Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 01, 2014, 03:07:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Homosexuality 101  (Read 132781 times)
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9716


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #425 on: January 25, 2012, 06:52:59 PM »

This is very interesting. It made me wonder since I'm with a woman and I've "been" with men, much like Cynthia has, but from the male perspective, is this a choice I made or is it all about my genetic makeup? Are there genetic markers for bisexuality? Certainly, I made a choice to marry, but could I have as easily married (partnered with) a man as a woman? I do believe it is in me to love either a man or a woman....love is love. So I chose to fall in love with this one woman....and I believe it was so fated.

To be honest, in one respect I did make a choice and that was to have children. In my day, two guys couldn't have children and realistically they still cannot from the standpoint of passing on ones genes. However, one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that I married my wife because I wanted a someone to bear me children. That is simply not the case at all in my case. I married my wife because she was the person I feel in love with and have continued to love to this day. Anyway, if it was just for the convenience of reproducing, our children have long since grown into adults and yet my wife and I are still together. BTW, neither of us would or could have more children these days, even if we wanted to. So reproduction is not the cement in our relationship.

Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #426 on: January 25, 2012, 06:59:26 PM »

This is very interesting. It made me wonder since I'm with a woman and I've "been" with men, much like Cynthia has, but from the male perspective, is this a choice I made or is it all about my genetic makeup? Are there genetic markers for bisexuality? Certainly, I made a choice to marry, but could I have as easily married (partnered with) a man as a woman? I do believe it is in me to love either a man or a woman....love is love. So I chose to fall in love with this one woman....and I believe it was so fated.

To be honest, in one respect I did make a choice and that was to have children. In my day, two guys couldn't have children and realistically they still cannot from the standpoint of passing on ones genes. However, one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that I married my wife because I wanted a someone to bear me children. That is simply not the case at all in my case. I married my wife because she was the person I feel in love with and have continued to love to this day. Anyway, if it was just for the convenience of reproducing, our children have long since grown into adults and yet my wife and I are still together. BTW, neither of us would or could have more children these days, even if we wanted to. So reproduction is not the cement in our relationship.

I think bisexuality is a true orientation, but that's not the same as saying one "choses to be gay" as Cynthia Nixon has.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9716


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #427 on: January 25, 2012, 11:49:05 PM »

I think bisexuality is a true orientation, but that's not the same as saying one "chooses to be gay" as Cynthia Nixon has.

I apparently missed making my point about Cynthia's "I made a choice" statement, that being that she could very well be bisexual and that wasn't a choice.

To me bisexual means I am open to relationships with men and with women. Right now, I am choosing to be with a woman. This doesn't mean that I am no longer attracted to men (obviously). It does mean, for me, that I am choosing not to act on that attraction for a variety of reasons.Surprisingly, a lot of folks don't get this.

Cynthia misspoke. She didn't choose to be gay, she chose to be with a woman instead of being with a man....at this time in her life.

I have found that a lot of gay folks don't like bisexuals. I have had some pretty nasty comments directed at me because I am married to a woman. Personally, I don't get the hate. Why do people care what others do, especially when it has no affect on their lives.
 
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #428 on: January 26, 2012, 08:31:23 AM »

I apparently missed making my point about Cynthia's "I made a choice" statement, that being that she could very well be bisexual and that wasn't a choice.

To me bisexual means I am open to relationships with men and with women. Right now, I am choosing to be with a woman. This doesn't mean that I am no longer attracted to men (obviously). It does mean, for me, that I am choosing not to act on that attraction for a variety of reasons.Surprisingly, a lot of folks don't get this.

Cynthia misspoke. She didn't choose to be gay, she chose to be with a woman instead of being with a man....at this time in her life.

I have found that a lot of gay folks don't like bisexuals. I have had some pretty nasty comments directed at me because I am married to a woman. Personally, I don't get the hate. Why do people care what others do, especially when it has no affect on their lives.
 

I agree.  She is either not very bright or she is being deliberately provocative (something actors and other publicity hounds have been known to do). Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9716


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #429 on: January 26, 2012, 11:12:21 AM »

You've got that right!
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #430 on: January 31, 2012, 02:13:02 PM »

Cynthia Nixon clarifies comments about her sexuality

Actress Cynthia Nixon has clarified comments she made about her sexuality after she infuriated activists by suggesting she “chose” to be gay.
 
The “Sex and the City” star spent 15 years with Danny Mozes, the father of her two children, before she started a relationship with her current partner, Christine Marinoni.
 
In a recent interview with the New York Times Magazine, Nixon opened up about her personal life, revealing, “For me, it (homosexuality) is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but, for me, it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.”
 
The remark sparked outrage among gay rights campaigners, and Nixon has now released a statement to clarify her comments.

She says, “My recent comments in The New York Times were about me and my personal story of being gay. I believe we all have different ways we came to the gay community and we can’t and shouldn’t be pigeonholed into one cultural narrative which can be uninclusive (sic) and disempowering.
 
However … I would like to clarify: While I don’t often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have ‘chosen’ is to be in a gay relationship. …
 
“I do… believe that most members of our community – as well as the majority of heterosexuals – cannot and do not choose the gender of the persons with whom they seek to have intimate relationships because, unlike me, they are only attracted to one sex.

“Our community is not a monolith, thank goodness, any more than America itself is. I look forward to and will continue to work toward the day when America recognizes all of us as full and equal citizens.”


* Nixon.jpg (24.22 KB, 200x300 - viewed 4906 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9716


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #431 on: January 31, 2012, 05:42:18 PM »

Hmm....her correction seems very familiar. Do you suppose she read my post here in this tread on Getbig about bisexuality?
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #432 on: February 10, 2012, 03:47:38 PM »

Ellen DeGeneres speaks out against ‘millions’ of moms who want her fired
 
Ellen DeGeneres is honest, warm, down-to-earth, and absolutely hilarious. What’s there not to like? Well, she’s a lesbian and the anti-gay group OneMillionMoms.com doesn’t like that.

When the talk-show host announced her new relationship with J.C. Penny, the group, a part of the American Family Association, was enraged and asked the retailer to fire DeGeneres as their spokesmodel immediately.

A statement on OneMillionMoms.com reads: “Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of its customers are traditional families. As consumers, what we find tragic is a corporate office and customer service department that not only transfers customers to voicemail, but even hangs up on them rather than verses hearing their concerns.”

OneMillionMoms asked its members to join in the fight to get DeGeneres fired: “Make a personal phone call to JC Penney’s corporate headquarters and ask JC Penney to replace Ellen Degeneres as their new spokesperson immediately to remain neutral in the culture war.”

J.C. Penny didn’t respond to the groups’ demands and is standing by DeGeneres’ side: “She’s a very honest, straightforward person with extraordinary values,” JCPenney CEO Ron Johnson said “CBS This Morning” today. “It’s been unbelievably wonderful to work with someone who is so kind, so gracious, so funny, who just, I think, captures what American is about.”

Ellen DeGeneres took the issue into her hands on her show, saying that her “haters are her motivators,” and here’s an incredibly inspiring video featuring more of what she had to say:  http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2012/02/10/ellen-degeneres-speaks-out-against-millions-of-moms-who-want-her-fired/?tsp=1


* ellen-395.jpg (39.45 KB, 395x274 - viewed 4676 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #433 on: February 28, 2012, 10:34:59 AM »

Oh!  The humanity!  Cry


* gay-soldier.gif (75.71 KB, 500x394 - viewed 4332 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #434 on: April 27, 2012, 02:15:58 PM »

Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay
By RICHARD M. RYAN and WILLIAM S. RYAN

WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?

In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men’s bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man.

One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” — the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, “I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war.”

It’s a compelling theory — and now there is scientific reason to believe it. In this month’s issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchers provide empirical evidence that homophobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire.

Our paper describes six studies conducted in the United States and Germany involving 784 university students. Participants rated their sexual orientation on a 10-point scale, ranging from gay to straight. Then they took a computer-administered test designed to measure their implicit sexual orientation. In the test, the participants were shown images and words indicative of hetero- and homosexuality (pictures of same-sex and straight couples, words like “homosexual” and “gay”) and were asked to sort them into the appropriate category, gay or straight, as quickly as possible. The computer measured their reaction times.

The twist was that before each word and image appeared, the word “me” or “other” was flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds — long enough for participants to subliminally process the word but short enough that they could not consciously see it. The theory here, known as semantic association, is that when “me” precedes words or images that reflect your sexual orientation (for example, heterosexual images for a straight person), you will sort these images into the correct category faster than when “me” precedes words or images that are incongruent with your sexual orientation (for example, homosexual images for a straight person). This technique, adapted from similar tests used to assess attitudes like subconscious racial bias, reliably distinguishes between self-identified straight individuals and those who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated “me” with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated “me” with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy.

Notably, these “discrepant” individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies; to be willing to assign significantly harsher punishments to perpetrators of petty crimes if they were presumed to be homosexual; and to express greater implicit hostility toward gay subjects (also measured with the help of subliminal priming). Thus our research suggests that some who oppose homosexuality do tacitly harbor same-sex attraction.

What leads to this repression? We found that participants who reported having supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation and less susceptible to homophobia. Individuals whose sexual identity was at odds with their implicit sexual attraction were much more frequently raised by parents perceived to be controlling, less accepting and more prejudiced against homosexuals.

It’s important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance. The costs are great, not only for the targets of anti-gay efforts but also often for the perpetrators. We would do well to remember that all involved deserve our compassion.


* self.jpg (122.69 KB, 387x500 - viewed 3910 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #435 on: May 18, 2012, 05:12:28 PM »

Leading Psychiatrist Apologizes for Study Supporting Gay ‘Cure’
By BENEDICT CAREY

PRINCETON, N.J. — The simple fact was that he had done something wrong, and at the end of a long and revolutionary career it didn’t matter how often he’d been right, how powerful he once was, or what it would mean for his legacy.

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, considered by some to be the father of modern psychiatry, who turns 80 next week, lay awake at 4 o’clock on a recent morning knowing he had to do the one thing that comes least naturally to him.

He pushed himself up and staggered into the dark. His desk seemed impossibly far away; Dr. Spitzer suffers from Parkinson’s disease and has trouble walking, sitting, even holding his head upright.

The word he sometimes uses to describe these limitations — pathetic — is the same one that for decades he wielded like an ax to strike down dumb ideas, empty theorizing, and junk studies.

Now here he was at his computer, ready to recant a study he had done himself, a poorly conceived 2003 investigation that supported the use of so-called reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality for people strongly motivated to change.

What to say? The issue of gay marriage was rocking national politics yet again. The California State Legislature was debating a bill to ban the therapy outright as being dangerous. A magazine writer who had been through the therapy as a teenager recently visited his house, to explain how miserably disorienting the experience was.

And he would learn later that a World Health Organization report, released on Thursday, calls the therapy “a serious threat to the health and well-being — even the lives — of affected people.”

Dr. Spitzer’s fingers jerked over the keys, unreliably, as if choking on the words. And then it was done: a short letter to be published this month, in the same journal where the original study appeared.

“I believe,” it concludes, “I owe the gay community an apology.”

Disturber of the Peace

The idea to study reparative therapy at all was pure Spitzer, say those who know him, an effort to stick a finger in the eye of an orthodoxy that he himself had helped establish.

In the late 1990s as today, the psychiatric establishment considered the therapy to be a nonstarter. Few therapists thought of homosexuality as a disorder.

It wasn’t always so. Up into the 1970s, the field’s diagnostic manual classified homosexuality as an illness, calling it a “sociopathic personality disturbance.” Many therapists offered treatment, including Freudian analysts who dominated the field at the time.

Advocates for gay people objected furiously and in 1970, one year after the landmark Stonewall protests to stop police raids at a New York bar, a team of gay rights protesters heckled a meeting of behavioral therapists in New York to discuss the topic. The meeting broke up, but not before a young Columbia University professor sat down with the protesters to hear their case.

“I’ve always been drawn to controversy, and what I was hearing made sense,” said Dr. Spitzer, in an interview at his home last week. “And I began to think, well, if it is a mental disorder, then what makes it one?”

He compared homosexuality with other conditions defined as disorders, like depression and alcohol dependence, and saw immediately that the latter caused marked distress or impairment, while homosexuality often did not.

He also saw an opportunity to do something about it. Dr. Spitzer was then a junior member of on an American Psychiatric Association committee helping to rewrite the field’s diagnostic manual and he promptly organized a symposium to discuss the place of homosexuality.

That kicked off a series of bitter debates, pitting Dr. Spitzer against a pair of influential senior psychiatrists who would not budge. In the end, the psychiatric association in 1973 sided with Dr. Spitzer, deciding to drop homosexuality from its manual and replace it with his alternative, “sexual orientation disturbance,” to identify people whose sexual orientation, gay or straight, caused them distress.

The arcane language notwithstanding, homosexuality was no longer a “disorder.” Dr. Spitzer achieved a civil rights breakthrough in record time.

“I wouldn’t say that Robert Spitzer became a household name among the broader gay movement, but the declassification of homosexuality was widely celebrated as a victory,” said Ronald Bayer of the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Columbia. “ ‘Sick No More’ was a headline in some gay newspapers.”

Partly as a result, Dr. Spitzer took charge of the task of updating the diagnostic manual. Together with a colleague, Dr. Janet Williams, now his wife, he set to work. To an extent that is still not widely appreciated, his thinking about this one issue — homosexuality — drove a broader reconsideration of what mental illness is, of where to draw the line between normal and not.

The new manual, a 567-page doorstop released in 1980, became an unlikely best seller, here and abroad. It instantly set the standard for future psychiatry manuals, and elevated its principal architect, now nearing 50, to the pinnacle of his field.

He was the keeper of the book, part headmaster, part ambassador, and part ornery cleric, growling over the phone at scientists, journalists, or policy makers he thought were out of order. He took to the role as if born to it, colleagues say, helping to bring order to a historically chaotic corner of science.

But power was its own kind of confinement. Dr. Spitzer could still disturb the peace, all right, but no longer from the flanks, as a rebel. Now he was the establishment. And in the late 1990s, friends say, he remained restless as ever, eager to challenge common assumptions.

That’s when he ran into another group of protesters, at the psychiatric association’s annual meeting in 1999: self-described ex-gays. Like the homosexual protesters in 1973, they too were outraged that psychiatry was denying their experience — and any therapy that might help.

Reparative Therapy

Reparative therapy, sometimes called “sexual reorientation” or “conversion” therapy, is rooted in Freud’s idea that people are born bisexual and can move along a continuum from one end to the other. Some therapists never let go of the theory, and one of Dr. Spitzer’s main rivals in the 1973 debate, Dr. Charles W. Socarides, founded an organization called the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or Narth, in Southern California, to promote it.

By 1998, Narth had formed alliances with socially conservative advocacy groups and together they began an aggressive campaign, taking out full-page ads in major newspaper trumpeting success stories.

“People with a shared worldview basically came together and created their own set of experts to offer alternative policy views,” said Dr. Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist in New York and co-editor of “Ex-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics, and Culture.”

To Dr. Spitzer, the scientific question was at least worth asking: What was the effect of the therapy, if any? Previous studies had been biased and inconclusive. “People at the time did say to me, ‘Bob, you’re messing with your career, don’t do it,’ ” Dr. Spitzer said. “But I just didn’t feel vulnerable.”

He recruited 200 men and women, from the centers that were performing the therapy, including Exodus International, based in Florida, and Narth. He interviewed each in depth over the phone, asking about their sexual urges, feelings and behaviors before and after having the therapy, rating the answers on a scale.

He then compared the scores on this questionnaire, before and after therapy. “The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year,” his paper concluded.

The study — presented at a psychiatry meeting in 2001, before publication — immediately created a sensation, and ex-gay groups seized on it as solid evidence for their case. This was Dr. Spitzer, after all, the man who single-handedly removed homosexuality from the manual of mental disorders. No one could accuse him of bias.

But gay leaders accused him of betrayal, and they had their reasons.

The study had serious problems. It was based on what people remembered feeling years before — an often fuzzy record. It included some ex-gay advocates, who were politically active. And it didn’t test any particular therapy; only half of the participants engaged with a therapist at all, while the others worked with pastoral counselors, or in independent Bible study.

Several colleagues tried to stop the study in its tracks, and urged him not to publish it, Dr. Spitzer said.

Yet, heavily invested after all the work, he turned to a friend and former collaborator, Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, psychologist in chief at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, another influential journal.

“I knew Bob and the quality of his work, and I agreed to publish it,” Dr. Zucker said in an interview last week. The paper did not go through the usual peer-review process, in which unnamed experts critique a manuscript before publication. “But I told him I would do it only if I also published commentaries” of response from other scientists to accompany the study, Dr. Zucker said.

Those commentaries, with a few exceptions, were merciless. One cited the Nuremberg Code of ethics to denounce the study as not only flawed but morally wrong. “We fear the repercussions of this study, including an increase in suffering, prejudice, and discrimination,” concluded a group of 15 researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, where Dr. Spitzer was affiliated.

Dr. Spitzer in no way implied in the study that being gay was a choice, or that it was possible for anyone who wanted to change to do so in therapy. But that didn’t stop socially conservative groups from citing the paper in support of just those points, according to Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, a nonprofit that fights antigay bias.

On one occasion, a politician in Finland held up the study in Parliament to argue against civil unions, according to Dr. Drescher.

“It needs to be said that when this study was misused for political purposes to say that gays should be cured — as it was, many times — Bob responded immediately, to correct misperceptions,” said Dr. Drescher, who is gay.

But Dr. Spitzer couldn’t control how his study was interpreted by everyone, and he could not erase the biggest scientific flaw of them all, roundly attacked in many of the commentaries: Simply asking people whether they’ve changed is no evidence at all of real change. People lie, to themselves and others. They continually change their stories, to suit their needs and moods.

By almost any measure, in short, the study failed the test of scientific rigor that Dr. Spitzer himself was so instrumental in enforcing for so many years.

“As I read these commentaries, I knew this was a problem, a big problem, and one I couldn’t answer,” Dr. Spitzer said. “How do you know someone has really changed?”

Letting Go

It took 11 years for him to admit it publicly.

At first he clung to the idea that the study was exploratory, an attempt to prompt scientists to think twice about dismissing the therapy outright. Then he took refuge in the position that the study was focused less on the effectiveness of the therapy and more on how people engaging in it described changes in sexual orientation.

“Not a very interesting question,” he said. “But for a long time I thought maybe I wouldn’t have to face the bigger problem, about measuring change.”

After retiring in 2003, he remained active on many fronts, but the reparative study remained a staple of the culture wars and a personal regret that wouldn’t leave him be. The Parkinson’s symptoms have worsened in the past year, exhausting him mentally as well physically, making it still harder to fight back pangs of remorse.

And one day in March, Dr. Spitzer entertained a visitor. Gabriel Arana, a journalist at the magazine The American Prospect, interviewed Dr. Spitzer about the reparative therapy study. This wasn’t just any interview; Mr. Arana went through reparative therapy himself as a teenager, and his therapist had recruited the young man for Dr. Spitzer’s study (Mr. Arana did not participate).

“I asked him about all his critics, and he just came out and said, ‘I think they’re largely correct,’ ” said Mr. Arana, who wrote about his own experience last month. Mr. Arana said that reparative therapy ultimately delayed his self-acceptance as a gay man and induced thoughts of suicide. “But at the time I was recruited for the Spitzer study, I was referred as a success story. I would have said I was making progress.”

That did it. The study that seemed at the time a mere footnote to a large life was growing into a chapter. And it needed a proper ending — a strong correction, directly from its author, not a journalist or colleague.

A draft of the letter has already leaked online and has been reported.

“You know, it’s the only regret I have; the only professional one,” Dr. Spitzer said of the study, near the end of a long interview. “And I think, in the history of psychiatry, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted. Who admitted that and who apologized to his readers.”

He looked away and back again, his big eyes blurring with emotion. “That’s something, don’t you think?”


* Dr. Spitzer.jpg (59.03 KB, 650x433 - viewed 3637 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9716


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #436 on: May 19, 2012, 09:56:26 AM »

While I do not believe being homosexual is a disease or even a disorder, I do believe being gay can sometimes have a detrimental effect on some folks overall mental health. Perhaps this is because many people unfortunately wrongly believe it is somehow a choice and moreover that being gay is immoral or evil. Many teenagers today still bully their contemporaries by calling them gay related slurs regardless of whether they are gay or not. For the child who is still discovering their sexual nature, this can be especially hurtful and sometimes confusing. There have been several recent cases of younger folks committing suicide because of their being ridiculed or outed for being gay. Most teenagers have a strong need to "fit in" and being gay certainly can limit their ability to do this.

Perhaps understanding that homosexuality isn't a choice, a disease or a disorder is the first step to acceptance of those who are gay. If there is no stigma around someone's sexuality, it allows them and others to be comfortable with who they are.

Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #437 on: May 19, 2012, 11:55:31 AM »

While I do not believe being homosexual is a disease or even a disorder, I do believe being gay can sometimes have a detrimental effect on some folks overall mental health. Perhaps this is because many people unfortunately wrongly believe it is somehow a choice and moreover that being gay is immoral or evil. Many teenagers today still bully their contemporaries by calling them gay related slurs regardless of whether they are gay or not. For the child who is still discovering their sexual nature, this can be especially hurtful and sometimes confusing. There have been several recent cases of younger folks committing suicide because of their being ridiculed or outed for being gay. Most teenagers have a strong need to "fit in" and being gay certainly can limit their ability to do this.

Perhaps understanding that homosexuality isn't a choice, a disease or a disorder is the first step to acceptance of those who are gay. If there is no stigma around someone's sexuality, it allows them and others to be comfortable with who they are.



Reconsider your rhetoric; you appear to be blaming the victim.  Teasing and bullying of any kind can be harmful--and that has nothing to do with homosexuality.  Insecure kids (not to mention adults) bully each other over being fat, a different color/ethnicity, immigrant status, accents, clothes, etc.  Self esteem is the real way to address bullying in all its forms.  Bullying is only undertaken by the fearful and insecure.  Remember the reported bashing incident undertaken by Mitt Romney at that prep school?  He supposedly (claims he does not remember) led a gang of fellows to hold a queer looking guy down and cut his hair because "He can't look like that. That's wrong."  Is it any wonder that the bully who did that would grow up and become an adult who opposes equal treatment for all--specifically for gays and lesbians?

Insecure children grow up to be insecure adults.  Cry
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9716


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #438 on: May 19, 2012, 06:07:31 PM »

Reconsider your rhetoric; you appear to be blaming the victim.  Teasing and bullying of any kind can be harmful--and that has nothing to do with homosexuality.  Insecure kids (not to mention adults) bully each other over being fat, a different color/ethnicity, immigrant status, accents, clothes, etc.  Self esteem is the real way to address bullying in all its forms.  Bullying is only undertaken by the fearful and insecure.  Remember the reported bashing incident undertaken by Mitt Romney at that prep school?  He supposedly (claims he does not remember) led a gang of fellows to hold a queer looking guy down and cut his hair because "He can't look like that. That's wrong."  Is it any wonder that the bully who did that would grow up and become an adult who opposes equal treatment for all--specifically for gays and lesbians?

Insecure children grow up to be insecure adults.  Cry

I am not blaming the victim at all. I just recognize that homosexuals or gays are sometimes victimized by others, like in the Romney example you provided. Your right; bullies bully for any number of reasons, not just the folks seeming to be or being gay. All I am saying is there remains (even today) some stigma for being homosexual or even acting in some manner that suggests one might be gay. However, it has been my experience that for some people and groups of people homophobia is less prevalent than in the past.

The downside to being bullied for whatever reason is that it can and sometimes does have disastrous results. Young folks are particularly susceptible to feeling insecure about many things. If you read what I previous wrote as I meant it, I am simply stating that there are occasions when being gay isn't such a gay (happy) thing.
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #439 on: May 22, 2012, 01:00:14 PM »

Pastor delivers anti-gay rant, suggests building electric fence around ‘queers and homosexuals’
By Dylan Stableford

A North Carolina pastor's disturbing anti-gay sermon has gone viral, and it's easy to see why.

In a rant delivered just days after President Barack Obama's historic public support for same-sex marriage, the pastor, Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., suggested rounding up all "queers and homosexuals" and quarantining them inside an electric fence.

"I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers," Worley told churchgoers on May 13. "Build a great big large fence—50 or 100 mile long—put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out. And you know what, in a few years, they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce!"

"It makes me pukin' sick to think about," Worley added. "Can you imagine kissing some man?"

Worley's comments—while shocking—are sadly not uncommon for pastors in North Carolina, a state that voted overwhelmingly in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage "as solely between a man and a woman."

Earlier this month, Ron Baity, founding pastor of Winston-Salem's Berean Baptist Church and leader of Return America, said gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people should be prosecuted.

"For 300 years, we had laws that would prosecute that lifestyle," Baity said. "We've gone down the wrong path."

Before the state's vote, Pastor Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville instructed parents to use force if their kids start acting gay:

So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, "Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do," you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed. Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. OK?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pastor-delivers-anti-gay-rant-suggests-building-electric-142753831.html
Report to moderator   Logged
chadstallion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2365



View Profile
« Reply #440 on: May 22, 2012, 03:20:02 PM »

poor deluded pastor.
under the mis guided notion that homos/lesbians have to breed their own.
str8s have been doing the breeding of us for 6000 years.
Report to moderator   Logged

BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #441 on: May 25, 2012, 06:26:07 PM »

Gays may have the fastest of all civil rights movements
Public attitudes have shifted sharply in the last 10 years. Chalk it up to familiarity – among family, friends, co-workers and prime-time TV characters.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times

SAN FRANCISCO — In 1958, the Gallup Poll asked Americans whether they approved or disapproved of marriage between blacks and whites. The response was overwhelming: 94% were opposed, a sentiment that held for decades. It took nearly 40 years until a majority of those surveyed said marriage between people of different skin colors was acceptable.

By contrast, attitudes toward gays and lesbians have changed so much in just the last 10 years that, as Gallup reported last week, "half or more now agree that being gay is morally acceptable, that gay relations ought to be legal and that gay or lesbian couples should have the right to legally marry." (In 1996, when Gallup first asked about legalizing same-sex marriage, 68% of Americans were opposed.)

Politically, President Obama felt it safe enough recently to abandon his studied ambiguity and endorse same-sex marriage amid a tough reelection campaign. Days later, a top Republican pollster, Jan van Lohuizen, issued a warning to his party, suggesting opponents were on the wrong side of the issue. Support has grown, he wrote in a strategy memo, "at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down."

If, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, the arc of the moral universe is long but bends toward justice, then it's arguably moving faster and bending quicker in the direction of gay rights than any civil rights movement before.

That is not to say that gays and lesbians enjoy a full measure of equality, or complete legal protection. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in the vast majority of states and, in many, gays and lesbians lack the protections against job and housing discrimination afforded women, Latinos and African Americans.

Just last week, Republicans in the Colorado House stymied a measure recognizing civil unions between gay couples, calling it an attempted end-run around the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In Virginia, GOP lawmakers blocked a prosecutor from becoming the state's first openly gay judge.

Still, "it's pretty extraordinary what we've accomplished in less than 50 years," said Cleve Jones, who has spent decades as a gay rights activist, starting in the 1970s as a protege of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk.

"Homosexual behavior itself was a felony almost everywhere," Jones recalled. "There were laws on the books preventing us from congregating in bars and restaurants. There were special police units in every single city whose job was to entrap and arrest and imprison us. … There's been enormous progress, astonishing progress."

Jones, like many, was loath to compare civil rights movements. "African Americans essentially wrote the book on how to do a social movement in the United States," said Gary M. Segura, head of Stanford University's Chicano studies program.

There is not even agreement on when the movements began. For blacks, some say it was the end of the Civil War in 1865 or the founding of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909. For gays and lesbians, some cite the homophile movement of the 1950s, while others point to the explosion of activism after the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York.

Nor is there consensus on how to measure progress, or a lack thereof. Is it economic gains? Is it the ability of gays and lesbians to marry? Or the inability of black men in certain cities — even with a black president — to successfully hail a cab after dark?

Regardless, by moving public opinion so dramatically and changing the political dynamic with such rapidity, the gay rights movement has achieved remarkable success with unprecedented speed — to a point where some criticized Obama as a laggard when he endorsed same-sex marriage, a historic move unthinkable just a few years ago.

In a convergence of causes, the NAACP board voted Saturday to endorse same-sex marriage, saying "marriage equality" was "consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Several reasons account for the success. The gay community tends to be more affluent, and the ability to give generously to candidates has translated into significant political clout, from the local level to the White House. Its leaders are well-versed in the machinations of government and the means of power, knowledge hard-won through years spent dragging politicians into the fight against the AIDS epidemic.

But experts and advocates agree on one explanation above all others: Familiarity.

"People came to understand we existed," Jones said. "They worked with us. They knew us. They had [gay] family members. That demystified it and made it harder for them to hate us in an abstract way."

That was an avenue obviously unavailable to African Americans. "It isn't as if white people suddenly come to discover they have African American children or relatives," said Kenneth Sherrill, a professor at Hunter College in New York and a longtime gay activist.

Gays and lesbians "are born into straight families and live in straight neighborhoods and go to straight schools and work in straight businesses," Sherrill said. "There's a kind of familiarity that's exceedingly difficult to achieve in the case of race."

Popular culture and its shaper, the mass media, have also played a crucial role in changing attitudes, much as news accounts helped advance the cause of the black civil rights movement. Only this time it wasn't images of fire hoses and police dogs turned on innocents but the sympathetic portrayal of gay and lesbian characters in prime time, in what has become a TV staple.

"Will & Grace," the NBC comedy that ran from 1998 to 2006, "probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody's ever done so far," Vice President Joe Biden said in a "Meet the Press" interview that helped prod Obama off the fence into supporting same-sex marriage.

That may be hyperbolic, but many said the vice president hit on something important: that welcoming fictionalized gay characters into the home made it that much easier to welcome gays and lesbians as family, friends, neighbors and co-workers in real life.

"It is certainly the case that gays and lesbians have been widely accepted in popular culture in a way that you could argue blacks in particular and Latinos too have never really been accepted," said Frank Gilliam, an expert on politics and race at UCLA.

He hastened to suggest, however, that such comparisons missed a larger point.

"I can't say how much worse your not being able to marry is than me being stopped [by police] for the color of my skin," Gilliam said. "To me, the question is not whether homophobism or racism is worse or better. The question is what kind of society do we want to want to live in? What kind of society do we want to raise our children in?"
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #442 on: May 27, 2012, 03:37:15 PM »

History repeats itself.  Roll Eyes

On September 4, 1957, an angry crowd of spectators greeted the African-American students as they attempted to attend Central High School for the first time. Elizabeth Eckford, who had not received a message to meet the other students, tried to enter the school by herself. Alone in a large crowd of hostile, jeering people, her attempts to enter the school were blocked by the Arkansas National Guard. She finally gave up and sat down at a bus stop enduring harassment from the mob until a white man and woman got her onto a bus and out of the area.

Television was a recent presence in American households at the time of the Central High School desegregation episode. Across the nation, in the newspapers and on television, Americans watched Little Rock's angry mob bar the entrance of Central High School to African-American students.



Have you ever wondered what happened to the hateful "conservatives" from the Civil Rights era ("we don't want you here n i g g e r!")?  They are still here in the form of Mitt Romney, Santorum, Bachman, McCain, etc. and all their supporters.  They lost the Little Rock Nine battle and they will lose the fight against gay and lesbian equality too.  Roll Eyes

The best part is--they know it.  Time is not on their side.  Kiss


* littlerock nine.jpg (155.61 KB, 870x594 - viewed 3309 times.)

* civil-rights-water-hoses2.jpg (54.66 KB, 470x325 - viewed 3244 times.)

* dogs unleashed.jpg (26.65 KB, 480x321 - viewed 3223 times.)

* Fred Phelps.jpg (33.57 KB, 500x338 - viewed 3194 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
lovemuscle
Getbig I
*
Posts: 0


View Profile
« Reply #443 on: July 26, 2012, 10:57:58 AM »

I would like to meet pro gay musclemen or amature male bodybuilders but don't know how?
How do you geet i touch with them?
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #444 on: July 26, 2012, 11:28:33 AM »

I would like to meet pro gay musclemen or amature male bodybuilders but don't know how?
How do you geet i touch with them?

This thread is not about finding gay musclemen.  Having said that, a great many bodybuilders have websites and somewhere on that site they often indicate that they are “looking for sponsors” that is code for “I’m available for the right price.”  You appear to be posting in the wrong thread.  If you are looking for an escort try this thread http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=36549.0
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #445 on: November 01, 2012, 09:54:04 AM »

‘Ex-Gay’ Men Fight Back Against View That Homosexuality Can’t Be Changed
By ERIK ECKHOLM

LOS ANGELES — For most of his life, Blake Smith said, “every inch of my body craved male sexual contact.”

Mr. Smith, 58, who says he believes homosexual behavior is wrong on religious grounds, tried to tough it out. He spent 17 years in a doomed marriage while battling his urges all day, he said, and dreaming about them all night.

But in recent years, as he probed his childhood in counseling and at men’s weekend retreats with names like People Can Change and Journey Into Manhood, “my homosexual feelings have nearly vanished,” Mr. Smith said in an interview at the house in Bakersfield, Calif., he shares with his second wife, who married him eight years ago knowing his history. “In my 50s, for the first time, I can look at a woman and say ‘she’s really hot.’ ”

Mr. Smith is one of thousands of men across the country, often known as “ex-gay,” who believe they have changed their most basic sexual desires through some combination of therapy and prayer — something most scientists say has never been proved possible and is likely an illusion.

Ex-gay men are often closeted, fearing ridicule from gay advocates who accuse them of self-deception and, at the same time, fearing rejection by their church communities as tainted oddities. Here in California, their sense of siege grew more intense in September when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law banning use of widely discredited sexual “conversion therapies” for minors — an assault on their own validity, some ex-gay men feel.

Signing the measure, Governor Brown repeated the view of the psychiatric establishment and medical groups, saying, “This bill bans nonscientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide,” adding that the practices “will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”

But many ex-gays have continued to seek help from such therapists and men’s retreats, saying their own experience is proof enough that the treatment can work.

Aaron Bitzer, 35, was so angered by the California ban, which will take effect on Jan. 1, that he went public and became a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional.

To those who call the therapy dangerous, Mr. Bitzer reverses the argument: “If I’d known about these therapies as a teen I could have avoided a lot of depression, self-hatred and suicidal thoughts,” he said at his apartment in Los Angeles. He was tormented as a Christian teenager by his homosexual attractions, but now, after men’s retreats and an online course of reparative therapy, he says he feels glimmers of attraction for women and is thinking about dating.

“I found that I couldn’t just say ‘I’m gay’ and live that way,” said Mr. Bitzer, who plans to seek a doctorate in psychology and become a therapist himself.

Many ex-gays guard their secret but quietly meet in support groups around the country, sharing ideas on how to avoid temptations or, perhaps, broach their past with a female date. Some are trying to save heterosexual marriages. Some, like Mr. Bitzer, hope one day to marry a woman. Some choose celibacy as an improvement over what they regard as a sinful gay life.

Whether they have gone through formal reparative therapy, most ex-gays agree with its tenets, even as they are rejected by mainstream scientists. The theories, which have also been adopted by conservative religious opponents of gay marriage, hold that male homosexuality emerges from family dynamics — often a distant father and an overbearing mother — or from early sexual abuse. Confronting these psychic wounds, they assert, can bring change in sexual desire, if not necessarily a total “cure.”

(While some women also struggle with sexual identity, the ex-gay movement is virtually all male.)

Major mental health associations say teenagers who are pushed into therapy by conservative parents may feel guilt and despair when their inner impulses do not change.

Reparative therapy suffered two other major setbacks this year. In April, a prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, publicly repudiated as invalid his own 2001 study suggesting that some people could change their sexual orientation; the study had been widely cited by defenders of the therapy.

Then this summer, the ex-gay world was convulsed when Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, the largest Christian ministry for people fighting same-sex attraction, said he did not believe anyone could be rid of homosexual desires.

Joseph Nicolosi, a psychologist and clinical director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, Calif., which he describes as the largest reparative therapy clinic in the world, disagreed.

“I don’t believe that anybody is really gay,” he said. “I believe that all people are heterosexual but that some have a homosexual problem, and some of these people attempt to resolve their conflict by adopting a sociopolitical label called ‘gay.’ ”

By unearthing family trauma, Dr. Nicolosi said, many patients find their homosexual urges dissipating.

Jeremy S., 34, a corporate contract officer in Dallas, says he is among them. Jeremy, who did not want his last name printed to avoid embarrassing his parents, said that from his teens until three years ago he lived as a gay man, at times having sex almost daily. “It wasn’t working for me,” he said.

After two years of therapy via Skype with Dr. Nicolosi’s clinic, he said, “my attraction to men was drastically diminishing.” He said he has not had sex with a man for more than two years and does not think about it more than once a month, adding that his Catholic faith has also deepened.

Critics like Wayne Besen, the executive director of Truth Wins Out, which fights antigay bias, liken such therapy to faith healing, with apparent effects that later fade away.

They also point out that the failures of such therapy are seldom reported.

S. Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist and psychologist at Michigan State University, said there was overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is affected by both biology and environment. Clearly, he said, reparative therapy helps some people alter sexual behavior. But that is far different, he noted, from transforming instinctive sexual desires, something never proved in scientific studies.

Cameron Michael Swaim, 20, said he is in the early stages of his struggle to overcome homosexual desires. Mr. Swaim is unemployed and lives with his parents in Orange County, Calif., where his father is a pastor of the Evangelical Friends Church of the Southwest.

He tried the gay life, but “it just doesn’t settle with me,” he said, and ultimately decided “there’s got to be a way to heal this affliction.”

Through weekend retreats and participation in a Southern California support group Mr. Swaim has started to explore his family relations, he said, something that has been painful but seems to be helping.

“I’m building my confidence around men,” he said, “ and that has built my confidence around women.”

Five years from now, Mr. Swaim hopes, he will be engaged or married. In the meantime, he is trying to scrape together enough money to start seeing a reparative therapist.


* blake smith.jpg (87.05 KB, 650x433 - viewed 2297 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #446 on: June 26, 2013, 08:43:08 AM »

Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — In a pair of major victories for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from California, effectively allowed same-sex marriages there.

The rulings leave in place laws banning same-sex marriage around the nation, and the court declined to say whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But in clearing the way for same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, the court effectively increased to 13 the number of states that allow such unions.

The case concerning California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, was decided on technical grounds, with the majority saying that it was not properly before the court. Because officials in California had declined to appeal a trial court’s decision against them and because the proponents of Proposition 8 were not entitled to step into the state’s shoes to appeal the decision, the court said, it was powerless to issue a decision. That left in place a trial court victory for two same-sex couples who had sought to marry.

The decision on the federal law was 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing the majority opinion, which the four liberal-leaning justices joined.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was in the minority, as were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed with bipartisan support and which President Bill Clinton signed.

The decision will immediately extend some federal benefits to same-sex couples, but it will also raise a series of major questions for the Obama administration about how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.

The five-member majority in the California case was different from the one in the Defense of Marriage case, in a sign that the California case was less straightforward. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan.

“In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us,” Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent in the case on the federal law. “The truth is more complicated.”

Justice Scalia read from his dissent on the bench, a step justices take in a small share of cases, typically to show that they have especially strong views.

Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, wrote that the law was “unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

If California becomes the 13th state to legalize same-sex marriage, about 30 percent of Americans will live in jurisdictions where it is legal. Until last year, when four states voted in favor of same-sex marriage at the ballot box, it had failed — or bans on it had succeeded — every time it had appeared on a statewide initiative.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have said that they remain hopeful that they can mount a political comeback, much as opponents of abortion used Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision, as a springboard to a more aggressive movement. Brian Brown, the head of the National Organization for Marriage, vowed Wednesday after the rulings to push for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Gay rights advocates said they would continue pushing to legalize same-sex marriage in new states.

The case on the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, considered the part of the law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal benefits. (A different part of the law, allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, was not before the court.)

The case concerned two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of about $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay. Ms. Windsor sued, and last year the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, struck down the 1996 law.

Until 2011, the Justice Department defended the law in court, as it typically does all acts of Congress. That year, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he and President Obama had concluded that the law was unconstitutional and unworthy of defense in court, but that the administration would continue to enforce the law. After the Justice Department stepped aside, House Republicans intervened to defend the law. Although the administration’s position prevailed in the lower courts, the Justice Department filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, saying the final decision should come from the highest court.

The case on Proposition 8, the 2008 California voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage there, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies on behalf a two same-sex couples who sought to marry. The two lawyers argued on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that settled the 2000 presidential election.

A judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 in a broad ruling whose logic would apply to bans around the nation. California officials did not appeal the ruling.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to appeal the judgment against the state. The court then affirmed the trial judge’s decision but on a narrower ground, saying voters were not entitled to withdraw a constitutional right once it had been established by the State Supreme Court. That reasoning did not directly threaten bans in other states.

In their brief in the Supreme Court, supporters of Proposition 8 said that preserving the traditional definition of marriage would “further society’s vital interests in responsible procreation and child rearing.” Those interests would be undermined, they say, by “officially redefining marriage as a genderless institution.” They urged the Supreme Court to proceed with caution in changing the definition of marriage and to respect societal judgments made through the democratic process.

Supporters of same-sex marriage responded that allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed would not make it any more likely that straight couples would act irresponsibly. They added that courts must protect the fundamental rights of disfavored minorities.

The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8, focusing on a ground that it said would apply to California and seven other states. It violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, the administration’s brief said, to confer all the benefits and burdens of marriage on gay and lesbian couples through robust civil union or domestic partnership laws but withhold the label “marriage.”
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #447 on: June 26, 2013, 08:48:38 AM »

‘I Am Sorry’— Alan Chambers’s Apology and the End of Exodus International
by James Kirchick

We should all thank God that Exodus shut its doors. The Christian ‘reparative’ therapy group ruined the lives of untold numbers of gay people. James Kirchick should know: he witnessed it.

Michael (not his real name), was tall and slender; his windswept, dirty blond hair done up in a Flock of Seagulls–style do. His fey appearance and mannerisms might have made such a question superfluous under normal circumstances. But I was speaking with him at an annual retreat of Exodus International, which until last week had been the oldest and largest “ex-gay” Christian ministry in the United States, purporting to help its adherents achieve “freedom” from homosexuality (thus my use of the evangelical argot to describe a state of nature—sexual orientation—as a freely chosen “lifestyle”).
 
“Yes,” he replied. “I’ve definitely been around the homosexual lifestyle.”

He had lost count of how many men he had slept with, I was half expecting him to say, before one day hearing the Good Word and deciding that a life of homosexual promiscuity was not what Jesus Christ had intended for him. Or, perhaps he had developed a liking for pornography, which, according to one pamphlet I saw displayed at the conference, led its victims into a “Chamber of Death.” Either way, I was anticipating a response a bit more elaborate than the answer he ultimately gave.

"I worked in retail,” he replied.

Retail. This was Michael’s “experience” in homosexuality. Not surreptitiously stalking the men's rooms at the mall, the erstwhile pastime of many an “ex-gay” Christian and family-values politician, but working at the mall itself. “I got to a point in my own life where it was a choice between my desires and what the Lord desired for me,” he said. And so he sought out Exodus on his own. Unlike many of the 700 people (the vast majority of whom were young men) gathered at the Ridgecrest Christian Conference Center in Asheville, North Carolina, that week, Michael’s parents had not forced him to go.

My heart sank not only because this poor boy was telling me that his familiarity with homosexuality wasn’t stealing surreptitious kisses with a boyfriend but working at a clothing store with flamboyant gay colleagues, and that he thought this constituted sufficient “experience” of homosexuality to know that he wanted nothing to do with it. What really saddened (and angered) me was that he found himself in a situation in which living a painfully obvious lie that would cause him and whatever poor girl he ended up marrying enormous heartbreak seemed like the most desirable option available.

I thought about Michael earlier this week when I read a statement by Alan Chambers, the leader of Exodus International, the content of which was summed by the title, I am Sorry. In it, Chambers, who was first a client of Exodus before becoming its president in 2001, apologized to “the people who have been hurt by Exodus International.” Likening his behavior as president of the organization to a “four-car pileup” he caused in 1993, Chambers pleaded:

Please know that I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents. I am sorry that there were times I didn’t stand up to people publicly “on my side” who called you names like sodomite—or worse. I am sorry that I, knowing some of you so well, failed to share publicly that the gay and lesbian people I know were every bit as capable of being amazing parents as the straight people that I know. I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him that I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry that I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine.

Chambers then went one step further, doing what many of his most fervent critics, particularly “ex-gay survivors,” had long called on him to do, and announced that Exodus would shut down.

Though Exodus’s decision to get out of the so-called reparative therapy business came as a shock to many, the signals were apparent at least a year ago. In January of 2012, Chambers publically admitted that “99.9%” of the people he had met who had endured such programs experienced no meaningful transformation in their sexual orientation, and he apologized for Exodus’s erstwhile slogan of “Change Is Possible.” The organization had blared this message widely in full-page newspaper advertisements, luring thousands of people who wished to reconcile “unwanted same-sex attractions” with their deeply held faith. However benign groups such as Exodus might have thought their intentions were, the massive damage they inflicted is incalculable, readily apparent in the lives ruined, families broken, and individuals destroyed by a message that denied their humanity as gay people.

Chambers has much for which to apologize. When I interviewed him five years ago in North Carolina, his mantra was “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality. It’s holiness.” His certainty was unclouded by doubt, or at least public doubt; his righteousness bereft of humility. Indeed, he took to his cause with missionary zeal. When I asked him what he thought of the small group of people who had gathered outside the conference center to demonstrate against Exodus, he replied, “Jesus had protesters, so why should we experience anything less?”

At one breakout session I attended (where a literally limp-wristed man squeezed my arm tenderly as I entered the room), a self-described “Christian psychotherapist” explained, “God only created heterosexuals. We have to be careful about letting our words and language be hijacked by the enemy,” the “enemy” apparently being the gay-rights movement. “Homosexual is an adjective, not a noun,” he said, describing a set of behaviors rather than a person’s innermost identity and desires. To think otherwise is to fall into the trap of secular, fallen America, “this Burger King nation where you can have it your way.”

Acknowledging even then that he was aware of “only a few people who say their attractions have changed exclusively,” Chambers freely admitted his own continuing struggles with same-sex attraction and that being married to a woman was “not my diploma for healing.” At the same time, however, he preposterously asserted, “I don’t think Ted Haggard says anything about the ex-gay movement,” Haggard being the former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals who was exposed that year for hiring a male prostitute. Haggard’s indiscretion, he said, was just “an indication that pastors are human.”

Indeed, they are. But what Chambers and other proponents of the ex-gay myth got wrong was failing to see Haggard’s behavior as a result of the culture of denial and inhuman sexual repression that they cultivated. It was this same collective failure to recognize the naturalness—the humanness—of homosexuality that ultimately brought about the demise of Exodus. Mercifully, there comes a point when even the most committed of ideologues admit defeat. The accumulated evidence of the failure to “convert” gays became impossible to ignore.

When I interviewed him in 2008, Chambers boasted that he expected to have 10,000 Exodus member ministries within the following two years. Instead, as the country rapidly became more accepting of homosexuality, his organization folded in on itself. Ironically, Exodus was founded some four decades ago in response to what many Evangelicals saw as the fire-and-brimstone approach of most religious institutions, condemning homosexuality without any regard for those faithful Christians who felt attraction for members of the same sex. “I would like nothing more than for the Exodus to go out of business because the Church is doing its job,” Chambers told me. He got his wish, but it was due to his own latter-day perceptiveness and conscientiousness—however belated it was in evincing itself—and not because organized religion became any more enlightened on the issue.

I never found out what happened to Michael. I like to think that he came around to realizing there is nothing “unholy” in being gay, and that he was able to find some way to maintain the faith he so clearly loved while also being true to himself. I despair, however, that he still struggles in an evangelical subculture consistently telling him his very nature is immoral.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9716


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #448 on: June 26, 2013, 12:33:03 PM »

‘I Am Sorry’— Alan Chambers’s Apology and the End of Exodus International
by James Kirchick

Why is it some people confuse promiscuity with homosexuality? They are two entirely different things. I know homosexuals who are promiscuous as and as some who are definitely not. I know heterosexuals who are promiscuous as well as those who are not.

I am not suggesting either is a bad thing. This is up to each individual to decide for themselves. Personally, I believe being homosexual is not some random choice a person makes. Promiscuity is probably most common among younger folks, because they have not yet settled into a long term relationship. Many homosexuals just as do many heterosexuals settle into more stable and permanent relationships as they mature. And they do this without need of reparations.

The idea that someone could actually change their core sexual attraction, as in changing from homosexual attraction to heterosexual attraction is simply ludicrous. 
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16830



View Profile
« Reply #449 on: March 17, 2014, 08:41:34 PM »

Little sorrow seen as anti-gay preacher Phelps said to be near death
By Matt Pearce; March 17, 2014, 7:51 p.m.

Fred Phelps, Sr. -- the 84-year-old founder of one of the most-hated churches in America and possibly the world -- has been placed in hospice and could be at "the edge of death," according to an estranged son.

The lack of public sorrow over this news has been frequent and unapologetic, for reasons obvious to anyone who has been forced to pay attention to Phelps and the legacy he is expected to leave behind.

Since 1991, under Phelps' direction, the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church has picketed the funerals of soldiers and prayed for the death of more, and has held up signs saying "God Hates Fags."

This year alone, church members -- manning a characteristically fast-moving PR operation with an eye for buzzy news -- have taken the time both to protest a popular gay football player and to praise the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 as "a righteous work of God."

That jet had 239 lives aboard, but no matter. In fact, that's part of the church's point. Phelps, a former civil rights attorney who fought for African Americans in the 1960s before leaving law, spent the 1990s and 2000s perfecting the art of trolling before the term developed its current meaning -- intentional provocation for the sake of getting attention.

From a modest white church building in Topeka, outrage itself was harnessed in tens of thousands of protests to evangelize for Phelps' rigid and unforgiving Calvinist ideology and to spread his fears that God might destroy mankind for its tolerance of gays. "WBC believes this gospel message to be this world's last hope," the church says on its website.

The demonstrators have tested the boundaries of the United States' relatively radical free-speech laws, with some success. As a result, Phelps' church has become a background noise many Americans have gotten used to tuning out.

Some of that boiled-up resentment began to emerge on Sunday, when Phelps' estranged son, Nathan Phelps, who himself became an LGBT advocate after running away from the church, revealed that his father was not only dying, but had been excommunicated by his own followers.

"God may forgive Fred Phelps Sr., but society doesn’t have to," read the headline of a Kansas City Star editorial from Yael T. Abouhalkah, who wrote: "It will be difficult to forget the legacy of Fred Phelps Sr. Some people will do exactly as their god commands them and forgive Phelps for his wayward behavior. Others won’t, and for good reasons."

Over at Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams added, "There’s a saying that goes, 'Live your life so the Westboro Baptist Church will want to picket your funeral.' But when the time comes, who will be there for Fred Phelps’?"

The answer, it turns out, might be nobody. "We don't worship the dead in this church, so there'd be no public memorial or funeral to picket if any member died," one church member wrote on Twitter back in February.

In response to a squall of media queries over the past two days, the church released a statement about Phelps in the form of a Q&A whose tone was less sorrowful than dismissive.

Q: Is Fred Phelps near death?

A: Fred Phelps is a person of advanced age, and such people sometimes have health issues. Fred Phelps has health issues, but the idea that someone would suggest that he is near death, is not only highly speculative, but foolish considering that all such matters are the sole prerogative of God...

Q: Has Fred Phelps been ‘excluded’ from membership at Westboro Baptist Church?

A: Membership issues are private.


And so it seems to have fallen to Phelps' castaways to show concern for the man, to the extent possible.

"I'm not sure how I feel about this," Phelps' son Nathan wrote in his Facebook post, adding that Phelps' remaining family had "blocked" estranged relatives from seeing the clan's patriarch. "Terribly ironic that his devotion to his god ends this way. Destroyed by the monster he made. I feel sad for all the hurt he's caused so many."

Another former church member, Lauren Drain, wrote that she was "devastated" by the news, adding, "I pray that despite all the many families & people affected by the WBC, that they will not have vengeance in their heart, but rather pity."

Turning the other cheek appeared to be the decision made by Phelps' longtime foes at Equality Kansas, an LGBT group that has known Westboro Baptist's vitriol up close for decades, from the time Phelps began cheering on AIDS to kill more people.

“We’ve spent over 20 years asking the Phelps followers to respect our privacy when we lay our loved ones to rest," Thomas Witt, executive director of Equality Kansas, told a local radio reporter. "I think, and my board thinks, that it would be hypocritical of us to respond in any other way."


* Fred Phelps.jpg (43.44 KB, 600x389 - viewed 451 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!