Life
Ah, now you've lost me. Not because I disagree that children can be a blessing. My son is amazing. He has the most infectious laugh you've ever heard and he actively requests to be tickled. Do you have any idea how great that combination is? But let's be honest for a moment (or always, whichever.)
Raising a kid is a huge undertaking, and it's not for everyone, and even for the people who love it, it's not always the right time. My son is a handful. He's bright and his curiosity level far exceeds his caution. He takes a lot of supervision and a lot of patience. If he gets those things, we're great, but if he doesn't... Life gets challenging. I only want one kid, and I've already got him. And let me make clear, Vision Forum not only opposes abortion; they oppose contraception.
This isn't "accept however many pregnancies you have, despite birth control" version of "everything happens for a reason" that I heard from many people when I had my own abortion. This is "acitvely seek to have as many children as possible." It's very, very different, especially when it's coupled by those prior aspects of the mission statement. Also, here Doug Philips mentions the "sanctity" of life. By this he means everything from opposing euthanasia to giving embryos greater rights and privileges than women.
5. Building a Culture of Virtuous Boyhood and Girlhood
So, no dating, no premarital sex, no sex education, no girls playing sports, no boys playing with dolls, and no getting a job at the local fast food place during high school, right?
6. Reinforcing Godly Masculinity and Femininity
Run away, run away, run away! Those gender roles stuck men with all of the decision making responsibility and burden, and women with none. They deprive people of healthy partnerships, and force them into unbalanced and often abusive relationships. There's a reason why developed nations treat women more fairly, and why women are accorded the right to vote, to own property, to win custody, and to work. Because we're good enough.
7. Understanding Family Culture as Religion Externalized
So, how you treat your family is how you worship your god? Or maybe you mean that children are there to carry on the meme of your faith to future generations of god-fearing mass-produced children?
8. Teaching History as the Providence of God
Wait, all of it? Even slavery and the Holocaust and the Iraq War?
9. Developing Biblical Worldview Through Presuppositional Thinking
Okay, I almost had a cream soda through the nose situation here. "Presuppositional thinking" is fallacious thinking. It literally means, "Taking this thing as true first, and using this assumption as the basis of my worldview." It's dumb and it shows how little evidence the Bible has going for it, if one must first presume it is true before finding it believable.
10. Training Character by Hebrew Discipleship and Home Education
Well, I don't know what he means by Hebrew discipleship, so I'll just note it and move on for now. Notice though that he lists home education as being for "training character" (as opposed to providing, you know, an education.) Helping children to develop a social character is important, but you can do it without home schooling. Most parents do, in fact.
11. Communicating the Applicability of the Law of God
In other words, applying Biblical law to today's society. Um, let's not. I really don't like the idea that I have to marry a man if he rapes me, or else get stoned to death. Really, there's nothing about Biblical law I like better than the laws we have today in the United States.
12. Addressing the Ethical Issues of the 21st Century
By this he means issues like abortion (against it) euthanasia (against it) stem cell research (against it) family planning (against it) and the Pill (against it). Yeah, that's a great way of dealing with issues from the 21st century: Just be opposed to all of them! (Why am I guessing he belongs to the party of No?)
13. Preparing Men to Stand in the Gates
Huh? No, seriously. What does this mean? There must be an awful lot of back story I'm missing out on here. Yay for in-group lingo?
14. Encouraging Unity Between Church and Home
With the Church, of course, in the "headship" position over the Home, much as the man is in "headship" over the woman.
So ladies, would you like to sign on to an untold (but probably large) number of pregnancies and births, to raising lots and lots of children without help from your husband, while serving his wishes and following all his commands, and never getting to make any decisions, but just doing whatever the church says your husband says you should do? Me neither!
[Edit: For anyone interested in more on the Vision Forum life from someone who actually lived it, I highly recommend the blog and community at NoLongerQuivering.com.]
For friends and readers: I have altitude sickness. I've spent my life at sea level, and now I'm in the mile high city. Kid doesn't seem to be having too many troubles, fortunately. He's got a stuffy nose but that's about all. I, on the other hand, feel like my very bones are tired, and getting out of bed takes a lot of energy. On the plus side, I'm much better off emotionally here in Denver, so what's a little altitude sickness?
Viking is over a lot, and he plays video games for the Kid (who loves to watch but keeps saying, "My turn? My turn?" till he gets the controller, and then just makes the guy run around in circles.) Once I'm feeling better, I'll return to making YouTube videos (though probably not at quite the same rate, since Kid is out of school till he starts Kindergarten in the fall.) [Edit: I made one today.] With all that said, let's move on to an apologetic. (Once I'm feeling better, and once the Kid is in school, I'll go back to writing childhood trauma stories.)
Separation of Christianity and State by Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis
Almost all Americans have heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” It has been used as something of a club to “beat down” and eliminate Christianity from public places, including symbols (like crosses), disallow Bible reading and prayer in public schools, and stop the teaching of creation in science classes.
When dealing with Ken Ham, it's important to remember that he won't let one lie per sentence suffice. Separation of church and state is beneficial both to the state and to the church. It has in no way been used as a club to "beat down" Christianity. Its purpose is to stop Christianity (or whatever other religion like Islam becomes dominant) from beating down the rest of us and our free and civil society. The church doesn't step in and tell government what to do, and the government doesn't step in and tell church what to do. It's a win-win situation, but not to Ken Ham.
Christianity has hardly been "eliminated" from public spaces. Tim Tebow's running around the football field with John 3:16 in his eye black. There are street preachers in every college town in the country, railing against the sins of getting an education and having a good time. There are Christian prayer meetings in the Pentagon (something which would make our founding fathers turn in their graves, if their bodies were still animate.)
Bible reading and prayer in public schools have not (and never will be) disallowed. State mandated prayers that everyone in school must say, directed to the Christian god and violating the freedom of religion for every child in the school, are no longer allowed. But individual students and groups of students can pray - at lunch, before an athletic event, or at the flagpole. I was in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes when I attended public school, and we met on school grounds during school hours on club days.
Crosses and other religious displays are permitted on any private property, just not on government property, because that's space we all share (and we don't all share your religion.) And creation isn't taught in science class because it isn't science. The fact that you consider this an element of a Christian "beat down" betrays the whole "Intelligent Design isn't *religious!*" outrage your own side tries so desperately to drum up. You cannot claim it is science, supported on its own merits, and simultaneously claim that it is religious persecution to not allow you to lie to children in government funded schools.
Now, where does the phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It is not a part of the original U.S. Constitution of 1787, as most people falsely believe, or in any of its amendments. In reality, the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state came from a private letter from President Thomas Jefferson, and it has sadly been misused to slowly, but surely, eliminate Christianity from the public sector—and replace it with an anti-God religion.
The phrase "separation of church and state" did indeed appear in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. James Madison also wrote, "Strongly guarded... is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." (Since these guys basically wrote the thing, I think it's safe to believe them on what their intentions were.) Here's more from Americans United for a Separation of Church and State:
At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.
Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."
Now that we've cleared up the history and its relevance, we need to address Ken Ham's fear-mongering deceit. There is no anti-God religion powerfully taking over the nation. This is not Soviet Russia and secular humanists are not the "militant atheists" you imagine - not even as anti-theist humanists. Humanism: it's a good thing.
The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was intended to protect the church from the (federal) government, not the government from the church. Therefore, no “national” church or religion is allowed to be established by the federal government.
Here we're talking about intention. Intention is not the same as interpretation, and if we want to know what the authors of the Constitution thought, we have only to look at their public and private statements on the matter about their intentions. (Yes, people sometimes lie about intentions, but it's extremely doubtful the founding fathers would have lied about their intentions for the Constitution.) Ken here has no evidence of the founders intentions - just assertions. So allow me to provide the relevant data points.
Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. - President John Adams "A Defense of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)
The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; - James Madison; Letter to Edward Everett, March 18, 1823
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
There are many more, with a good sampling here. What was that again Ken?
I will highlight key words of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .
You can see that the “separation of church and state” phrase is nowhere in the Amendment (or the rest of the Constitution).
God is also nowhere in the Constitution. Neither are Jesus or Christianity. It's a secular document, composed by liberal Enlightenmnet era Christians and Deists (and possibly a few atheists.) And as for the words themselves not appearing in the Constitution, I turn once again to the Americans United for a Separation of Church and State.
As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."
And now let's see Ken's version...
The 1802 letter from Jefferson was sent to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in response to the group’s letter to him. Jefferson was trying to assure the Baptists that the federal government would never be permitted to interfere with the church. In fact, in his letter, Jefferson states:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
And what about this aren't you getting, Ken? Jefferson was saying that you can't stop gay marriage because your Bible calls it an abomination - that the government should only legislate on actions which are deleterious, and not on beliefs which are held. He's talking about the kind of government I want.
Today, secular scholars have lifted the Danbury letter out of its entire historical context and have turned the so-called “wall” metaphor completely on its head. “Separation of church and state” is now used to protect the government from the influence of the church—establishing a policy of freedom “from” religion, which in reality has become “separation of Christianity and state.” This would have been an entirely foreign and unintended concept to the Founding Fathers.
No, that would not have been foreign or unintended. To wit,
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. - Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
Yeah, this isn't a Christian nation, and our laws aren't based on the Bible or on Christianity (which might be why they make no reference to either!) Let's see what Thomas Jefferson, coiner of the phrase, had to say about separation of church and state in a speech he gave to Virginia Baptists in 1808.
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
I think I've demonstrated good evidence for my case - that the founders intended for this to be a nation of no government religion, separation of church and state, and free exercise of religion for those who choose it. Let's see what Ham-bone has to support his case.
This misrepresentation of the Constitution was witnessed once again as I attended a debate in March, in which Rev. Barry Lynn, a liberal minister, lawyer, and the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, spoke. Not only did he argue for separation, but claimed that government “neutrality” towards Christianity was his group’s aim. Sadly, most Americans (Christians included) have also been duped into believing that the so-called “separation of church and state” requires eliminating the Christian God and creating a neutral situation. But there is no such position as neutrality. Indeed, one is either for Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30)!
Even the other Christians are against me! I'm in the minority, so I must be right! Ahem. We've amped up the pressure here now, haven't we? Suddenly Reverend Barry Lynn is against Him? Now Ken Ham has determined that the only way to be for Jesus is to be for a government run by churches (and you know clergy, like him.) Never mind, for the moment, what the Constitution has to say about such things. I don't remember JESUS ever saying anything about running the government! Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, pretty unconcerned with earthly things. He was all "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "sell all that you have, give the money to the poor." That's not the same as "elect Sarah Palin" and "keep people ignorant of science, fight life saving medical advancements, and deny women the right to bodily autonomy." It certainly isn't, "Go shoot up the brown people for their oil."
The religion of naturalism (atheism) has been imposed on the public education system, and on the culture as a whole. For instance, science textbooks in the public schools now typically define science as naturalism (atheism):
Science requires repeatable observations and testable hypotheses. These standards restrict science to a search for natural causes for natural phenomena . . . . Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science.
This is the "non overlapping magisteria" argument, which Richard Dawkins discusses at length in "The God Delusion" (which I am just now finally reading. Thanks again to Lee from St. Louis for the atheist library!) I think what it is saying, very politely, is that the supernatural is not observable, repeatable, or testable because there is no evidence any of it actually exists. And of course, the way you would verify if something supernatural did exist would be through science. It's a very good way of determining whether or not a claim is true, and religion just folds.
Getting back to Ken's original lies: Atheism is not a religion. I did a whole video on it. Atheism is not naturalism, at least not in any religious worship sense. (Although I do like nature quite a lot, I don't worship anything.) He's trying to say that a competing religion is being imposed on our youth, so that he can cry unfair that he isn't being allowed to do the same. He's not looking out for children - he's jealous because he's being deprived of valuable brain washing opportunities. But here's the thing, not only is atheism not a religion, it isn't a philosophy either. Atheists don't universally agree on anything that I'm aware of. There are anti-choice atheists, conservative atheists, atheists in fox holes, pole dancing atheists, anti-porn crusader atheists... We come in all flavors. We have no unifying dogma we are trying to impose on anyone, even if some of us would really, really like it if you would just put down the holy book and take a couple of deep breaths.
In keeping with this pronouncement, these books teach molecules-to-man evolution, based only on unproven natural processes, as fact! In other words, they have eliminated the supernatural and replaced it with naturalism. In reality, they have eliminated the Christian worldview and replaced it with a secular, atheistic one!
Dude, calm down. You made so many false equations in that mini rant, I'm a bit concerned about the state of your heart. Chill. There is nothing nefarious about the teaching of science in science class (nor history in history class, despite what the Texas State Board of Education may claim.) The theory of evolution - what Ken here is really concerned with - is true. That's why it gets taught in science class and goddidit doesn't. It's not religious persecution, and it's not government sponsored atheist religion. It's just a matter of which one is science and which one is bullshit.
Sadly, because many Christians have falsely believed that there can be a neutral position, and have also been duped regarding the so-called “separation of church and state,” they are not prepared to boldly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God as they confront issues like abortion, “gay” marriage, racism, etc. By shrinking back, believers have allowed the secularists to impose their anti-God atheistic religion on the public schools—and the culture as a whole.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Did he just say racism? He wants to stand on the Word of God? (I guess he means the Bible, but I've already explained why I don't think Christians should call it that.) The Bible says you can kill and enslave anyone who's not a fellow Jew! The Bible is immoral and outdated and false! And you want to use this book to control my uterus, tell my friends they can't be a family, and be bigoted and racist? Well, fuck you!
Answers in Genesis has launched its “I am Not Ashamed” campaign to challenge Christians to publicly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God. Only then, from the basis of the Bible’s absolute authority, will Christians be able to effectively combat the immorality that plagues our nation.
Wow. Imagine how big of a prick you can be, if you think you have absolute authority in your hand? Case in point: Ken Ham.
URGENT: If you do nothing else today, sign and share this petition on HR 3200: Prayer is Not Medical Care. Protect children and elderly from federally funded medical neglect.
Sign this petition asking Senators to move forward with the House-passed HR 911 bill to end Institutionalized Child Abuse in residential youth facilities, wilderness "experiences", and "boot camps".
Today I'll be continuing our multi-part ongoing series responding to Susan and her ebook "Homosexuality:The Untold Story" on CatholicEducation.org. The first three entries can be found here, here, and here, chronologically. We left off the other day with Susan's list of "known causes" for homosexuality. So far we'd dealt with Weak Masculine/Feminine Identity and Distrust of Men/Women. Today we get into full-scale homophobia.
