Beliefnet News

Beliefnet News


Religious groups rally behind traditional marriage

posted by Ju-Don Roberts

(RNS) As a federal appeals court in California heard opening arguments in a landmark gay marriage case on Dec. 6, a rare coalition of religious leaders released a public letter promoting marriage as “the faithful union of one man and one woman.”
Leaders of Catholic, evangelical, Orthodox Jewish, Mormon, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal and Sikh communities, as well as new conservative Lutheran and Anglican denominations, signed “The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment.”
“As religious leaders across different faith communities, we join together and affirm our shared commitment to promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” the brief letter states.
Such interfaith alliances were once rare, but are becoming more common as conservatives seek allies in culture-war battles over gay marriage, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research. In 2008, for example, Catholic and Mormon leaders allied in a successful campaign to ban gay marriage in California.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, the new president of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, said the “broad consensus reflected in this letter — across religious divides — is clear: The law of marriage is not about imposing the religion of anyone, but about protecting the common good of everyone.”
The letter comes as courts and state legislatures are wrestling with how to define marriage. While polls show a growing number of Americans — especially youth — favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed, prominent religious leaders are lobbying hard to limit marriage to heterosexual unions.
Dozens of protesters clashed outside a federal courthouse in San Francisco on Monday, according to the Los Angeles Times, as the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard opening arguments in a case centered on California’s gay marriage ban.
Voters approved a referendum in 2008 that amended the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But a federal district judge earlier this year ruled that the ban violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.
The U.S. Catholic bishops conference challenged that reasoning on Monday in a Q&A released with the open letter. “No one has the right to change and redefine the nature of marriage,” the bishops said.
The interfaith letter will be sent to the country’s nearly 19,000 Catholic parishes where it will be inserted in church bulletins, according to the bishops.

– Daniel Burke



Advertisement
Comments read comments(156)
post a comment
Edgar Beals

posted December 6, 2010 at 11:57 pm


Thank god I live in a country that is ruled by the constitution and not by religious leaders with their limited view of humanity.



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted December 7, 2010 at 1:31 am


The U.S. Catholic bishops conference challenged that reasoning on Monday in a Q&A released with the open letter. “No one has the right to change and redefine the nature of marriage,” the bishops said.
Wanna bet?



report abuse
 

John Bartlett

posted December 7, 2010 at 8:56 am


The definition of marriage has changed many times over the years and still seems to survive. Since no marriage laws requires procreation, and since many people procreate without the benefit of marriage, that argument makes NO sense. Marriage certainly affords protections to children so why are same sex couples with children excluded? Obviously, children are used only by the anti-marriage crowd as a ploy to force their own agenda with not interest in the welfare of children. Thank heavens for the US Constitution which now does what the founders intended and that is to prevent anyone religious view from being rammed down our throats.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 7, 2010 at 9:26 am


Marriage was instituted to protect and manage the wealth of a (usually) man. Some religions have tried to claim it for their own but economics rules. And gays have as much need to manage and protect their wealth as the rest of us.
It’s noteworthy that these “religious” institutions are more concerned about gay marriage than they are about health care for everyone or aid for the needy or all the other far-more-important topics.
Religions are institutions created to gain and maintain power, and these folks see the power they’ve had being challenged. They are no way concerned about marriages; as others have pointed out and experience has demonstrated gay marriage does not threaten straight marriages. And no one is demanding that people divorce if they haven’t procreated.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted December 7, 2010 at 10:26 am


“Such interfaith alliances were once rare, but are becoming more common as conservatives seek allies in culture-war battles”
Liberal groups, especially church organizations, are much more likely to form easy and lasting alliances. It may be because we are less interested in telling people what they must do or think or think they should do.
Also, there should be a partner piece on the equally faithful Christian groups that have lined the opposite side of the court. I expect the UCC and UU are well represented, as will be other denominations and church related groups.
I gues what is news is that the first list of church folks are getting alonge well enough to combine on this. It is news because they are not well known for playing well with others.



report abuse
 

Kyle

posted December 7, 2010 at 12:43 pm


“No one has the right to change and redefine the nature of marriage,”
I beg your pardon but no one has the right to tell me who I can and can not marry as long as it is between two consententing adults. As I remember it, it was only a few years ago CA voters actually voted on the definition of marriage. Like it or not marriage is defined in several states and countries as between to people, end of story. Nobody is changing anything just adopting to a modern society where everyone should enjoy equal rights. Yet another lame argument. If you don’t want gay marriage don’t have one. Shame on these religous bigots!!



report abuse
 

JIMO

posted December 7, 2010 at 1:20 pm


Why are you only reporting on the conservative/orthodox religious activities in this sphere? Is fairness not a religious value, too?



report abuse
 

CBJrMD

posted December 7, 2010 at 1:35 pm


What I don’t understand is how allowing civil marriages is imposing on their beliefs. They can keep their views and are free to express them. I don’t think anyone is forcing them to marry a same sex partner or to perform religous ceremonies for same sex couples. All that is being asked is to allow consenting adults, who may belong to a religious denomination whose faith is consistent with gay marriage, to do so. Acting the victim is a red herring to allow them to impose their particular views on others.



report abuse
 

cmaglaughlin

posted December 7, 2010 at 2:21 pm


I believe in gay marriage…A gay man marrying a gay woman.



report abuse
 

Duwayne Anderson

posted December 7, 2010 at 2:41 pm


I just don’t see how gay marriage threatens “traditional” marriage. I’m a heterosexual man, married for 33 years, father of 5 kids, and grandfather to two. At no time during the past 33 years have gays ever tried to weaken or destroy my marriage. They’re simply not a threat to me or my family.
However, I was born into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) and when I apostatized from the church the *CHURCH* tried to destroy my marriage. They told my wife to divorce me, they told my kids I was being manipulated by the devil. They told my bothers and sisters that I’m a “son of perdition.” That’s what the LDS Church does — they actively, systematically, and deliberately seek to destroy the families of those who apostatize from their cult.
Who is the *real* threat to families? It’s certainly not Gays.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of “Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science”



report abuse
 

Sam

posted December 7, 2010 at 2:45 pm


While we do HAVE a constitution, it is limited in what it specifically says. Our country is actually ruled by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches who make, uphold, and interpret our laws, all of whom have their own “limited view of humanity.”
What we need to do is listen to both sides of the issue and protect the guaranteed rights of all parties.
What we don’t need to do is throw around derogatory names and labels that increase contention and mask the real issues at hand.



report abuse
 

knn

posted December 7, 2010 at 2:48 pm


The fallacy of the pro-gay marriage arguments is the lack of recognition of eternal laws. Just as you cannot legislate away the law of gravity, you cannot legislate away the God-given powers of procreation. No matter how the law books define it, a gay marriage is an impotent one. Try to cheat the system if you’d like; but you cannot tear down the building blocks of society without serious consequences.



report abuse
 

Concerned

posted December 7, 2010 at 2:58 pm


@Duwayne,
Be careful who you call “they.” There is a big difference between local members and leaders of the LDS church, and the Church itself. Everything that you said is directly against the written policy AND practice of the Church. Generalizing the terrible actions of a few people to an entire group is simply wrong and irresponsible.



report abuse
 

AlDelG

posted December 7, 2010 at 3:16 pm


Marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman capable of consumating that relationship in the procreative act.
“Marriage” of individuals of the same sex can never be anything more than a legal fiction.



report abuse
 

Lonz

posted December 7, 2010 at 3:34 pm


So—-Definitions are now subject to current and popular fashions and fads? A traditional definition of marriage as recognized for the bulk of human history is “inadequate”? Relgious people are misguided? It takes enlightened people to fix it all for us?
Why don’t we just vote?
Seriously.
I fear that I will never understand why some folks just cannot accept principles of faith and religion–and cannot rest until they destroy what they don’t like. Religion does not teach persecution, but it does teach obedience to God’s laws.



report abuse
 

Your NameTony M.

posted December 7, 2010 at 3:38 pm


This sickens me. “Rallying behind” traditional marriage? Really? Did nobody explain to you folks that no traditional marriages are affected by Prop 8?
Did allowing women to also vote take away a man’s right to vote?
Does treating blacks equally take away the rights of white people?
Likewise, letting gay couples buy marriage licenses in no way affects straight couples.
Being more inclusive and more fair is the right thing to do. Prop 8 is discriminatory, and if you support it then so are you. Shame on you.



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 7, 2010 at 3:43 pm


knn, your procreation argument is half baked at best. If we follow it, we must also deny marriage licenses to every heterosexual couple who does not procreate. This includes those who are sterile, elderly, those who adopt, and those who simply choose not to have children.
Gay couples serve exactly the same function in society as straight couples. Perhaps fewer of them raise children, but with adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, etc. there are more and more gay couples doing a fine and dandy job of raising children — often caring for the thrown away children from messed up straight unions. Get over your prejudice. It has no place in American society.



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 7, 2010 at 3:45 pm


Lonz, there’s a good reason we don’t “just vote” on this. Let’s look at another social fight over the rules of marriage.
When the CA Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage in 1948, 90% of Americans opposed it. By 1958, the number had increased and 94% of Americans disapproved. In 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized marriage equality for interracial couples on a nationwide level, 72% still opposed it. It wasn’t until 1994 that these people were in the minority for the first time with 41% opposing and 45% approving.
Thank God we have a constitution and a judicial branch of government to set us right when we make mistakes.
Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx
1948 figure from Gail Mathabane, “Gays face same battle interracial couples fought,” USA Today, 2004-JAN-25.



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 7, 2010 at 3:47 pm


AlDelG, you are confusing holy matrimony in your own church with legal civil marriage. I hate to break it to you, but that’s a simple distinction most 4th graders can easily grasp.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 7, 2010 at 4:39 pm


“The law of marriage is not about imposing the religion of anyone, but about protecting the common good of everyone.”
During the California hearings, not a single shred of evidence was offered to show that same gender couples getting married did ANY harm to “the common good”.
“No one has the right to change and redefine the nature of marriage,” the bishops said.”
And, once again, the bishops are wrong. America changed it to include inter-racial couples (most recently) and to forbid multiple spouses (not so recently).
Sorry, but after all the kvetching is over (will it EVER be?), traditional marriage will still exist. No one is working to “change” that. All LGBT folk want is the exact same access to the institution as heterosexual folk. No one is trying to “destroy” it (well, maybe cheating spouses or those seeking divorce – but both of those have been around for millenia and yet somehow we still have marriage), so it doesn’t really need “protecting”.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 7, 2010 at 5:02 pm


@ CBJrMD
re: December 7, 2010 1:35 PM
“What I don’t understand is how allowing civil marriages is imposing on their beliefs.”
It isn’t. They’re just religionist busybodies saying it does. Too bad they egnore how NOT allowing civil marriage actually DOES impose on ours. I was married in my church. Why should I, not being a member of their particular faith, be governed by their faith’s tenets?
“I don’t think anyone is forcing them to marry a same sex partner or to perform religous ceremonies for same sex couples.”
No one is “forcing them to do so”, but the churches involved in spreading that particular lie want people to think so. I heard the following sentiment from one parishioner in one such church, and her reaction was, ‘If we allow same sex marriage, who will have all the children?’ She actually believed opposite sex marriage would no longer exist. Others have said they thought (i.e. they had been told) that churches would be ‘forced’ to perform SSMs. It’s all just a bunch of demeaning lies told by church hierarchy that are designed to diminish God’s gay and lesbian children in the eyes/’minds’ of those in the pews. They want them to believe those kinds of things will happen when – demonstrably – they have not.
(Note the difference in tenses I used there? They think in terms of ‘if/then’; we wpeak in terms of actual experience. I’ve been married for coming up on 7 years now, and not a single heterosexual couple has been denied the opportunity to marry, no marriage has broken up because of it, and no babies have been harmed in the creation of our family.)
Interesting that it’s churches and their ‘leaders’ who bear false witness against God’s LGBT children in order to promulgate fear and injustice.



report abuse
 

RICHARD HODGES

posted December 7, 2010 at 5:59 pm


As long as HATE (being pushed hard) by the church people who seem to be wearing BROWN SHIRTS, NAZI style. Any ruling on social issues must come from the courts!!



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 7, 2010 at 7:37 pm


I think the reason some religious leaders are so bizarrely against marriage equality is because deep in their hearts they know when gay couples can get married, and the world continues revolving just fine, and more & more people realize religious anti-gay hate is wrong, those leaders will have to answer for it. They will finally be forced to admit this particular teaching is so mistaken that the world sees them as bigots for clinging to it. They can’t stand the thought of having to deal with that, or with having to apologize. After all, it took 385 years for the Catholics to finally apologize to Galileo for crucifying him over his (correct) heliocentric views.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 7, 2010 at 10:59 pm


homosexuality is the product of sin and saying so is not being bigoted or hateful it’s just the truth. Yes homosexuality is harmful to this nation it has been to every nation that in the past became so powerful and decadent they lean to this very same sin, (nothing is new under the sun). Old folk forget and young don’t know.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 7, 2010 at 11:27 pm


@ knn
Re: December 7, 2010 2:48 PM
“The fallacy of the pro-gay marriage arguments is the lack of recognition of eternal laws. Just as you cannot legislate away the law of gravity, you cannot legislate away the God-given powers of procreation.”
What’s “God” got to do with it? We are discussing civil marriage, not the rite of Holy Matrimony as may be practiced in your particular faith. FYI, procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Neither the desire, intention nor the ability to procreate is even mentioned. It certainly wasn’t at either of my middle sister’s two marriages. Nor at my nephew and his wife’s. Nor at my parent’s best friends’. Or should infertile and/or elderly betterosexuals be forbidden to marry in your world?
“you cannot tear down the building blocks of society without serious consequences.”
Too bad for your ‘argument’ that is not happening. Heterosexual marriage is not being “torn down”. It still exists/flourishes despite the fact that gay couples have been marrying for close to a decade now.
*
@ AlDelG
Re: December 7, 2010 3:16 PM
“Marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman capable of consumating that relationship in the procreative act.”
Not since 2001. Catch up. (Do you believe procreation is a requirement of marriage too, or is it just “the procreative act”?)
“Marriage” of individuals of the same sex can never be anything more than a legal fiction.”
Let’s see, I exist. My husband exists. Our legal marriage exists. Sorry, no fiction here. Try again.
*
@ Lonz
Re: December 7, 2010 3:34 PM
“So—-Definitions are now subject to current and popular fashions and fads?”
Huh? Homosexuality is now merely a “fashion”? A “fad”? Laff. And “popular”? Tell that to those recent suicides. That’s just delusional. Typical, but delusional.
“A traditional definition of marriage as recognized for the bulk of human history is “inadequate”?”
It certainly doesn’t meet gay citizen’s needs for full, equal participation in society. You made that up, didn’t you?
“Relgious people are misguided?”
Many are. But most, thankfully are not. Take me, for instance. I’m what most people would call “religious” – raised Pentecostal/Salvationist, went to a Lutheran college, have been a Deacon for 20 years in my current church. I don’t think I’m misguided. Trouble is, apparently, I don’t go to your church. My church teaches me something much different than it seems yours taught you. Why do you folk hate freedom of religion so much?
“It takes enlightened people to fix it all for us?”
The only thing ‘broken’ about it [the institution of marriage] is Un-Constitutionally closed to a minority of citizens. So yes, I guess that will take some enlightenment to ‘fix’. Why do some religionists hate enlightenment?
“Why don’t we just vote?”
“Seriously.”
Um, maybe because voting on other people’s rights and freedoms is Un-Constitutional.
Seriously.
“I fear that I will never understand why some folks just cannot accept principles of faith and religion”
Too bad all religions are not of one mind on the matter. Or, in your world, can non-/different-believers not get married? I can see that clearly: ‘No non-Christians [i.e. those who don't go to my church and accept our tenets] may henceforth be married.’ Yeah, that’ll happen. (Ever hear of getting married by a Justice of the Peace? Yup, that’s right, some folk don’t get married in church – ANY church. Or synagogue, temple or mosque. Hint: it isn’t a requirement.) So, you’re right; you never will “understand why some folks just cannot accept YOUR “principles of faith and YOUR religion”.
“and cannot rest until they destroy what they don’t like.”
Honey, we “like” the institution so much, we are working hard to achieve our Constitutionally guaranteed right to be treated equally before the law so that we can enter into it. It is NOT being “destroyed” – just added to. Think of it as that long-overdue, much needed addition to the house of liberty and justice for all.
“Religion does not teach persecution, but it does teach obedience to God’s laws.”
Too bad neither [YOUR] “religion” nor “obedience to [YOUR version of] God’s laws” is the topic. But, come to think of it, if you are any example, it seems that your religion DOES teach persecution. And you seem to have learned the lesson quite well. Sadly.
Looks like you all believe in the separation of church and reality.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 7, 2010 at 11:38 pm


ck,
“homosexuality is the product of sin and saying so is” a requirement in ck’s church.
“not being bigoted or hateful” according to what ck gets taught in his church.
“it’s just the truth.” according to the tenets of ck’s churc. We don’t all go there, of course. And, in America, we aren’t required to. Why do you hate freedom of religion so much?
“Yes homosexuality is harmful to this nation”. Too bad neither ck, nor Maggie Gallagher, nor any bishop, nor Tony Perkins nor anyone else could give a concrete example of exactly HOW it “harms” America.
Sorry, ck, but you’ve got to bring better arguments to the discussion or you just are not going to be believed. You’re entitled to your religious beliefs, and no one is trying to change them. We will fight to the death if necessary though to avoid having them imposed on those of us who are not members of your church.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 7, 2010 at 11:39 pm


grump you have a lot to say but concerning your supposedly religiosity what is it based on because if it is supposed to be biblically base please show me why the bible promotes either homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Show me where the constitution supports homosexual marriage or anywhere that the framers indicated support of either homosexuality or homosexual marriage.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 7, 2010 at 11:49 pm


much to your disappointment grump its not just my “church” nor is it only churched people who realize the harm of homosexuality. You might try to draw the picture of some evil mean monster that just not there. Also no one is fighting and as the phony “we will fight to our death” rally cry, that’s just lame. The danger? You’re full of it grump the evidence is you my friend, drama perversion and lack of morals un-glues this country at the seams.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted December 8, 2010 at 12:01 am


It’s sad that these different religions can only find common ground when they gang up on LGBTs: The Minority America Loves to Hate.



report abuse
 

Chino Blanco

posted December 8, 2010 at 12:11 am


Follow the URL and watch a YouTube clip of Bishop Harry Jackson and Marion Barry (!) preaching the evils of homosexuality and gay marriage.
Yup, Bishop Harry Jackson is one of the signers of the letter.
Quite the company these folks keep.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted December 8, 2010 at 12:40 am


cknuck: “its not just my ‘church’ nor is it only churched people who realize the harm of homosexuality”
Yeah, religious people keep saying it’s not just a religious issue. And then continue to quote Bible verse after Bible verse. I might believe you guys someday if I ever see a group of atheists holding up signs that say “Science hates Homos” or anything similar. But until then, I’m not convinced.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 8, 2010 at 1:29 am


Mordred the fact that you believe that all atheist think the same in all issues is either infantile or if true really scary. I have never said that I hate homosexuals and I have provided nonreligious findings about homosexual practices and I have no problem revisiting those items. Your insistence that only religious people have objections to the practice of homosexuality gives you a better target for your slams but it’s a real straw man, set them up and knock them down as many times as you wish, still it gives the practice of homosexuality no real purpose. Simply vanity and man’s defiance to God.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 8, 2010 at 10:18 am


@ cknuck
Re: December 7, 2010 11:39 PM
“grump you have a lot to say but concerning your supposedly religiosity what is it based on”
On my personal relationship with Jesus Christ my Saviour. Thanks for asking (not that it’s any concern of yours or any other religious busybody, it being a personal relationship).
“because if it is supposed to be biblically base please show me why the bible promotes either homosexuality or homosexual marriage.”
Y-A-W-N. We’ve been through this so many times before, it’s getting tedious explaining it. You don’t believe my points when I make them, so I’m simply not going to bother anymore. You believe what you want to – you’re free to do so. Please extend that same courtesy to others. It’s called freedom of religion. Other people’s spirituality is not (or at least should not be) a concern of yours. Nor must it be “Biblically based”. Certainly not in America that promises freedom of religion to ALL people. Why do you hate freedom of religion quite so very much? And you could show some respect for your own Holy Book by capitalizing the Bible.
“Show me where the constitution supports homosexual marriage or anywhere that the framers indicated support of either homosexuality or homosexual marriage.”
Um, that would be under the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to liberty and justice for ALL, under the Equal Protections Clause, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It figures you wouldn’t know.
And, re: December 7, 2010 11:49 PM
“much to your disappointment grump its not just my “church” nor is it only churched people who realize the harm of homosexuality.”
Again, you refuse to delineate just exactly what this supposed “harm” IS. Several other churches/faiths disagree with your church on the topic. Until you can articulate this imagined “harm”, there’s no debating with you. It is a fiction. A made up thing. A lie, aka the bearing of false witness, aka a sin. So stop it.
“Also no one is fighting and as the phony “we will fight to our death” rally cry, that’s just lame.”
What is it about equality that you hate so much?
“The danger? You’re full of it grump the evidence is you my friend, drama perversion and lack of morals un-glues this country at the seams”
What “danger” am I “full of”, ck? What “perversion”? What “lack of morals”? You don’t even know me. If anything, this country is becoming ‘un-glued’ because of religious histrionics that claim some imaginary danger from loving, committed, adult, human relationships. Those histrionics are all about denying a segment of the population equal treatment before the law. When people crap on the Constitution, THAT is the danger to America.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 8, 2010 at 10:22 am


“I have never said that I hate homosexuals”
You don’t have to say those particular words, ck. What you really feel comes through loud and clear with each and every post.
“and I have provided nonreligious findings about homosexual practices and I have no problem revisiting those items. Your insistence that only religious people have objections to the practice of homosexuality gives you a better target for your slams but it’s a real straw man, set them up and knock them down as many times as you wish, still it gives the practice of homosexuality no real purpose. Simply vanity and man’s defiance to God.”
Hmmm, for a “non-religious ‘finding’”, you sure use a lot of God-talk.
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2010/12/religious-groups-rally-behind_comments.php#ixzz17XPCRI1N



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted December 8, 2010 at 12:03 pm


Duwayne, the author, it was an interesting story about your experience with your Church. Thanks for giving it.
I’ve read of many gay couples who have adopted children and hard to place children with problems and how blessed they feel to be able to help them grow with love and care. Many heteros who can’t have children naturally are doing the same. The antigay people have as many excuses as the “grains of sand” on our beaches against SS marriage. There is no American law that I have ever heard in our Constitution that forbids SS marriage.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 8, 2010 at 12:31 pm


as I thought grump you’ve got nothing relevant to back your claims, you try to paint the illusion of “your church” meaning my church against many, as I said before there are churched and unchurched that are observing and becoming alarmed at the decaying properties of this country’s moral fiber, one of the bigger factors is homosexuality.



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 8, 2010 at 1:25 pm


Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978 (US Supreme Court, concurring opinion):
“The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the decisions of this Court have made clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties so protected.”
THIS is a direct case that will guide the US Supreme Court. Lawn-mowing, tax-paying, grocery shopping couples who just happen to be gay can, will, and must be granted marriage equality.



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 8, 2010 at 1:28 pm


cknuck, you are a lot of hot air with no substance. Here’s some substance, dear.
Objective (i.e., no horse in the race) institutions supporting my conclusion that there is nothing wrong or bad about being gay — that’s it’s simply a normal, natural variation in human sexuality — include the:
American Medical Association, American Medical Student Association, American Psychological Association, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Welfare League of America, American Bar Association, National Association of Social Workers, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, California NAACP, Constitutional Accountability CenterAmerican, Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Council on Child and Adolescent Health, American Association of Pastoral Counselors, American Law Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, Anti-Defamation League, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Mental Health America, California Psychological Association, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, American Counseling Association, California Teachers’ Association, Asian Law Caucus, American Sociological Association, National Black Justice Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of Northern California, American Anthropological Association, Asian American Justice Center, Asian Pacific American Bar Association, Asian Pacific Legal Center, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, National Federation of Federal Employees, Japanese American Bar Association, Southern Poverty Law Center, Religious Society of Friends, California Council of Churches, Faith in America, Human Rights Watch, Working Families Win, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, League of Women Voters, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Education Association, Freedom In Christ Church, Episcopal Church, Disciples of Christ, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, Dignity Catholic Church, Universal Life Church, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Metropolitan Community Church, not to mention countless universities, local governments, and virtually every human rights organization that exists.
Believe anything you want, but reality and knowledge do not support your prejudice.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 8, 2010 at 4:04 pm


Tony impressive compilation but there is as many to the opposite that proves nothing. I’m in-between meetings but I will be glad to give you facts, cold hard facts my friend not prejudice as you would like folk to think but facts.



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 8, 2010 at 6:55 pm


cknuck, you do that, hon. You provide a list of OBJECTIVE authorities in medicine, psychology, human sexuality, and/or science which support your anti-gay rhetoric. I dare you. Keep in mind, I left off any organization that was biased toward gays. My list includes, I think, the world’s most renowned and respected authorities in these fields, none of which have a reason to risk compromising their objectivity. If you disagree, tell me who is more authoritative in psychology than that APA? Who is a greater authority in medicine than the AMA, WHO, etc.?
This I gotta see!



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 8, 2010 at 9:41 pm


It is totally a matter of civil rights—marriage is not a religious institution and they don’t own it or the word “marriage”. If they did then ONLY those attached to a religious organization (minister, Rabbi, Priest etc.) would be able to join folks in marriage. As it is, a judge, notary public, lawyer,justice of the peace, can marry folks—so no religion is involved, only the government saying your married. As it is there has to be a “marriage license” for any marriage in a religious or secular environment. Some folks want only “civil unions” for homosexuals, well that leaves out many rights given to married folks. Civil rights at one time said inter-racial marriages were illegal too—that fortunately changed. This should change also—this country should not be so out of touch with reality. How many heterosexuals lives have been affected by 2 people of the same gender being married to each other? Did it cause a heterosexual family to lose their home, or lose a job or not be able to walk down the street, or buy groceries etc? Yes, I’m exagerating, but that is how ridiculous it is for any religion or government to not allow 2 consenting adults to marry. It is no one’s business who marries who, as long as the adults involved are of age and want to committ to each other.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 8, 2010 at 9:55 pm


Also, not being a “Christian” nation (I know, cknuck, you think that is incorrect and the framers of the country were supposed to be making it that way etc) or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation or a Buddhist nation etc., means no religious institiution should be dealing in government decisions. Marriage is an equal rights issue, not a religious one.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 9, 2010 at 12:03 am


ORAL SEX Homosexuals fellate almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). Semen contains many of the germs carried in the blood. Because of this, gays who practice oral sex verge on consuming raw human blood, with all its medical risks. Since the penis often has tiny lesions (and often will have been in unsanitary places such as a rectum), individuals so involved may become infected with hepatitis A or gonorrhea (and even HIV and hepatitis B). Since many contacts occur between strangers (70% of gays estimated that they had had sex only once with over half of their partners17,27), and gays average somewhere between 106 and 1105 different partners/year, the potential for infection is considerable.
RECTAL SEX Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries,3 gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.
Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for 1) saliva and its germs and/or an artificial lubricant, 2) the recipient’s own feces, 3) whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it, and 4) the seminal fluid of the inserter. Since sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick) causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present),7 rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.
Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with “fisting,” where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when “toys” are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum–bottles, carrots, even gerbils8). The risk of contamination and/or having to wear a colostomy bag from such “sport” is very real. Fisting was apparently so rare in Kinsey’s time that he didn’t think to talk about it. By 1977, well over a third of gays admitted to doing it. The rectum was not designed to accommodate the fist, and those who do so can find themselves consigned to diapers for life.
FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity–half regularly over 6 months. Result? –the “annual incidence of hepatitis A in…homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A.” In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.
While the body has defenses against fecal germs, exposure to the fecal discharge of dozens of strangers each year is extremely unhealthy. Ingestion of human waste is the major route of contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as the Gay Bowel Syndrome. Consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever,9 herpes, and cancer.27 About 10% of gays have eaten or played with [e.g., enemas, wallowing in feces]. The San Francisco Department of Public Health saw 75,000 patients per year, of whom 70 to 80 per cent are homosexual men….An average of 10 per cent of all patients and asymptomatic contacts reported…because of positive fecal samples or cultures for amoeba, giardia, and shigella infections were employed as food handlers in public establishments; almost 5 per cent of those with hepatitis A were similarly employed.”10 In 1976, a rare airborne scarlet fever broke out among gays and just missed sweeping through San Francisco.10 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 29% of the hepatitis A cases in Denver, 66% in New York, 50% in San Francisco, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal and 26% in Melbourne in the first six months of 1991 were among gays.11 A 1982 study “suggested that some transmission from the homosexual group to the general population may have occurred.”12



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 9, 2010 at 12:05 am


Homosexuality was diagnosed and treated as a psychiatric illness — abnormal behavior — until 1973, when it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in psychiatry because of political pressure.
One of the studies in the journal, by David M. Ferguson and his team, found that “gay, lesbian and bisexual young people are at increased risk of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors.”
An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians.
American Journal of Public Health has shown that 39% of males with same-sex attraction have been abused by other males with same-sex attraction.
The list of medical diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of abnormal homosexual behavior is alarming: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, human papilloma virus — HPV or genital warts — isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, and syphilis.
In this Amsterdam study, 86% of new HIV infections occurred in men who considered themselves to be in same-sex unions.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 9, 2010 at 12:09 am


pagan it is just a religious concern but a common sense concern as well.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted December 9, 2010 at 12:25 am


ck
It is NOT all about sex.



report abuse
 

RL

posted December 9, 2010 at 10:38 am


cknuck – You are more obsessed with gay sex than gays. I don’t know where you’re getting your stats (literally, you didn’t cite your sources), but few of my gay friends have had anal sex, few have had oral sex as well. In fact, they are more chaste than my straight friends. In addition, a dating website surveyed users and found that gay men and straight men, on average, have the same exact number of sexual partners per year (6); they also found that straight men are more aggressive, violent, into drugs, and horny (http://blog.okcupid.com/).
I don’t have the source for this, but can provide you with a secondary source (This American Life podcast, episode on homosexuality and the DSM). The studies to which you refer on the mental health of homosexuals were highly biased. They used as their participants homosexuals who were in psychiatric care or receiving other services. A researcher (discussed in TAL podcast) picked up on this and gathered data on groups of demographically similar heterosexual and homosexual college-aged men. She found no differences in the data. Moreover, she presented her data to researchers who had concluded homosexuals are at greater risk to mental illness; they could not distinguish between gay men and straight men based on the data. They were the same.



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm


cknuck, I have to say your bizarre obsession with gay sex is kind of creepy. Aside from that, your rants – I mean posts – seem to judge particular behaviors. You do understand, don’t you, that what makes a gay person a gay person is their innate, instinctual attraction to fall in love with their own gender, rather than the opposite gender? That is, homosexuality is no more defined by sex acts than heterosexuality is defined by sex acts. Comprende?
In other words, straight people exhibit some pretty irresponsible, unhealthy, and unusual sexual behaviors too, but we don’t punish all heterosexuals do we? That would be silly. Take a reality check – gays hardly have an exclusive corner on anal sex.
If you have issues with certain behaviors, take those issues up with people who exhibit those behaviors. In the meantime, you’re misplacing this odd, negative fixation on certain sex acts by projecting it onto women who fall in love with women and men who fall in love with men. That doesn’t make sense. Think, dear, think.



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 9, 2010 at 1:21 pm


cknuck, also I am still anxiously awaiting this list of objective, world-renowned expert authorities who support your views. I think organizations in the fields of medicine, psychology, human sexuality, and many specific scientific disciplines would be appropriate. By all means, please provide that list if you think it can match mine, as you yourself said yesterday.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm


jest the drug information is not correct especially concerning meth, it is used heavily for homosexual sex, notice homosexuality is about sex that may be why the attempt to call it gay.
RL, yes I know telling the truth is odd behavior and obsessive.



report abuse
 

Tony M.

posted December 9, 2010 at 7:56 pm


Still waiting for that list, cknuck. Either man up to your big talk yesterday, or man up and admit you were wrong. Either way, be a man will ya!



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 10, 2010 at 12:21 am


T.M. you a homosexual telling me to be man is a huge laugh. Yes most of my list are religious organizations and religious scientist I don’t have a desire to list them or play your game. The truth of the matter is there is no gene, hormone, DNA markers that back up any assertions that homosexuality is natural or created at birth or explainable or that homosexuality is not a psychological abnormality. It is foolishness to imply homosexuality is normal, if there was an actual identifiable gene no one would choose to birth a homosexual child, homosexuals would be bred out of existence.



report abuse
 

SoniaNorris

posted December 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm


God doesn’t make mistakes! I believe that people are born gay just as people are born straight. I have several gay friends and I find it so amusing (and sad) when I hear people ask them “When did you know you were gay?” I don’t recall anyone ever asking me “When did you know you were straight?” In the Bible it says to love you’re your neighbor and not to pass judgment. Isn’t that what we are doing? Judging gay people for loving someone of the same sex? Gay human beings that are in committed relationships are just like any married couple and deserve the same rights we have. Those not in committed relationship are looking for someone to be in a committed relationship with. Just like anyone else. In my humble opinion, I don’t care who you love, as long as you love someone. We are all looking for love, acceptance and respect.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 10, 2010 at 3:35 pm


Holy Cow! cknuck—-what is with the details of what you consider only homosexual love making? You needed to try and impress folks with your knowledge or something? What 2 consenting folks do in the privacy of their homes, whether homosexual or heterosexual is really no one’s business. Do you honestly think that no heterosexual couple participates in anything except the Missionary position when they are intimate?
Still an equal rights issue and really has nothing to do with religion.
SoniaNorris: Good points—I’ve never been asked when I KNEW I was straight—so what is with “when did you know you were gay?? ”



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted December 10, 2010 at 4:21 pm


ck
It is my humble belief that you have no stinking clue what you are writing about. Your fear and loathing has blocked any ability to read what others have written. I expect the same is true when someone tries to speak with you. I expect this has a lot more to do with yourself than with anyone else’s orientation.
Peace and rest friend, so you may someday share hope and joy



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 10, 2010 at 7:09 pm


Being born homosexual is an opinion and not fact people are so far into untruth that the truth is offensive, too bad it still is the truth and the truth will make this a stronger nation. Anything built on a lie has no foundation as of now this country is not doing well and although homosexuality is only partly the blame it’s still a stumbling block.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 10, 2010 at 7:59 pm


cknuck,
you need a psychiatrist, a member of the apa, the aap and a psychologist to inform you of the error of your thought pattern related to how you feel these things about homosexuals and what this means about what you think and feel about yourself.
seriously, man. you’ve got some problems between your ears.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 10, 2010 at 8:37 pm


And, no, I didn’t need the above list to refer to. Would you like me to start or would you like to offer some other information about yourself other than anything to do with homosexuality? Really, man. You are giving so much negative power to homosexuality. What purpose does that serve you? You are clearly not homosexual, yet you have these intensely strong feelings about homosexuals and this must satisfy something inside you to degrade a group of people you clearly have no clue about except the dire, ugly, mean, hateful, prejudiced, superficial, stereotypical, homophobic inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions and suppositions you prove you cling to with reckless abandon.
Let me ask you 3 question: Can you list as many, or as few, positive and beneficial things homosexuals/homosexuality provide/s to society at large? Is there anything about homosexuality/homosexuals that is/are equal to heterosexuality/heterosexuals? What can heterosexuals/heterosexuality do that homosexuals/homosexuality have/has no ability to do?



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 10, 2010 at 8:40 pm


btw, the times are incorrect on the posts I submitted. why is this?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 10, 2010 at 11:50 pm


David no disrespect intended I am just a fan of the truth, and the truth is that a psychiatrist, a member of the apa, the aap and a psychologist can do little more than give me legal jargon about homosexuality not medical explanations. Homosexuality has been legislated into what we are forced to believe about it there is no medical explanation or proof that homosexuality is anything more than a sexual preference and as such the practice should not be lifted as if it is a gender, a race, or a acceptable practice. Young people are more confused than ever, many believe oral sex is not actually sex, or anal sex is a safe sex practice, both suicides and murder is on the rise in our young. Some people are getting operations and we are legally forced to accept that they have actually changed sexes (which is impossible) no wonder kids are screwed up. The list goes on and the further away from the truth we go the worse things will be, lying about sexuality no big deal? Yeah it is, and it is reckless and irresponsible.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted December 11, 2010 at 12:53 am


If it weren’t for people like you, cknuck, no one would have to lie about their sexuality. And I’m glad to know I’m not the only one who thinks you’re more obsessed with gay sex (or what you perceive to be gay sex) than actual gay people.



report abuse
 

CTDad

posted December 11, 2010 at 7:42 am


DavidKCMO-
You wrote: “You are clearly not homosexual, yet you have these intensely strong feelings about homosexuals and this must satisfy something inside you to degrade a group of people you clearly have no clue about except the dire, ugly, mean, hateful, prejudiced, superficial, stereotypical, homophobic inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions and suppositions you prove you cling to with reckless abandon.
I think you are incorrect with the first part of the above. There is nothing about cknuck posts that makes me think he is not homosexual. Just think of: Larry Craig, George Rekers, and Ted Haggard before the: wides-stance, rent-boy with suit case, and message therapist.
I think that is exactly why he doth protest so very much against homosexuality!



report abuse
 

JohnQ

posted December 11, 2010 at 7:55 am


cknuck
December 9, 2010 12:05 AM
Homosexuality was diagnosed and treated as a psychiatric illness — abnormal behavior — until 1973, when it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in psychiatry because of political pressure.
Homosexuality was removed from the DSM after it was brought to light that the organization’s view of homosexuality was based solely upon the mental condition of homosexuals that were being treated for mental problems. The learned doctors realized that the truth is…homosexuals with issues is a subset of all homosexuals….rather than all homosexuals have mental issues.
Peace!



report abuse
 

JohnQ

posted December 11, 2010 at 8:04 am


I fully support the right of those religious groups (and whatever others may exist) that are listed in the article that oppose marriage equality. They certainly have a right to advocate for their position…and, have a right to deny recognition by their organization any marriages they wish based on whatever criteria they see fit to utilize.
However, the above listed religious organization have no right to obstruct the civil-rights of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens that are not even requesting to be married by the above listed organizations.
The fruits of their (the above listed organizations) seems quite evident….and, it stinks.
Peace!



report abuse
 

davidKCMO

posted December 11, 2010 at 12:21 pm


cknuck,
are you having problems with reading comprehension? the apa, the aap and a psychologist are medical organizations/scientists, not legal experts, lawyers or attorneys. so, yes. they are exactly the people who will give you the best information regarding human sexuality. full stop.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 11, 2010 at 7:18 pm


CTdad there is a diagnosis for seeing homosexuals everywhere, lol.
david yes they do have a lot of information but as I said before they simply cannot explain homosexuality so they have legislated what they feel is an appropriate explanation.
Mordred once again this is an article concerning the church’s position on homosexuality and I know certain truths about the subject, like there is no gene, hormone, or DNA markers identifying homosexuality so it cannot be compared to race, or sex (as in male or female) it is not a separate gender nor can sexes be reassigned (reality check). When I see our kids presented lies I have a problem so I speak out and of course you take the position you can present your truth but I cannot. I fought for this country and the right to free speech so I’m going to exercise it, to your dismay if necessary.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 12, 2010 at 10:57 am


Again the question, cknuck, why in the world would anyone “choose” to live a “lifestyle” that can cause such hatred and discrimination(and sometimes death because of it) towards them? If homosexuality was indeed a choice, I personally don’t think anyone would just “decide” they would “live that life”, given the attitude many, many folks still have towards anyone who is GLBT, as well as the unequal laws still on the books regarding it. In my most unprofessional opinion—–a person is born homosexual, just like a person is born heterosexual—–not a choice, just who they are. What’s the problem with that?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 12, 2010 at 4:39 pm


pagan I appreciate your logic but it a logic formed by your understanding of something that is not understandable. To answer your question I present a question: “why in the world would anyone “choose” to live a “lifestyle” that can cause such hatred and discrimination(and sometimes death because of it) towards them?” Sounds familiar? But let me point out that one could ask the same of drug addiction, S&M, cutting, alcoholism, sex addiction and other examples are even darker.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 12, 2010 at 6:25 pm


Matthew 6:26 talks about the birds of the air having not to worry about what to eat and how God looks out for them. But as we see man has polluted the land on such a level that birds and animals have much to worry about these days as a matter of fact many are coming upon extinction or are no more. It is the same with sex and sexuality homosexuality is just one way man pollutes that which is created by God. Homosexuality is not of God but a perversion of a gift from God produced by sin and we know what sin is full grown.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 12, 2010 at 9:04 pm


cknuck, if one has the strong desire(not that that is in any way easy) one can stop cutting, drinking or drugs,etc., with help from various groups–AA etc. However, one isn’t born to be addicted to drugs, booze,cutting ones self etc. (yes some babies born to addicted mothers, but can be weaned as a baby. However, one doesn’t choose one’s sexual attractions, IMO. Drinking, drugs, cutting,are choices, love isn’t. There were homosexuals in Matt’s time too, I suspect. :o)



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 12, 2010 at 10:01 pm


Incorrect pagan as most without knowledge of addictions and compulsions often are Something about the addictive personality is unlike that of a person that can take it or leave it, in fact 95% of the addicted persons will indeed die of the addiction not at all as easy as your attempt to explain it paints it neither are the compulsions. Also there is no proof that homosexuals are born that way anymore than you can explain the examples I have provided, keep in mind there are more examples and although some people may be insulted by them they may closely relate to homosexuality.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted December 13, 2010 at 2:06 am


“there is no gene, hormone, or DNA markers identifying homosexuality”
Who can argue with cknuck, the Internet geneticist/psychologist?
“When I see our kids presented lies I have a problem so I speak out”
And when I see kids murdered, I speak out.



report abuse
 

JohnQ

posted December 13, 2010 at 9:15 am


cknuck-
there is no gene, hormone, or DNA markers identifying homosexuality
Wow, and there is not gene, hormone, nor DNA markers identifying heterosexuality. Yet, you claim heterosexuals exist. Can you prove that heterosexuals occur naturally?
Peace!



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 13, 2010 at 3:00 pm


cknuck,
no one in here thinks you are as intrinsically ignorant as you attempt to paint yourself to be. you are willfully ignorant and the more you refuse to answer simple questions and evade the real topic, why you think homosexuals are less worthy and therefore deserving of your discrimination, the more you back yourself into the corner you have created and react do defensively.
the information we have been giving you in here regarding the apa, the aap regarding homosexuality ,and the countless other bodies of science, are not to win an argument. these above mentioned sciences are called sciences because they have to prove beyond any doubt through strict and extremely rigorous standards and processes, mainly the scientific method, that resultant data their experiments provide is interpreted through only the most objective means possible. meaning there is no wiggle room.
meanderings through defending your prejudices and discrimination against homosexuals with, “god told me to and therefore it’s ok to,” is the blithering of an idiot. how convenient it is for you to defend your insecurities with an imaginary entity that will never be able to defend itself in any venue, available to the rest of us, at any time.
regarding your time in the service: even this doesn’t give you any credibility in any discussion of science unless you can submit to the us the degree in science regarding any part of the human body or mind, including their functions, you have obtained-while a citizen or military member.
written by you:
“pagan I appreciate your logic but it a logic formed by your understanding of something that is not understandable. To answer your question I present a question: “why in the world would anyone “choose” to live a “lifestyle” that can cause such hatred and discrimination(and sometimes death because of it) towards them?” Sounds familiar? But let me point out that one could ask the same of drug addiction, S&M, cutting, alcoholism, sex addiction and other examples are even darker.”
you compared sexuality to behavioral examples of pathologies you didn’t even have thought to mention possible causes of. again, homosexuality is not, and never has been, a pathology in and of itself, just like heterosexuality.
your ability to coherently write is also suspect, cknuck. complete sentences are rare in your submissions of information that really lacks in associative coherence. this means, because you must have this explained to you, that your version of “a” and “c” never meet through what you contemplate as “b.” I’d love to explain this in depth to you, but I’m afraid you would feel like I’m doing nothing but calling you an idiot, and it would be more beneficial for all if you reached this conclusion all by yourself, a prospect I have little faith in considering your painstakingly repeated insecurities you have let us all in on regarding homosexuality.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 13, 2010 at 6:02 pm


David everyone who disputes the position of apa or aap is not ignorant, clearly some finding are politically motivated. Sigmund Freud’s basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He believed all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905).
analysts later argued that homosexuality resulted from pathological family relationships during the oedipal period (around 4-5 years of age) and claimed that they observed these patterns in their homosexual patients (Bieber et al., 1962). Charles Socarides (1968) speculated that the etiology of homosexuality was pre-oedipal and, therefore, even more pathological than had been supposed by earlier analysts (for a detailed history, see Lewes, 1988; for briefer summaries, see Bayer, 1987; Silverstein, 1991) All findings are feelings as i said before there are no identifiable genes, chromosomes, hormones, or DNA markers to explain homosexuality the truth.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 13, 2010 at 6:06 pm


JohnQ did you even think about your statement before posting? A male or female can be identified but DNA, bone structure, chromosomes, and hormones. By incident alone heterosexuality is the norm.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 14, 2010 at 9:54 am


cknuck,
guess what, genius, you’re so confused about what normal means. homosexuality is also the norm, regardless of your personal problem with it. to use your words, “by incident alone” it is normal in humans for less than 10% of the population to be homosexual. why, because in EVERY SINGLE HUMAN SOCIETY STUDIED ON THE PLANET EARTH 3 TO 10 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION IS 100% GUARANTEED TO BE HOMOSEXUAL!!!!!



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 14, 2010 at 10:14 am


and your again incorrect,
“David everyone who disputes the position of apa or aap is not ignorant, clearly some finding are politically motivated.”
yet you are not disputing the apa and the aap, you’re trying to confute the aap’s and the apa’s findings without data, which again means you’re saying you’re right just because you say so.
where’s your proof the aap’s and the apa’s data and conclusions are politically motivated? and what makes you think their findings are politically motivated in the first place. the apa and the aap were more than aware of the resistance the government body would provide regarding the dissemination of information they were not in agreement with for reasons that the aap and the apa proved baseless, malicious and calloused in nature.
look, man. we understand your desire to retain your prejudice against homosexuals. we get that you think it makes you appear more “manly” and “masculine” and that it inflates your ego because you’re emotionally immature as well as insecure regarding about yourself. you are doing nothing but blowing hot air out of your mouth about things you repeatedly prove you have no real education about, or for that matter no clue of whatsoever.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 14, 2010 at 10:36 am


as Judge Walker said ,
“”Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples,”
what makes you think you have any basis to tell this man, a federal judge, he’s wrong? because you say so? and you can’t say because he’s gay. what an idiot you would be. if you do you would then have to say that only a heterosexual has, or in your view should have, the ability to rule impartially on this case. you would then also have to say no black judge could ever, in the past , present or future, sit on a case involving racial discrimination or that a female judge could never, past, present or future, sit on a case involving sexism or workplace inequality of the sexes regarding pay or anything else.
I would bet money that you weren’t even aware one of the presidents of the united states was a full tilt known homosexual. he had a partner for years, everybody knew, and it wasn’t an issue. James Buchanan



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 14, 2010 at 10:39 am


seriously, cknuck, you’re going to have to come at this with some hard evidence and proof behind your claims on your next post. and these claims and proof cannot involve anything mythological. reality required.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 14, 2010 at 10:43 am


and before you ask other’s in here if they “even think about your statement before posting,” turn that one around and answer your own question. or do you think you’re not subject to the same scrutiny you think should be imposed on others by yourself?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 14, 2010 at 1:55 pm


My you are a emotional one, silly the hard evidence for the last time is that there is no hard evidence. Quoting Judge Walker only proves my statement about political motivation.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 14, 2010 at 5:48 pm


Each posting of yours amounts to nothing more than a classic example of one of your favorite cocaine addicted Freud’s famous coping mechanisms: projection. Try turning those binoculars around so what you’re looking at doesn’t reflect what you see and how what you’re looking at in contrast to yourself doesn’t reinforce the you that you think you see in the mirror. That’s where your hard evidence resides-the mirror. Because in reality you’re accepting information from sources that have been proven with the hard evidence, your reverse binoculars make almost impossible to correctly perceive, to be 100% discredible.
The more you try to explian away the source of your homophobia ad nauseum in terms of supernatural authority or studies that have been found oozing with malicious bias, the more you reinforce to yourself that aminus and negative bias is something you have no personal involvement with and therefore no responsibility to acknowledge. If you did acknowledge the blatantly apparent animus directed toward homosexuals you would be forced to accept your attachment to this negative portral of individuals you have never met or have unbeknownst to yourself.
No wonder then you think what you say about homosexuals doesn’t affect how you feel about yourself. You’ve convinced yourself these views are fact which makes them, in your view, external from you.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 14, 2010 at 6:03 pm


I’d you’d like to know, three of your friend Freud’s coping mechanisms were present in my assessment of you. Projection, transference and the third shall remain a mystery because Ir is the most potent for your capacity for lack of emotional introversion and self evaluation.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 14, 2010 at 8:40 pm


how much must it eat at you to continue to lie to everyone in here instead of just letting go with whatever the silly emotional hindrance you cling to.
to build up your lies about homosexuality has to be a chore. how many lies, there must be at least 40. how do you associate one lie about homosexuality to another lie about homosexuality without looking like an idiot by accidentally linking the incorrect lies. or even worse, incorrectly linking a lie about homosexuality to the proof of its truthful counterpart from the pro same sex marriage camp. you must be a busy man in that head of yours. a graph is a choice many would employ to sinc your talking points and lies to their respective truths so you could at least follow the conversation and stay on topic without appearing as though you have no coherent conversational skills in your native language.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 14, 2010 at 8:46 pm


the hard evidence you, or your subconscious or repressed self, are looking for has many forms. again, the most powerful one that will invariably illicit the furthest reaching conclusions tends to be an epiphany you have all on your own. but at your age having not yet had said epiphany, you must be so enveloped by the time honored emotional immaturity it has relied upon for, I’m guessing at least 3-4 decades, self preservation



report abuse
 

JohnQ

posted December 14, 2010 at 9:36 pm


cknuck
JohnQ did you even think about your statement before posting? A male or female can be identified but DNA, bone structure, chromosomes, and hormones. By incident alone heterosexuality is the norm.
Thanks for asking….and yes, I did not only think about my post…I read it before hitting the “post” button. Did you do the same with the post I have quoted?
I can not help but notice you switched from talking about sexuality (homosexuality, heterosexuality, bi-sexuality, pan-sexuality, etc)
to talking about gender (male, female). Sexuality and gender are certainly not the same.
Peace!



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 15, 2010 at 12:28 am


JohnQ if “sexuality and gender are certainly not the same” then why are some homosexuals trying to change their genders a obvious impossible feat.



report abuse
 

linyilin

posted December 15, 2010 at 4:33 am


input this URL:
( http://www.fashionstyle2.com )
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan shoes)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey)
( lv handbag)
(cha nel wallet)
(D&G sunglasses)
(ed har dy jacket)
(UGG boot)
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 15, 2010 at 11:40 am


cknuck,
you have just proven, to all who read this thread of comments, that you are without a doubt, a heterosupremacist who is so incredibly ignorant that you don’t know the difference between homosexuality and transexuality. on your quest to belittle homosexuals you just made the jump to full tilt embarrassment of yourself. do you ever do actual research about anything, or do you just start talking about things you are so ignorant of and assume that because you’re heterosexual others should defer to what comes out of your mouth?
transsexuality is not, although you may believe it so because of your brain’s associative inabilities, an immediate extension of homosexuality. they are not part and parcel of one another. transsexuals are always hetero or homosexual pre and post op. homosexuality is not a pre or post op requirement intrinsically of transsexuality.
more info for your emotionally immature brain:
Sex and sexuality and gender are ALWAYS independent of one another. one’s sex is either female or male. sexuality is either asexual, homosexual or heterosexual, it refers to which sex you want to get it on with. gender is a sliding scale of attributes or presentations by a male or female that are found to be either masculine, feminine or anywhere in between.
have you caught on yet?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 15, 2010 at 10:03 pm


David your information is contrived as much as your made up words, “heterosupremacist” lol make stuff up to attempt to prove your point you are funny my friend, I needed a good laugh. All of you information only applies to a homosexual bent and you are in homosexual denial, remember this “lgbt”? It’s all the same, not at all as sophisticated as you would like one to think.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 16, 2010 at 12:53 am


the apa is not bent toward homosexuals. this is what they have to say:
What is sexual orientation?
Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.
Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female),* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.
How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?
According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.
Different lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people. Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or othersex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation. Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation..
What role do prejudice and discrimination play in the lives of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people?
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States encounter extensive prejudice, discrimination, and violence because of their sexual orientation. Intense prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people was widespread throughout much of the 20th century. Public opinion studies over the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s routinely showed that, among large segments of the public, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were the target of strongly held negative attitudes. More recently, public opinion has increasingly opposed sexual orientation discrimination, but expressions of hostility toward lesbians and gay men remain common in contemporary American society. Prejudice against bisexuals appears to exist at comparable levels. In fact, bisexual individuals may face discrimination from some lesbian and gay people as well as from heterosexual people.
Sexual orientation discrimination takes many forms. Severe antigay prejudice is reflected in the high rate of harassment and violence directed toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in American society. Numerous surveys indicate that verbal harassment and abuse are nearly universal experiences among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Also, discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in employment and housing appears to remain widespread.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic is another area in which prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have had negative effects. Early in the pandemic, the assumption that HIV/AIDS was a “gay diseases” contributed to the delay in addressing the massive social upheaval that AIDS would generate. Gay and bisexual men have been disproportionately affected by this disease. The association of HIV/AIDS with gay and bisexual men and the inaccurate belief that some people held that all gay and bisexual men were infected served to further stigmatize lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
What is the psychological impact of prejudice and discrimination?
Prejudice and discrimination have social and personal impact. On the social level, prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are reflected in the everyday stereotypes of members of these groups. These stereotypes persist even though they are not supported by evidence, and they are often used to excuse unequal treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. For example, limitations on job opportunities, parenting, and relationship recognition are often justified by stereotypic assumptions about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
On an individual level, such prejudice and discrimination may also have negative consequences, especially if lesbian, gay, and bisexual people attempt to conceal or deny their sexual orientation. Although many lesbians and gay men learn to cope with the social stigma against homosexuality, this pattern of prejudice can have serious negative effects on health and well-being. Individuals and groups may have the impact of stigma reduced or worsened by other characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, religion, or disability. Some lesbian, gay, and bisexual people may face less of a stigma. For others, race, sex, religion, disability, or other characteristics may exacerbate the negative impact of prejudice and discrimination.
The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and antigay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although social support is crucial in coping with stress, antigay attitudes and discrimination may make it difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to find such support.
s homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?
All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.
Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his samesex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.
What is the nature of same-sex relationships?
Research indicates that many lesbians and gay men want and have committed relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 40% and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved in a romantic relationship. Further, data from the 2000 U.S. Census indicate that of the 5.5 million couples who were living together but not married, about 1 in 9 (594,391) had partners of the same sex. Although the census data are almost certainly an underestimate of the actual number of cohabiting same-sex couples, they indicate that there are 301,026 male samesex households and 293,365 female same-sex households in the United States.
Stereotypes about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have persisted, even though studies have found them to be misleading. For instance, one stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians and gay men are dysfunctional and unhappy. However, studies have found same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment.
A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.
A third common misconception is that the goals and values of lesbian and gay couples are different from those of heterosexual couples. In fact, research has found that the factors that influence relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples.
Far less research is available on the relationship experiences of people who identify as bisexual. If these individuals are in a same-sex relationship, they are likely to face the same prejudice and discrimination that members of lesbian and gay couples face. If they are in a heterosexual relationship, their experiences may be quite similar to those of people who identify as heterosexual unless they choose to come out as bisexual; in that case, they will likely face some of the same prejudice and discrimination that lesbian and gay individuals encounter.
Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?
Many lesbians and gay men are parents; others wish to be parents. In the 2000 U.S. Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Although comparable data are not available, many single lesbians and gay men are also parents, and many same-sex couples are part-time parents to children whose primary residence is elsewhere.
As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents have increased, some people have raised concerns about the well-being of children in these families. Most of these questions are based on negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men. The majority of research on this topic asks whether children raised by lesbian and gay parents are at a disadvantage when compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. The most common questions and answers to them are these:
1. Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents? For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.
2. Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity? For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.
3. Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships? For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members, and friends.
4. Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent’s friends or acquaintances? There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents’ gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends or acquaintances.
In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents’ concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people’ are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.
What can people do to diminish prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people?
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who want to help reduce prejudice and discrimination can be open about their sexual orientation, even as they take necessary precautions to be as safe as possible. They can examine their own belief systems for the presence of antigay stereotypes. They can make use of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community’as well as supportive heterosexual people’for support.
Heterosexual people who wish to help reduce prejudice and discrimination can examine their own response to antigay stereotypes and prejudice. They can make a point of coming to know lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and they can work with lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals and communities to combat prejudice and discrimination. Heterosexual individuals are often in a good position to ask other heterosexual people to consider the prejudicial or discriminatory nature of their beliefs and actions. Heterosexual allies can encourage nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation. They can work to make coming out safe. When lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people feel free to make public their sexual orientation, heterosexuals are given an opportunity to have personal contact with openly gay people and to perceive them as individuals.
Studies of prejudice, including prejudice against gay people, consistently show that prejudice declines when members of the majority group interact with members of a minority group. In keeping with this general pattern, one of the most powerful influences on heterosexuals’ acceptance of gay people is having personal contact with an openly gay person. Antigay attitudes are far less common among members of the population who have a close friend or family member who is lesbian or gay, especially if the gay person has directly come out to the heterosexual person.
here’s what the apa says about homophobia:
Creating an Intellectual Environment Free from Heterosexism
For the advancement of science and society, high-quality research is needed on a wide variety of issues related to sexual orientation. This article and the report (Task Force on Non-Heterosexist Research, 1986) on which it is based signify the commitment of the APA to fostering such research. Further steps clearly are needed as well, especially in the areas of publishing and graduate training.
Journal editors and reviewers should recognize the legitimacy of research involving sexual orientation, should evaluate such research with the same criteria used to evaluate research on other topics, and should not dismiss such research as overly specialized or as frivolous. We applaud the efforts that have been made by many APA journal editors to recruit reviewers from minority populations, including gay and bisexual people, and we encourage the continuation of these efforts.
Textbook authors and editors also have an obligation to avoid statements and explanations that are likely to reinforce heterosexism and foster negative self-images among lesbian, gay male, and bisexual students. For example, discussions of same-gender attractions should not be relegated to chapters on psychopathology and should not be concerned only with consideration of the causes of such orientations. Readers of textbooks should be taught that lesbian, gay male, and bisexual people have unique experiences and concerns that are appropriate topics of psychological study. Explicit mention of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual perspectives should be included for a wide variety of psychological topics, including human development, interpersonal attraction, health, attitudes, and stress and coping. Teachers and professors should actively seek textbooks that present an affirmative view of lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people, and should inform publishers that they are doing so.
Finally, non-heterosexist research will be facilitated by colleges and universities that sensitize their students and faculty to the concerns expressed in this article. In their hiring and promotion procedures, educational institutions should consider research associated with lesbian, gay male, and bisexual topics to be legitimate. Candidates for employment and promotion who conduct such research should be evaluated for the quality of their work, and should not be discounted because of the subject matter. Regardless of their sexual orientation, students should be encouraged to conduct research on lesbian, gay male, and bisexual issues, and to recognize those issues in their research on other topics. Providing such encouragement should not be solely the responsibility of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual psychologists; rather, all psychologists should educate themselves to issues of sexual orientation relevant to their own field of expertise.
Conclusion
The science of psychology requires studying human behavior in all of its diversity. It is most appropriate, therefore, that psychologists address issues relevant to sexual orientation in research with general samples and also conduct research with lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people from diverse cultural backgrounds. Because American society is heterosexist, however, research can reflect cultural ignorance, biases, and prejudices surrounding sexuality and sexual orientation. During the past 15 years, psychologists and other social and behavioral scientists have taken significant steps toward rejecting the negative value assumptions underlying earlier views of sexuality, and have begun to remove the stigma so long associated with homosexual and bisexual orientations. This has led to a new research paradigm that recognizes the legitimacy of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual orientations, behaviors, relationships, and lifestyles.
Because this affirmative approach is such a recent development in the social sciences, many implicit and overt prejudices remain to be overcome. Overcoming these prejudices will lead to better science, as researchers recognize the many ways in which heterosexist bias has influenced formulation of research questions, sampling procedures, methods and measures, and the interpretation of results. Overcoming these biases also will lead to more ethical science, as researchers learn how better to respect the dignity and worth of individuals, to strive for the preservation of fundamental human rights, and to protect the welfare of research participants.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 16, 2010 at 12:56 am


and a bit on your heterosexism and homophobia:
Homophobia
Read interviews with
Dr. George Weinberg
from 1997 and
2000
Society’s rethinking of sexual orientation was crystallized in the term homophobia, which heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals’ dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals’ self loathing. The word first appeared in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed at length in Weinberg’s 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual.
The American Heritage Dictionary (1992 edition) defines homophobia as “aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture” and “behavior or an act based on this aversion.” Other definitions identify homophobia as an irrational fear of homosexuality.
Heterosexism Around the same time, heterosexism began to be used as a term analogous to sexism and racism, describing an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community (Herek, 1990). Using the term heterosexism highlights the parallels between antigay sentiment and other forms of prejudice, such as racism, antisemitism, and sexism.
Like institutional racism and sexism, heterosexism pervades societal customs and institutions. It operates through a dual process of invisibility and attack. Homosexuality usually remains culturally invisible; when people who engage in homosexual behavior or who are identified as homosexual become visible, they are subject to attack by society.
Examples of heterosexism in the United States include the continuing ban against lesbian and gay military personnel; widespread lack of legal protection from antigay discrimination in employment, housing, and services; hostility to lesbian and gay committed relationships, recently dramatized by passage of federal and state laws against same-gender marriage; and the existence of sodomy laws in more than one-third of the states.
Although usage of the two words has not been uniform, homophobia has typically been employed to describe individual antigay attitudes and behaviors whereas heterosexism has referred to societal-level ideologies and patterns of institutionalized oppression of non-heterosexual people.
Limitations By drawing popular and scientific attention to antigay hostility, the creation of these terms marked a watershed. Nevertheless, they have important limitations.
Critics have observed that homophobia is problematic for at least two reasons.
First, empirical research does not indicate that heterosexuals’ antigay attitudes can reasonably be considered a phobia in the clinical sense. Indeed, the limited data available suggest that many heterosexuals who express hostility toward gay men and lesbians do not manifest the physiological reactions to homosexuality that are associated with other phobias (see Shields & Harriman, 1984).
Second, using homophobia implies that antigay prejudice is an individual, clinical entity rather than a social phenomenon rooted in cultural ideologies and intergroup relations. Moreover, a phobia is usually experienced as dysfunctional and unpleasant. Antigay prejudice, however, is often highly functional for the heterosexuals who manifest it.
As antigay attitudes have become increasingly central to conservative political and religious ideologies since the 1980s, these limitations have become more problematic. However, heterosexism, with its historic macro-level focus on cultural ideologies rather than individual attitudes, is not a satisfactory replacement for homophobia.
Sexual Prejudice Scientific analysis of the psychology of antigay attitudes will be facilitated by a new term. Sexual prejudice serves this purpose nicely. Broadly conceived, sexual prejudice refers to all negative attitudes based on sexual orientation, whether the target is homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Given the current social organization of sexuality, however, such prejudice is almost always directed at people who engage in homosexual behavior or label themselves gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Herek, 2000).
Like other types of prejudice, sexual prejudice has three principal features:
It is an attitude (i.e., an evaluation or judgment).
It is directed at a social group and its members.
It is negative, involving hostility or dislike.
Conceptualizing heterosexuals’ negative attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality as sexual prejudice – rather than homophobia – has several advantages. First, sexual prejudice is a descriptive term. Unlike homophobia, it conveys no a priori assumptions about the origins, dynamics, and underlying motivations of antigay attitudes.
Second, the term explicitly links the study of antigay hostility with the rich tradition of social psychological research on prejudice.
Third, using the construct of sexual prejudice does not require value judgments that antigay attitudes are inherently irrational or evil.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 16, 2010 at 12:59 am


of course none of this applies to you, cknuck, right?



report abuse
 

sdgds

posted December 16, 2010 at 10:07 am


welcome to :======http:// http://www.findsoso.com====
Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the
right clothes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar!
Welcome to sure you will find
what you need. Moreover, the company has a good reputation,
product quality standards, at reasonable prices. Over the
years, has been well received by overseas friends for their
support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.
welcome to :======http:// http://www.findsoso.com ====



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 16, 2010 at 11:36 am


David, what a dillweed first of all I have no hostility toward anyone homosexual or not I simply disagree with your position and those preach that same message about homosexuality; so ill mannered folk like toss around phrases like homophobia lol as if you are a real doctor diagnosing a phobia driven patient (which by the way would be unfortunate for whoever suffers from real phobias). When it becomes illegal in this country for a person to disagree I will be in trouble but until then it is folk like you who push this misinformation that are wrong.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 16, 2010 at 7:41 pm


I never said I held a doctorate. are you seriously trying to pass the above off as misinformation?



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 16, 2010 at 8:11 pm


name calling and making things up are you now? find me something more credible information from a more credible source than what I submitted and I will be more than will to discuss the issue at hand.
you have proven yourself psychosexually and socioemotionally immature, as well as patently uneducated and totally ignorant regarding the information you choose to enter a discussion about.
keep lying to yourself to bolster what you think others see in you and see how far that gets you.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 16, 2010 at 8:14 pm


I thought writing as you do with incorrect syntax, punctuation and grammar might get through to you.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm


David maybe I do use incorrect syntax but that’s not going to keep me from being happy, I must admit I’m kinda happy it affects you so much. :D Still, you cannot provide any gene, DNA, hormone, or chromosomes evidence concerning homosexuality’s definition.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 16, 2010 at 11:26 pm


so being a bully excuses your ignorance and heterosexist prejudices? that’s what you just communicated:
“I’m so happy because I think I have hurt your feelings because you’re gay, which I think is a bad thing, and I’m not, which I think is a good thing



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 17, 2010 at 2:03 am


David quote, “”I’m so happy because I think I have hurt your feelings because you’re gay, which I think is a bad thing, and I’m not, which I think is a good thing”
Stupid has nothing to do with being homosexual



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 17, 2010 at 11:21 am


correct.
and as you have proven, it has everything to do with being a homophobic bully and you. what you quoted is exactly what you meant to infer through your post:
“cknuck
December 16, 2010 9:18 PM
David maybe I do use incorrect syntax but that’s not going to keep me from being happy, I must admit I’m kinda happy it affects you so much. :D Still, you cannot provide any gene, DNA, hormone, or chromosomes evidence concerning homosexuality’s definition.”
are you going to contest the meaning of what you say?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 17, 2010 at 5:01 pm


yes I am happy my incorrect syntax bugs u I’m laughing right now. I know people from around the world and as for communicating I’m not worry about how people communicate to me I found you can leave letters out of words and still communicate well.



report abuse
 

Lennox

posted December 17, 2010 at 5:23 pm


If marriage is about being able to procreate, then are women and men who are not physically able to have children for medical reasons living a lie? Should they be told they cannot be married?
Marriage, in general, is a farce. In the Old Testament marriage was nothing more than committing to each other by paying someone’s father and moving in together. How is that a stronger, more committed marriage? (Jacob and Leah, anyone?)
The underlying message from those who are using “one man, one woman” as an excuse for defining marriage is that they are not convincing gays and lesbians to stop living with and loving each other by forcing their opinions at every turn, so they’re looking for a legal way to do so.
And I’m offended by phrases such as “God-given right to procreate”. When someone uses that as an argument they are supporting their argument with circular thinking: if I don’t believe God has anything to do with the laws of our land then why would I believe he has anything to do with the science of it? You’ll have to come up with a real argument – not one supported by the religion you’re living in. Try an argument that pertains to everyone – give a reason why it should be a law for the nation, not just your church.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 17, 2010 at 8:43 pm


again, it doesn’t “bug” me. I’m finished.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 17, 2010 at 8:51 pm


If you are going to redefine marriage why stop at same sex why not include multiple sexes like many of the young homosexuals indulge polyamory? Or best friends perhaps for medical benefits whole packs of folk should marry. The truth of the matter is that marriage has always had a one man one woman connotation and the notion of being holy matrimony. Same sex unions can never be holy it has nothing to do with the design of God, it has no redeemable value.



report abuse
 

Lennox

posted December 17, 2010 at 11:44 pm


Again, if marriage is only for procreation then why do we allow sterile heterosexual couples to marry?



report abuse
 

liujinjy

posted December 18, 2010 at 6:41 am


input this URL:
( http://www.fashionstyle2.com )
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan shoes)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey)
( lv handbag)
(cha nel wallet)
(D&G sunglasses)
(ed har dy jacket)
(UGG boot)
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 18, 2010 at 11:59 pm


They still fit the design regardless to if they can procreate marriage is about joining two of the opposite to form one.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 20, 2010 at 11:30 am


that’s an opinion. it didn’t hold up in court, and it won’t in the future.
how binary of you to think such an opinion will be made law.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 20, 2010 at 10:52 pm


yes you are right about the court but you’re not right about homosexuality



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 21, 2010 at 1:22 am


What exactly was I wrong about regarding homosexuality?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 21, 2010 at 8:15 pm


that there is anything good in it



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 22, 2010 at 12:38 am


there it is, folks. a negative generalization, to stereotype a minority group, that would not be taken seriously by any judge in any court.
what about your answer indicates you’re anything other than a discriminating, prejudicial, homophobic bigot? because you think you’re right?
ok, then. there we have cknucks sense of logic and reason.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 22, 2010 at 2:21 pm


homosexuality, bisexuality,lesbianism and transgenders are all connected by sexuality and just recently recognized as a group because of their unusual sexual orientations. In that sense yes they are a minority but only because of sexuality, there are others who rank that designation also but we don’t mention them. To some the others are different but to me they are the same, “of a unusual sexual nature so t reward that behavior with a distinction and protective status is over the top to me and a waste of the country’s energy that could be used for truly urgent needs.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 22, 2010 at 7:04 pm


do you tell yourself you are not a prejudicial homophobic bigot?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 24, 2010 at 1:49 am


I have no phobias, I do not prejudge people, I have never been a bigot I serve and care for all people, you are a insecure idiot, which does no change the fact that homosexuality is a sin and abnormal.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 25, 2010 at 1:34 am


the proof is in the pudding:
“I have never been a bigot I serve and care for all people”
-except homosexuals=homophobic and bigoted
“you are a insecure idiot”
-prejudicial, as in a statement that prejudges a homosexual
“which does no change the fact that homosexuality is a sin and abnormal”
-homophobic
-prejudicial
-bigoted
self awareness is always important.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 26, 2010 at 9:32 pm


Glad to see that the season of loving and giving hasn’t changed anyones’attitude about marriage being wrong for consenting homosexuals! Civil rights are for all, not just the “religious”. But hey! Why believe that what 2 consenting couples of either single gender or 2 genders is no one elses business? Also that marriage between 2 people is more that just for sex. Oh well. Glad I didn’t miss any changes in attitude over the Christmas season….when a boy child was supposed to have been born after being concieved without any sexual contact at all. Amazing.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 27, 2010 at 12:09 am


pagan good point but you forgot homosexuality is not without any sexual contact it just cannot produce a child.
It is true that people are accepting homosexuality more but that doesn’t make it right because it is not. Because I disagree with such behavior I am a bigot, suffer from homophobia and prejudge a behavior that’s been around for quite some time. Civil rights have nothing to do with abnormal sexual tendencies.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 27, 2010 at 12:16 am


I’m not saying people don’t have rights I’m just saying that homosexuality is not right it is a sinful abnormal behavior and should not be promoted as something that is wholesome when it ias a deviation from normal sexuality a imitation



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 27, 2010 at 1:09 pm


I take this point by point.
cknuck
December 27, 2010 12:09 AM
pagan good point but you forgot homosexuality is not without any sexual contact it just cannot produce a child.
—-why do you care how two consenting adults contact one another sexually, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual? and you keep repeating that homosexual sex doesn’t create a child. um, nobody ever said it could. were you under the assumption that we thought it ever would?
It is true that people are accepting homosexuality more but that doesn’t make it right because it is not.
—This is where you tell us why you think homosexuality is “not right.” saying something is not right isn’t a qualifier or proof if all you have to back it up with is, “because I said it is not right.” newsflash, cknuck, you are not the world’s judge! you’have proven yourself too naive and ignorant.
Because I disagree with such behavior I am a bigot, suffer from homophobia and prejudge a behavior that’s been around for quite some time.
—-you are exactly right. the great part of this is that you can change if you want to. if you want to. if you want to. if you want to.
Civil rights have nothing to do with abnormal sexual tendencies.
—-homosexuality normally occurs in EVERY human culture at the rate of appx. 2-10%. using the word abnormal to describe homosexuality is incorrect. from your perspective, immoral would be the correct word of choice. normal and abnormal refer to numbers of occurance. immoral refers to your ethical disdain of homosexuality. you’ve yet to prove homosexuality as an ethical violation. to do so you must show how homosexuality, not homosexual sex or a homosexual person, creates a situation that inevitably results in a person, other than the homosexual, experiencing injurious physical pain solely due to another person’s homosexuality or homoesexuality in general.
—-tell lesbians that civil rights have nothing to do with sexual tendencies. they have sex with women and their civil rights are being trampled on. same with gay males. these are facts, regardless of your disagreement with them.
cknuck
December 27, 2010 12:16 AM
I’m not saying people don’t have rights I’m just saying that homosexuality is not right it is a sinful abnormal behavior and should not be promoted as something that is wholesome when it ias a deviation from normal sexuality a imitation.
—-let me get this straight…..because you think homosexuality is “not right” and “is a sinful abnormal behavior” you therefore think that since we aren’t the same sexual orientation as you we should not have the same rights and are limited? I don’t see you saying the same thing to infertile heterosexuals or post menopausal females.
—-in what ways do you think homosexuality inherently “limits’ a person?
you really should try to answer these questions. they ask you to prove your case with sound logical answers other than “because it is,” or “because I said so.”



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 28, 2010 at 2:29 pm


cknuck, it is your opinion and those of some others that homosexuality is “sinful” (whatever that is supposed to mean), based on your (and some others) religious beliefs. Those beliefs need not and should not have anything to do with giving all the right to marry—that is a legal situation, not a religious one. We are not a religiously run country—fortunately. Leaving that to Iran, Iraq and others. And not producing children? That is not a requirement of marriage. Many heterosexuals choose not to have children…I have a married niece who has successfully NOT had children totally by choice. She and her husband don’t want any, so they shouldn’t have any just because they are married.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm


David I care because it is misinformation. It’s not because of what I think homosexuality has always been unproductive and sinful a sexual preference that should not be legislated upon people. Making up stuff will not legitimize homosexuality; “ethical disdain of homosexuality” that is just homosexual drama, proving “homosexual ethical violations” is like proving ethical violations in men wearing women panties on their heads in a board meeting; although it could be legislated into place, but it doesn’t mean it is right. Homosexuality is wrong because of many reasons but the sex part is obvious to anyone in their right mind and moral standards. When you campaign to tell young people that it is right it affects their lives.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 29, 2010 at 3:03 pm


I believe the real issue is that you think a fact that you don’t want to accept is something you refer to as “misinformation.” How isolating it must be to think so much of one’s own proliferate mental rolodex of ideas and concepts upon whom they incur an immaturity by the dissociation of reality. The pedestal you’ve created for yourself, call it a box if you wish-you may more easily relate to an enclosure you don’t think you’ve created, may well be a restriction you endure your whole life. The things you project so frequently about yourself points directly to these concepts. Consult Napoleon.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted December 29, 2010 at 6:07 pm


one of your statements surely applies to you as well:
“Making up stuff will not legitimize homosexuality.”
making “stuff” up will not criminalize homosexuality as well. in fact it was already decriminalized. did you know that? so, yes, the reality of homosexuality has in fact legitimized homosexuality. one step at a time. you might benefit from this approach.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 29, 2010 at 11:03 pm


I have no wish to legislate homosexuality one way or the other anymore than any other deficiency humans face, I just refuse to call it what it’s not.



report abuse
 

Davidkcmo

posted December 30, 2010 at 2:01 am


But you just did. You must let the rest of us in on this one: is ignorance really bliss?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted December 30, 2010 at 12:52 pm


you do know what legislation is David, don’t you?



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted January 1, 2011 at 11:39 am


yes, it’s what is going to make gay marriage legal.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 1, 2011 at 2:32 pm


Good Answer, DavidKCMO! (the sooner the better for all).



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted January 3, 2011 at 1:46 am


eating dirt is legal, prostitution in Nevada is legal.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 3, 2011 at 3:56 pm


And your point is, cknuck?



report abuse
 

Not as good as you apparently

posted January 4, 2011 at 11:12 am


pagansister,
ck’s “point” is obvious. He wants people to think of “dirt” and “prostitution” (and “deficiency” and “unproductive” and “sinful” and “wrong” and people not being in a “right mind” and not having “moral standards, etc., in his previous posts) when they think of gay people and their relationships.
His “point” is clear in every odious post he writes – demeaning, debasing, diminishing actual people’s actual lives and refusing to accept reality. IOW, constantly bearing false witness about God’s LGBT children.



report abuse
 

Not as good as you apparently

posted January 4, 2011 at 11:21 am


ck,
“you forgot homosexuality is not without any sexual contact”
Wrong. Again. Sexual orientation is an innate characteristic. It exists in a small subset of the population. And, it exists whether or not people act on the attraction.
“it just cannot produce a child.”
So? Neither did my youngest sister’s two heterosexual marriages. It isn’t a requirement. Of ANYONE’s marriage.
“It is true that people are accepting homosexuality more but that doesn’t make it right because it is not.”
In your not so humble opinion.
“Because I disagree with such behavior I am a bigot, suffer from homophobia and prejudge”
Yes. Glad you acknowledge that.
“Civil rights have nothing to do with abnormal sexual tendencies.”
If homosexuality were “abnormal”, you’d have a point. It isn’t and you don’t.
“I’m not saying people don’t have rights”
Coirrect. What you are saying is that homosexual people shouldn’t have EQUAL rights, because of your religious beliefs.
“I’m just saying that homosexuality is not right it is a sinful abnormal behavior”
You keep on saying that, but repetition doesn’t make it true. All it makes it is an obvious, obnoxious desire to impose your religous beliefs onto others who do not agree with them.
“it ias a deviation from normal sexuality”
Heterosexuality isn’t “normal” (except, of course, for heterosexuals); it’s just prevalent.



report abuse
 

Not as good as you apparently

posted January 4, 2011 at 11:25 am


DavidKCMO
December 21, 2010 1:22 AM
What exactly was I wrong about regarding homosexuality?
cknuck
December 21, 2010 8:15 PM
that there is anything good in it
Hmmm, the homosexuality that I enjoyed the other night was REAL good. Apparently, if I recall correctly, ck has tried it. Didn’t like it terribly much, and he fights against the urge constantly. Meh.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted January 4, 2011 at 11:58 am


not as good as you apparently,
not as good as the homosexuality my husband and I shared with each other last night!!!!!! having experienced and discovered such an astronomical difference between just sex, before I met my husband, and making love with my husband-I find it absurd that cknuck is so up in illogical ignorant arms about two men getting married.
nagaya, I would bet money cknuck is male, obese, if not morbidly, without a doubt suburban, maybe rural, hardly college educated, probably blue collar-which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but in cknuck’s situation a reminder of shortcommings, wears cheap jeans-refer back to obese, heart trouble, hardening of the arteries, low capacity for stamina, poor muscle tone, emotionally incapable of intimately relating to another human, has never taken any steps in taking care of his body, cursed with a small penis or one that is extremely unpleasing to the eye. regardless, this is clearly an immature individual.
educated guess, but I could be wrong. doubtful though. at least four or five of the above descriptors are set in stone for cknuck.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted January 4, 2011 at 12:23 pm


…………and “god” is cknuck’s FAVORITE excuse for a question or statement s/he doesn’t want to face so s/he refuses to be logical reasonable. that’s not the way god wants it to be so it’s wrong. the buybull and god said it was wrong so it is.
there are some serious issues here. if one cannot converse with adults like an educated person, SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 4, 2011 at 9:22 pm


DavidKCMO: As much as cknuck and I disagree, your description of him is, IMO, inaccurate. We have been posting back and forth for a few years,and he is a man who has overcome many problems and claims that his faith has helped him overcome them. Yes, I disagree with him but I respect him and his right to believe as he does.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted January 5, 2011 at 12:36 am


Why should I have any respect for his “belief” or “faith” in a supernatural magic sky man he uses to defend his self righteous and insecure desire to legally oppress, stigmatize, discriminate against and socially subordinate homosexuals because we “can’t make babies” without the same attack heaved toward sterile heterosexuals, post menopausal women, any abortions in marriage-which might I add is required to be the a result of ONLY heterosexual sex?
I appreciate your live and let live view in regards to cknuck. Unfortunately, other than the fact he proved repeatedly he personally hopes and wishes harm to homosexuals solely on the basis of their sexuality, he is satisfying a deep need in himself to think others that haven’t “overcome” something to reach his level of achievement are less than himself. Are you defending this, pagansister? Surely you can see through his misuse of reason and logic in his argument to sense his negative energy he projects upon homosexuality in general.
I personally don’t care if he had a bone marrow transplant. There is no potential experience of his that could be given the ability to afford respect to his hate.
Yet you defend this. That’s rich.



report abuse
 

DavidKcMO

posted January 5, 2011 at 2:16 pm


Cknuck works on the principle of so badly wanting to be right to reinforce his delusion of himself that he will go to the extreme of lying to himself and others through broad hyperbole. In other words, he says he strives to expose what he labels “truth,” yet he does this only with statements that have no tangible adhesion to the reality of lives he so wants to paint as intrinsically flawed, biologically incorrect, etc.
The best example of what cknuck represents is the character Penelope from SNL



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 5, 2011 at 3:37 pm


DavidKCMO:
cknuck is who he is—is he right in the way he expresses his idea’s, not as far as I’m concerned. And as I’ve said, I most certainly don’t agree with him—I’ve heard it from him for a long time. I’m only saying he has the right to say it—no matter where those ideas come from. I don’t believe in his god or his way of thinking—I have no problem with same sex relationships or marriage, and don’t consider it “sinful”, whatever the heck that is supposed to mean (and I’m a former Christian). Does he wish harm on gays and lesbians? I don’t think so, but he most certainly thinks it is totally wrong for many reasons. Nothing, IMO, is going to change his mind,so I really don’t try anymore, just continue to express my feeling on the subject and not hesitate to tell him I think his beliefs on this subject are totally inaccuate and wrong, but he isn’t going to listen to me or anyone else, as he is firm that he is right.
The biggest problem that I can see is that those of his beliefs continue to try and stop the legalization of marriage and rights for gays and lesbians, which IMO are civil rights, not having anything to do with religion, as this is not a country with a single set of religious beliefs—-and hopefully never will be.
So am I defending him? Don’t know, am I? He isn’t a monster, but can come across as one.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted January 5, 2011 at 11:45 pm


Davie I have never harmed a homosexual, so get past the drama, pagan is right I disagree with homosexuality, I don’t see any productive purpose for the activity. I think that it is not only wrong but in the end will prove harmful. I’m not sure if it is a mental illness but I am confident it is not a gender, nor is it explainable medically. I do think it is on the rise in our youth partly because of its newly celebrated status. I think our country is headed for destruction and the practice of homosexuality is part of the problem, not the primary problem but part. I have disagreed with you in a civil tone, if you don’t like it move to a country that does not support free speech.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 6, 2011 at 10:42 am


Saying “I disagree with homosexuality” is like saying “I disagree with left-handedness.”



report abuse
 

Not as good as you apparently

posted January 6, 2011 at 10:53 am


Agreed.
1. “Homosexuality” is not an “activity”.
2. There are many “productive purposes” in same-sex relationships. You just refuse to see them or acknowledge that they exist, just as they do in opposite-sex, non-reproductive relationships.
3. You have never once delineated ANY “harm” that comes from same-gender relationships.
4. It ISN’T a “mental illness”. (Delusion IS, tho.)
5. You are correct, homosexuality isn’t a “gender”. Nor is heterosexuality. Not sure what that has to do with things.
6. Is heterosexuality “explainable medically”?
7. Homosexuality is NOT “on the rise”.
8. Nor is it “celebrated”. Just ask Matthew Sheppard’s parents.
9. You will be explaining just HOW “the practice of homosexuality is part of the problem” that is helping to lead the country to “destruction”, won’t you?
10. Calling others “sinful” for their innate, God-given orientation is NOT “civil”.
Stop lyin’ fer Jeezus. Bearing false witness IS a sin.



report abuse
 

DavidKCMO

posted January 6, 2011 at 3:21 pm


cknuck,
would you please tell me which of the attributes I listed regarding your education, potential obesity, ect. were incorrect?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted January 6, 2011 at 10:37 pm


Not as good, how much mileage can you get out of Matthew Sheppard’s death? And yes heterosexuality is much more explainable than homosexuality and identifiable by DNA, genes, hormones, chromosome, bone structure; need I go on? YN homosexuality is no where near as explainable as being left handed and being left handed does no bear nearly as much ramifications.
David please stop smoking whatever you are smoking and start making sense again.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted April 2, 2011 at 1:15 pm


Fully 50% of the “Most Popular Posts” here have to do with homosexuality.

Obsess much?



report abuse
 

Morgana

posted June 11, 2011 at 12:39 pm


David KCMO says:
Let me ask you 3 question: Can you list as many, or as few, positive and beneficial things homosexuals/homosexuality provide/s to society at large? Is there anything about homosexuality/homosexuals that is/are equal to heterosexuality/heterosexuals? What can heterosexuals/heterosexuality do that homosexuals/homosexuality have/has no ability to do?

What silly questions. Homosexuals provide as much benefit to society as heterosexuals. What do heterosexual people contribute to society that homosexuals cannot?



report abuse
 

Pagan_princess

posted June 25, 2011 at 3:00 pm


There are somewhere between 1.51% – 3.8% Americans who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgenders.

Legal marriage in the U.S. is a legal contract between two people. It has nothing to do with religion. A judge can marry a couple.

RELIGIONS can marry or not marry as to their beliefs as long as civil law is followed.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted July 16, 2011 at 4:52 pm


so you are trying to convince us that marriage has nothing to do with man and woman also?



report abuse
 

Rodger D

posted July 25, 2011 at 7:41 pm


You know its one thing to stand up and say I don’t want to know God. But now you want to storm in He’s word and say We can used the word Marriage if you want to (No) It is standing above Your rights and putting Your Self at Gods level and You have no right doing. I don’t have a Religion I know God and or Jesus Chirst I don’t need a Religion.
Remember I told you..! Marriage is for Man and Woman nothing more nothing less…!



report abuse
 

josh

posted August 2, 2011 at 1:02 am


Traditional marriage? Youve got to be kidding me. Oh you mean gingrich’s marriage? Where be cheated on his wife while she was fighting cancer. ….. yeah that does need to change, and people need to let same sex couples live their lives in peace. Its a shame how far christianity has fallen to actually condemn love. Which is who and what God is.



report abuse
 

Kevin Scott Marcus

posted August 13, 2011 at 6:19 am


Let’s be clear on this. The whole issue of protecting marriage is a non-sequitur. Nothing can or will ever take traditional marriage away from society. This is about one thing only: straight society’s offense at homosexuality and barring same-sex couples from enjoying the status and prerogatives of marriage. That’s IT! Plain and simple.



report abuse
 

David E Bokaw

posted December 24, 2011 at 2:17 am


It’s about time someone did something.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Hispanics turning evangelical, Jews secular
Worship service attendance is up in New York City, but down among young adult Jews, according to recent studies. On the other hand, fewer Spanish-speaking teens are attending Catholic mass, but more are showing up at Evangelical churches. [caption id="attachment_12343" align="alignleft" width="48

posted 3:10:30pm Nov. 05, 2013 | read full post »

Billy Graham: I know where I'm going
“Daddy thinks the Lord will allow him to live to 95,” said Franklin Graham recently. It was not a prophecy but a hope, Franklin explained, that he would live to see the beginning of a Christian re

posted 10:02:01am Oct. 24, 2013 | read full post »

Are All These Christians' Complaints of Persecution Just So Much Empty Whining?
The headlines are alarming: “Catholic-Owned Company Wins Religious Freedom Court Decision,” “Death Toll Rises to 65 in Boko Haram Attack on Students,” “Little Sisters Catholic Charity Victimized By Obamacare,” “Christians Sought Out, Murdered in the Kenyan Mall Massacre,” “Judicial

posted 2:41:26am Oct. 07, 2013 | read full post »

How can Christians defend themselves against today's random violence?
So, a crazed gunman opens fire and you’re caught in the middle. How can you survive? Heroes come in all sorts of packages. And they wield all sorts of defensive weapons. Such as guns and Jesus. Sometimes both at the same time. [caption id="attachment_12246" align="alignleft" width="480"] Ant

posted 2:53:48pm Sep. 27, 2013 | read full post »

Does Sunday Morning Church Really Need All This Glitter, Showmanship and Gimmickry?
What’s wrong with church today? Are we in danger of turning worship into a flashy concert? Of watering down the message so nobody is offended? Of forgetting the simplicity of the Gospel? I grew up with a preacher’s kid. He was a fake following in the footsteps of his flimflamming father who d

posted 11:26:20am Sep. 20, 2013 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.