Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  No You Don't

13 Villains Of Marriage Equality

Bob Barr

Barr was swept into Congress on the GOP right-wing tsunami of 1994. He decided to make his legislative mark by going after marriage equality. “The very foundations of our society are in danger of being burned,” Barr thundered. So he authored the Defense of Marriage Act, which, at a mere two pages, packs more homophobia per word that perhaps any other federal law still on the books. Barr was well qualified to elect himself the bastion of heterosexual virtue, having been  married three times and once photographed licking whipped cream off a woman at a fundraising event. 

Barr has since changed his tune on marriage equality, saying it’s a matter of state rights. Not civil rights, of course.

 


  • 23 Comments
    • Joetx
      Joetx

      Thanks for including Bill Clinton in the villains list. Many ‘mos like to give him a pass & make excuses for what he did.

      He’s no better than any of the other villains on the list.

      Jun 24, 2013 at 11:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Princeton’s Robert P. George because NOM was his bigoted baby. John latent Boehner for seeing to it that Robert P. George was appointed to oversee his special brand of bigotry, disguised as religion all over the world.New Hampshire’s Nancy “Wiggling” Elliott. Scalia is a nightmare. All of the males, above, look so, you know, gay.

      I would say Phelp’s Westboro Baptist Cult were actually heroes to our cause, because they made hate look so ugly that it did more to help, rather than hurt us.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 12:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lelandt
      lelandt

      If Bill Clinton had not signed DOMA then there would have been a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. DOMA’s passage prevented a constitutional amendment barring marriage equality. Therefore, for anyone who is an ACCURATE student of history and a supporter of marriage equality then one must say, “Thank you Bill Clinton for signing DOMA and thank you DOMA for preventing the passage of a anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment. Now, DOMA, it is time to go away.” To put Bill Clinton on the marriage equality enemies list and Ronald Reagan on the heroes list is backwards or just plain insane.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MerrellStreet
      MerrellStreet

      The whole Mormon Church as enemy thing is really lame. And it’s also misinformation. Yes, it raised a lot of money. But the fact is, if every single Mormon in the entire state of California had stayed home that day, the proposition still would have passed. Don’t believe me? Check it out. It’s true. If you want to name ‘enemies’ why aren’t you villainizing African American, Latino, and Asian voters? Or is that fact too complicated – as MOST facts are – to make a glitzy, easy to swallow ‘Villain’ out of? Not to mention broad strokes rude: simplifying actual human people for the sake of a political agenda (you know, that thing you just got done villainizing Clinton for).

      Full disclosure: Yes, indeed, I AM a Mormon. Also, I think government should be out of the marriage business completely… gay, straight, or pomegranate. Civil Unions across the board. I know this may be unfashionable, but I still believe in preserving a separation of church and state; in BOTH directions. I’ve discussed this at greater length in my blog.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 12:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      Aside from the obvious Republicans and anti-LGBT religious right bigots, there’s

      -Senator “too much, too fast, too soon” Dianne Feinstein,

      -Democrats throughout the US who still oppose equality,

      -adulterer Arnold Schwarzenegger for vetoing marriage equality bills in CA in 2005 and 2007,

      -all of the LGBT mega groups that tired to hinder Ted Olson & David Boise from taking Prop 8 to court

      -the apathetic gays who sat on their asses during the ballot battles – those people really don’t deserve the freedom to marry.

      Onward to definitive equality.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 3:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo
      2eo

      @MerrellStreet: You do realise the mormon chuch is founded by a schizophrenic and all your beliefs are absolutely worthless and do not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny?

      If you don’t know this you don’t have a viable opinion that matters on any issue as you are morally and intellectually bankrupt. Also no we don’t have a duty to be nice to you or respect you because you believe in magic pants and bigamy.

      The mormon church is a force of evil, and the apologists for its evil are the worst people of all. You do know better and you should act better, but you don’t.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 7:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billysees
      Billysees

      @lelandt: No. 3

      Your comments are correct.

      I remember the situation he was in.

      He signed DOMA deep into the night as I recall, as a gesture of his personal disapproval of what he had to do.

      Thanks for reminding of this.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rand503
      rand503

      @lelandt: FALSE! At the time there was NO movement afoot to pass a constitutional amendment. That threat, in fact, came later. Clinton never said in public or in private, at that time, that this was the reason he signed it. In fact, he ran ads in the south boasting that he signed it in order to boost his creds there for the next election. The past president of HRC at the time confirms all this. Furthermore, Richard Socarides was the White House Gay and Lesbian Liaison, and he confirms that Clinton never consulted with him about signing DOMA at all. Obviously, if this was some part of a grand strategy to head off a constitutional amendment, you might want to confer with the very aid you have in place to ask his opinion if this is a good idea, how can they spin in it in the community and so on. No such conversations ever took place.

      It is only recently that he is now claiming he did so to avoid a constitutional amendment. Furthermore, DOMA did not pass with the two thirds vote in the Senate. Any constitutional amendment would have required a vote of two-thirds of the Senate, so it would have been quite difficult to muster up enough votes at that time to make it even a credible threat.

      Then from there, it needs to go to all the states, and you need a two thirds vote on that as well. IT’s a long process and a very difficult one, which is why there are so few amendments in our entire history. The vast majority of them fail, and everyone in Washington knows that. Clinton certainly was under no real threat that such an amendment was in the works. No one was even talking about it.

      Please get your facts right — Clinton did not have to sign DOMA and did so for purely political reasons. He threw us under the bus.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 11:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hermes
      Hermes

      @MerrellStreet: I must disagree. The Mormon Church not only raised most of the money and provided many boots on the ground — they lied about just how much they raised, were found guilty of doing just that – and honestly, review the documents – NO ONE really knows, yet, just how big their donation really was — it is possible no one ever will. Without them and the money and power they provided, far fewer undecided voters would have voted for Prop 8 — and it would have failed actually — that is how politics works and why politicians reward fund raisers and those who can put boots on the ground.

      I do agree with the other gentle about DOMA also. It was not a needed signature. It was DOMA or a likely Constitutional Amendment, which is MUCH harder to overturn. He bought us time – but realizing that requires some level of political acumen generally lacking from these types of reports. To suggest that they could not have mustered the votes necessary is either myopic or indicates that you are considerably younger than I am. We are gaining at an incredible rate – at the time DOMA was signed though it is likely that only the NE (9 states total) would have refused to go along, so if it got through the senate, which I think it would have (It polled at nearly 2 thirds in nearly all polls – any pol would have been suicidal to vote against it) it would have almost surely have gotten the votes of the states it needed, even if the three West Coast AND Hawaii joined the 9 NE states, we fall short of stopping it. NOW it couldn’t pass as an amendment, then – I’m pretty sure it would have. I don’t know what Clinton’s “reason” was, but the effect was a firewall.

      Regards,

      Hermes

      Jun 25, 2013 at 11:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Merv
      Merv

      @MerrellStreet: The Mormon Church is an independent organization with a specific organizational structure, leadership hierarchy, membership list, budget, finances, etc. Neither blacks nor Latinos are similarly defined.

      Membership in the Mormon Church is voluntary, and anyone who is a member needs to own his share of the responsibility for the organization’s anti-gay activism.

      As for separation of church and state, the state has never forced any church to recognize a marriage it doesn’t want to. That conflict is only in your mind.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 11:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Little-Kiwi
      Little-Kiwi

      the only good Mormon is an EX-Mormon.

      you can’t trust a Mormon – they care only about pleasing their cult.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo
      2eo

      @Little-Kiwi: I’d argue that fundamentally you can not trust anyone religious, because of this very noted truth.

      When the chips are down there aren’t any that will side with humanity.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      It’s too bad you couldn’t find high school pictures to use. Especially in the cases of Rove, Dolan, Brown, Gallagher and Barr, but also possibly Schubert, Perkins and Gubbard, I suspect the unpopular, larval-stage nerds they surely were then is when and where they began incubating the hatred they’ve since fashioned careers of.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Little-Kiwi
      Little-Kiwi

      well, 2eo, the United Church of Canada has for many years been on the forefront of promoting and celebrating not just LGBT Equality, but a secular non-religious society. Believe it or not :-) it’s non-dogmatic humanism.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 3:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • murphy0071
      murphy0071

      How many pseudo-heterosexuals have their finger in the pie? If they hate being homosexual, please go to a country that will perform a psycho-surgery to make them at least weakly heterosexual or totally heterosexual within weeks. It would likely shut up the Tony Perkins and others with the Family Research Foundation like George Rekers and their ilk. If you want scientific information, some available as early as 1950, that showed homosexuality to be a neurological phenomenon I will email a paper with over 450 references that is relatively easy to read and short. Dr. Norman C. Murphy dr.murphy@att.net

      If they are so heterosexual, I will pay for scientific tests that establish clearly sexual orientation and even specific age, type, etc. preferences (i.e., functional MRI, plesythmography, pupillary dilitation,, etc.)

      A short section of the paper:

      “During fetal development, if androgens (male sex hormones) are not present, are insufficient in quantity, or are unusable, the brain, body, or both will feminize due to the lack of sufficient male hormones or intolerance to male hormones. If androgens are present, sufficient in quantity, and usable, the brain, body or both will masculinize due to the presence of sufficient tolerated male hormones. In humans, genital-gender/sex arises in the 2nd to 3rd months and brain-gender/sex in the 4th to 5th months of fetal development. The time disparity between the development of neurological and genital sexuality increases the probability of cross-gendering leading to homosexuality and other brain based anomalous gender/sex behaviors.
      Genetics and teratology.
      Based on an extensive review of the literature on the etiology of homosexuality, biological events predominantly explain the origins of sexual orientation. While some question the ethics of studying genetic issues related to homosexuality, in-utero genetic or neuroendocrinological events play a critical role in cross-gendering. Genetic and in-utero chemically induced sex-altered groups illustrate the paradigm: Turner’s Syndrome, Androgen Insensitives, Testicular Feminizing Syndrome, Klinefelter’s Syndrome (XnY), progestin-administered females, Adrenogenital Syndrome, “super-males” (XYn), etc. Species other than humans, in the wild and captivity, exhibit “homosexual” behavior. Particularly primates appear to have differing degrees of “homosexual” behavior. The first evidence of the sex-behavior center came from research on mammals. Most research involved surgical interventions and the administration or denial of sex hormones during critical brain differentiation periods. In human female fetuses at risk for masculinizing effects from male hormones, German physicians, using in-utero anti-androgens, have forced female genitalia and brain-gender/sex. Although discussed by Dorner, the use of androgens to force male brain-gender is complex and can potentially result in brain damage, attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities, hyper-activity, and hyper-aggression.
      Physiology, anatomy, and psychophysiology.
      Numerous studies show male homosexuals in many ways approximate females and significantly differ from male heterosexuals. Comparing male homosexuals to female heterosexuals, similarities include muscle structure, sleep patterns, pelvic openings, carry angle of arm, perception, finger dexterity, noticeable acoustic style, visuo-spatial ability, verbal performance, language lateralization, eating disorders, throw-to-target ability, mental rotation task, E.E.G. readings, response to male pheromones, etc. Compared to heterosexual males, some studies suggest homosexual males appear more prone to left-handedness, stuttering, and reading difficulties, differing brain anatomy related to auditory input, atypical gender and sex behavior, differing lipid levels, more empathy and altruism, larger penile dimension, etc. Among other research showing brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual males, anatomical research at Salk Institute comparing male heterosexual and homosexual brains suggests a differing development of the sex-behavior center in male homosexuals. A more recent UCLA study of the male homosexual brain shows broader differences discriminating male homosexuals from both male and female heterosexuals. Research on transsexuals has also revealed significant differences in brain anatomy and gonadotropin secretions.
      Hormonal anomalies.
      Direct hormonal evidence shows that male homosexuals and heterosexuals significantly differ from one another. In blind analysis, Margolese and Janiger accurately predicted sexual orientation. Some depressives, unknown to be homosexual, may have a similar difference in sex hormone ratio. Dorner and Gooren injected estrogen into male homosexuals, male heterosexuals, and female heterosexuals with removed ovaries. They found the luteinizing hormone response of male homosexuals almost identical with these females and significantly different from male heterosexuals. Similar results are found in male-to-female transsexuals. Studies, using stringent classification of research subjects, show adult male heterosexuals have significantly higher levels of male hormones than do male homosexuals. In animals with litters along a placental line, female mammals between male mammals cause post-natal sex-stereotypic male behaviors (e.g., sexual mounting and aggression) in these females. Dorner hypothesizes that various in humans prenatal and postnatal hormonal administrations may be used to establish specific brain sex/gender outcomes.
      Upsetting a female mammal during gestation can produce cross-gendered offspring. Stress apparently lowers androgens in humans and crowding causes stress resulting in anomalous social behavior and cross-gendered behavior in mammals. A similar phenomenon occurs in post hoc research on some homosexual research subjects. Twice the numbers of male homosexuals were born in war-ravaged Germany during World War II than the six years before or after the war.

      Pheromones and Sexual Orientation
      The vomeronasal system, adjacent to the olfactory system, mediates sexual interest for both males and females. Findings indicate pheromones play an important role in the identification of sexual objects at a subconscious level. For male homosexuals research has shown a clearly female neurological and social response to pheromones produced by males. In addition, preference for human body odors are influenced by gender and sexual orientation.
      Genetics and Neuroendocrinology.
      Augmenting decades old and contemporary research showing more homosexuals are born as the age of the mother increases, recent research implicates H-Y antigens (resulting from previous male births) increase the probability of adult homosexuality and lack of heterosexual cohabitation by as much as 33 percent. The sibling sex ration, without implicating H-Y antigen, suggests that approximately 10% of the variance in male homosexual behavior can be accounted for sibling sex-ratio. Androgen-insensitives (XY females) and partial-androgen insensitives, illustrate the power of genetics in creating a divergence of genetic gender from both behavioral and anatomic gender. XX females born with male genitalia and behavioral masculinization present a clear case for biologically induced cross gendering. Many chromosomal anomalies (e.g., X deletion ring, ring X or isochrome X, missing X, XXXX, XYY, XX/XY, X0/XY, XXY/XX, XXY/XY, X0/XX, etc.) are contributing factors to sexual orientation, level of intellect, performance of tasks, etc. Identical twins are usually concordant in sexual orientation. Identical twins discordant for sexual orientation can be explained by biological events and reluctance of some to reveal their homosexuality. There is one study, dealing with 61 pairs of twins and three sets of triplets. In one case all the triplets were homosexual. Genetic linkage analysis, using extended families, of the X chromosome suggests some familial male homosexuality is likely genetic and passed down the maternal line. A recent study using only homosexual siblings, found through advertisements in Gay newspapers and magazines, using a limited number of markers without the comparisons in extended families called into question the genetic theory of homosexuality. Studies of the genetic contribution to homosexuality are often marred by poor subject selection, precise definitions of behavior, over generalization, inadequate methodology, etc. Based on many studies of male homosexual twins, using very conservative statistical formulae, heritable factors may account for 44 percent of cases. Research on twins, families, and the adopted implicates genetic or neurohormonal origins for sexual orientation.
      The argument against genetic factors because homosexuals seldom marry is fallacious. Male homosexuals, subjected to social pressure to marry, often have offspring. Even if homosexuals did not reproduce, the gene pool would still contain recessive traits, sport genes, and neuro-hormonal influences in-utero leading to cross-gendering.
      Surgery and brain compromise.
      Evidence from neurosurgery challenges the archetypic myth that persons, based on genital sex determination at birth, will exhibit “gender appropriate” or “heterosexual” behavior in adolescence and adulthood. The first such evidence comes from data on pre-frontal lobotomy patients , some being treated for agitated depression. Following surgery, some patients became “spontaneously” homosexual. In line with Money’s comments about sex hormone ratios in some depressives, many of these patients had significant depressive illness. Apparently, when the frontal area of the brain could no longer suppress underlying homosexual drives, these pseudoheterosexuals reverted to their normal homosexual preoccupation. In follow-up, patients reported being able to suppress homosexual urges over a long period. Clinical data shows that as the brain deteriorates with aging, some pseudoheterosexuals are unable to mask their underlying homosexuality.
      In some countries, homosexuals have been “treated” surgically to force heterosexual behavior. Psychosurgery of the sex behavior center reduces or eliminates homosexual responding in some homosexual males. Many patients, without psychotherapeutic intervention, become heterosexually active after surgery. Some become asexual and have no sexual interest. Psychosurgery in lesbians results in fewer behavioral changes. After these psychosurgeries, failure to follow-up patients and adverse side-effects are common–including death. A German government commission has called for the elimination of these surgeries. Psychosurgeries to change sexual orientation are not available in the United States.
      Some males are accidentally mutilated during circumcision. Because of the ease of a male to female change, they are often sexually reassigned as females. Some of these “females” are masculine in behavior and many are “lesbian” during adulthood.
      Research shows changes in sexual orientation can result from viral attack of the human sex-behavior center, head injuries, and tumors. Psychosocial stressors leading to pseudosexuality and neurological insult or injury are apparently the only means of significantly altering the expression of sexual orientation. Excepting neurological changes, no credible sex researcher in the last fifty years has suggested sexual orientation changes after childhood. Most agree biological factors often mediate sexual orientation.
      Psychophysiology.
      Autonomic pupillary and penile reflexes, minimally controlled by conscious processes, reliably differentiate between male heterosexuals and homosexuals. Male homosexual behavior can be reduced or eliminated using painful electric shock or apomorphine vomiting with or without desensitizing male homosexual to females. Ego-dystonic homosexuals “self-referred” or sent by “government social service agencies” often have psychopathology and marked homophobia. “Homophobia” is best characterized as a revulsion related to homosexual practices or openly homosexual persons. Many “cured” male homosexuals continue to have powerful homosexual urges without erectile function with sexual partners. Despite protracted aversive intervention, male homosexuals continue to have autonomic pupil responses to male stimuli. Aversion therapy and other invasive treatments are punitive and pose serious ethical concerns.
      Studies of lesbians.

      Lesbians have not been the subject of much scientific research. The lack of material on lesbians may be the result of tolerance of masculine behavior in women, the lower status of women in the culture, their paucity in numbers and grant monies being controlled by white heterosexual males. While lack of usable fetal male hormones promotes a feminized brain development in males, for female fetuses a rise in male hormones leading to a masculinized brain is less likely. This may explain why the number of male homosexuals is about 50% higher than the number of lesbians. In lesbians, assertive behavior and male stereotypic behavior may reflect increased brain masculinization. Lesbians, most likely because of masculinizing hormones during fetal development, compared to female heterosexuals, have: higher levels of male hormones, greater stature and shoulder width, weight gain, premature aging, differing cochlear (otoacoustic) response, better throw-to-target ability, and are more masculine as measured on scales of androgyny, etc. “Butch” compared to “Femme” lesbians recall more gender-atypical behavior and had higher waist-to-hip ratios, higher saliva testosterone levels, and less desire to give birth. Artificially androgenized female mammals weigh more and die earlier than their uninjected female litter-mates. Recent studies, including those of identical and fraternal twins, convincingly implicate genetic antecedents to some lesbianism. “Butch” compared to “femme” lesbians have higher levels of testosterone. Lesbians and heterosexual females, most likely due to some pseudolesbians in the lesbian group, can be differentiated in many cases with measures of sexual arousal using vulvoplethysmographic reactions. In clinical practice, pseudolesbians appear more prevalent than do pseudohomosexual males. Violence against women, perceived superior status for males, or even the feminist movement may explain these observations. Comparing heterosexual women and lesbians, level of adjustment is unrelated to their perception of how they were parented. Unlike male homosexuals, birth order appears to have no effect on the etiology of lesbianism. Lesbians who engage in self-disclosure to family and others tend to have less anxiety and better personal adjustment. Heterosexual and lesbian women, who have not been abused, have similar satisfaction in long-term relationships. Abused lesbians, compared to abused heterosexual women, report significantly higher levels of satisfaction in their long-term relations.
      Modern Technology and Anti-homosexual Measures
      As shown above, there are now accurate methods to identify gender and sexual minorities. These methods could be used to select persons for brain washing, psychosurgery, prenatal gender monitoring, genetic manipulation, and gender and sex behavior reprogramming, etc. Using genetic and fetal monitoring, some parents might choose to abort a potentially homosexual child or choose not to have a child. In some societies, physicians might be pressured to euthanize cross-gendered infants or do “heroic” abortions beyond the first trimester.
      Using psychiatric interviews, psychological tests, neurophysiological technology, observation of cross-gendered behavior and interests, and emerging biotechnology, homosexuals can be actively pursued and very accurately identified. With advances in biotechnology and its application to selection, homosexuals who successfully avoid detection would be rare.
      Some of these technologically sophisticated mechanisms (e.g., penile plethysmography and pupillary dilatation) were accurate when used by the Canadian government. The Canadian Court and citizens found these procedures unacceptable. Nonetheless, using an ambitious screening program with follow-up, even those who suffer neurological insults causing a change in sexual orientation could be identified. With modern technology, homosexuals can be effectively excluded by groups seeking to promote heterosexual exclusivity. Medical geneticists, where genetic components are involved, could evaluate chromosomal structure to decrease male homosexuallity. Once genetic linkage for lesbianism is found, the chromosomal anomaly could be detected for couples referred for genetic screening. The pharmaceutical companies may be able to create gene splicing techniques to develop tools to increase the probability of heterosexual male offspring.
      The Nazi’s did not recognize lesbians as criminals and were not particularly successful in identifying male homosexuals for punishment under Paragraph 175. While not subject to the “final solution” as were Jews, homosexuals wore a pink inverted triangle and homosexual Jews wore a pink triangle over their Star of David. At Auschwitz, with four crematoria, homosexuals along with gypsies, Slavic peoples, political prisoners, and other “undesireables” were exclusively placed in crematoria No. 4–Juden Verboten. Homosexuals, considered beneath other non-Jewish concentration camp inmates, faced conspicuously vicious punishment, and died at a disproportionate rate. When World War II ended:
      “… some American and British jurists of the liberation armies, on learning that an inmate had been jailed and then put into camp for homosexual activities, ruled that, judicially, a camp did not constitute a prison. If therefore, someone had been sentenced to eight years in prison, had spent five years in jail and three in a camp, he still had to finish three years in jail after liberation. In at least one instance, a homosexual camp detainee was given a stern lecture by an American colonel, informing him that the United States also considered what he had done criminally offensive. … None of the lucky few who came out alive was (sic) granted any compensation when the new post-war West German government, bowing to American pressure, set up a cumbersome but functional legal bureaucracy to grant restitution …”
      Psychology and Sexual Orientation
      While social and psychological theories, based on work with mental patients and severely ego-dystonic homosexuals explained sexual orientation for some clinicians, no responsible research or analysis corroborated the resulting armchair speculation. Schools of psychology had a body of beliefs ranging from child rearing practices to learning models. When psychological theories were in vogue to “cure” homosexuals, reports of “cures” were extremely rare and supported by weak criteria such as “seriously thinking of going with the opposite sex.” Most psychoanalysts who saw homosexuality as a neurotic manifestation caused by faulty family interactions now reject this hypothesis. Sigmund Freud, founder of the psychoanalytic movement, never condemned homosexuality.
      Studies do not support theories about father absence or faulty family interactions causing homosexuality. For example, no research supports there are more African-American homosexuals, where father absence is relatively higher than for caucasians. There are no more homosexuals in father-present versus father-absent families. There is a weak link to poor relationships with fathers, most likely the result of rejection of a gender incongruent child and emerging homosexuality. Particularly when comparing bisexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, and self-accepting and ego-dystonic homosexuals, researchers cannot ignore familial, community, religious, and social influences on sexual orientation expression. Even with a genetic or biological predisposition to homosexuality, cultural and personal influences should be considered when discussing sexual orientation.
      In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a mental disease or personality disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Ego-dystonic homosexuality, unwanted homosexual urges in natural homosexuals, is psychopathological. Many psychologists and psychiatrists see homophobes as pathological with disordered personality traits. Using psychophysiological instruments, many homophobes become sexually aroused when viewing homoerotic materials. They are either unaware of the arousal or deny it. Homophobia is an important issue and often needs to be addressed to preserve the self-esteem of homosexuals. Through stigma management, some homosexuals establish personal growth and better self-esteem. Many researchers show self-accepting homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. Particularly when introduced to materials about the biological basis for sexual orientation, attitudes toward homosexuals can be changed. Religiosity and level of education are negatively correlated with attitudes toward homosexuals and women and those who know sexual minority individuals appear to have more positive attitudes toward homosexuals and bisexuals than do men. Homophobia in some appears to be a developmental issue related to defensive styles used to manage a range of psychosexual developmental anxieties in boys and men. Homophobic males appear to have difficulty relating to males in general.
      Most mental health professionals treat ego-dystonic homosexuals by helping them adjust to their underlying sexual orientation, practicing coping skills to survive the anti-homosexual milieu, and finding meaningful social contacts within the Gay community. In clinically valid cases of life threatening immutable ego-dystonic homosexuality, teaching pseudoheterosexuality, while helping the client to understand their underlying homosexuality, may be a legitimate therapy.
      Social Psychology.
      Using clearly defined sexual orientation groups with hundreds of subjects, an in-depth research did not support social learning theory as significantly causal of sexual orientation. The researchers, before analysis of their data, did not hypothesize biology influenced sexual orientation. Social learning theoreticians, they concluded, “Among both men and women in our study, there is a powerful link between gender nonconformity and the development of homosexuality.” They go on to say, “At the moment, a large body of convincing research appears to suggest a biological foundation for homosexuality.” These findings confirm small and large scale studies of effeminized male children who, at adolsescence, became male homosexuals and, simultaneously, masculinized female children who became lesbians. In clinical practice, in females pseudolesbianism appeared in cases of brutalization by the opposite sex and in males dependent personality and sociopathy tended to accompany pseudohomosexuality.
      Early sexual experience.
      Based on the erroneous assumption that homosexual behavior in youth can change sexual orientation, various laws exist regarding consensual sexual behavior. It is not uncommon that the ages of 16 to 18 are considered appropriate for heterosexuals and ages 18 to 21 are considered appropriate for homosexuals. The assumption that one can be taught sexual orientation lacks foundation. Yet, research shows that more heterosexual (62%) than homosexual (39%) males reported their first sexual experience to be homosexual. Bell et al. (1981) state:
      “We found no support for the notion that homosexual males are likely to have been ‘seduced’ by older men . . . in fact, [homosexuals compared to heterosexuals] were somewhat more likely to describe their partners as friends and acquaintances . . . and slightly less likely to say they were strangers.”
      These findings confirm other research showing homosexuals initial homosexual experiences are with peers.
      Sexually Predatory Males
      Among predatory sexual deviates, irrespective of the sex of the victim, heterosexuals predominate; thus, children are unlikely to be molested by identifiably gay or lesbian individuals. Using questionable data regarding numbers of homosexuals in the general population, Freund and Watson, while indicating, “the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.” they go on to say, “This of course, would not indicate that androphilic [homosexual] males have a greater propensity to offend against children.”
      Since the undeveloped genitalia of pre-pubescent children are ambiguous, if not somewhat female in sexual appearance, male heterosexual pedophiles, most of whom are sexually immature and inadequate in terms of adult relationships, seek out pre-pubescent children. These predatory male heterosexuals, unlike ghettoized Gays, have easy access to children of either sex. “The typical heterosexual molester of male children, . . . appeared masculine and robust. However, he was religious, moralistic, guilt-ridden, and lonely . . . able to feel in control of a sexual situation only with children.” Heterosexuals also predominate as phebophiles, those sexually attracted to adolescents at or about the time of puberty.
      Among incarcerated offenders who molest male victims, the vast majority are male heterosexuals. Groth and Birnbaum, after examining 275 cases of male child molestation, say, “In any case, in over 12 years of clinical experience, we have yet to see any regression from an adult homosexual orientation.” In patient populations of ego-dystonic homosexuals, seduction of youthful males by older males is exceptionally rare. After surgical destruction of the female mating center to reduce a professional man’s interest in male children, his pedophilia became insatiable. Later destruction of his male mating center stopped the unwanted sexual behavior.
      Macho heterosexuals in prison:
      ” . . . view other people as objects to be used or destroyed. The ['wolf' or 'jock'] was heterosexual outside prison; on the inside he uses weaker prisoners, dominating then and, in effect, womanizing them and masturbating in their bodies. . . . affirming masculinity through violence and conquest. . . . The “punk” or “lamb,” probably entered prison heterosexual . . . It seems that sexual deprivation is far from the chief motive for prison homosexuality. Rather, homosexuality becomes an instrument for establishing rank and status, validating masculinity, and creating protective-dependent relationships.”.”

      Jun 25, 2013 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mcflyer54
      mcflyer54

      If you were unable to include Ken Mehlman in the list of 13 then it should have been expanded to 14. No other gay man worked as hard publicly (and politically) to promote a political platform and party so filled with hatred and bigotry toward gay people. I couldn’t care less about Ken’s now professed about face – the damage he did has taken years to reverse with much more work still needed.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hermes
      Hermes

      @murphy0071: You are certainly welcome to email me the paper – but you do realize that our total scientific knowledge doubles every six years on average. Social science is a little slower — doubling every 10 years. A paper from 1950 that does not encapsulate one of the major theories of physics is a joke now – worth being quoted only as an example of out-of-date science. 450 references mean nothing.

      To review briefly — the APA, AMA, WHO, ACA, and so forth have all – along with every major first world medical or psychological association (including the Royal Society) recognized that homosexuality is a normal, immutable characteristic for many people, a natural variation on human sexuality. Whether genetically mediated or not – it is inborn and cannot be deliberately altered. There are no countries where you can send people to make them “at least weakly heterosexual” — those countries and those techniques do not exist, they are a remnant trapping for hatred, bigotry and prejudice and their existence is a lie.

      Now, start over honestly.

      Regards,

      Hermes

      mercuryhermes_01 @ yahoo.com (close up the email to use it)

      Jun 25, 2013 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hermes
      Hermes

      @murphy0071:

      PS – – Please provide the institution that issued your doctorate, and what specific doctorate you hold. If you are going to use the title, we should know its source.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jmmartin
      jmmartin

      Wikipedia bowed to pressure and deleted some important facts about Tony Perkins (the PAC man, not the actor) that bring to light the reason why he is so vehemently homophobic and anti-same sex marriage. What was deleted is the story of how Perkins’ mother was an ardent fan of the late actor, Tony Perkins, and she talked her husband into naming their child Tony in honor of the star of “Psycho” and other films. (As most people know, Tony Perkins the actor struggled for years coming to terms with his sexual orientation. He is known to have had a romance with Tab Hunter — detailed in the latter’s autobiography. And he died of AIDS-related illnesses.) Tony Perkins the PAC man became devoutly and dogmatically religious when he learned why his mom had not named him Jeff or Tom. In order to distance himself from the “real” Tony Perkins, the fake Tony Perkins founded a homophobic Christian organization that was a front for the Mormon church in defeating gay marriage in California by pushing Prop 8 into a narrow victory. The pseudo Tony Perkins is proof positive Freud was right when he posited that neurotic people sometimes “project” unwanted traits on others, thereby making it appear that it isn’t possible they themselves could “be that way.” If you don’t believe it, read this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

      Jun 25, 2013 at 7:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim Levin
      Jim Levin

      Bill Clinton certainly signed DOMA into law, but it had 96 votes in the U.S.Senate and a veto was useless. However, he also appointed the two judges on the Supreme Court who are leading the fight for marriage equality as well as several federal district and appeals court judges who have agreed that DOMA is unconstitutional. It’s George Bush who probably belongs on this list as his lower and SCOTUS appointees are the ones who will vote to retain DOMA. And how did you miss John Boehner who is spending tax dollars to defend the law that Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to do. It is the House of Representatives that paid the legal fees of the lawyers who argued that DOMA should be left alone. Picking on Clinton in this context is short-sighted and probably foolish.

      Jun 25, 2013 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      jmmartin, I always like reading your posts. Thanks

      Jun 26, 2013 at 12:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lelandt
      lelandt

      rand503 Your “facts” are incorrect. You are WRONG about your numbers and everything else. There was, in fact, a lot of discussion about a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. It was all over the news. It was very sad however, at the time, many LGBT activists, myself included, understood that DOMA was the lesser of two evils. I had been working on same-sex marital rights since 1983 and I remember the events first hand. All of your second hand information is wrong. You did not even bother to look up the senate vote on DOMA on the web, shame on you. DOMA passed both the House and Senate with substantially more than 2/3 in each, check your facts!! The House voted 342 in favor 67 against: 83.6%. The Senate voted 85 in favor and 14 against: 84%. A constitutional amendment would have needed only 67% in each chamber. Today’s victory in favor of Marriage Equality was possible only because of DOMA. The Supreme Court cannot overturn a constitutional amendment like they just did to section 3 of DOMA. By every estimate at the time, if Clinton had not signed DOMA we would have had a constitutional amendment pass Congress and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify it very quickly. Remember, until 2012 we had lost every statewide election about same sex marriage except one in Arizona (but that was only because it would have also banned domestic partnerships and the next year Arizona did vote to ban same-sex marriage when domestic partnerships were taken out of the bill).

      Jun 27, 2013 at 3:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • beachcomberT
      beachcomberT

      Thanks for including Clinton. You also could have included Obama, the pre-evolved one. His inaction in the 2008 campaign certainly helped give Florida an anti-gay amendment to its constitution, one that will take a 60 percent majority to repeal. There may be other states where Obama’s position that year (“not my concern, it’s a state issue”) allowed prejudice to carry the day. At least he did change his tune, only when it was safe to do so. Let’s see how hard he and the Democrats in Congress work for ENDA prior to the 2014 election.

      Jun 27, 2013 at 6:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.