by Mel Seesholtz Ph.D.
I’ve been studying and writing about gay
and lesbian issues since 2003. What got me started was then Senator Rick
Santorum’s comments in an AP interview in which he compared gay sex
to bestiality (among other things). Those comments made him the poster-boy
for malicious theopolitical rants, an image he reinforced when speaking on the
floor of the U.S. Senate during its debate of the Federal
Marriage Amendment. With histrionic bravado Mr. Santorum proclaimed, “the
future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs
in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security – standing up and
defending marriage?”
Santorum’s dogmatic views on gays and
several other issues – in addition to his abrasive personality and “I know
everything” attitude, plus his cyber school scandal
– prompted Pennsylvania voters to
kick him out of office. Apparently Mr. Santorum didn’t learn anything from
his ignominious defeat and is still uttering the same nonsense in his run for
the GOP presidential nomination:
Santorum:
Perry Must Support Polygamy If He’s ‘Fine’ With New York’s Marriage Equality
Law
By Igor Volsky on Jul 25, 2011
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R) lashed
out against Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for suggesting that he was “fine” with New York’s decision
to legalize same-sex message, asking Perry – who is said to be considering his
own run for the White House – if he would similarly endorse polygamy or laws
against “heterosexual marriage”…
On the campaign
trail, he has repeatedly argued that marriage equality would “destabilize” society, called
for a constitutional amendment that
would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and claimed
that gay people don’t deserve the “privilege” of
parenthood. Allowing gay people to marry is “going to have a devastating impact
on our children, it’s going to have a devastating impact on families, and it’s
going to have a profound impact on religious liberties,” he said during a
campaign stop last month.
Religions have their place, as do politics.
Problems arise when they’re mixed and used to play on people fears and promote
social unrest and civil discrimination.
All of today’s major religions evolved a
very long time ago by building upon or borrowing from older belief systems.
(That’s evolution for you.) The three major Western religions are testimony to
that, as is thoroughly researched and documented in Karen Armstrong’s
1993 A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and
Islam. (A transcript
of an interview with Bill Moyers is available here.)
To be sure, they all contain some “truths,”
but they also contain a lot of irrational, ill-informed nonsense that simply
cannot be accepted as “truth” today. Unfortunately, the truths and the nonsense
got blended and then codified as “the word of God” and sanctified as “dogma.”
One undeniable truth is that the three major Western warrior sky-god religions,
their scriptures and dogma were all created by men a very long time ago in
response to a social and cultural realities and a worldview that no longer
exist.
In an October 10, 2004 article “Interpreting the Bible on
Gay Unions” in The Detroit Free Press,
Susan Ager quoted from an essay by Walter Wink, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn
Theological Seminary in New York City, that appeared on the web site of Bridges-Across. In
discussing Leviticus 20:13, “Wink explains that thousands of years ago, people
thought men held the seed for life, that women only incubated those seeds into
babies. Thus, spilling your seed with another man or alone was ‘tantamount to
abortion or murder.’ Leaders frowned on that, too, as they worked hard to build up their struggling tribe” [italics added].
No knowledge of how conception or genetics really worked and
a very secular prime directive: make more people to “build up their struggling
tribe,” thereby extending its religion’s social control and political power
through numbers.
A final comment by Dr. Wink must also be noted, especially
by those devout Bible-believers who so object to gay people: “If Christians are
to take this verse [Leviticus 20:13] literally, they would demand the execution
of all homosexuals. Not only homosexual, but all men who have ever masturbated
or otherwise spilled their seed” [italics added]. How many males of all
ages – sons, brothers, cousins, friends, passing acquaintances and total
strangers – would that condemn to death? What would be the effect on human
population civilization? Interesting proposition, is it not?
If there were only a few “pure” males, they would have to
impregnate many, many, many women to keep the population up and at least somewhat
genetically diverse. Monogamous one-man-one-woman “marriage” would be
distinctly counterproductive.
From their inception, the three major
Western religions thrived on encouraging condemnation – and hatred – of others.
Then as now, dogmatic religious zealots use fear-based religion and dogma to
maintain control over people’s lives and thoughts and promote hatred of others.
Those goals also underwrite the political agendas of some. Case in point,
Bradlee Dean of You Can Run But You Cannot Hide ministry and GOP presidential
hopeful Michele Bachmann. Mr. Dean used
religion to proclaim killing gays is a moral act:
You
Can Run But You Cannot Hide, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit ministry that
brings its hard rock gospel into public schools, has been deepening its
long-running ties to the Republican Party of Minnesota. Long a cause célèbre
for Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has twice
lent her name to the group’s fundraising efforts, You Can Run (YCR)
had a booth at the GOP convention in April,
and the group’s frontman, Bradlee Dean, reports that gubernatorial candidate
Tom Emmer recently accepted an invitation to visit with him at Dean’s home. But
recent controversial statements by Dean – that Muslim countries calling for
the execution of gays and lesbians are “more moral than even the American
Christians” – have
drawn the ire of some both within and outside the party.
“Muslims are calling for the executions of
homosexuals in America,” Dean said on YCR’s
May 15 radio show on AM 1280 the Patriot. “This just shows you they
themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the
Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American
Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They
know homosexuality is an abomination.”
“If America won’t enforce the laws, God will
raise up a foreign enemy to do just that,” Dean
continued. “That is what you are seeing in America.”
“The bottom line is this… they [homosexuals]
play the victim when they are, in fact, the predator,” Dean said, before going
on to make a
claim that has no basis in fact: “On average, they molest 117 people
before they’re found out. How many kids have been destroyed, how many adults
have been destroyed because of crimes against nature?”
And what did Mrs. Bachmann have to say
about this “ministry” and its overt hate-mongering, seeming call for violence
“in the name of God,” and blatant lying about the “average gay” (whatever that
is) molesting 117
people before they’re found out? Huffington
Post documented her position:
WASHINGTON -- If
you thought evangelical preaching needed longer hair, tattoos, nu-metal
drumming, and a ton of hate speech directed at gays, then Bradlee
Dean is your guy.
He's very much
Rep. Michele Bachmann's guy. Bachmann, whose district covers Dean's suburban Minnesota
headquarters, didn't just endorse Dean, but has prayed for him and his
ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International, in a clip highlighted
recently by City Pages.
"Would you
keep them from evil?" Bachmann prays. "Would you keep them from
pain?" Finally she begs the Almighty to "pour a triple blessing on
this ministry" and expand it ten-fold.
Mrs.
Bachmann was, of course, the first to sign “The
Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.” (Not
surprisingly, Rick Santorum also signed and is “courting” Bob Vander
Plaats, author of “The Marriage Vow.”) And Mrs. Bachmann’s husband, Marcus
Bachmann, does run dog-and-pony show clinics
where one can “pray the gay away.” Such “reparative,” “conversion,” –
“ex-gay” therapies – have been denounced as ineffective and harmful by every
legitimate, science-based, professional medical association in America.
According
to the American Psychological Association, no scientific evidence exists to
support the effectiveness of therapies that attempt to convert homosexuals to
heterosexuals. According to the American Medical Association, “There is no
published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as
a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation,” and the AMA “does not
recommend aversion therapy for gay men and lesbians.”
The
American Psychological Association has stated that “Groups who try to change
the sexual orientation of people through so-called conversion therapy are
misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to
those they say they are trying to help.” The American Psychiatric Association
concurs: “gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively
are better adjusted than those who have not done so.” And according to the
American Academy of Pediatrics, “Therapy directed at specifically changing
sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety
while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”
All
forms of “ex-gay” therapies were publicly decried in 1999 as unethical by both
the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological
Association. For more on the “ex-gay” ruse (and the Bachmann clinics) see Truth Wins Out and by all means check
out this study:
Pat
Robertson’s Regent University: Ex-Gays Can Act The Part, But Orientation
Doesn’t Change
By Zack
Ford on Jul 21, 2011
Revelations that Marcus Bachmann’s clinics
administer ex-gay therapy have thrust the “controversial” treatment into the
media spotlight. There is no controversy among scientists, however, who
continue to agree that the therapy is not effective and should not be
recommended because it can be harmful. A new study from a surprising
source confirms this reality; researchers at
Pat Robertson’s Regent University found that “ex-gays” in opposite-sex
marriages continued to have a same-sex orientation.
The study (PDF) looked at
“mixed-orientation” marriages in which at least one member of the couple is not
heterosexual. …
Bradlee
Dean, meanwhile, has filed a law suit:
Bradlee
Dean's Ample Antigay Comments
By Andrew Harmon
The Minnesota
preacher who filed a $50 million defamation
lawsuit Wednesday against MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Minnesota
Independent reporter Andy Birkey has a long track record of
broadcasting antigay comments, Think Progress LGBT's Zack Ford writes.
You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International's Bradlee Dean
claims that Maddow and Birkey maliciously took some of his comments out of
context while ignoring a ministry disclaimer condemning calls to execute gay
people — this to achieve both journalists' end-goal, according to the complaint, of “significantly
[harming] the ‘big political prize’ which they loathe, Christian conservative
presidential candidate Michele Bachmann,” who has “twice lent her name to [the
ministry's] fundraising efforts.”
But Ford posted an extensive history of
Dean's support for prosecution and incarceration of gay people, as well as
assertions that a “homosexual agenda” is infiltrating the Anoka-Hennepin School
District in Minnesota [“Bradlee
Dean Never Calls For The Persecution Of Gays, Except All The Time,” posted
July 27, 2011]. …
Bob
Vander Plaats was in the forefront of the right-wing campaign to unseat three
Iowa state Supreme Court justices up for reelection because they voted to uphold
the state’s constitution’s guarantee of civil equality in relation to the civil
institution called “marriage.” (The Iowa’s Supreme Court decision was
unanimous.) He ran for governor of Iowa three times, and served as the Iowa
state chair of Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.
These
days Mr. Vander Plaats is the point man for The Family Leader which, according
to its website,
is “is associated with Focus on the Family, an international
family-strengthening ministry headquartered in Colorado Springs, CO” and “is
also in association with the Family Research Council, a pro-family, nonpartisan
public policy organization based in Washington D.C. TFL works cooperatively
with FRC President Tony Perkins and in coalition with numerous other state and
national public-policy groups.”
These
“associations” are not surprising. Focus on the Family has long espoused
opposition to civil equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It was founded in
1977 by child psychologist James
Dobson. Although he had no formal theological training, nor was he ever an
ordained minister, Dr. Dobson became what Time magazine called him, “the
nation's most influential evangelical leader.” In his 2004 book Marriage
Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle, he offered “Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage.” The first
was “The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the
traditional family.” The last was “The culture
war will be over, and the world may soon become ‘as it was in the days of Noah’
(Matthew 24:37).” Dr.
Dobson founded the Family Research Council in 1981.
Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Family Research Council as an anti-gay
“hate group.”
The
full text of Mr. Vander Plaats’ “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence
upon Marriage and Family” and its copious endnotes are available here. An article
about the document on OutsidetheBeltway.com made a critical observation:
The
Family Leader, a prominent Iowa group that promotes Christian conservative
social values, said Thursday it is asking all presidential candidates to sign a
pledge regarding their personal
convictions on traditional marriage. …
The
organization’s chief executive officer is Bob Vander Plaats, a conservative
evangelical leader who was the state chair of Mike Huckabee’s Republican
presidential campaign when he won the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. Vander Plaats said
the Family Leader will not support any candidate
who declines to sign the pledge. [italics added]
The
italicized clauses underscore the danger of homogenizing personal religious
beliefs and public policies. To be sure, the two will always be involved with
each other. We vote for and elect candidates who most closely mirror our views,
and for many those views derive from or are shaped by religious beliefs and/or
religious dogma. Religious beliefs and dogma are just that: beliefs and
concocted doctrine. They’re not based on facts or
evidence. They’re base on “faith” which is, by definition, not based on reason,
facts or empirical evidence.
From Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition:
Dogma n, [L dogmat-, dogma, fr. Gk, from dokein
to seem] 1a: something held as an established opinion; esp: a definite authoritative tenet. B: a code of such tenents
<pedagogical ~>. C: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative
without adequate grounds. 2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith
or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.
“From dokein
to seem… established opinion… a point
of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without
adequate grounds... formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church”
[italics added]. Dogma is the unsubstantiated opinion of someone or some group
that must remain as is despite
ever-changing social, cultural and political contexts. As one definition in theOxford English Dictionary put it,
dogma is “an imperious or arrogant declaration of opinion” which uses itself as
its source of authority.
Public
policies, on the other hand, must be based on reason, facts and empirical
evidence. They must assure the civil equality of all citizens. They need to
serve the needs of a diverse population, and they must be in the best interest
of the country, not certain religious beliefs or dogma.
The
Preamble of Bob Vander Plaats’ theopolitical loyalty oath sets the dogmatic
tone. The third and fourth of the fourteen “vows”
are theofascist blends. The last one illustrates how good civil ideas can be
perverted and used by theopoliticos to protect themselves while harming others.
The Preamble – “Therefore, in any elected or
appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens
in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow to honor and
to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only
between one man and one woman. I vow to…” – clearly demands politicians
actively work to deny gay and lesbian Americans equal rights to the civil institution called “marriage.”
Whatever else the Vander Plaats’ document demands, civil inequality based on
religious dogma is first and foremost.
When
a colleague and I were team-teaching “Religion in American Thought and Life,”
one of our guest speakers was a biblical literalist and fundamentalist’s
fundamentalist. His views on homosexuality were more than predictable, until
someone in the class asked him about same-sex marriage. As long as marriage was
deemed a civil institution, with licenses issued by the state, he had no
problem with same-sex marriage. I – and more than a few students – almost fell
out of our seats. In the follow-up class discussion, even the most religious
members of the class had to agree with the speaker’s logic and reasoning. All
citizens should have – must have – access to civil institutions.
Vows
three and four read:
--
Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none
but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
--
Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage -
faithful monogamy between one man and one woman - through statutory-,
bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are
bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.
“Faithful
constitutionalists.” An interesting designation. A basic dictionary
definition of “constitutionalist” is “adherence to or government
according to constitutional principles; also : a constitutional
system of government.” Sounds good, but given the author of the these vows –
and his theopolitical motives and social agenda – the “faithful” adjective
defines what Harvard Divinity School graduate and
Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges called “logocide” in his 2007 book American Fascists: The Christian Right and
the War on America:
The old
definitions of words are replaced by new ones. … Words such as “truth,”
“wisdom,” “death,” “liberty,” “life,” and “love” no longer mean what they mean
in the secular world. “Life” and “death” mean life in Christ or death to
Christ, and are used to signal belief or unbelief in the risen lord. “Wisdom”
has little to do with human wisdom but refers to the level of commitment and
obedience to the system of belief. “Liberty” is not about freedom, but the
“liberty” found when one accepts Jesus Christ and is liberated from the world
to obey Him.
The
endnote (#11) for the third vow exposes the logocidal definition of “faithful
constitutionalists”:
It is no secret
that a handful of state and federal judges, some of whom have personally
rejected heterosexuality and faithful monogamy, have also abandoned bona fide constitutional interpretation
in accord with the discernible intent of the framers. In November, 2010, Iowa
voters overwhelmingly rejected three such justices from the state Supreme Court
in retention elections. Yet, certain federal jurists with lifetime appointments
stand poised, even now, to “discover” a right of so-called same-sex marriage or
polygamous marriage in the U.S. Constitution.
Mr.
Vander Plaats’ extensive endnotes would seem to suggest sophisticated
“research,” but what they really do is offer examples of logocide while
exposing his sophistry and linguistic chicanery, as will be clearly seen in
Part III. But for now, the definition of “faithful constitutionalists”…
“Faithful,”
full of faith in the Bible, as written, as literal truth, akin to the views of Jim Fletcher,
Director of Prophecy Matters, a
somewhat confusing and confused organization that celebrates Israel and
gleefully awaits the “end times.” According to their website,
Mr. Fletcher “writes for a variety of publications, including the Jerusalem
Post, WorldNetDaily, and OneNewsNow.”
Jerusalem Post is an English-language Israeli
paper that was left-leaning, then right-leaning, now currently trying to become
centrist by offering pieces by all extremes, in addition to “the news.”
WorldNetDaily (aka WingNutDaily) is run by Joseph Farah:
Farah: United States Should "Break
Up" Over Marriage Equality
Submitted by Brian Tashman on July 28, 2011
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah says that he
would rather see the “break-up of the nation” than allow marriage equality for
gays and lesbians anywhere in the United States. While criticizing Texas Gov.
Rick Perry for saying that he believes New York has a right to decide its own
marriage laws (although
he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment), Farah contends
that the country should dissolve itself to stop marriage equality…
OneNewsNow is a propaganda organ of the
American Family Association, a rabidly anti-gay organization that features Bryan
Fischer’s nonsensical rants. AFA is listed by the Southern
Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay
“hate group.”
One of Mr.
Fletcher’s recent articles was titled “The World as It Really
Is.” His latest book was titledIt's the End of the World As We Know It
(And I Feel Fine), with the subtitle “How to stop worrying and learn to
love these END TIMES.”
After listing some human miseries he saw
while strolling around Austin, Texas, Mr. Fletcher stated:
But even in all this misery, I thought about
how it confirms the Bible. If the Bible is true, we would expect to see a
diseased and dying world. A physically dying world. Pollution. Corruption.
Illness. …
The Bible’s early books contain the history of
Earth’s beginnings. Genesis contains the historical account of man’s spiritual
and physical fall. In those brief verses, we can know enough to figure out our
world. …
If the
Bible is literally true, then human misery is “God’s will.” That’s a strange
sort of “loving God” who takes pleasure in torturing His creations. But it’s
the opening of the second paragraph that speaks to the essence of
fundamentalism’s glorification of irrationality and mind-numbing simplicity.
Genesis contains “the history of Earth’s beginnings.” That would mean the earth
is a flat disk supported by pillars and covered by a dome to keep out all those
celestial waters. According to Mr. Fletcher, that’s all we need to know “to
figure out our world.” And there in lies the definition of “faithful
constitutionalist.”
Faith is
foremost. Common sense and reason are not necessary or even welcome. The Bible
is a “closed” text, written in stone one might say, after having been cobbled
together from sundry Bronze Age “sacred texts,” “gospels” written at least
seventy years after the “facts” they report, and the writings of one man, Paul,
whose words constitute about a third of The Bible.
No
interpretation or understanding of the texts in relation to the
historical-cultural realities that produced them, and no exploration of how
those BCE and early CE realities might not be compatible with realities in the
21st century is allowed. Doing so is damnable. The same perspective
is held by “faithful constitutionalists,”
such as originalistAntonio Scalia, whose basic view is that if “a right” is not explicitly
enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn’t exist. From that perspective, the
Constitution and the Bible are not a living document, but deads one trapped in
their own time period
Mr. Vander
Plaats also used the phrase “discernible intent of the
framers.” The “discernible intent of the framers” was that women should not be
able to vote and that African slaves were property. Is that what Mr. Vander
Plaats advocates:
Part III
considers the “intent of the framer” of “The Marriage Vow – A
Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.
The
ferocity with which some oppose equal civil rights for gay and lesbian
Americans can be perplexing. They certainly don’t have the best interests of
their fellow citizens in mind, and it’s a real stretch to suppose that they
truly believe they’re “doing God’s work” by working to hurt people they don’t
even know. It seems are more like that they’re power-hungry megalomaniacs who
will use any means to accomplish
their personal goals.
The
endnote – number eleven – for the third of fourteen vows in Bob Vander Plaats’
“The Marriage Vow – A
Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family” reads:
It is no secret
that a handful of state and federal judges, some of whom have personally
rejected heterosexuality and faithful monogamy, have also abandoned bona fide constitutional interpretation
in accord with the discernible intent of the framers. In November, 2010, Iowa
voters overwhelmingly rejected three such justices from the state Supreme Court
in retention elections. Yet, certain federal jurists with lifetime appointments
stand poised, even now, to “discover” a right of so-called same-sex marriage or
polygamous marriage in the U.S. Constitution.
“State and federal judges, some of whom have personally rejected
heterosexuality and faithful monogamy.” That assertion demonstrates how skilled
Mr. Vander Plaats is in redefining and twisting words and concealing straw man
arguments. Earlier in the document, he listed his “reasons” as to why “the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis.” The
final bulleted item reads:
Social protections, especially for
women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the
currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery;
“quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non-committal
co-habitation; exemplary infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities,
sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific
bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual
inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits
like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds,
against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and
sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health.
[italics added]
The preamble in the endnote for this
items reads: “No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has
ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that
homosexual preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic
determinism or other forms of fatalism. Furthermore, no peer-reviewed empirical
science or rational, scholarly demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor
even has shown an overwhelming probability.” It then goes on to list six
numbered “points.” Quantity is definitely not quality. Logocide and chicanery
are everywhere.
Notice the words “definitively proven.”
Those are very, very big words in
science, words not often spoken. Science is based on expanding, evolving
knowledge, not static dogma that uses itself as the only source of authority,
of knowing. There have been, however, a large number of peer-reviewed,
empirical scientific and medical studies that strongly suggest homosexuality is not a choice. For example, “The
Psychobiology of Human Sexual Orientation,” a study authored by Drs. Qazi Rahman
and Glenn D. Wilson of the Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry,
University of London, was published in the highly respected peer-reviewed
scientific journal Personality and
Individual Differences (34:8, June 2003, 1337-1382). The abstract reads as
follows:
Sexual orientation is fundamental to
evolution and shifts from the species-typical pattern of heterosexuality may
represent biological variations. The growth of scientific knowledge concerning
the biology of sexual orientation during the past decade has been considerable.
Sexual orientation is characterised by a bipolar distribution and is related to
fraternal birth order in males. In females, its distribution is more variable;
females being less prone towards exclusive homosexuality. In both sexes
homosexuality is strongly associated with childhood gender nonconformity.
Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X
chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation
through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this
mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key
areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual
targets and correlates of female homosexuality.
And then there’s this May 31, 2011 article in the
neurology, neuroscience section of Medical
News Today, a publication of Medical Education Resources:
Homo Or Hetero? The
Neurobiological Dimension Of Sexual Orientation
"Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice,
it is primarily neurobiological at birth", Dr. Jerome Goldstein, Director
of the San Francisco Clinical Research Center (USA) stressed today at the 21st
Meeting of the European Neurological Society (ENS) in Lisbon. "There are
undeniable links. We want to make them visible to the eye". At the
congress he showed how the brains of people of different sexual orientations -
gay, straight, bisexual - work in different ways, applying volumetric Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (MRI), functional fMRI scanning, and PET scanning.
There have been several reports of twin studies
indicating the probable genetic link of sexual orientation. Dr. Goldstein has
begun accumulating a database of identical twins, whose sexual orientation will
be further evaluated by MRI, fMRI scanning, and PET scanning. …
"Some of the most striking results were
delivered recently by Dr. Ivanka Savic-Berglund and Dr. Per Lindström of the
Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden", Dr. Goldstein reported. The
Swedish experts performed volumetric studies, fMRI and PET measurements of
cerebral blood flow. Using volumetric studies, they found significant cerebral
and amygdala size differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects.
Thus the brains of homosexual men resemble those of heterosexual women and
those of homosexual women resemble to heterosexual men. …
At the end of his extensive endnote, Mr.
Vander Plaats cites Robert S. Hogg et al, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and
Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 1997, Vol. 26, no.
3. What he doesn’t cite, of course, is the authors’
subsequent Letter to the Editor of International Journal of
Epidemiology, Volume
30, Issue 6 (2001), p. 1499:
“Gay life expectancy revisited”
Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A
Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib,Michael V
O'shaughnessy, Julio Montaner
and Martin T
Schechter
Over the
past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we
published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual
life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s.1 From
these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and
Finland3
to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is
destructive to themselves and to others. These
homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay
and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being. … [italics added]
-----
References
1. Hogg RS, Strathdee SA, Craib KJP,
O'Shaughnessy MV, Montaner JSG, Schechter MT. Modelling the impact of HIV
disease on mortality in gay men. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997;26(3):657–61.Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. Based on information
obtained from the following three websites: http://www.frc.org/ie/important/important0400b.html, http://www.geocities.com/liberalwatch/showtime.htm, and http://www.tcyes.org/page2.html
3. Based on correspondence
with Olli Stålström regarding use of our paper by some Finnish citizens to
oppose a proposed to legalize civil unions between members of the same gender
(website: http://www.finnqueer.net/juttu.cgi?s=80_10_1).
Mr. Vander Plaats’ TFL is “associated” with
the Family Research Council (FRC.org) which is notorious for twisting others’
research and using bogus “research,” such as that by discredited
psychologist Paul Cameron, who has been advocating eliminating gays for
decades:
Speaking at the 1985 Conservative Political
Action Conference, [Paul] Cameron announced to the attendees, “Unless we get
medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be
the extermination of homosexuals.” According to an interview with former
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination
option as early as 1983.
-- Mark E. Pietzyk, The News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995
More
about Cameron’s “final solution” is available here
and here.
A skilled charlatan to be sure, but Mr.
VanderPlaats’ misleading endnote does help clarify his earlier assertion that
there is “a handful of state and federal judges, some of whom have personally rejected heterosexuality and
faithful monogamy” [italics added]. He believes, as do other dogmatic,
ill-informed religious fanatics, that sexual preference is purely a choice, so
in his jaundiced view, gays “personally reject”
heterosexuality. But what of his claim that these judges have also personally
rejected “faithful monogamy”?
Is Mr. Vander Plaats referring to now
retired federal judge Vaughn
R. Walker and his Prop 8 decision? Judge Walker has a 10-year relationship with
his partner. Hardly a “rejection of faithful monogamy.” Or is he just
stereotyping, bloviating, and fear-mongering?
Mr.
Vanders Plaats crowed that “In November, 2010, Iowa
voters overwhelmingly rejected three such justices from the state Supreme Court
in retention elections.” The decision of the Iowa Supreme Court was unanimous. This was not some conspiracy. It
was an upholding of a goal of the state’s constitution by those charged with
protecting and guaranteeing the equality of all citizens in civil matters. The
fact that Iowa voters removed those Supreme Court justices up for reelection
based on their vote for civil equality is not something to celebrate. It’s
something to be ashamed of.
Mr. Vander Plaats claimed “certain
federal jurists with lifetime appointments stand poised, even now, to
‘discover’ a right of so-called same-sex marriage or polygamous marriage in the
U.S. Constitution.” Wrong again. What courts are repeatedly “finding” is the
guarantee of civil equality, of equal access to all civil institutions by every
citizens. But civil equality is exactly what dogmatists such as Vander Plaats
dread.
The
fourth vow: “the Institution of Marriage - faithful monogamy between one man
and one woman.” One has to wonder about what “Institution of Marriage” Bob
Vander Plaats writes. “One man and one woman” was not exactly the norm in those
good ole biblical
days when “marriage” was “bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous” and, above
all, arranged. No “love” required. Watch this
video of the first couple married in New York. They are what “marriage” is
really all about, not some theopolitically concocted dogma, but a loving,
lifelong commitment. Predictably, the endnote for the fourth vow cites “Justice
Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v.
Texas…” Justice Scalia anti-gay rhetoric and behavior are
a matter of record.
The
final vow reads: “Fierce defense of the First Amendment’s rights of Religious Liberty and
Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would
undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and
conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual
monogamy.”
To
be sure, all the protections of the First Amendment are paramount. But same-sex
marriage in no way threatens “religious liberty.” People are still free to
believe and practice whatever religion they want. After all, what religion one
professes is purely a matter of choice,
and that choice is protected by the First Amendment. In relation to marriage,
churches, mosques, and synagogues can still refuse to marry any couple
transgressing the religion’s beliefs and dogma.
As
for freedom of speech, it’s essential. The concept cannot be abridged, but it
is limited, everyday... and for good reasons. The classic example is yelling
“Fire!” in a crowded theater. “Inciting
to riot” is another “limitation,” as are speech
(or writing) deemed libelous or defamatory. Beyond the laws, it’s the
responsible thing to do for conscientious citizens in all walks of life to
“limit” their freedom of speech so as not to cause or precipitate harm to
others. “Dan Savage and Jim McGreevey
Discuss the Damage Done by Anti-Gay Political Rhetoric with Joy Behar,”
“Michele Bachmann, GOP
presidential candidate, plagued by 'teen suicide epidemic' report,”
“Media Roundup: The Tragedy of
LGBT Teenage Suicide,” “Harms of Anti-Gay Rhetoric
Lost as Media Fixates on Bishop Eddie Long Scandal,” “Oklahoma Teen Commits Suicide
After anti-gay rhetoric City Council Meeting.”
Finally, the “family
values” ruse has pretty much been exposed and widely recognized as a
theo-cloak for bigotry and discrimination it was and, thanks to “men of God”
such ordained Pentecostalminister and New York State Senator Rubén Díaz, Sr., it still is:
Anti-Gay
NY State Senator: It’s ’War’ on Gay Families
by
Kilian Melloy, Saturday Jul 30, 2011
New
York State Sen. Rubén Díaz, Sr., has declared a "war" against gay and
lesbian families in the wake of the state’s first legal same-sex weddings,
reported The New Civil Rights Movement on July 25.
The
article said that Díaz "threatened judges who performed same-sex marriages
on Sunday in New York, [and] also literally declared war on same-sex married
couples in his state, and threatened to have their marriages annulled. Hundreds
of same-sex marriages were performed in New York State Sunday, the first day
the new marriage equality law went into effect."
"We’re
going to show them next week that everything they did today was illegal,"
Díaz declared on July 24, the day marriage equality took effect in New York.
"Today we start the battle! Today we start the war!"
A war against families spearheaded by a
“Christian” minister-politician. What’s wrong with this picture?
