Homophobia: The Untold Story pt. 10

Finally, at long long last we can finish this accursed book of bigotry! Today's post will be the completion of my longest series to-date (and for awhile. I'll be looking at short stuff next, I promise.)

Susan Brinkmann told us at the outset that open homosexuality was threatening the Christian (Catholic) way of life. She intimated there was a conspiracy amongst doctors, therapists, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and shadowy, nefarious "gay activists" to hide the TRUTH about homosexuality - that it is a deviant lifestyle of anal sex with strangers and AIDS and butt cancer. And wanting to adopt children because you're unfit and selfish and only care about yourself, unlike all those straight couples who spend thousands of dollars on in vitro fertilization because they absolutely have to have a kid with their own DNA and couldn't possibly use that money to support children who already are alive and starving to death in dusty countries. See, they can't be selfish because they're not gay. It's obvious!

We learned that the government is secretly pushing through two radically new kinds of families, which will of course bring about the destruction of American life and three separate "classes" of children. And they're doing it even though they know it will do these things (we aren't given their reasons, of course. That's top secret.)

Susan let us know that since two doctors said some things she and NARTH can quote mine, that proves definitively that there is absolutely no genetic cause to homosexuality. Actually, since this one guy Fitzgibbons told her so, she knows that the real reason people act gay is because they aren't following their god-given patriarchal penis-and-vagina roles. Oh, and of course they're all hurt and angry and their parents did a terrible job of raising them. Not as bad as she seems to think gay people would do though. I mean, after all, she found a priest who is neither a husband nor a father to explain why gay people should not get married or have children, because, after all, they are completely selfish people. I mean obviously, that's why they like someone with the same gonads!

Did I miss anything? Oh yes. Being gay will kill you and lesbians don't really exist. Gay people only want one-night stands and you really should just trust her on this and ignore all the gay couples fighting for their right to get married. Finally, Susan had to fill us in on the big "untold secret" about homosexuality - Church teachings. I mean, after all, they got their own section so obviously, Susan thinks these are secret and that we haven't all heard every hateful and bigoted thing ever preached from St. Peter's Square. Yesterday we looked at God's requirement for love - that it be "free, total, faithful, and fruitful."

Okay, time for the hate.

Union with God
But the meaning behind Church teaching on human sexuality goes deeper still.

"Experience attests that even in the most wonderful human relationship, that 'ache' of solitude isn't entirely satisfied," West writes. "We still yearn for 'something more.' If sex really was our ultimate fulfillment, then marriage would be nirvana.' . . . The marital embrace, as beautiful as it is, is only a foreshadowing of what's to come — only a 'sacrament' (sign) of something far greater . . ."

Union with God.

Look, the fact that some of us moan or bellow "oh god" mid-coitous doesn't mean sex is in some way "holy." Oh and as far as marriage being "nirvana" (interestingly Buddhist choice of words) married sex is comically and notoriously not as wild and passionate as single sex, overall.

Who ever said that sex "really was our ultimate fulfillment" and what does this have to do with your vain and desperate attempts to force homosexual people into heterosexual boxes? People aren't gay because they're sex addicts. They aren't gay because they don't know anything about love or fulfillment or connection with another person. Hell, plenty of gay people believe in gods, so it isn't even that they're "worldly." They're just gay. Despite Susan's best efforts to lie and distort the facts, I still don't believe homosexuality is a social ill or any of my fucking business. And when I say it's not my business, I don't mean "so keep it in a closet of shame." I mean, be free to be who you are as long as who you are hurts no one (which is why I encourage open homosexuality instead of open bigotry.)

This is what G. K. Chesterton meant when he wrote, "Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God." Our desire for union with an "other" will never be ultimately satisfied until we are united with our Creator. "God created sexual desires as the power to love as He loves," West writes. "And this is how the first couple experienced it."

That may have been what Chesterton meant, but I'm pretty sure at least some men knocking on the doors of brothels are looking for a quick lay with a piece of strange.

Does the first couple mean Adam and Eve? Because, again Catholics, I thought you accepted evolution. How on earth can you say they are a myth and still expect me to treat them like historical figures simultaneously? At least creationists are consistent.

But remember, original sin robbed us of this ability to love as God loves. This is why we need a Redeemer. Jesus didn't die and rise again just to give us a kind of coping mechanism for sin. As the catechism states, "Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins." (CCC2336) He came to give us what we lost. That's why the Church claims that our longing for union can only be satisfied in Christ.

Okay, so God made us with this desperate need for love, but he also made us with original sin, so we're incapable of giving each other the kind of love we supposedly need. And you want to give Jesus credit for "giving us what we lost" when his Daddy was the one who rigged the game to begin with? Gee, that's swell. But none of this has anything to do with the lives of gay men and lesbians. Not even a little bit. It's just what you guys have decided god says, without, you know, actually proving he's real or anything. Kind of silly, really.

The good news is that through genuine conversion of heart to the message of life found in Jesus Christ, we can all be liberated from what John Paul II calls the "domination of lust." His grace can accomplish all that we cannot.

Gee, through the power of Jesus I can pretend I'll wait till I get married, and instead just wait an extra 18 months and then not use a condom? I mean, that's what happens to teenagers who take purity pledges at least. Jesus doesn't really seem to help them with their "domination of lust" and he certainly doesn't help pedophiles in the Catholic clergy. So why demand of gay men and women what you would never demand of heterosexuals - abstinence for life, with no calling, and no permission even if they do feel called to serve in the church? Because you are bigoted. Yes, Susan, it really is that simple. There is no vast secretive gay conspiracy and the gay agenda is just to be treated as well as straight people. Your hatred holds no place in that agenda. Your hatred is archaic and unwelcome and it is losing traction.

John Paul II said, "If we live according to the truth of our sexuality we fulfill the very meaning of life." God's plan for human sexuality is the answer. With it we can destroy the culture of death and bring a glorious new springtime to the face of the earth.

The truth of sexuality for homosexuals is that they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex (you know, they're gay.) So, if they live according to that truth, maybe they will fulfill their own lives, and damn your meanings all to that hell your so fond of telling me I'm headed to.

Never trust the Vatican on a culture of death when they're the ones keeping AIDS strong in sub-Saharan Africa. When they say they want a culture of life, they want a culture of no prophylactics, no birth control, and no abortion. No thank you!

We will have a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell signed into law (if not yet enacted) this year. We will continue to see more straight Americans stand up for the rights of their queer neighbors. We will grow as a society and accept these civil rights and we will be better for out. Our children and grandchildren will be astonished at the hatred we see today, like we are astonished at the treatment of African-Americans prior to and during the fight for their civil rights.

The best I can say is that Susan and her ilk are among the dinosaurs of thought, and their breed will grow endangered and hopefully one day extinct. Open racism like that displayed by members of the KKK is no longer socially acceptable, and I hope that one day very very soon open homophobia like the Catholic Church's is treated with just as much horror and disgust.

And, as I'd surely be remiss if I didn't include this

Contact Susan Brinkmann at fiat723@aol.com or (215) 965-4615

Peace to all and to all gay rights!

Read more!

Homophobia: The Untold Story pt. 8

Will the homophobia never cease? At least we're getting towards the end. Quick rundown of the 7 previous posts...

1. Asking Christians to not be bigots in the workplace is discrimination against their right to discriminate (seriously.)
2. No one is born gay, because Fitzgibbons says so.
3. You're gay because you throw like a girl.
4. You're gay because you're a raging narcissist.
5. Gayness kills.
6. You're not really gay, just hurt and angry.
7. Your parents made you gay.

Can there be anything more staggeringly stupid and hurtful left for Susan to say? It turns out, there can.

According to Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, there is no more important reason to prohibit same-sex marriage than the effects it would have on children. And he doesn't say this for sentimental reasons. He says it because it's sound science.

Ugh. Yes, it's all about the children, isn't it? I mean, you've so criticized and maligned the parenting of straight couples - you know, the ones who produced all those broken queer kids - that now, you must tell us why gay parenting would be even worse. (Though from the way she's been writing this "horror story" you'd think there could be nothing worse than producing a homosexual child.)

And who is this Satinover? That name seems familiar. Oh yes, I Googled him for our second post in the series, for making unsubstantiated claims. To refresh your memories, this is the MD who has written books on homosexuality, quantum physics, and the "Bible code." In other words, I'm not sure this man's idea of "sound science" matches up with, well, reality.

"In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental ... at every phase of the life cycle ... social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. ... The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers."

Codswollap. If this is your reason for opposing same-sex marriage, then you should also be 100% opposed to divorce. You should be against single-mothers like me ever having sole custody of our children, because after all, "children need both mothers and fathers." I suppose it is easier to claim there are mountains of evidence than to show it. Perhaps what the evidence shows is that children do better in situations with TWO GOOD parents, regardless of gender. I don't think having my alcoholic father around while I was growing up would have improved the things that were wrong with my family. I know having my alcoholic and abusive ex-husband around would not better for my son than the struggles we do have. At least we have them free of abuse.

(To view some of this evidence, go to the Family Research Web site and read the report entitled "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples." The report lists 56 such studies, including research done by the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. Department of Justice, University of Chicago and peer-reviewed publications that appeared in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal of Social Services Research, and the American Sociological Review.)

I did go ahead and take a glance at the sources cited on FRC's page, but let me just tell you quickly about my own experience with the Family Research Council: They talked smack about me to the press (wow, I feel so Sarah Palin!) Back in February, FRC director Jeanne Monahan wrote a blog post about me on the FRC blog and said, "Supporting her decision to abort her baby unintentionally does a grave injustice to Angie, her unborn child, her son, and even her boyfriend. Abortion kills one person and wounds at least one additional person." So clearly, facts are not of the highest order at FRC, as my abortion hurt no one. (Seriously - how is it doing a great injustice to my son to give him the life he had *before* I got accidentally pregnant? Who knew keeping things the same was so controversial.)

Exposure to both sexes is vitally important to the developmental needs of children because it helps them to form their sexual identity, but there are many more areas where children are affected by the parenting of a mother and father. Researcher Henry Biller, who has written several books on the subject, explains some of the key areas:

"Even if the father and mother behave in generally similar ways, they provide contrasting images for the infant ... Mothers and fathers have different verbal styles when communicating ... Involved fathers are more likely to stimulate the infant to explore and investigate new objects whereas mothers tend to engage their infants in relatively pre-structured and predictable activities ... The father and mother offer the child two different kinds of persons to learn about as well as providing separate sources of love and support. ..."

Whoa boy. Moms are too protective (because all women and all mothers are exactly the same) and dads are tough guys (because all men and all fathers are exactly the same.) I was a tomboy as a kid, and I try to be a "dad" to my son - I rough house with him and encourage him to try new things, and encourage him to poke things with sticks (just not bears.) Yesterday we worked with tools together, and he got to use the screwdriver with my assistance. yes, I'm protective and emotional and nurturing, but I'm also encouraging and one of the things I encourage is independence. Growing up with a strong, independent mother will not make my son into a pansy or a homosexual. Either he's gay or he's straight or he's bi, and frankly I don't know which of those it is yet, but it doesn't matter. Women can teach their sons to play ball and dads can braid their daughters' hair. Sex organs do not equal personality.

As for the "father and mother" providing two separate sources of love and support, how few people do you think are involved in a same-sex marriage? (Hint: More than one, less than three.) Gay couples involve two people, who happen to share genitalia. Those commonality in sex does not prohibit gay couples from providing their children with two separate sources of love and affection. Duh. Basic math people - I really shouldn't have to spell this out so clearly, but I know John McCain was thrown by this during the 08 elections.

According to science, there are hundreds of nuances about men and women that even newborn infants can readily distinguish and that make a difference in the way the child develops.

"According to science?" Well, that narrows things down a bit. Science also says there are nuances between heterosexual and homosexual men and women, but Susan doesn't think those are worth mentioning. No, no, just the differences between men and women. (Conform to your gender roles!)

But aside from these developmental and psychological effects, there are also significant peripheral issues that come with same-sex parents that place additional risks upon children. For instance, the ramifications of the health risks outlined in Part 3 of this series and concerns about the stability of the relationship.

"Additional risks" - wait, what were the risks in the first place? All you've said is that men aren't women, and kids do better in two parent homes (sometimes, a qualifier Susan failed to include.) If we're going to say sick people can't have children, well then I guess a lot of heterosexual parents are about to have their children removed. I mean, if illness or terminal illness is reason enough to preemptively keep children from being with their parents who love them, then I guess we should have hospice just automatically report all their patients' minor children. And if stability of relatioship is a problem, then we absolutely need to remove all children from single-parent homes, or homes with divorced or separated parents. Their relationship simply isn't stable enough for the children!

If you're going to use these as arguments against gay marriage, please be assured, I will show you how they are also arguments against straight marriage.

The breakdown of marriage in America has already had devastating effects on society, especially on children, without delivering yet another blow to this most fundamental structure of society by eliminating it entirely. If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships.

Heterosexual marriage is not under "attack." Gay and lesbian people who want to get married aren't doing so as some kind of stealth plan to eliminate marriage entirely. And obviously, heterosexual marriage hasn't been doing squat to be a "stabilizing influence" in the lives of children, when most of us grow up in so-called "broken homes." (I consider my home to be fixed now that I got rid of the abuser.) If anything, heterosexual marriage has shown us that vows aren't what keep a family together. (Love is.)

This is why Satinover stresses that society's compelling interest is to ensure not only the mere propagation of the species but humankind's well-being too, which is the whole purpose of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is a societal structure and without it, society crumbles.

Wait, what the heck does "propagation of the species" have to do with marriage? I've gotten pregnant outside of marriage, and you know Virgin Mary and I aren't the only women who ever have. Marriage is not necessary for breeding, you twat. And of course, there are sexless marriages, or sex-filled marriages of couples using birth control, or who suffer from (or greatly appreciate) infertility.

Now are Susan and Satinover ever going to provide justification for these claims? I mean really - society crumbles without heterosexual marriage? Then it seems like banning gay marriage is a big waste of time. You should be far more concerned with banning heterosexual divorce. Out homosexuals will never enter heterosexual marriage, so don't waste your time on them. Focus on heterosexuals - they're the ones ripping apart the fabric of society by getting divorced, right?

And yet this is precisely what the courts are about to do. "And they're going to do it without any impact studies," Satinover said.

Well, it's not like you've put forth any impact studies either!

The same courts that demand multi-million dollar environmental studies before allowing someone to so much as dig a hole in the ground "are going to massively reshape the social landscape" without a single study being conducted. And it will do so in spite of mountains of empirical evidence showing the negative effects on society that occur when the family structure breaks down.

I know this was written before the massive BP oil spill choking our oceans (my Gulf of Mexico - home of the beaches where I spent my childhood building sandcastles and burying my siblings, and where I taught my son how to swim.) The government hasn't done enough to ensure environmental safety when someone "digs a hole in the ground" and that's why we see heartbreaking images like this.
What was your point again, Susan? Something about the Big Bad Oversighty Government not doing enough to ruin the lives of gay Americans, and being Big Old Meanies to big oil? Oh that's right, you were trying to equate the coming together or two people in love and commitment with the tearing apart of society. Yeah..... I don't get it. Gay people getting married aren't going to stop straight people from getting married. Lesbian married couples don't make heterosexual couples get divorces. I seriously don't understand how hetero-bigots think gay marriage will effect them.

The second point against homosexual marriage is that it doesn't just create a second societal structure, it actually "smuggles into existence ... two radically different social structures," Satinover explained.

You mean one resistant to patriarchy? I've long supposed the reason conservative theists are so obsessed with homosexuality is that it flies in the face of gender roles. Who wears the pants? Who's on bottom? I know many gay and lesbian friends who have been asked, point blank, by relative strangers, "How do you have sex?" If both parties are the same sex, then sex-based roles aren't so easy to enforce.

Reading this has only provided more evidence that homosexuality is seen as the threat, and patriarchy is promised as the answer.

There are same-sex marriages between two women and between two men. "They have utterly different demographics, life spans, health and behavioral characteristics, and sexual behaviors. ... They are as different from one another as men are from women. If you were to create gay marriage, you end up with three totally different marital entities." We would have heterosexual marriage, female gay marriage and male gay marriage. This new set of marital structures will, in turn, produce three new classes of children.

"Classes" of children? What the hell is wrong with you, Satinover? And you know what, straight people aren't so great. I mean, Susan spent all of "Prevention and Treatment: Part 4 of 6" telling us how shitty heterosexual parents are, for producing all those gay kids by being absent and abusive and too loving and overbearing and weak and all those other contradictory things they're supposed to have done to "cause" their child's homosexuality.

I don't care if a child has straight parents, gay parents, bi parents, one parent, divorced parents, married parents, cohabitating parents, separated parents, or lives with a grandparent. Why on earth would you suggest judging children by their parents IS true and SHOULD be? Classes of children. Wow, that's just such an incredible amount of douche-baggery for one sentence.

And of course, there are already children with gay parents and lesbian parents. Marriage does not equal breeding and children are not necessarily the product of a marriage. Again, duh. I shouldn't have to point out something so patently obvious. Why, Satinover, why do you choose to be so obstinate and hateful? If we are concerned about the stability and health in the homes of children with gay parents, as Susan is pretending to be, then we should support gay marriage, because it will provide certainly legal assurances toward stability, and because healthcare benefits can no longer be denied to same-sex partners if they are spouses, meaning gay parents have the opportunity to love longer, healthier lives. If our concern is for the children, we should be doing everything possible to help their families, not condemn them and act as though these children really are in some way second-class citizens. Barf.

"This third point ties the first two together," Satinover said. "We know that motherlessness has a different impact on children than fatherlessness does. Therefore, we have every reason to expect that children raised in female unions will turn out to have a different set of problems than those raised in motherless unions. These children will be different from children raised in heterosexual unions. So we will create three different classes of children."

This entire faulty argument rests on the premise that "children raised in heterosexual unions" have a homogeneous experience. That's absurd. Some children are raised in wealth, while others in poverty. Some grow up with love and support, others with physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. Some children will have good health, while others will not (and this concerns you, you should support single-payer universal healthcare.) Some kids are only children ad others come from huge broods of Quiverfull arrows. There is no universal child-of-heterosexual-parents experience or "class" and Satinover knows it. This is bullshit, plain and simple, and it is dishonest as hell. Because Jeffrey Satinover knows that there are gay parents in the world. These children already exist - they are not hypothetical. We ca decry their existence like Jeffrey (a total jerk) or we can say, "Welcome! Your family is welcome, too. You belong." Which is truly kinder for the children? Who here shows compassion?

What's worse, the government "is deliberately setting out to create two new and different classes of damaging situations. ... In spite of a mountain of evidence staring it in the face that this is surely going to have devastating effects on children."

Oh yes, the government is setting about trying to create "damaging situations" so they can have "devestating effects on children' because.... huh? This is delusional and there's not a shred of evidence (despite all these claims of "a mountain.")

Some years back, Satinover served as an expert witness against same-sex adoption in the Florida case, Amer v. Johnson. "The state of Florida wanted me to argue that the reason the ban should be upheld was because homosexuals made bad parents and I refused to do that. I said in my testimony, if two homosexuals wanted to adopt a child, I would have no objection to it if one of them was a man and one of them was a woman."

"You can be gay. You just have to act straight. See? I'm not such a bad guy!" (Urge to scratch out eyes with cat-like sharp nails rising, rising....)

What mattered more was that the man and woman, homosexual or not, were willing to act contrary to their own desires in making the sacrifice to provide a stable home for the child.

Why does this matter for homosexuals, when heterosexuals are never asked to do this? No, heterosexuals are encouraged to love their co-parent, because it provides "stability to the relationship" (a concern Satinover had before for the children of gay couples.) Gay people in heterosexual marriages are miserable, and most of them eventually end the marriage, probably with both parties hurt (and of course, any resulting children.) Which is it that matters Satinover, stability or sacrifice? Why do straight couples get to shoot for stability (which we fail at, epically) while gay people are called to sacrifice their happiness on an alter of heterosexual worship?

"What counts is the willingness to put one's own desires in second place. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, per se, it's the fact that if two men or two women insist on adopting a child, they thereby prove by their insistence that they know nothing about the needs of the child and are so selfish and ignorant of what children need, that by their very insistence they prove themselves unfit to be parents."

My lip is curled in a sneer. This is putrid. If they "insist on adopting a child" - yeah, how dare they try to provide a loving home for an already born child that could really use it, when they should be heterosexuals, pumping out their own babies and never adopting, and standing outside abortion clinics telling *other* people to put their kids in foster care, but doing nothing to help the situation. Yeah, that's how you prove you're "fit" to be a parent - by having sex with someone with different organs. Don't you people know that? After all, the ability to have penile-vaginal intercourse without fantasizing about someone else is the true test of good parenting. No, adoption shouldn't have anything to do with a family's ability to provide a good loving home. It should have everything to do with their penises and vaginas. I mean really, that's what this is all about at the end of the day, isn't it? The Christian obsession with penises and vaginas (and I bet if any of them read this, they'd giggle at those words.) See, when straight people adopt it's because they want to provide a loving home for a child, and because their family feels incomplete. When gay people insist on adopting, they're just doing it to destroy the fabric of society with their selfish insistence on loving and marrying someone they're actually attracted to like all those unselfish straight people do. Right. What a tool.

The Florida courts decided in his favor.

Which is a tragedy.

Even though science clearly supports her position, the Catholic Church was vilified last summer when it issued a similar opinion in the document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons." In it, the Church clearly stated its concern for the effects of gay marriage on society in general, and children in particular.

If you say hateful shit, you're going to get called on it. Stop with the martyr trip. The Catholic Church is its own freaking country and has an obscene amount of wealth for an organization which pays so much lip service to poverty.

"The absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." The Church cites the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as asserting that the best interests of the child should be put first in these situations.

Ah, and I'm sure the "best interest" of a child is to live in a group home? I cannot count on both hands the number of girls and women, boys and men I've known who were sexually abused in foster care. Your methods deprive children of both experiences of motherhood and fatherhood.

And "sexual complementarity" really means patriarchy. Patriarchy will solve everything! It'll keep your kids straight and stop society from crumbling. Right, because oppressing half the population and denying even the existence of natural homosexuals is how to make the world a better place. Fuck you.



We've heard what the bigots have to say about gay parents destorying America by adopting the unwanted children of failed heterosexual parents. Now let's hear what someone intelligent and compassionate (and gay and an adoptive father) has to say on the subject.



The child of gay parents "is a wanted child, an anticipated child, a prepared for child." And you dare to paint this as being against the best interests of the child? The Catholic Church deserves to be vilified for a position like this. It is vile.

Meanwhile, the case for gay marriage continues to go forward and opens many new doors that most of us would prefer to keep closed. "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalize polygamy and polyamory (group marriage)," writes Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute. "Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals ... in every conceivable combination of male and female."

Polygamy? Wow, you mean, like Biblical marriage??

Legalized group marriage is already well underway. There has been a rash of lawsuits filed by polygamists, and same-sex couples are already suing for the right to include in their marriage a third party who was used as either sperm donor or surrogate mother to produce a child.

Actually, I can see the purpose of this, given the threats to homosexual families. (Unlike heteroseuxal families, where all you have to do is insert Tab A into Slot B and you have the right to do practically whatever you want unquestioned.)

Even though many of the people who are fueling this push for legalized gay marriage are acting out of genuine compassion, their sentiments are sadly misdirected. "All they can think about are the rights of the adults," Satinover said, "and the kids can go hang themselves."

Screw you, Satinover. It is precisely because I actually do care about those kids that I support gay adoption. It's because I care about kids and adults that I support same-sex marriage. Kids have a right to a loving home, and bans on gay adoption prevent that. I'll close with a video I made awhile back, expressing my support of same-sex marriage and gay and lesbian adoption. I'll be back soon to wrap up the end of this drivel, with "In the Image of God: Church Teaching on Human Sexuality" brought to you by the world's largest and best funded pedophile organization! (NAMBLA's gotta be jealous.) Till tomorrow - peace, and stay out of strangers' sex lives.

Read more!

Homophobia: The Untold Story pt. 7

You're jumping in late, if you're just starting now. So, I'll summarize for ya! We're taking a thorough look at Susan Brinkmann's ebook for CatholicEducation.org "Homosexuality: The Untold Story." First, Susan taught us how acceptance of homosexuality hurts the freedoms of Christians who want to discriminate against gay people, and that homosexuality is a choice. Then, we found out that men are gay because they suck at sports and we ignored lesbians. Susan and her favorite quack Dr. Fitzgibbons also said profound selfishness is the cause of homosexuality, and that being gay will kill you. Oh, and they also let us know that if those queers would just let go of their anger, why then they'd be straight! Obviously, statements like these require mocking (and factual debunking), and I am only too glad to do my part. Let's pick up where we left off yesterday.

Prevention of same-sex attraction disorder remains largely with parents because the roots of this condition are laid early in life. Father John Harvey, the founder of Courage, a support group for people with same-sex attraction who are striving to live chaste lives, published a new book especially for parents entitled, Same-Sex Attraction: A Parents Guide.

So a priest runs a group for guilt-ridden Catholic homosexuals, and wrote a book on how to blame parents for making you gay. Excellent. And what exactly is Harvey's expertise in this matter? He's not a psychiatrist. He's not an out homosexual, as far as I can tell from my research. He's just a man without a sex life (presumably.)

First, he explains what Church teaching is — and what it isn't. "One must carefully distinguish between the condition of homosexuality and homosexual acts. The condition of same-sex attraction is not a sin, but it is an objective disorder in the adolescent or adult person. If one gives into the desire for same-sex acts, one always sins."

This careful distinguishing between being gay and anal sex certainly has been lacking throughout Susan's writings. Indeed, you might think lesbians didn't exist at all, from the way she presents her "evidence." Now I must state clearly here: Homosexuality is not a "disorder." It may be less common. It may not result in children (as some heterosexual couplings will not result in children.) It may not be your personal orientation, but none of those make homosexuality WRONG. And you can guess what I think of the Catholic Church's opinions on sin.

The Church takes no position on whether or not a person with same-sex attraction should attempt to change their sexual orientation. Her concern is chiefly with the soul of the individual, which is why She insists that unmarried persons, whether they have same-sex or opposite sex attraction, live chastely.

I always forget the church is a She to Catholics, but it should be obvious, what with all the men wearing dresses. Tell me, how can you be chiefly concerned with the part of a person which has never been shown to exist? What a waste - to devalue every other (real) part of a person and focus all your energy on their mythological soul.

In the Catechism, the Church expresses the belief that people with same-sex attraction do not choose that condition. " . . . For most of them, it is a trial." (CCC2358) For this reason, she insists that they be treated with respect, compassion and especially sensitivity. "Every sign of unjust discrimination . . . should be avoided. These persons are called to . . . unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (CCC2358) The struggle to live chastely is one in which all unmarried Christians share, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

Even if it is a struggle they all share, only the homosexual persons are given no reprieve in Catholic doctrine. And all this martyrdom of uniting with "the sacrifice of the Lord's cross" is a great way to make oneself miserable. It's not a great way to live a rich and fulfilling life, though. I'm glad discrimination is called out, but of course, everything the Catholic Church does regarding gay people IS discrimination - from saying gay men can't serve as clergy (of course women NEVER can,) to opposing same-sex marriage. Whether or not you treat a person "compassionately" while discriminating against them does not change the fact that what you do is wrong.

Parents should make themselves fully aware of Church teaching in order to properly guide their children. Father Harvey also suggests that "Parents need to talk to their children, give their child thorough instruction on the purpose and meaning of human sexuality, and the beauty of marriage as a union of a man and woman. . . . You can't talk to your kids about homosexuality alone — it needs a background. First you have to talk to them about theology and God's plan for the human person, then heterosexuality, then homosexuality."

Of course you can talk about homosexuality without talking about theology or God. It's what secular people (both believers and non) do every day. We deal with the world at hand, and not the scribblings of goat herders millenia ago. If my son is gay, I want him to have every right and opportunity he will have if he is straight. I want him to be able to find love, marriage, family, community, and hope. And I do not want the Catholic church or any other church getting in the way of that future happiness.

He highly recommends the writings of Christopher West on Pope John Paul II's "theology of the body" for this purpose.

Remember kiddies, you can't stick it in your bum OR use a condom OR any birth control. It's better to get an STI which will punish you for not being a virgin, or have lots of children you can't provide for - no matter what the physical risks to you - as punishment for being a slut. (This is never a problem for priests because they are "celibate" or else having sex with virgins. And even if they do get pregnant, in these cases abortion is apparently okay.)

Children should learn how to relate well to both parents and should see them expressing affection for one another. "Youngsters need to see their father and mother embrace regularly. Often, children with same-sex attractions come from a home where they don't see their parents embrace. If a child comes from a home with no sign of affection between parents or siblings, it's difficult for a child with same-sex attractions to rightly order his affection and attractions.

This has nothing to do with homosexuality. Where is the evidence that children raised by gay parents don't see affection in the home? They don't see heterosexual affection, but they may still see affection. Now let's look at the underlying assumption here: that kids raised by straight parents are automatically raised in happy, loving environments. Obviously, there is no such thing as spousal abuse, sexless marriage, or incest in heterosexual families. After all - they aren't "objectively disordered."

Because a major cause of same-sex attraction can be an absent or distant father relationship, Father Harvey strongly recommends that single parents find a relative who can serve as a good same-sex role model for a child. "A single mother needs to find an uncle or someone in the family to relate to her son, and vice versa with a single father and his daughter."

Now remember - there's no evidence that growing up in a single-parent home makes you gay. Susan hasn't even tried to present any; she's just had Fitzgibbon's make the claim, and now Harvey. Even if homosexuality was caused by life events and environment, rather than genetics and prenatal hormone exposure, "because church doctrine says it's bad" does not actually constitute a good enough reason to condemn someone to a life of involuntary celibacy. If your child is gay, so be it.

Part five of the series will address the complex issue of homosexual marriage from both a sociological and theological point of view.

To read more about the information contained in this article, visit the Courage Web site at http://couragerc.net or the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality http://www.narth.com

I'm gonna leave this links to you, Anteaters, or for another time. Tomorrow we'll talk about gay marriage. Bring your bouquets and cummerbunds!

Read more!

Homophobia: The Untold Story pt. 6

Oh yes, it's time for another installment of Catholic anti-gay bigotry. So far we've learned that homosexuality is a plot to persecute Christians in the workplace, there's no single gay gene (therefore sexuality isn't genetic?), poor hand-eye coordination causes The Gay, being selfish makes people gay, and that having gay sex will give you anal cancer. Let's see what Susan has in store for us today.

Treatment and Prevention part 4 of 6

One of the two great pioneers of the irreversibility of same-sex attraction, Robert L. Spitzer, officially reversed his position. The release of his October, 2003 study (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417) revealed that therapy not only changed sexual orientation in a significant percentage of cases, but it also proved helpful in other areas of the person's life. He concluded that the mental health profession should not prevent people from this kind of therapy, should they desire it.

We went over this earlier. (Has anyone else noticed how repetitive this ebook is?) Of course, earlier our author Susan at least had the decency to say he "seemed to suggest" he'd changed his mind. Now she's claiming he "officially reversed his position." In actuality, here's what Spitzer said about people like Susan quote-mining him this way.

"It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right..." He calls as "totally absurd" the beliefs that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.

That's not really the reversal she's inferring or claiming (or making up) now is it?

The other pioneer, the Salk Institute's Simon LeVay, had already reversed his position in another under-publicized event in the year 2000, in a Spanish homosexual publication, Reverso.

Again, Susan is exaggerating at best, lying at most likely. In the Reverso interview, LeVay said, "Science cannot tell us what constitutes core identity." Susan gave us no reason to believe he meant "Science cannot tell us why some people are gay." She just hasn't.

Even if both these men personally believed homosexuality was reversible, like NARTH does and claims they do, that would not mean they were right.

If a person does want to explore the possibility of a change in their sexual orientation, what kind of therapy is available and what are the success rates?

Therapy is for mental health, not for sexual orientation. To quote the APA again, "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, who has practiced child and adult psychiatry for 27 years, reports that when people with same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD) are treated, a number of studies have found that one-third get better, one-third get mixed results and one-third do not get better.

Which studies have found this? For those of you just joining us, Fitzgibbons has been practicing psychiatry (not therapy) since homosexuality was considered a mental health disorder, in a town of about 1400 people. He remains Susan's sole interviewee for the entire ebook. This is the best she could do (which may say something on its own.)

"Frequently, young men come into treatment because they are troubled by the lifestyle and a fear of AIDS," Fitzgibbons writes in Origins and Therapy for Same Sex Attraction Disorder, "an inability to establish healthy committed relationships, sadness, weak confidence and the fear of an early death. They are tired of the lack of commitment they have found in the homosexual lifestyle and they do not want to continue to be used as sexual objects."

Remember folks, SSAD is (so far as I can tell) something Fitz here made up. It's not in the DSM-IV. It's not a recognized condition. It's just what he calls homosexuality, so he can pretend to have a cure.

Furthermore, I wonder how many lesbians seek orientation-reassignment therapy because they're afraid of getting AIDS from their partners? Throughout this book, homosexuals are really just gay men, and homosexuality is really just anal penetration. Lesbians have been little more than an afterthought.

A lot of people have what I like to call "the slutty years" - straight people, gay people, bisexual people. And again, if all these horny homosexuals want nothing more than a little butt pirating, why are they trying so hard to get married?

Fitzgibbons' practice has been in the nature and treatment of excessive anger. Because a large percentage of gay men, and a somewhat smaller number of lesbian women, suffer from the sadness and pain associated with either a father or peer rejection, which often results in anger, he found himself treating more and more people with SSAD.

Wait a second - Fitz is an anger management doc? And he's decided that, because everyone he sees is angry, including his homosexual patients, anger is the cause of homosexuality? I don't even think confirmation bias begins to cover the fallacies in this guy's thinking. It'd be funny, if he wasn't teaching people to hate an integral part of themselves.

"Many of the emotional conflicts that lead to SSAD begin very early and this may explain why some homosexuals feel they were born that way. . . .When a person is hurt in a relationship, a series of reactions occur. First, sadness develops, then anger accompanied by low self-esteem, and finally a loss of trust. It is essential to resolve the anger associated with all these types of betrayal pain. . . . The work of therapy is, in part, to understand and resolve the betrayal pain."

This second part isn't even universally true. Being hurt by someone does not always or necessarily cause a person to have low self-esteem. Sometimes there's far more hurt than anger. Yoda had this better.



Hey, maybe fear is the real problem here, and not anger. Fear of an early death or of AIDS (flamed by anti-gay crusaders bent on keeping HIV labeled as a gay disease); fear of being alone; fear of being ostracized by family, community, or god. Yoda might be onto something, when it comes to why people would go to Dr. Fitzgibbons to have their sexual orientation changed.

His goal is not so much to change their sexual orientation but to help them overcome their emotional pain. He does this by helping his patients let go of their anger through three levels of forgiveness: intellectual, emotional, and spiritual. As a result, many are helped in resolving their homosexual attractions and behaviors.

If his goal wasn't to change his patients' sexual orientation, why is that what you're writing about Susan? Oh yeah, I forgot. You're not very honest. I do have one more question though. How does on spiritually let go of anger? Anger is an emotion, not a spiritual condition. Oh, and anger has nothing to do with homosexuality. Notice how Susan didn't even try to cite any real studies to back this up? We're just supposed to take her word and Fitz's.

When he adds a spiritual component, the recovery rates are much higher. "My approach is very similar to the one used in addictive disorders," he writes. "Significant healing rarely occurs unless some form of spirituality is brought into the healing process by turning the emotional pain and compulsive behaviors over to the Lord."

Aw, how cute. He modeled his practice after Bill W*! Fitz here seems to think that involving god-belief in addiction recovery helps. Well, let's look at the evidence. In reality, Alcoholics Anonymous has a "success rate" equal to or less than the spontaneous remission rate (people who just give up drinking, with no intervention or treatment program.) According to the Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, Octor 1995, p. 3,

There is a high rate of recovery among alcoholics and addicts, treated and untreated. According to one estimate, heroin addicts break the habit in an average of 11 years. Another estimate is that at least 50% of alcoholics eventually free themselves although only 10% are ever treated. One recent study found that 80% of all alcoholics who recover for a year or more do so on their own, some after being unsuccessfully treated.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a disease or an addiction, and has no "spontaneous recovery".

Some of these compulsive behaviors are difficult to overcome, such as sexual addiction, which is a major problem with many in the homosexual lifestyle. This is especially true when the addiction is accompanied by extreme narcissism. "Sexual addiction with extreme narcissism causes serious illnesses and early deaths in many young men and we must take some steps to change a very dangerous trend," writes Fitzgibbons. "Prozac or other anti-depressants can help to a degree. They will cut down sexually compulsive behaviors, but they will not resolve the emotional pain leading to the attractions."

Homosexuality is not a compulsion. I've got OCD; I'm also bisexual. None of my compulsions - NONE - are sexual in nature. They all have to do with germs, and counting, and checking things. There's nothing "compulsive" about me being attracted to beautiful women. And Dan Savage doesn't love his husband and son because he's a narcissist, or a sex addict, or in emotional pain. He's gay and he loves his family. It really is that simple people.

Children subjected to sexual abuse may often be predisposed to homosexual behavior and are difficult — but not impossible — to treat. "One can work at trying to help the client understand and resolve the anger against the abuser, if for no other reason than to alleviate the abusers negative influence," Fitzgibbons said. "We need to help those who have been abused before they become sexually addicted or involved in sado-masochistic practices. Only when, through forgiveness and God's grace and healing, they are free from the dark side of abuse will they be able to develop a healthy identity."

Sorry, but where's the evidence for a causal relationship between child sexual abuse and adult sexual orientation? Oh that's right - there isn't any. Susan quoted earlier some statistics about the prevalence of child sexual abuse among homosexual adults, but that's not the same as showing a causal link. The old man who licked and touched beneath my dress did not make me bi. I liked girls before that, and can remember being romantically attracted to another little girl on my block. (I think she liked me, too.)

And you know what? I'm not actually mad at him any more. Yes, he hurt me. He confused me. He took advantage of my vulnerability, that my parents had instilled in me. He was a very sick man, and he is probably dead by now. I do not need a hell for him to suffer in forever. He can't harm anymore.

I'm not a sex addict, and I'm not into BDSM. It was only when I escaped "God's forgiveness and healing" (and what on earth does an abuse victim need forgiveness for?!) that I was able to form a healthy identity. It's only free of the clutches of religion, free of the perfectionism and rebellion cycle, free of your god and his abominations that I am able to stop hurting. I am not somehow sullied by not being a virgin, and I am not still under the influence of a man I haven't seen in nearly 20 years. I own myself, and myself is bisexual.

This is one of the reasons why Fitzgibbons and many other doctors who treat this condition warn against the dangerous practice some schools are taking in referring at-risk children and teens to groups that will lead them even further into the homosexual lifestyle. Many of these children are experiencing same-sex attractions because of serious emotional problems in their lives, problems that should be dealt with, not pushed aside at the urging of homosexual activists.

Lots to take apart here, so let's be thorough. We'll start with "doctors who treat this condition." What condition is that again? Would this be more of the made up SSAD? And I have to wonder who these many doctors are. Much in the same way that reputable scientists accept (and understand) evolution, reputable psychiatrists accept sexual orientation. So, I'm guessing what Susan really means is "the mailing list of NARTH."

Second, what does Susan mean when she refers to "at-risk children and teens?" Usually that phrase applies to children who are in poverty, or are otherwise at risk of becoming criminals, drug addicts, or similar. Yet, I suspect Susan is using this loaded phrase to instead refer to children who are homosexual, and she sees as being "at risk" of adopting a "homosexual lifestyle." I admit, this is just what I'm reading into it, but I'm basing it on the last five posts of her drivel I've had to wade through.

Okay, these "groups that will them further into the homosexual lifestyle" she's talking about? Yeah, I have a feeling that's groups like the Gay-Straight Alliance and the Human Rights Campaign. I was part of the GSA at two of my high schools. Nobody ever said anything about getting me involved in some "homosexual lifestyle" of bareback sex and casual sex. Mostly we talked about things like coming out, if our parents knew and how they were handling it, and just regular teenage life. Certainly no one was suggesting I brush aside my emotional problems. The GSA was a great place of support. It was not what Susan paints. And these "homosexual activists" she mentions are of course gay rights activists. In school environments they're involved in implementation of Safe School programs and other anti-bullying techniques. Better watch out for those homosexual activists! They'll tell your kid he's fine just the way is. And we can't have that now, can we?

If you recall, a few posts ago Susan was talking about the correlation between homosexuality and suicide. Groups like the GSA work to reduce those suicides, and they don't do it by "curing" homosexuality, but by embracing it. Your attempt at playing the Concerned Citizen card has failed due to lack of sincerity.

Prevention of same-sex attraction disorder remains largely with parents because the roots of this condition are laid early in life. Father John Harvey, the founder of Courage, a support group for people with same-sex attraction who are striving to live chaste lives, published a new book especially for parents entitled, Same-Sex Attraction: A Parents Guide.

So a priest and a bunch of gay men get together for meeting on how to be celibate? Sounds like something Catholics would do. In all seriousness, yes the roots of sexuality almost certainly are laid down early in life, in fact, before we're born. In 2003, researchers found difference in the involuntary blinking startle response of participants. Gay men responded in a manner more similar to heterosexual women, and lesbians responded in a manner more similar to heterosexual men. The startle response is controlled by the limbic system, which also controls sexuality. One of the researchers, Dr. Qazi Rahman, said, "The startle response is pre-conscious and cannot be learned...This is very strong evidence that sexual orientation may be 'hard-wired' in this region" of the brain." Want more? Okay.

Okay, researchers at the University of Texas of all places found differences in the spontaneous otoacousitc emissions (tiny noises our ears make) between the ears of heterosexual and homosexual women. A Swedish experiment in 2005 involving pheremones and PET scans revealed that heterosexual women and gay men responded to the smell of male pheromones with activity in the part of the brain that deals with sexual response, while heterosexual men had no such response. Heterosexual men did, however, respond to female pheromones, while homosexual men did not. Then there's sweat. Lesbians, straight women, and straight men are all turned off by the smell of a gay man's sweat. Gay men are not. From the Associated Press, "In particular, [lead researcher] said finding differences in body odor between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference> It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said." Parents, you are not making your kids gay or straight (at least not in a postnatal sense.)

Let me leave you with a parting song on "the Lord's" views of sex - a song about anal sex and God. I'll get into the rest of this tomorrow. Ciao!

* Bill Wilson & Dr. Bob Smith were cofounders of Alcoholics Anonymous. Their group was modeled off of the cult both men were members of, the Oxford Group, which had 6 steps. Bill W. broke each step into two parts. Those were slightly edited over the years (ie, to changed God to Higher Power) and the resulting steps are the infamous 12 Steps of today. Within AA, the founders are called simply Bill W. and Dr. Bob.

Read more!

Homophobia: The Untold Story pt. 5

Oh homophobia, you are so deeply seated it will take me even more posts to address you properly. So far, we 'velearned how Christians are being persecuted by not being allowed to marginalize fellow employees who are gay, that there is no gay gene and it's all a conspiracy anyway, and that you're gay because you don't conform to gender roles, or it's just because you're a narcissist. Yeah, so let's see what CatholicEducation.org and Susan have for us today.

Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle part 3 of 6

"As a nurse, I watched 100 of my friends and acquaintances die of AIDS and AIDS related illnesses. After that, I stopped counting."

This statement was made by Greg Quinlan, a former member of the homosexual community, who testified before the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act in November, 2003. Quinlan claimed that the physical and mental devastation caused by homosexual behavior, and the cumulative effect of that behavior "is incalculable."

Not to downplay the serious health condition AIDS is, but I have to wonder if he also stopped counting the number of patients who died of car accidents and related injuries, or else cancer and related treatments. Since Quinlan is being sourced, let's go look him up, shall we?

According to Ex-Gay Watch, Quinlan was an ex-gay activist, and spent a lot of time trying to stop hate crimes laws, anti-bullying laws, and of course, marriage equality. Here's a post about him quote-mining Francis Collins. He hasn't been on the scene much since his "ex-lesbian" wife left him in 2008.

The American public has been left largely in the dark about the extent of the medical problems associated with homosexual activity because of the influence of pro-homosexual political agendas. Some even believe they are being "compassionate" by not disclosing vital health information for fear of offending homosexuals.

Boy that's some loaded snarky language. (I would know.) Susan's claiming a conspiracy theory. Oh goody!

For those health professionals like Greg Quinlan who minister to the dying, compassion is the last word they would use to describe the deliberate withholding of potentially life-saving information from active homosexuals.

Who exactly is proposing withholding life-saving information? It's not Equality Now or the Human Rights Campaign. Oh yeah, it's Oklahoma (where now a doctor can't be sued from withholding important information from a woman about her pregnancy or the viability of her fetus!) Oh, and Quinlan quit his volunteer nursing as part of his attempt to turn straight. Yeah, so he stopped ministering the dying and started campaigning against gay rights.

The following is a brief review of what is currently known to medical science about the health risks associated with homosexual activity.

Bring. It. On.

HIV/AIDS
Homosexual activity remains a major source of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus.

A 1997 New York Times article reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50 percent chance of getting HIV by middle age. (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (Late edition, east coast), November 23, 1997, section 4, p.1)

Okay, so here's the article in question. It's about a fringe group called Sex Panic! that wants to promote sexual liberation and promiscuity, and how that group was received by other gay-rights activists concerned about the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Men who have sex with men (MSM) are most at risk of spreading and contracting HIV. Condom usage is tantamount to preventing this, particularly for men who have anal sex (with other men or with women), as anal intercourse is the most reliable method of transmission for the virus. The article focuses on the problem of "bareback" (condom-free) sex within the gay community, and with the exception of SexPanic, that's what all the gay-rights activists promote. So, this is a question of safe sex, more than it is a question of sexual orientation. If a men is homosexual but has very few partners in his life and always uses protection, he has less risk of contracting HIV than a heterosexual woman who practices unsafe sex.

While anal intercourse may be the highest risk form of sex in terms of HIV transmission, it's not like never taking it up the bum guarantees a person won't contract the disease. Not only are MSM more likely to contract HIV than men who sleep with women, African-American women are more likely to contract HIV than white women. Should we start "converting" all the black women now, because they're at greater risk for HIV? (No.) In both cases, consistent condom usage, abstinence, and faithfulness greatly reduce the risks, as those things do for all of us.

As of 1998, 54 percent of all AIDS cases in America were homosexual men and according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) nearly 90 percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998, June, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 10 (1)).

Again, what does this have to do with turning gay people straight?

Even more alarming, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention reported in 1998 that an estimated half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among people under 25. Among 13-to 24-year-olds, 52 percent of all AIDS cases reported among males in 1997 were among young men who have sex with men. (CDC Fact Sheet: "Young People at Risk," Center for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, July 24, 1998.)

According to the CDC's website, that first statistic isn't exactly reliable. See, in 2007 for example, the three populations with the highest numbers of new AIDS cases ages 35-39, 40-44, and 45-49. Huh, that's not exactly allowing for more than half of cases to be among people under 25 now does it? As for 52 percent of the AIDS cases being among men who have sex with men, that means 48% of the cases were among men who do NOT have sex with men. Yet I don't see huge warnings about the dangers of the heterosexual lifestyle all over conservative hate groups websites.

Researchers at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver conducted a study to assess how HIV infection and AIDS is impacting the mortality rates for homosexual and bisexual men. Lead by R.S. Hogg, et al and published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (vol. 27, no. 3, 1997, pp 657-661) they reached an alarming conclusion.

"In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is eight to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continues, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

It definitely sounds like something needs to be done to improve quality of life and longevity for gay men, assuming those findings are valid. People with Cystic Fibrosis don't have a great life expectancy either; in 2008 the median survival rate went up to 37.4 years. While it is impossible to cure someone of CF (it's genetic) newer treatments for health complications can improve quality of life and delay onset of death. Woo-hoo! (Since finding out I'm a carrier for CF, I've followed the treatments and research on the condition.)

Also - you notice how they say homosexuality is dangerous, when in reality it's anal intercourse that's risky? Yeah, because lesbians who do not have sex with men are just not that likely to contract HIV. But Susan wouldn't want to mention that, as it doesn't fit with her agenda.

Physical Health Risks
In addition to AIDS, there is a long list of maladies attendant upon the homosexually active population. Of particular concern is anal cancer. According to J. R. Daling et.al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90, the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.

Again, anal intercourse is the high risk factor, not sexual orientation. And you know, 4000 percent is an awfully huge number. That would mean people engaging in (presumably receptive) anal sex, male or female, are 40 times as likely to develop anal cancer as us "Exit Only" types. According to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, it's not so much 40 times as it is 7. And this isn't so much because doing it up the butt automatically gives you cancer; it's because anal intercourse facilitates the transmission of HPV (which also causes ovarian cancer among women.) It's a cancer-causing sexually transmitted disease and that's pretty damn scary, so go on and get your vaccines please. Homosexuality - sexual orientation towards members of the same sex - does not give you cancer. HPV does.

Other maladies include chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus (HPV) or genital warts, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C and syphilis.

Those are risks of sex. They are all available to all of us. Safe sex is important, so please remember your condoms, kiddies.

Emotional/Mental Health Risks
Two extensive studies published in the October 1999 issue of American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems.

Because calling someone "fag" can make their life fucking miserable.

Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression; three times more likely to suffer anxiety disorders, four times more likely to suffer conduct disorders, six times more likely to suffer from multiple disorders and more than six times more likely to have attempted suicide.

Citations? References? Sources? Also, correlation is NOT causation. Even if these statistics are 100% true and not exaggerated or misused as so many of Susan's other "factoids", she has done nothing to show that homosexuality is the cause of any of these concerns.

Many homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.

Which of these studies are most extensive? What studies? Do I know that homosexuality is widely accepted in New Zealand, or I'm just taking your questionable word, Susan?

In an interview with Zenit News, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a child and adult psychiatrist in practice for more than 27 years, said, "Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interviews, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence."

I think I've done a pretty thorough job of casting doubts on Fitzgibbon's professional credibility, so I'll just ask, What the hell does "homosexual contact" mean? Oh yeah, and I'll be asking for sources, too.

He concluded by saying, "Men and women with a history of homosexual contact had a higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders measured in the study. These findings are the result of a lifestyle marked by rampant promiscuity and an inability to make commitments, combined with unresolved sadness, profound insecurity, anger and mistrust from childhood and adolescence."

It's funny how these gay people, with their profound mistrust and their inability to make commitments keep wanting to get married. Those kooky queers - don't they know they're promiscuous?

Physical Abuse
A recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health has shown that 39 percent of males with same-sex attraction have been abused by other homosexual men.A study by Susan Turrell entitled "A descriptive analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample," and published in the Journal of Family Violence (vol 13, pp 281-293), found that relationship violence was a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four percent of gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationship; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse.

Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians with 55 percent reporting physical violence, 14 percent reporting sexual abuse and 84 percent reporting emotional abuse.

Okay, let's compare statistics, shall we? According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 34 percent of survey respondents had witnessed a man beating his wife or girlfriend. Up to 33% of women and 22% of men showing up at the ER are there because of domestic violence. In all, women (including gay women) are victims of intimate partner violence at a rate five times higher than men (including gay men.) Obviously, domestic violence is a serious problem in America. But heterosexuality is by no means a guarantee of safety from violence, especially for women.

As outrageous as it might sound, "Most medical groups have embraced the homosexual agenda and are advocating that lifestyle despite all the scientific studies and medical evidence that demonstrate medical and psychological risks," said Joseph Nicolosi, President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. "Homosexual activism and political correctness are clearly trumping science."

Because NARTH is such a bastion of science, right? I'd like to point out here that no one is promoting a "homosexual lifestyle." What medical groups have realized is that attempts to change someone's orientation are fruitless, and detrimental to mental health (which you were all concerned about a minute ago.)

Church Teaching
The same forces are also attempting to stifle authentic Church teaching on this subject by labeling it as "homophobic" and "hate speech." However, once one is made fully aware of the medical facts, it's much easier to understand why the Church teaches that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law." (CCC2357)

Um, isn't this chapter supposed to be on Health Risks of homosexual lifestyle? So how come church teaching is in here? I don't get how you can possibly claim this is a risk to the individual. Oh wait, this isn't about gay people - it's about Catholic doctrine. Now I get it! Well, let us absolutely take our moral example from the legion of pedophiles. No, wait - that sounds like a terrible idea.

Oh yeah, and authentic church teaching is homophobic. Calling someone an abomination or disordered simply because they don't share your sexual orientation is quite hateful. And hang on! For a minute I forgot this was Catholocism we were dealing with. You remember up above, all that concern about the gay lifestyle giving people STIs? Well, as I mentioned, the ABCs are what works best at preventing those: A-Abstience, B-Be Faithful, and C-Consistent Condom Usage. So if the Catholic Church is so concerned about the physical health of people, why do they actively discourage condom usage, and lie about how HIV/AIDS is spread? Surely that is 1,000 times more evil than loving your fellow man could ever be (and how on earth can love be evil?)

Unfortunately, the word 'disordered' steals all the attention and leaves much of Church teaching drowned out by angry invectives. Father John Harvey, founder of Courage, a support group for people with same sex attraction who are seeking to live a chaste life, laments the fact that far too many people, including Catholics themselves, are left with the impression of ". . .an authoritarian Church that makes decisions arbitrarily, without considering the nature of things. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Um, that actually does sound a lot like the Vatican. And yeah, "disordered" is offensive. You don't get to call people names, and then cry "Persecution!" when they stand up for themselves, and call you the hateful liars that you are.

Even from an immunological point of view, the body itself considers homosexual acts to be disordered. For instance, there are substances in seminal fluid called "immuno-regulatory macromolecules" that send out "signals" that are only understood by the female body, which will then permit the "two in one flesh" intimacy required for human reproduction. When deposited elsewhere, these signals are not only misunderstood, but cause sperm to fuse with whatever somatic body cell they encounter. This fusing is what often results in the development of cancerous malignancies. ("Sexual Behavior and Increased Anal Cancer", Immunology and Cell Biology 75 (1977); 181-183))

The "purpose" of our species may very well be simple propogation, but that is not the entirety of who or what people are. Despite the Catholic Church's obsession with large families, regions with higher societal health also have smaller family sizes (and better access to contraception.)

Clearly, Church teaching on human sexuality is not founded upon pious patriarchal prudery, but is soundly based in science, biology and anthropology — all of which is illumined by the added gift of faith.

*Retch* It is ridiculous to claim the Church's long-standing Biblically-justified hatred of homosexuals is founded in biology. And it's a LIE.

More soon!

Read more!

Homophobia: The Untold Story pt. 4

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!*

Read more!