The Changing View Of Same-Sex Relationships In The U.S.

I have posted several times recently about the changing views of Americans about same-sex marriages. Currently about six out of ten Americans support the legalization of those marriages. But there is even better news. The changing views of Americans are broader than just acceptance of same-sex marriages. It involves a more accepting view of the homosexual lifestyle in general.

As the chart above shows, more Americans now believe that homosexuality is something a person is born with, rather than something determined by environment (or a choice), and that is true of the general public and of Republicans and Democrats. For the general public, those saying a person is born with that orientation is 21 points higher than those who disagree with that -- for Democrats it is 38 points higher, and for Republicans it is 4 points higher.

This is much better than it was in 2001 -- when the general public was split evenly on this view, the Democrats showed 2 points favoring the "environment" view, and the Republicans showed a 15 point gap favoring those believing it was due to environment (or choice). Obviously, a lot of people have changed their opinion in the last 14 years.

While right-wingers and evangelicals are still hoping the Supreme Court decides in their favor on same-sex marriage bans, I think this change in attitude of most Americans shows this battle is over (regardless of what the court decides). It is awfully hard to deny equal rights to people who were born with a same-sex orientation. That is a far different matter than "choosing" an orientation.

The chart below shows that the public (and both Democrats and Republicans) have a majority now saying that same-sex orientation is morally acceptable -- another nail in the coffin of bigotry.

These charts were made from a new Gallup Poll -- done between May 6th and 10th of a random national sample of 1,024 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Barney Frank Discusses His Humanist Views

Barney Frank has retired now, but he had a long and distinguished career as a proud progressive in the U.S. House of Representatives. And while he did not try to hide the fact that he was gay, there was another aspect that he did not discuss while serving in the House -- the fact that he was a humanist.

This year Frank received two awards for his humanism -- the Lifetime Achievement in Cultural Humanism award from the Humanist Community at Harvard University, and the 2014 Humanist of the Year award from the American Humanist Association.

Recently he discussed his humanism (and non-theism) with Chris Stedman at the Religion News Service. I found that interview very interesting, and I am reposting much of it below.

CS: What does Humanism mean to you?

BF: A Humanist is nontheistic in his or her value set, and focused on humanity and human beings as the source of values. I never identified specifically as a Humanist, but that’s essentially what I am. It reflects my viewpoint.

CS: How does it feel to be embraced by the Humanist community?

BF: It’s very nice. I think it’s a sign of the times; there’s still enough prejudice against nontheists that my simply saying something that seems fairly commonplace to me means a lot to people. I’ve long been aware of prejudice against gay and lesbian people, and I have been very sensitive to that. I guess I never thought about the extent to which people who want to be explicit about their nontheism and their Humanism have felt somewhat devalued—so I’m glad to be of service.

CS: You became the first openly gay member of Congress in 1987, but you didn’t reveal your nontheism until after you left office. Why?

BF: It was never relevant. I never professed any theology. And it’s complicated by my Jewishness. Obviously, being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. I was concerned that if I were to explicitly disavow any religiosity, it could get distorted into an effort to distance myself from being Jewish—and I thought that was wrong, given that there is anti-Jewish prejudice.

For years I would go to temple, but I suddenly realized it doesn’t mean anything to me. So I decided, I’m not going to do this. I’m not going to pretend. During my service I never pretended to be a theist. It just never became relevant that I wasn’t, and I guess I was not as conscious of the discrimination nontheists felt. But I’ve always been opposed to any imposition of religion. I fought hard, for example, with other members of Congress to oppose any notion that a religious group getting federal funds could discriminate in hiring.

When I took the oath of office, I never swore and said, “So help me God.” But members of the House take the oath en masse, so nobody noticed.

CS: A recent survey found that only 53% of Americans say they would vote for an otherwise qualified nontheistic candidate. There are currently no open atheists in Congress. Why do you think that is? 

BF: First of all, I wouldn’t say atheist. It seems to me that atheist is a more specific term. I just have no interest in [theology]. I’m not interested in guesses.

I think American history and tradition show [why there aren’t open nontheists in Congress]. There was this fervent Protestantism when we started, but there was also Robert Ingersoll. I don’t know exactly why; I’ve never really studied it.

I wasn’t thinking about that [when I announced my nontheism]. I just thought, I don’t really believe this stuff, I’m not going to pretend that I do. But I have consistently defended the rights of nonbelievers throughout my career. I’ve just never thought about why America has more of an issue [with nontheists in politics] than other countries, assuming that we do.

CS: What advice would you give to nontheists who are seeking to be more politically involved? For example, there’s a young man named James Woods, who is an open atheist running for Congress in Arizona. What would you say to him?

BF: Don’t appear to be aggressive—that’s the problem about atheism, and why I think nontheism is a better word. Honor other peoples’ convictions, as we seek to have ours honored. Don’t ridicule, don’t attack. Religion does a great deal of good, but when we have conflicts, religious leaders often make it worse rather than better. But I’ve always acknowledged the good work that is done by religions.

So the answer is: Don’t give the appearance that your campaign is a crusade for nontheism. Address it honestly when it comes up, and avoid any negativism about religion in general. That doesn’t mean you can’t criticize particular abuses that are carried on in the name of religion, but I would say this: You deal with it when it comes up, you’re matter of fact about it, and you go on about other issues.

CS: What do you make of the parallels or equations that some nontheists make between being gay and being atheist, such as “coming out,” “being in the closet,” or saying that the atheist movement should look to and learn from the LGBTQ movement?

BF: There are similarities and there are differences with all groups. There are areas in which the movement for LGBT legal equality resembles the women’s movement and the movement to end racial prejudice, and also areas where they are different. I think [such comparisons] can be a way of using common terms to help you make your point. A lot of these issues are very different, but it does help make the central point that we’re being treated unfairly because of something that shouldn’t be anybody else’s concern. That commonality is relevant.

CS: Do you feel your experiences as a gay person and as a nontheist have any parallels, or do they feel different?

BF: I’ve never felt any discrimination because I was not a believer in any religious doctrine. The constraining factor was, as I said, my fear that [my nontheism] would be interpreted by some as a repudiation of Jewishness. But no, I can’t say I’ve experienced [discrimination for being a nontheist]. The prejudice and criticism for my sexual orientation was much more pronounced. I’m not aware of any on the religious side.

Homosexuality's Cause Is A Silly Argument & Doesn't Matter

The chart above was made from information contained in surveys the Gallup Poll has been taking since 1978 -- and it shows the public's opinion about the cause of homosexuality. The latest of these survey's was done between May 8th and 11th of a random national sample of 1,028 adults, and has a 4 point margin of error.

The argument is about whether homosexuality is a trait a person is born with, or whether it is a trait developed because of upbringing & environment -- or is simply a choice made by the gay/lesbian individual. The "choice" argument has pretty much been discredited, since it simply makes no sense that anyone would choose to make their life much harder. Only the most extreme bigots are stupid enough to believe homosexuality is just a choice these days.

That leaves the argument that the LGBT community are either born with their gender preferences, or they learn them in their formative years growing up. Back in 1978, the "upbringing & environment" argument was held by a majority of Americans (56%), while only a tiny minority (13%) believed the "born that way" argument. That opinion has changed radically in the last couple of decades -- now the "born that way" argument is held by a plurality of Americans (42%), while only about 37% still cling to the "upbringing and environment" argument (a drop of about 19 points).

I have long believed in the "born that way" view. That was because I thought that minds could be changed if people understood that. However, I now believe that the argument is a distraction from what we should be considering most important -- the implementation of the equal rights guarantee of the United States Constitution.

The truth is that the cause of why someone has a different gender preference is really none of my business, and it isn't any of your business either. It is just a fact that some people prefer to date & mate with a person of the opposite sex, while others prefer a person of the same sex. Neither preference is an adequate, or even partially justifiable, reason to deny any person their equal rights under the laws and Constitution (which those laws must be based on) of this nation.

Bigotry is not now, and never has been, based on reason and fact. Bigotry exists because there are weak and stupid people who must feel they are superior to some other group of people. This has been the basis for racism and misogyny, and still is to some extent, but these bigoted beliefs are becoming socially unacceptable in our society. Hatred of homosexuals though, is still somewhat accepted in this society -- especially when it comes wrapped in the cloak of religion.

If science conclusively proved that homosexuals were born with their gender preference, it would make no difference to the bigots in this country. They didn't base their bigoted beliefs on facts, and facts will not change their minds. They just have a need to feel superior to others. That's why I feel this whole argument is rather silly, and doesn't matter. It won't change the bigots.

And it also won't change the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to equal protection under the law, including those in the LGBT community -- regardless of whether they were born that way, or became that way through upbringing & environment. The argument is irrelevant.

I do not care about the sexual preference of my family, friends, neighbors, or fellow citizens -- or why they have that sexual preference. I do however care about the United States Constitution, and I firmly believe that the rights guaranteed by that document should apply equally to ALL citizens -- and so should you.

Americans Willing To Cut Ugandan Aid Over Anti-Gay Law

Uganda has distinguished itself as one of the most bigoted nations in the world. Last month they put their bigotry into law, when their president signed a bill that would put people in prison just because they happen to be homosexual. That law established prison sentences for homosexuality of up to life in prison.

This has made a few right-wing fundamentalists in America happy, and a few of them even encouraged the Ugandans to pass that law -- but most Americans are aghast over this institutionalized (and now legal) bigotry. And they would support the American government taking action against Uganda -- in the form of cutting financial aid to that country. A full 62% of the public, a very significant majority, say the government should cut financial aid to Uganda, and make it clear that the cut is in response to their legal bigotry. Only 21% of Americans would oppose cutting the aid (and 17% don't know what to think).

Most Americans think the Ugandan law is a bad one, and as the chart below shows, that even extends to people in the U.S. that oppose either same-sex marriage or civil unions. Fully half of these people, who are too bigoted to allow homosexuals to get full equal rights in this country, think the Ugandans have gone too far by making homosexuality a crime.

These charts were made from information in a recent YouGov Poll that was done on February 25th and 26th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults (and has a margin of error of about 4 points).

Homosexuality And The Church

This is an excellent list. You might think this list was compiled by an atheist, or at least a secular humanist, but you would be wrong. Mr. Rigby, who made the list, is a Presbyterian minister in Austin, Texas. He has his own blog, and if you are interested, he goes into a little more depth in defending this list on that blog.

Reverend Rigby is a christian that even I, being an atheist, can respect. That's because he is far more interested in following the teachings of Jesus, than in worrying about the rules that others have laid down. I especially like how he defines himself as a "christian" (see below). I just wish more christians took this very enlightened view of their religion.

I  call myself “Christian” because I have, however imperfectly, given my life to what was taught in the Sermon on the Mount. I have little in common with those who live by rules, rituals or dogmas invented latter and then labelled “Christian.” I do not see how a focus on matters Jesus did not even address should be called by his name. I do not know or care if Jesus was born of a virgin, or could do magic tricks. I do not understand what questions of his divinity even mean. I only know that when I listen to the beatitudes my heart comes to life.

Americans Oppose Winter Olympics Boycott

The Russian government has recently demonstrated its lack of belief that all of its citizens should be treated equally. They did this by passing a new law that made it a criminal act to "propagandize" for the equal rights of homosexuals. Unfortunately, this comes just months before the Winter Olympics to be held in that country, and so far, the Russian government has made no assurances the new law won't affect the athletes participating in those games.

This has resulted in a call for this country to boycott the Olympics, if they cannot be moved to another country (which is very unlikely at this late date). I think this is a very bad idea, and it looks like most Americans agree. A new Economist/YouGov Poll (done between August 17th and 19th of 1,000 nationwide adults -- with a margin of error of 5 points) shows that a substantial majority of Americans (58%) do not think the U.S. should boycott the Olympics. Only 17% think a boycott would be appropriate.

This does not mean Americans agree with the new Russian law discriminating against homosexuals -- far from it. That same poll showed that 62% think society should accept homosexuality as a lifestyle, while only 38% believe it should be discouraged. And 63% think the Russian law is a bad policy.

The bottom chart gives us a clue as to why Americans oppose a boycott. A plurality of the public (45%) thinks boycotting an Olympics for political reasons is just bad policy. I suspect many others simply don't want to punish American athletes for the ridiculous actions of another country. These athletes have been preparing for this moment in the sun for many years, and for many, this will be their only opportunity to participate in an Olympics.

I do believe the U.S. government should do everything it can diplomatically to convince the Russian government that this is a bad law, and should be changed. And the International Olympic Committee should work to get assurances from the Russian government that no athlete from any country will be punished in any way for his/her sexual preferences. The Olympic games should be free of politics or interference from any government -- even the government of the country hosting those games. And all athletes should be free to compete without having to worry about hiding who they really are.

But a boycott is a bad idea. It will punish our own athletes, without changing the Russian law.

Fundies Aren't As Absolutist As They Claim

The only real opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage is among religious bigots -- those fundamentalists who want to impose their own religious views on all other Americans (in spite of constitutional guarantees of freedom of, and from, religion). But this religious argument is flawed on a deeper level.

If one wishes to use the biblical injunction against homosexuality, then we have to wonder why they are willing to ignore other parts of that same book -- such as its support for slavery. How can they toss out the biblical acceptance of slavery, while declaring as absolute the biblical view on homosexuality? Since these are the same people who declare that every word in the Bible is absolutely true and the word of god, how can they pick the parts of that book they consider to no longer be relevant (the teaching on slavery) while demanding that other parts of that book remain relevant?

Some will probably argue that the biblical acceptance of slavery was just a recognition that slavery was widely accepted at that time, and the religious book was just trying to make slave owners realize they had a duty to treat slaves decently -- and that society has advanced now and no longer recognizes the validity of slavery. That is a specious argument, since the very institution of slavery is as wrong as anything humans have ever done -- no matter how well a slave master treated his/her slaves, and the Bible clearly supported the institution of slavery as not violating god's commandments (as long as slaves were treated correctly).

In addition, if it is recognized that society changes and therefore institutions like slavery (supported in the Bible) can now be considered unchristian, then can't it also be recognized that society can also change it's attitude on other things (like homosexuality and same-sex marriage) and that they could now be considered acceptable by christians? The very act of cherry-picking which parts of the Bible they support renders the fundamentalist argument against legalizing same-sex marriage to be meaningless.

Reason For Growing Support For Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages

Poll after poll has shown there is now majority support in the United States for legalizing same-sex marriage. Even in bright-red states like Texas, there is majority support for same-sex civil unions with rights equal to those granted married couple (the residents of those states just balk at the idea of calling those unions "marriages", for bigoted religious reasons). And this new national majority has resulted in three more states legalizing equal marriage rights in just the last couple of weeks.

This brings up the question of just why this has happened (and happened in such a short period of time). Why are a majority of Americans now supporting the right of the LGBT community to marry the person they love? A recent Gallup Poll (conducted between May 2nd and 7th of a randomly-chosen nationwide survey of 1,535 adults -- with a margin of error of 3 points) may just have the answer.

For many years in this country most people just accepted the views of the religious right -- that homosexuality was either a choice or the result of the way a person was raised -- and not just because they were born that way (and really had no choice in the matter). Back in 1978, about 56% of the population agreed, while only 13% disagreed. This allowed much discrimination, because if the cause was choice or environment, then banning LGBT marriages or adoptions was justifiable. Even as late as 2011, a small majority agreed with this view (42% to 40%).

That is no longer true. Currently a clear and growing majority now believe gays/lesbians are born with a preference for same-sex partners -- and this new majority belief has caused a change in the view on equal rights for same-sex marriages. After all, if homosexuals are born with that proclivity and had no choice in the matter (any more than a person can choose their sex, race, color, or ethnicity), then discrimination can no longer have any justification under our constitutional law.

And this new understanding cuts across most demographic groups (age, sex, race, education, etc.). In fact, only three groups (conservatives, Republicans, and weekly church attendees) cling to the old view -- and even in those groups, more have changed their view. Here is that demographic breakdown, showing how views have changed from 2011 to 2013:

The Problem

America has a problem, in that while it trumpets equal rights it does not extend those equal rights to all American citizens (especially homosexuals). I have written numerous times on this subject (including today), but a blogging friend of mine has written a really good post on the problem in this country and the history of how we have gotten to the current situation we are in. I urge you to go read this post at the very good blog called The iHandbill. It's definitely worth your time.

Most Americans Don't Share Pope's Bigotry

In this holiday season, when most people (including religious leaders), are expressing views of peace, brotherhood, and love for all humanity, Pope Benedict decided to take a different path. He chose instead to promote his own bigotry. In his christmas message, the Pope lashed out at homosexuals -- accusing them of destroying the nature of humans and even destroying world peace. It was truly a sad exhibition of hatred from a religious leader claiming to be a follower of Jesus (who preached a message of love and acceptance -- and who never condemned homosexuality).

Fortunately, it seems that most people are turning away from the kind of hate promoted by religious leaders like the Pope. According to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, a majority of Americans (52%) now support allowing same-sex marriage -- and when assured that no churches would be forced to perform those marriages that didn't want to do so, that percentage rises to 58%. And that includes 59% of catholics, 56% of mainline protestants, and 77% of those not affiliated with any religious group.

Oddly enough, the Pope's views are shared by a majority of only one religious group in the United States -- white evangelical protestants, the same people who consider the Pope to not even be christian. About 77% of white evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage.

And an even larger percentage of Americans say that any group offering adoption services that receives any government money should not be allowed to turn down gay/lesbian couples who want to adopt. About 63% agree with this.

The Pope, and his evangelical enemies, may still be determined to use their religion to push their own bigoted beliefs (just like they once used that religion to justify their racist beliefs), but the good thing is that most Americans are no longer willing to go along with that kind of hate. The religious prefer the gospel of love taught by Jesus over the message of hate from small-minded religious leaders, and those of us who are not religious simply believe in the equality guaranteed by the Constitution. And that is a good thing for the future of this country.

10 Things For Christians To Consider

Found at the excellent blog Unreasonable Faith.

Corporations Move To Support LGBT Rights

Last month, the Nabisco Company infuriated many of this country's religious homophobes by putting up a picture of an oreo cookie with rainbow filling. It was one of the ways the company was showing its support for LGBT citizens in this country, and their fight for equal rights. And they are far from the only corporation doing so. Target and Penney's have recently been in the news for reaching out to the LGBT community, and many others (some shown in the picture above) are doing the same.

Why are these corporations doing this? I would like to think it is because they believe in fairness, and that might be a part of it. But corporations don't exist to make social change. Their primary purpose is to make money for their owners (investors). And these corporations are finding there is a significant upside to supporting LGBT equality as a company policy -- and not much downside.Consider the following:

* It is estimated that there is about $790 billion in buying power in the LGBT community. That's a lot of money -- and it doesn't even count the money of family and friends, who also appreciate a company that doesn't discriminate.

* A recent survey showed that the LGBT community is very loyal to companies that support their cause -- and 71% of them will spend their money with a friendly brand even though another brand may be offering a lower price. And brand loyalty is a trait that corporations love.

* The population is aging, and Gen X and subsequent generations are starting to assume positions of executive power and spending power -- and these young Americans are far less homophobic than preceding generations. They want a wider acceptance of all kinds of differences in society.

* Supporting equal rights also allows a company to seek out the best employees at all levels, without worrying about superfluous issues like sexual preference.

It may irritate the remaining homophobes, but this country is changing fast -- and the corporations don't want to be left behind. Being branded as anti-LGBT could seriously hurt a company, as their watch their more equality-friendly competitors grab more and more of the market share of products and services.

While the motives of these companies may not be altruistic, that doesn't really matter. They are still contributing to the change that is happening in the United States -- and that is a good thing.

Courage, Class & Honesty From A Journalist

I have always liked Anderson Cooper. While CNN seems to want to pander more and more to the right-wing, Cooper has remained honest and always tried to get the real truth to his audience even if that meant reporting from a war zone, a disaster area, or just holding a guest's feet to the fire to get the truth. Now Mr. Cooper has taken another courageous stand.

There have been rumors for quite a while now that he is gay -- rumors he has never dignified with an answer either way. But now he has taken a stand, and revealed the truth about his private life. This was not something he had to do. He did it to help his fellow Americans go a little bit further down the road toward true equal rights. Here is some of what he told Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast:

Recently, however, I’ve begun to consider whether the unintended outcomes of maintaining my privacy outweigh personal and professional principle. It’s become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something - something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true.


I’ve also been reminded recently that while as a society we are moving toward greater inclusion and equality for all people, the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible. There continue to be far too many incidences of bullying of young people, as well as discrimination and violence against people of all ages, based on their sexual orientation, and I believe there is value in making clear where I stand.


The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud.


I have always been very open and honest about this part of my life with my friends, my family, and my colleagues. In a perfect world, I don't think it's anyone else's business, but I do think there is value in standing up and being counted. I’m not an activist, but I am a human being and I don't give that up by being a journalist. . .


Being a journalist, traveling to remote places, trying to understand people from all walks of life, telling their stories, has been the greatest joy of my professional career, and I hope to continue doing it for a long time to come. But while I feel very blessed to have had so many opportunities as a journalist, I am also blessed far beyond having a great career.


I love, and I am loved.


In my opinion, the ability to love another person is one of God’s greatest gifts, and I thank God every day for enabling me to give and share love with the people in my life. . . I still consider myself a reserved person and I hope this doesn’t mean an end to a small amount of personal space. But I do think visibility is important, more important than preserving my reporter’s shield of privacy.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Your private life has never been the business of anyone else, but in your revelations about it you've done your country a great service. I wish all journalists displayed your courage, honesty, and class.

Roots Of Homophobia

(The graphic above is from the website Trends Updates.com.)

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Those words were written by William Shakespeare in his immortal play, Hamlet. The phrase, or versions of it, are still used today -- generally to mean that someone who protests too much and too loudly about something may actually believe the opposite of what they are saying. A lot of people (including me) have wondered if this might not apply to the most vicious homophobes. Perhaps their irrational hatred of homosexuals is driven by their own feeling of attraction to their own sex.

Now there is some scientific proof that this is true. A team of researchers from the University of Rochester, the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of Essex (in England) has conducted a series of experiments on homophobia. Their findings will be published in the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Here are some excerpts from the article in Science Daily about this research:

The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense and visceral fear of homosexuals, including self-reported homophobic attitudes, discriminatory bias, implicit hostility towards gays, and endorsement of anti-gay policies. . .


"Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves," explains Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study's lead author.


"In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward," adds co-author Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester who helped direct the research.


The paper includes four separate experiments, conducted in the United States and Germany, with each study involving an average of 160 college students. The findings provide new empirical evidence to support the psychoanalytic theory that the fear, anxiety, and aversion that some seemingly heterosexual people hold toward gays and lesbians can grow out of their own repressed same-sex desires, Ryan says. The results also support the more modern self-determination theory, developed by Ryan and Edward Deci at the University of Rochester, which links controlling parenting to poorer self-acceptance and difficulty valuing oneself unconditionally.


The findings may help to explain the personal dynamics behind some bullying and hate crimes directed at gays and lesbians, the authors argue. Media coverage of gay-related hate crimes suggests that attackers often perceive some level of threat from homosexuals. People in denial about their sexual orientation may lash out because gay targets threaten and bring this internal conflict to the forefront, the authors write.


The research also sheds light on high profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex sexual acts. The authors cite such examples as Ted Haggard, the evangelical preacher who opposed gay marriage but was exposed in a gay sex scandal in 2006, and Glenn Murphy, Jr., former chairman of the Young Republican National Federation and vocal opponent of gay marriage, who was accused of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old man in 2007, as potentially reflecting this dynamic. . .


Across all the studies, participants with supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, while participants from authoritarian homes revealed the most discrepancy between explicit and implicit attraction.


"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals. But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying," explains Weinstein. These individuals risk losing the love and approval of their parents if they admit to same sex attractions, so many people deny or repress that part of themselves, she said.


In addition, participants who reported themselves to be more heterosexual than their performance on the reaction time task indicated were most likely to react with hostility to gay others, the studies showed. That incongruence between implicit and explicit measures of sexual orientation predicted a variety of homophobic behaviors, including self-reported anti-gay attitudes, implicit hostility towards gays, endorsement of anti-gay policies, and discriminatory bias such as the assignment of harsher punishments for homosexuals, the authors conclude.


"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" says Ryan. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

Modern Christianity And Bigotry

In the modern incarnation of christianity far too many people seem to cherry-pick the verses they want to follow -- all to often resulting in a religion that confirms their own bigoted beliefs. My fellow blogger vorjack, over at his excellent blog unreasonable faith, has written a post about this. I thought it was very good, so I am presenting part of it here for your enjoyment:

 Here’s my problem:

The Bible contains perhaps a dozen “clobber verses” against homosexuality. That number could shrink or grow depending on how you define words and whether or not you bring adultery into the conversation.

The Bible contains perhaps 200 verses on the topic of the poor and economic justice. Again, that number could shrink or grow. I’ve heard estimates as high as 300.

As I look at modern American Christianity, it seems to me that those numbers could have been reversed.

To evade the charge of bigotry, you need to do more than say that you sincerely believe that the Bible is against gay marriage. You need to explain why you take the clobber verses as something important and relevant to today, while the statements like “Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none,” aren’t.

There are arguments against taking the missional verses and the poverty verses and trying them to apply them today. Of course, many of those arguments could be turned against the clobber verses as well. Can it be shown that there is a consistent means of interpretation that would lead to the clobber verses being taken literally while the charity verses should be basically ignored?

Or think of it this way: would the hypothetical “man from Mars” who was innocent of Christianity and the culture wars really look at the Bible and come away saying, “Wow, we’ve really got to do something to stop gay marriage”?

Think about how this looks from the outside. The parts of the Bible that you believe apply today are the ones that require other people to make sacrifices. The parts of the Bible that would require YOU to make big sacrifices are not considered relevant. Look at it this way, and you’ll see why “bigot” is one of the nicer things you could be called.

NOTE -- The above picture is of Saints Sergius and Bacchus. According to Wikipedia:

Saints Sergius and Bacchus. 7th Century icon. Officers of the Roman Army in Syria who were tortured to death for their refusal to worship Roman gods.

Bacchus is thought to have died from severe torture while Sergius survived the initial torture to be beheaded. They are the protectors of the Byzantine Army with a feast day of October 7th.

Yale historian John Boswell considers the saints to be an example of an early Christian same-sex union reflective of tolerant early Christians attitudes toward homosexuality based on this icon depecting what some claim is a religious wedding with Jesus as best man.

Suspicions Confirmed

Have you ever wondered why some people are so quick and loud to protest and demonize the lifestyle of other people -- especially since those other people are doing nothing to harm those who would criticize them? Doesn't it seem more than a little odd?

This is especially true with homophobes -- those who would demonize and even outlaw the lifestyle of gays and lesbians. The gays and lesbians are doing nothing to harm the homophobes. In fact it is quite the opposite. The homosexual community is one of the most understanding and accepting of others of any community in this country. They know what it is like to be discriminated against and vilified, and generally have no wish to do that to others.

Many of the homophobes try to hide their hatred behind their religion. I'm not buying this. I may now be an atheist, but I spent many years as a christian (including 5 years at two "christian" colleges). I know that their Jesus only laid down two real commandments -- to love god, and to love your neighbor (your fellow humans). He made no exceptions to this love of others -- not for homosexuals or anyone else. And he went out of his way to demonstrate a love for those his own society vilified.

I, along with many others, have long suspected that those who make the biggest spectacle of hating homosexuals and their lifestyle are really trying to hide their own feelings behind a wall of hatred. Now I learn of a scientific study that shows this to be true. This study is a few years old, but I just learned of it (thanks to the excellent blogger Badtux, the Snarky Penguin).

In 1996 the Journal of Abnormal Psychology published a study done by researchers at the University of Georgia Psychology Department (done by H.E. Adams, L.W. Wright Jr., and B.A. Lohr). These researchers questioned heterosexual men about their attitudes toward homosexuals, and then used this to divide the men into two groups -- those who were homophobic and those who weren't.

They then connected a device to each man's penis (which would only register sexual arousal) and showed them a series of short videos -- one showing straight sex, one showing lesbian sex, and one showing gay sex. Both the homophobes and the non-homophobes showed arousal watching the first two videos, but only the homophobic group showed arousal watching the video depicting gay sex. They were aroused by the very thing they most loudly condemned.

This goes a long way toward explaining homophobes like Ted Haggard and George Rekers who are caught doing the same thing they publicly condemned, and many others whose desires are either still latent or well hidden. Remember this the next time you hear a homophobe spouting off. He is telling us far more about himself than those he is criticizing.

Gates Lays Down The Law To Marines

I can't say that I usually agree with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. In fact, I usually disagree with him, especially when he is talking about the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, or the defense budget. But in his latest trip to Afghanistan I'll have to admit that I am proud of the unequivocal answer he gave a Marine sergeant about homosexuals in the military.

As you probably know, the failed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" program in the United States military has been discontinued, and the military is now in the process of implementing new rules which will allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. This is a very good thing, and I appreciate how the Pentagon and the Defense Department have jumped on board with the new rules.

When Gates was talking to a group of Marines in Afghanistan, a Marine sergeant asked him if Marines who did not like the change could opt out of the military instead of serving alongside openly homosexual troops. It was a stupid question and not worthy of the vast majority of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving this country. Here is Gates answer:

"No, You'll have to complete your ... enlistment just like everybody else."


"The reality is that you don't all agree with each other on your politics, you don't agree with each other on your religion, you don't agree with each other on a lot of things. But you still serve together. And you work together. And you look out for each other. And that's all that matters."


"If we do this right, nothing will change. You will still have to abide by the same rules of behavior, the same discipline, the same respect for each other that has been the case through all the history of the Marine Corps."


Thank you Mr. Secretary. It is good to see someone in our government standing up for equality.

Homosexuality Has Solid Acceptance In U.S.

I recently wrote a post about how for the first time in this country's history there is majority support for the legalization of same sex marriage. Three different polls showed this support is between 51% and 53%. The least support is among the elderly and the highest support is among younger Americans -- meaning as the elderly die off the support should grow even larger.

A recent Gallup Poll shows why this is happening (taken between May 5th and May 8th of 1,018 adults with a 4 point margin of error). There was once a time in this country when a majority of citizens thought homosexuality was morally wrong, and in fact, should be a crime. But this poll shows that the people are way past archaic views like that. Here is the current view on those attitudes:

Is homosexuality morally acceptable?
yes...............56%
no...............39%

Should homosexuality be legal?
yes...............64%
no...............32%

These represent a new all-time high for these beliefs. And here is the breakdown politically:

Homosexuality morally acceptable.
Democrats...............71%
Independents...............64%
Republicans...............30%

Homosexuality should be legal.
Democrats...............75%
Independents...............73%
Republicans...............41%

This country has changed and will continue to change. More and more Americans are starting to accept the dream that all Americans should be equal -- regardless of sexual preference (or anything else). America is not a perfect country, but it has a capacity for change and seems to get better with age. I like that.

The Very Definition Of "Homophobe"

Sometimes there are elected officials that do far more harm than good because they either can't control, or don't wish to control, their own bigotry.   A school board member in Arkansas named Clint McChance is one of those elected officials.   He has decided that his own bigotry and homophobia is more important than acting in the best interest of ALL the students he was elected to help (by overseeing their education and well-being).

Their have been several instances of school bullying (on both a secondary and higher education level) of homosexual students that resulted in these students taking their own lives.   This tragedy has resulted in good people all over the country coming together to try and fight the problem of bullying.   One of the ways this has happened is a "wear purple" day, where people wore the color purple to show solidarity with the victims of bullying.

Unfortunately, some right-wing fundamentalists have decided to show their bigotry in response to this.   McChance took this even a step further by making homophobic and bigoted remarks on his FaceBook page celebrating the death of gays.   Here are some of the remarks he made on FaceBook (which whether he realizes it or not is a public forum):

“Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE.”


“No because being a fag doesn’t give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it.”


“I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off. Of course my kids will know better. My kids will have solid christian beliefs. See it infects everyone.”

Sadly, as an elected public official, McChance cannot be fired by the school district.   If he had any common decency, he would resign.   But after reading his remarks, I seriously doubt that will happen.   He seems to be proud of his bigotry.   Hopefully, the good people in Arkansas will take care of this in the next school board election (or in a recall election).

Fortunately for the students of the school district, other school officials were not amused by McChance's bigoted remarks.   Here is the public statement released by the superintendent of the Midland School District:

The Midland School District, Board of Directors, administration, faculty, and staff do not support or condone the comments Mr. Clint McCance posted on his personal social networking page. Mr. McCance was not acting as an agent of the school board, but as a private citizen when this comment was posted. This post does not reflect the thoughts of the board or administration of the Midland School District.

The district strives to foster an environment that discourages all forms of bullying and an environment that encourages a safe and productive educational climate of all of our students. The district is very diligent in pursuing and addressing bullying of any variety on our campuses.

Sincerely

Dean Stanley, Superintendent
Midland School District

Military Has Split Personality On Homosexuality

A few days ago a California federal judge banned the  practice of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), which meant that gays and lesbians in the United States Military had to hide their sexual preference or be unceremoniously kicked out.   Although claiming to be against the policy themselves, the Obama administration asked the judge to stay her order until they could appeal it.   On Monday, the judge declined to stay her order.

Now, all the Obama administration would have to do is to not appeal the ruling (or issue an executive order) and DADT would be relegated to history.   The U.S. Military would have to treat all it's members equally, which is the way it should be done.   But the Obama administration doesn't have the political courage of a Harry Truman (who ended segregation in the military with an executive order).   They want Congress to give them some political cover (even though a clear majority of the population is in favor of ending DADT).

Frankly, it is starting to look like everyone except the Republicans and Democrats in the federal government (who are either bigots or cowards) is in favor of ending DADT -- even the military.   Although many military leaders have said they want the DADT policy to remain in effect until they complete their "study" on how it would affect the military and how the end of it could be best implemented, it looks like the military is ready to accept open homosexuals.

The U.S. Military has said it is currently willing to accept openly homosexual recruits.   Douglas Smith, spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, says,   "If they were to self-admit that they are gay [or lesbian] and want to enlist, we will process them for enlistment, but will tell them that the legal situation could change."

This seems like a bit of a split personality on part of the military.   They are accepting openly homosexual recruits at the same time they are fighting the right of homosexual soldiers to be honest about their sexual preference.   Obviously the military knows that it is just a matter of time before the end of DADT, or they would not be recruiting and enlisting openly homosexual citizens.

Frankly, this whole mess is starting to look more than a little stupid.   The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear about the fact that all American citizens are to be treated equally, and DADT is a violation of that constitutional amendment.   Unless the politicians and the military are saying homosexuals are not citizens (which would also be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment), then DADT should be ended immediately.