But there are plenty of cases where humiliating events have been web-distributed without subsequent suicides.

There are also plenty of cases where humiliating events have been publicized with subsequent suicides. The problem here is that this says nothing about being gay and everything about why persecution is a bad thing. Any group that is looked down upon by the rest of society is going to be more prone to depression and suicide.

isukun
Any group that is looked down upon by the rest of society is going to be more prone to depression and suicide.

Agreed

Attitudes like "I can't imagine a man not wanting to have sex", while often not meant in a malicious way and with honest intent, are part of what makes it difficult for men to report rapes by women... and the lack of reporting means that people rarely hear about it, which in turn makes people less likely to believe in it. It's kind of a sad cycle. But in any case, that's off topic.

I feel like the conflation of religious and legal marriage under the same word/idea is just a bad idea and causes a lot of problems.

If you're going to say marriage is a religious thing, that's fine with me. Keep marriage in the churches. Make something ELSE for others.
I was raised Catholic, and am currently agnostic, and was married to an atheist by a Jewish justice of the peace in an entirely non-religious service. I would have been happy to call it a civil partnership, if it came with all the same legal benefits that the current institution of marriage does (though it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue ^_^).
It's the terminology-- the word "marriage", that I expect upsets a lot of people who oppose it on religious grounds. But one rule for straight people and another for gay people is not fair, either. One rule for EVERYONE (get your civil partnership for legal benefits-- the equivalent of the signing of the actual marriage license) with further options for religious people (have a ceremony in a church, call it a marriage, and be set in the eyes of God), seems like it would be a good compromise.

But I don't think it's possible to overhaul a major societal institution like that, sadly.

Oh, good grief... this is a topic where no person of sound moral conviction could comment without being censured or banned.

Someone
If you're going to say marriage is a religious thing, that's fine with me. Keep marriage in the churches. Make something ELSE for others.
I was raised Catholic, and am currently agnostic, and was married to an atheist by a Jewish justice of the peace in an entirely non-religious service. I would have been happy to call it a civil partnership, if it came with all the same legal benefits that the current institution of marriage does (though it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue ^_^).
It's the terminology-- the word "marriage", that I expect upsets a lot of people who oppose it on religious grounds. But one rule for straight people and another for gay people is not fair, either. One rule for EVERYONE (get your civil partnership for legal benefits-- the equivalent of the signing of the actual marriage license) with further options for religious people (have a ceremony in a church, call it a marriage, and be set in the eyes of God), seems like it would be a good compromise.

But I don't think it's possible to overhaul a major societal institution like that, sadly.

Marriage is NOT the sole province of religion, calling it something else is stupid as in essence it is the same thing.
I am married and it was not a religious ceremony, there was no priest, there was no mention of god in our vows etc.
I am married by law not be some fictional entity. I have gay friends who are married and have every right to be, if people have an issue with that then they should reconsider their own pointless existences and focus on something important.

Genejoke
Marriage is NOT the sole province of religion, calling it something else is stupid as in essence it is the same thing.

I believe the "Sacrament of Matrimony" is sometimes equated with "marriage". Sacraments are religious, period. For that ceremony, a couple has to be within the tenets of the religion, which often defines gender roles/rules.

I thought "married" actually meant "two becoming one", a bonding. So, for example, when making furniture, wood would be married. But checking current definitions, that's not the case. I like what wikipedia offers: "social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship" Note: nothing about gender.

I also like this definition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJMqHDynnoY

A week or so ago I attended this seminar given by a group of "social scientists" trying to pitch their hypothesis for a new study they're getting together. It pertained to this topic, so I thought I'd relate everything I can recall from it. This of course coming from a group in California since this issue has had a lot of back and forth in terms of coming to a decision.

Their main point was that this resentment toward homosexual couples might generate from an early age (I mean, doesn't everything according to psychologists?). They claim that children taught at a young age to try to accept homosexual couples actually works against their cause. Children are more apt to see this as something "different" and therefore not be as receptive to the idea. Instead they will ridicule people for it, and always in the back of their mind it will being as something simply alien to them, eventually evolving into some form of hatred for this particular group of people. Their argument intends to study children exposed at a young age vs. later in life, more as a gradual integration of the lifestyle choice. And the latter should prove more beneficial to the homosexual cause.

They've convinced me actually, due to some of the points they brought up. Their assertion that children don't really find out that they're gay until much later in their teen years, so how could they possibly understand it younger anyway was met with much applause by the audience. They brought up a few guest speakers that talked about how they weren't consciously aware of gay couples until they were in their teens, and they simply learned to accept it. They were perfectly fine interacting with them.

But going back to the younger people - schools around my area believe that it's helpful to make a point that homosexual teachers there should be honored for who they are and the spotlight shines brightly on them and their choice of lifestyle. And sure, the children do respond to it, but never in the respective sense!

I am gay, I have some comments....

IMHO, Should homosexual people be allowed too...
-serve openly in the armed forces?
Yes. It's just a stupid rule as not integrating the military was last century.

-Marry their partner?
I could care less if a religion blesses my union. It doesn't have to be called marriage. I would be perfectly happy with a civil commitment so long as I had the privileges and responsibilities marriage grants straight couples automatically.

-Adopt children?
We did that. We have have a son in the 2nd grade. We are truly blessed being parents. If given a choice between being married and having a kid, being a parent is more important.

-Have children by a surrogate?
That's an issue? Really? I have friends who have two kids, each partner used the same surrogate for their son and daughter.

-become priests?
Again, I'm not going to tell a religion how it should run it's self. For example, If the catholic church wants to go into decline because it cannot get priests, who am I tell them otherwise. Just keep their hands of my son.

You all have talked around the myth: A kid raised by gay parents is going to be "turned" gay.
Most of us gay people came from straight families. If we follow the above logic, then gay people should not exist because
A kid raised by straight parents is going to be "turned" straight. That's obviously not true.

One of the cutting edge theories is being gay, for men anyway, is caused by a mix of genetics and birth order. There is a 2% rise in the chance of being gay, for every boy in a family. The first son has a 2% of being gay, if that same family had 10 sons, there is a 50% of the 10th son being gay. They think that gay sons helped the parents and the tribe as a support staff, and didn't compete for the women. Tied into that, see the American Indian concepts of "Two Spirits".

There are cases of identical twin boys where one is gay and the other is straight. The actors of the movie Twin Falls.

And genetics plays a part. I have a friend who has this story. His dad married and divorced three times. The three kids from his first marriage, all straight, the three kids with my friend's mom, all gay, and the last three kids from his father's last marriage, all straight.

So that's not a good reason to fight gay adoptions. IMHO.

A week or so ago I attended this seminar given by a group of "social scientists" trying to pitch their hypothesis for a new study they're getting together.

There are parts of this whch really don't work for me. See, the problem is that even as parents teach their kids to be tolerant of different peoples and cultures, with homosexual lifestyles, we encourage kids to view them as different and wrong. I think Dan Savage's response to one of his radio listeners best sums up my views on what REALLY causes the intolerance we see in America's youth.

isukun

A week or so ago I attended this seminar given by a group of "social scientists" trying to pitch their hypothesis for a new study they're getting together.

There are parts of this whch really don't work for me. See, the problem is that even as parents teach their kids to be tolerant of different peoples and cultures, with homosexual lifestyles, we encourage kids to view them as different and wrong. I think Dan Savage's response to one of his radio listeners best sums up my views on what REALLY causes the intolerance we see in America's youth.

fuck dan savage in the ear with a chainsaw. the man is a pompous ass-tick that assumes anyone that isn't agreeing with him is a virulet homophobe, and uses other people asking him for advice as a platform for his own drama. he's probably one of the top ten reasons for intolerance in america's youth.

his staying in the closet probably would have done the public view of homosexuality a world of good.

And none of what you just said makes his point any less valid. Whether you like someone or not has no bearing on whether or not they can make a valid argument.

If you need an article that puts it in more polite terms from a more "reputable" source, however, here is another article which says the exact same thing, but is written by a bishop.

freefall_drift
You all have talked around the myth: A kid raised by gay parents is going to be "turned" gay.
Most of us gay people came from straight families. If we follow the above logic, then gay people should not exist because
A kid raised by straight parents is going to be "turned" straight. That's obviously not true.

One of the cutting edge theories is being gay, for men anyway, is caused by a mix of genetics and birth order. There is a 2% rise in the chance of being gay, for every boy in a family. The first son has a 2% of being gay, if that same family had 10 sons, there is a 50% of the 10th son being gay. They think that gay sons helped the parents and the tribe as a support staff, and didn't compete for the women. Tied into that, see the American Indian concepts of "Two Spirits".

There are cases of identical twin boys where one is gay and the other is straight. The actors of the movie Twin Falls.

And genetics plays a part. I have a friend who has this story. His dad married and divorced three times. The three kids from his first marriage, all straight, the three kids with my friend's mom, all gay, and the last three kids from his father's last marriage, all straight.

So that's not a good reason to fight gay adoptions. IMHO.

Did the turning kids gay or straight really come up? I mentioned that the upbringing MIGHT confuse a child in a same way a gay child brought up in a straight home might be confused by their gay feelings. Your post about your son sounded great by the way.

LOL, re: women raping men, If i were single Id love to be gang-raped by Jessica Biel, Liv Tyler, Shakira, and the Watermelon Woman.

Did the turning kids gay or straight really come up?

By bringing up nature vs. nurture in your first post, you implied it. Then Rafen came in and stated that not only were children of gay couples weird, but they also had a tendency to be gay, which he saw as a reason to not allow gay couples to be parents. So yeah, it's come up.

isukun
There are parts of this whch really don't work for me. See, the problem is that even as parents teach their kids to be tolerant of different peoples and cultures, with homosexual lifestyles, we encourage kids to view them as different and wrong.

The reverse perspective is equally if not more damaging, and I agree that this hugely, hugely, hugely affects how a child will perceive homosexuals later in life what with all of these negative stigmas such institutions will place on them.

But they're faulting even the advocates, the ones that try to bring this cause forward into the spotlight and plead acceptance for it.

One example they brought up goes a little like this:

Take two children, maybe John and Billy. Billy is gay, and John is straight. But Billy isn't quite aware of this yet (most children wouldn't be able to put a finger on what sexual orientation means anyway at such a young age), but he and John are best of friends. They grow up together unaware of such a difference between them, but remain friends throughout the years. When Billy turns...let's say...eighteen, he finally comes out. John is mature enough to accept this - his initial impression is that Billy has been gay all this time, but still was a great friend. In his mind, being gay isn't "strange" or against his moral standards, because Billy just seems like a regular guy.

But let's say John and Billy hear all over the news as well as various ceremonies, parades, and whatnot that gays need to be respected. Billy might draw some connection to this - though he might not understand why at his young age. John however will return to school making fun of them and how "eccentric" and "different" they appear to him. Billy is filled with resentment, because John has turned his soon-to-be sexual preference into a subject of mockery. Later down the road, this will hit him hard.

So those two accounts serve as examples to their hypothesis. They made a point to say that sexual preference is a different sort of "fight" and cannot be equated to race and gender discrepancies. If there is a way to acceptance for this type of lifestyle then it must be approached from a different angle. In essence, and from what I gather, they're trying to turn homosexual couples gradually into an act of normalcy in our society.

John however will return to school making fun of them and how "eccentric" and "different" they appear to him.

Because of course this reaction must not be questionned because it is the normal way to react? Billy should wait for his friend to accept him before he can live his life openly?

From what I gather from these psychologists is that an idea or way of thinking planted at a young age will stick with the person later in life. So once Billy is older, it's not the fact that John wouldn't accept him, it's more along the lines of whether his lifestyle is even natural or not.

I agree that way of thinkings, ideas, believes, are stronger the younger the person had them. But I still don't agree that we should hide homosexuality to kids untill they are "old enough". An adult is as likely of discriminating someone because of his differences than a child. Even more if that adult has never been confronted to it younger.

I already read that when talking about homosexuality to young kid, the best was to emphasize the fact that the couple loves each other. Because most children knows what love is, they're rarely going to tell you that it's unnatural(I would also note that I don't consider homosexuality more unnatural than most of nowadays relationships but that's for another debate). Maybe they will find it different, and won't understand immediately. But we also have to teach children that difference isn't a bad thing.

When I heard about homosexuality for the first time, I couldn't care less. I found it kinda weird, yeah, but because it was the first time I heard about it. But I could still see that there was no harm done, that it didn't change who I was, etc. And frankly, if I had heard about it later, I probably would have found it even weirder.


*What follows next is not sent directly at you blindsk, but many posts I've read so far*
I'm tired of hearing things along the lines of : "This minority suffers so much, let's make them even less visible so that they won't be victims to discrimination." Of course it always sounds more righteous than that.

In many ways I was always aware of homosexuality as a little kid, long before I even knew the name for it, or knew about what sex was.

I would even pair up my barbie dolls with each other as couples since I had very few ken dolls, and I didn't like the idea that all the barbies would have to share the only two ken dolls I had just for the sake of hetero-normativy or however you call it. (another word I didn't know at the time, though). I thought this would turn my ken dolls into immoral creeps that were only using girls to get what they wanted, like telling one girl that they liked them just to steal the girls' candy and or something.

And as a kid I thought marriage and such were just people promising to be super best friends together forever and watching over each other. So That was why I didn't see anything odd about Marrying my barbie dolls together. After all, they were the best of friends who loved each other very much, so they would be together forever. :P

looking back at it, it was odd how my viewpoints were so mature and yet so childish at the same time.

Maybe I wasn't like other kids, but my own experiences tend to tell me that Children in general is often very accepting of things like that, and it's only when adults tell them that certain people are different and such, is when they start to see things as being weird or whatever.

So if you tell a kid that you should accept somebody, but then tell them that the person was discriminated against for being different, then the kid is definitely gonna wonder why the person was being picked on so much, and that just maybe, being different was very bad after all.

So you gonna start off by showing how ignorant it is to pick on somebody for being different. use the Nazis as a good example, since how they picked on not only the Jews, but Gay people too.

Gay people died in the holocaust too, just simply for being what they were, alongside known sympathizers of Jewish people.

So if you focus on different types of people and the discrimination they went though, just not gay people, then you're bound to get more kids understanding why there had to be this kind of talk.

After all, the last thing we need is another Holocaust where we use anybody who's different from us as an scapegoat for our problems, and sending them to their deaths. Hell, we don't even need another KKK group or some such.

Just going: "Oh no, those poor gays! They just want to get married and have kids like the rest of us, wah wah wah..." won't cut it in trying to get everyone to accept them.

The reverse perspective is equally if not more damaging, and I agree that this hugely, hugely, hugely affects how a child will perceive homosexuals later in life what with all of these negative stigmas such institutions will place on them.

No, actually, it's not. The problem here is that you are mistaking a lack of perspective as a perspective. Your example relies on kids being exposed to homosexuality through vague outside sources like the media (and honestly, how much of the media actually paints homosexuality in a positive light?) and not through their parents or other authority figures. You're talking about having kids come to their own conclusions when it comes to prejudice and equality rather than actually establishing a foundation of tolerance and understanding. What you have just illustrated is a great example of kids NOT being exposed. Whether they are older or younger, if you don't give them any input, they are going to come to their own conclusions and it doesn't matter how old they are, not all are going to come to the desired positive conclusion.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough then. By reverse perspective, I meant the one that isn't an advocacy of homosexual couples, but rather is against it. That's what I meant by the institutions and forms of media that don't paint this in a positive light, rather, seek to label it as evil. This is the more damaging side.

But I still don't agree that we should hide homosexuality to kids untill they are "old enough".

What's to hide?

My son, who is 7, recently ask for the first time, what "Gay" meant, after hearing a story on NPR. I calmly explained that Gay was where a man falls in love and marries a man, like his his poppa and daddy did. He thought about it for a sec and said "OK" and that was that.

Exactly. That was the point I was hoping to reiterate. If this is presented as plainly as can be, it's a step forward in the right direction.

I found this in the CNN comments section about "Uganda newspaper publishes 'gay list,' calls for their hanging"
The poster used really big scientific words saying "being attracted to the same sex" is not a chosen behavior.

Someone
Much of the scientific studies on homosexual behavior (esp among men) is leaning toward a biological origin. Since all human fetuses start out female (despite chromosomal differences), if the proper hormone washes do not occur within the womb or if they are inadequate, the appropriate dimorphic reaction will not occur in the hypothalamus and the sexual orientation of the fetus will remain female or bisexual, depending on the extent of the neonatal hormone wash. With lesbians, it is also dependent on neonatal wash and a heightened systemic level of androgens in the mother's body. This is believed to create a dimorphic reaction in the fetal brain creating a leaning toward homosexuality or bisexuality.
For those who follow or are involved in this type of research, this biological origin of homosexuality is getting to be old news.

Let me ask something... Where does it specifically say in The Bible that homossexuality is bad/wrong? I mean so bad/wrong that it damns you, and is against God's will. I guess it does say, but because I'm not Christian I don't know where/what exactly.

Also, does The Bible put any other "sexually immoral" acts in the same category? Like... "having sex before marriage makes you just as bad as a homosexual." Or... "having multiple partners (i.e. sleeping around) is just as immoral as homosexuality." Anything like that? Or is homosexuality one of the most grievous sins of perverse lust?

mlai
Also, does The Bible put any other "sexually immoral" acts in the same category? Like... "having sex before marriage makes you just as bad as a homosexual." Or... "having multiple partners (i.e. sleeping around) is just as immoral as homosexuality." Anything like that? Or is homosexuality one of the most grievous sins of perverse lust?

I believe it's the book of Leviticus... All old testament stuff, related to the genocidal destruction of the cities and all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, I think.
There's meant to be some passage about angels visiting this fellow and a crowd baying outside for them so they could have sex with them... the guy (Lott?) refuses and instead gives the crowd his daughters or something so the mob can rape them instead, because you know it's "ok" to sexually assault women and not men. ;)

They also have various interpreted clauses about it being wrong to sleep with another man's wife...
The one about it being bad to masturbate is taken from criticism of a guy who pulled out and came on the floor instead of inside his wife. Something about "wasted seed"...? That's also what they use to justify opposition to birth control and abortion.

It's all cherry-picked nonsense really, just old traditional Catholic cultural practices from the dark ages and medieval days that were justified by interpretations of bronze-age pre-Christian Jewish religious writings. lol!

Thank goodness they stopped sacrificing first born sons and goats and things... oh wait, some people still do! Goats at least.

there's been evidence that that the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah was actually mistranslated, maybe even on purpose anyway.

according to Hebrew and Greek texts, the story was actually about inhospitably, not about sex or rape.
it could be argued that the story contained no homosexuality in it at all, as seeing the herbew and greek texts contained no wording about "Men laying with other men as they did women"... that was enirely the english translation's own ivention.

it were just about a bunch of paranoid people who were convinced that those strange men (angels) were actually spies from another town who were looking to case them so that their military could pillage the town of Sodom.

Lot was actually offering up his daughters for MARRIAGE,not rape. since how they were the only valuable things he had as an poor man. it was his attempt to make the men go away by saying: "Look, I have a bunch of pretty girls as daughters. How about this, I'll let any of you marry them without demanding dowry and such... you basically get a free pretty wife, how about that?"

After all, would such a man of god actually let his own daughters get raped? But then again, what they didn't tell you in bible study was that After the two cities' deaths they went to live in the desert and had incestuous relationships with each other.

funny enough, the English translation didn't mangle THAT part. So homosexuality is bad, but father-daughter incest is a-ok. LOL.

Sodom and Gomorrah is from Genesis. The problem with using the Bible to condemn homosexuals, however, is that you need to take the passages out of context in order to do it. In Sodom and Gamorrah, for example, Sodom had just come out of a war. The people were naturally distrustful of any outsiders. When Lot offers his daughters to the crowd, it isn't to save the crowd from homoseuality, it's to protect his guests. Male rape was a common way to humiliate people in man of the local cultures at the time and the distrustful crowd feared the men might be spies from one of their enemies. Lot's alternative would not have made the crowd any better, rape is rape, but would have protected his guests from undue abuse and humiliation.

The passages from Leviticus are primarily Mosaic laws which are also taken out of context or which themselves are not entirely clear. Leviticus 18:22 ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination") is one of the most commonly used passages to condemn homosexuality. Here you have both problems, though. The passage is taken out of context AND the original Hebrew is unclear and pretty much untranslatable. English translations are mostly made by people of much later times, so the phrase is rearranged in such a way as to apply to popular contemporary prejudice. If you look at that part of the Bible, however, it is the second rule in a section dedicated to pagan rituals and comes right after a rule pertaining to the god Molech, whose followers practiced ritual sexual practices with temple prostitutes. Because of the ambiguity of the original text, the passage can also refer to the location where two men have sex, stating that a man cannot sleep with another man in a woman's bed.

Another common passage is Leviticus 20:13 which runs into the same problem that it most likely refers to a pagan ritual and can also be translated differently from how it is found in the King James version of the Bible. It commonly is interpreted to mean that homosexuality is punishable by death under God's law. Very few Christians follow the Mosaic laws as they are written and most consider those codes to be outdated. The problem, however, is that the laws come in two types, moral sins and impure acts. Most moral sins are considered to still apply in modern society. Things like incest and ritual sacrifice of children fall under that category. Impure acts, however, are mostly products of their time and can be ignored under modern Christian codes. These include dietary restrictions like not eating shellfish and other actions that were thought to make people impure, like tatoos or wearing clothing that blended two different materials.

Much of these laws are not followed to the letter, even when they deal with moral sins, though. We don't employ the same methods of punishment outlined in the Bible, nor do we view all of those actions as being as grave as they were in ancient times. In fact, the way I see it, quite often it seems more like homosexuals serve as a scape-goat to draw attention away from the trangressions of the rest of society. Adultery is considered just as grave a sin, yet everybody does it these days.

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that all religions should be forced to have gay members of clergy as well as women.
Just for the sake of argument!

All religions exist within our communities, and those communities are governed and certain things are just basic rights within those communities, you can't exclude people from positions based on things like sexuality or gender in almost everything else, the priesthoods should be no different:- either that or bugger off and go practice your religion in another country.
That goes for protestants, Catholics, evangelicals, morons, Jehovahs, fundamentalists (of any religion), Orthodox (Greek, Russian and anything else), Jews, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Janists, Muslims, whatever!
I don't care what clothing you wear- priest collar, purple robes, pointy hats, veils , hijabs, orange sarongs, giant turbans, yamakas, shtreimels, whatever- go nude for all I care, as long as you are equal opportunity!

No more tax free status either :)