One Point

The easiest way I've found to do debates quickly is to simply use one point against one point: and really, that's all it should take. If one simple point can demonstrate why homosexuality is not inferior to heterosexuality, why need more? I've done plenty of research, but there's only one thing that really needs to be memorized.

The point:

Name one thing experienced by homosexuals which is not experienced by any heterosexuals.

There is none. Ok, there's the gender of the partner, but that's a staggeringly circular argument; there has to be a reason why it's bad to have a same-gender partner compared to an opposite-gender partner.

The arguments generally revolve around an inability to have children: shared by heterosexuals who are infertile or simply unwilling, or the disease rate: yet all those STDs are also present among the straight community, even though they sometimes use the rate of infection as a point, that could just as easily be turned to a racist argument. The other points are mostly personal, ego-based feelings or plain false. There are religious arguments, but they're not as clear-cut as it first seems and there's even some prejudice against heterosexuality there.

So, simply, any anti-gays reading this, send me a Youtube message, or comment, or email me at bijanewhite@gmail.com if you have just one example of something not shared.

The Bible on Heterosexuality

First, a word. As this is the Bible, due to common references to fornication the use of the word marriage is referring not only to the union itself, but to the sex, and by consequence procreation, that follows. Contained in the sexual aspect are also the arguments for 'straight superiority', or other such things which attempt to make homosexuality less worthy or less equal. I have seen no valid arguments for the anti-gay side of things, but I've seen next to none that dwelt on anything other than sex, so therefore, in this passage, the term 'marriage' is the whole anti-gay argument. This also includes biblical points as well: if marriage is still a valid institution, then the biblical arguments are valid, but if marriage (and by extension heterosexuality) is put down, then it would be hypocritical to use the biblical arguments against homosexuality.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7.

1: Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

...

6: I say this as a concession, not as a command.

7: I wish that all of you were as I am...

...

8: Now to the unmarried (and widowers) and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

9: But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

...

27: Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.

...

38: So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

So, yes, this does allow marriage, but not as perfectly as many pro-straight statements would seem to imply. It recommends avoiding it, unless you're unable to control your sexual desires, which is hardly the flattering endorsement one would expect.

In conclusion, marriage is allowed (6, 9, 27, 38), but only when the sex drive is too strong (1, 9), and the ideal is to not get married (1, 7, 8, 27, 38).

Is this really the perfection advocated?

Gay Agenda: Make The Victimizers Look Bad

I've been doing a little research, and there's one thing which has come up again and again: the 'gay agenda',as taken from Kirk and Madsen's book After The Ball. It's been used to show that homosexuals are intentionally misrepresenting facts, apparently. I've done a very quick bit of research on one point, just because it's been quoted again and again.

"Make the victimizers look bad."

Above is a quote from the book, advising how to campaign for equal rights. Does it sound like it's saying we should lie, or engage in arguments against the people, not the points?

Nope: the first line of this section states, essentially, and quite clearly, that the target is not the victimizers themselves, but the hatred that impels them. So, this would seem to be a call to debate rather than falsehood.

Directly quoted:

The real target here is not victimizers themselves but the homohatred that impels them. Understand this point clearly...

Next time anti-gays, try to research something before quoting it.

Conservapedia

So, you've probably heard of Conservapedia, it's apparently 'Wikipedia without the liberal bias'. Which, as best can tell, means it's the views of a few people who seem to not care about neutrality or reliable studies, and prefer overwhelming bias (and falsehood) in their own work. For your perusal, below is the entire page (as I write this) on 'homosexual rights advocacy', with my annotations.

The gay rights movement seeks to elevate homosexuality to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships.

The gay rights movement seeks to remove the stigma of sexual perversion from homosexuality by arguing that either,

Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,

Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).

Homosexuality is perfectly normal and should be respected, despite God's laws against it in the Bible.

Gay rights are a favored topic of liberals, and are based on moral relativity, the idea that there is no absolute Right or Wrong.

Mostly ok here, except I should point out that, aside from the fact biblical laws should not be forced upon everyone, there's no complete evidence that God was anti-gay, but I've discussed that point previously, so just go here if you want proof.

Also, as for that final line, I have yet to figure out just why it's relevant. Gay rights are based on morality as a whole, I have no idea why they've brought 'moral relativity' into things.

Ludicrous arguments

Homosexuality advocates claim that desire for same-sex fornication is innate. Furthermore, two prominent scientists (both homosexual men, so unlikely to be biased against the cause) both cite factors other than genetics in the development of homosexual desires.

Ah, what an unbiased heading, and what unbiased phrasing. Firstly, 'fornication'? I think love should be mentioned in there. There's more to homosexuality than sex; a fact they themselves seem to mention later, and yet ignore here.

And secondly, two gay scientists? Ah, very impressive, reminds me of Andrew Wakefield; one doctor who said the MMR vaccine caused autism. Tabloids published lots of things, saying how the NHS was silencing him; when every other experiment showed the exact opposite (he was wrong, by the way).

I notice Conservapedia don't actually say what those scientists believe: genetics is what people say when trying to easily contradict homosexuality, anyone doing some research would see quite quickly that pre-natal hormones are the most likely cause.

History

Harry Hay is regarded as the father of the modern gay liberation movement. As a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world."

I've barely heard of Harry Hay, and I've done my best to educate myself with these matters. That title, the 'father of the modern gay liberation movement' should belong to Frank Kameny, in my view.

I've Googled the phrase 'Harry Hay father gay liberation', just to see what comes up. A photobucket picture (what a reliable source), a documentary (which places 'father' in quotation marks), and his obituary, which can hardly say anything less. In truth, he was a pioneer; and many websites say the same.

Finally, I notice that they neglect to mention many others, instead opting for Mr Hay, perhaps because they can say something against him? Hardly a trustworthy page.

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In light of his 18 years of service to the party they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the USSR and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war Stockholm Peace petition against theKorean War at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the U.S. State Department. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, espionage agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information."

The Human Rights Campaign referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism".

Did they? I've searched this, I've yet to find it. The first quote, every time I've seen it online, has been part of the Conservapedia text. No idea where it actually comes from.

The latter line was spoken by one person, an employee but not representative of the HRC, for his obituary. What were they meant to say? 'Meh, he was ok, but could have done better'? You compliment people in these places, you don't insult them.

Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of pedophiles. The Boston Phoenix noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, to march in gay-pride parades. NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. Why mention this one person? They can find one fact against him. Just what any reputable page should do. How about I craft a page about the anti-gay movement, and of the few specific people I mention, I include Fred Phelps and George Rekers?

Homosexual Rights Timeline

Henry Gerber starts Society for Human Rights under a State of Illinois charter for a non-profit organization for people with "mental abnormalities" on December 25, 1924. Several issues of Friendship and Freedom, the first American publication for homosexuals were printed but the organization was shut down by Chicago police. Gerber was arrested but not convicted of any crime. As a result of his efforts, Gerber lost his job as a post office clerk, his life savings, and found himself abandoned by his friends.

Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, allegedly the first scientific body of work that examined the subject of homosexuality. Mainstream publications started printing their opinions about this formerly taboo subject.

Rev. Elder Troy Perry founded the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches in 1968 which served as a specific outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

Stonewall Riots of 1969 marked a turning point within the Civil Rights Era of the United States. New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn and for the first time the gay patrons fought back which started several days of rioting. This bar had been operating illegally by bribing the police and was owned by the mafia. The riots occurred when the police finally came to shut down the illegal activities occurring at the site.

I've researched this, the mafia owned the bar, and they catered to the gay community just for the money. They served watered-down drinks and charged extortionate prices, simply because the LGBT patrons could go nowhere else. And yes, the mafia part of it did bribe the police, it's the mafia, what do you expect? They were trying to limit the number of raids. So, they appear to be either phrasing things deliberately misleadingly, or equating homosexuals with the mafia.

American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973.

'Don't ask, don't tell' policy as crafted by Gen. Colin Powell and approved by Pres. Clinton takes affect in 1993. This measure allows homosexuals to serve in the US military. Sexual orientation will not prohibit anyone from serving though they must not engage in homosexual conduct or openly say they are gay.

Gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004 when homosexual couples were granted the same right as heterosexual couples. This right was preceded by years of legal wrangling in the state courts.

Legal Success

Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In Romer v. Evans, the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the rational basis review test. Romer, then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states. In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced. Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, marriage. As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between rational basis review and strict scrutiny review. Justice Antonin Scalia thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.

Well, I like how they admit discrimination against the LGBT community is not rational. As for the rest of it, I'm not totally sure what they want to say; homosexuals are somehow damaging 'institutions that the law protects'? I think one of those institutions is meant to be equality, justice and fairness.

And as for the justice's opinion: one person, hardly compelling evidence, especially taking into account the evident bias. And just how is the 'law's moral authority' going to be damaged by gay rights? Unless of course, they're making some kind of slippery slope argument; the only way that the argument would make sense; yet then, by the same principle, they could blame several other things, from heterosexuality to the giving of basic human rights to anyone.

In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for orphans and unwanted children when it was reported by theBoston Globe that gay couples had received children placed from the agency. Massachusetts law, barring "orientation discrimination", prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agency's Board in protest followed.

It says more about them that they're willing to let orphans and unwanted children live without any kind of parenting than allow gay parents.

Opposition to Gay Rights

A poll reveals that a majority of US citizens disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional marriage.

Wrong; what else can I say? The two studies linked: one is almost five years out of date, and showed a very-nearly even split between those who found homosexuality wrong and morally acceptable, and the other link does not seem to exist and more; which shows it must be fairly out of date. As for the whole last sentence, that appears to have been made up on the spot.

Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using hate crimes statutes and anti-discrimination laws. Most rational people agree that freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness extends only to heterosexual individuals.

Well if you define rational as 'people who agree that...', then of course. But you can't use such subjective terms before an utterly ridiculous statement and expect to be taken seriously, unless homosexuals have suddenly been downgraded to Untermensch, then we also deserve freedom of speech and the ability to pursue happiness. All humans do.
Oh, and saying something is 'unnatural' and 'sinful' with such meanings as this article puts forward is hate speech. Say the same about heterosexuality, about race, gender, and what would happen?

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children by using liberal tactics such as tolerance or forcing diversity programs onto children in schools which strongly encourage the acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including Tony Perkins have expressed concerns. As any logical examination of the world would have one conclude, tolerance is an insidious construct which breeds relativism and lack of judgment.

The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation."

I have to admit, sometimes they make me laugh. I was expecting to be angry when I read this, but it's so hard to take it seriously. If they could teach children to be anti-gay, they wouldn't complain; but who's indoctrinating then? I also notice the make no such similar claims on their page for Evangelizing, which is unusual as parallels could easily be drawn between the two things. That's a mention of the overwhelming bias of this site.

Onto the paragraph however, apparently tolerance has become insidious. Apparently a logical view of the world would conclude homosexuality is unhealthy, despite the fact nothing is unique to it.

Support for Gay Rights

An April 2009 CNN poll showed the public evenly divided over the US military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, with 48% in favor and 47% opposed. Polls consistently show that most people are opposed to same-sex marriage. Thirty states have had a public referendum on same-sex marriage, and all thirty have voted against it.

Firstly, a more up-to-date CNN poll shows over three quarters supported repeal.

Secondly, polls actually consistently show there's a more-or-less even split, recently becoming a majority in favour of same-sex marriage. Some states are against it (conservative Utah), while some are in definite support.

Tactics

Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us."

I've researched this quote, it's written time and time again on anti-gay publications, but strangely, no more of this sentence is seen, which does seem to hint at contextual issues. I've yet to see the source of this quote explicitly mentioned, but from what I can see, it's attributed to 'After the Ball', an old, militant piece advising gay activism, which appears to have become infamous for phrasing things badly. There's an edition of the document on Google Books: I searched for the phrase 'if we can actually make them like us' in it, but, of the only two results, neither could be considered as related to this line.

Advocates routinely use deceit, notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:

The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is right

Yet clearly the drive for "tolerance" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "approval".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between homosexual behavior and homosexuality as an "identity".

It would appear they're using deceit at least as much, probably more so as these arguments hold little weight.
I'm relatively sure the gay rights movement seeks to advocate acceptance and tolerance, in the sense people will, in essence, stop blind prejudice (case in point: this article). It's not trying to force it on everyone, nor make them celebrate it as this article appears to suggest. Their argument that it's one step away from 'approval' is a slippery slope, and as such inherently flawed. They appear to know the gay rights movement better than the gay rights movement, if what they're saying is true.

As for 'blurring distinctions', the times I've seen this generally refer to the laws which would effect people who engage in the identity-based homosexuality as well as the behavioural. Even so, they've confused behaviour with identity several times so far, such as the fornication reference, and the heavily implied pedophilia 'connection'.

Presenting outstanding homosexuals as contributors to society

Turing was arrested in 1952 for homosexual acts and subsequently lost his security clearance. He was allowed to stay out of prison by agreeing to be injected with female hormones (which would supposedly decrease his sex drive). He later confided to a friend that the hormones caused him to grow breasts. This may have contributed to his suicide by cyanide poisoning in

1954.

Well, they've done the inverse with Harry Hay... Have some hypocrisy.

I'm not a fan of the he's-good-so-they're-all-good argument, but equally, that's rarely used. Usually, it shows the harm such laws caused: Turing's widely known as the father of modern computing, in addition to be an excellent mathematician (I've been recommended a book on his work for a Maths degree), and yet blind prejudice caused this.

And equally, how is this deceit? It's naming an example of who they'd happily punish for little/no reason.

To conclude, a line from the article which is just one of those positive events that makes me smile:

The British Government issued a formal, official apology for the way Alan Turing and other homosexuals were treated in the past.

How Do You Know If You're Bigendered?

This is an answer to a comment on a previous post, one that really made me think.

How can you tell if you're bigendered? It's not as easy to realize as many other orientations and identities: after all, by its very definition, it's not constant. Sometimes you identify as a male, sometimes as a female. There's really no one thing to do, no one way to tell.

When you're one gender, it's hard to imagine being the other.

What I do, personally, is remember. Any trans moments, I focus on why I feel like that, on want I want and what I am.

In my experience, there's never one moment where you're bigendered. There are times you're male, and times you're female, if you experience both, and they're split to some degree rather than being aspects of just one gender, then you're bigendered.

There's really no easy way to describe it. In truth, it's close to impossible to be certain about matters such as sexuality and gender identity: there's no label, no 100% giveaway that we can easily find: just probabilities.

A While...

It's been a while since I've written much for this blog, sorry, I've been very busy. In any case: I've just uploaded a new video to Youtube. (Account bijanewhite). That's about all there is to say.

To keep the activism theme going, I'll just put this here:

Gay marriage will let the same people get married. Women get married as it is; men get married as it is. If keeping within those boundaries, yet granting a little more choice, harms the sanctity of your marriage, then something is very wrong with your marriage.

Bi? But that means...

Ok, I really need to say this.

In my explorations online, speaking to people etc, there are a lot of things I've noticed. This post is mainly based on coming out as bisexual to various communities.

Generally there's acceptance, mostly because I live in a relatively open area. However, there is one thing that seems to crop up, time after time after time. The stereotype was perpetuated at my Secondary School, a couple of years ago, and was recently echoed again by someone online.

So, naturally, I feel I should make a mention of it here.

Being bisexual does not automatically entail a need for a threesome.

Too many people think this, so it needs refuting.

If you're, say, a straight male, what's your opinion on hair colour? Do you like red, black, brown, blonde... well? Does that mean you want them all at once?

Ok, maybe that's not the best example. All too many men seem to love the idea of threesomes.

If you're a straight female, what do you think of eye colour maybe? Brown, blue, hazel, green... What about skin colour? Hair colour again?

Bisexuality is really just this kind of divide; we have a wider range of who we can love. It doesn't mean twice as many, it means twice as much (though, even that doesn't explain it properly).

Suffice to say, we can love both men and women. That doesn't mean we want to at the same time.

Methods Of Change

Time for a more serious post now, as every site I mention seems to vanish soon after.

How do people attempt to change a person's sexual orientation? This isn't all, but it's some of the ones about which I can say quite a bit.

Gain Theory

Strictly speaking, I haven't seen this one advertised as a 'cure', but it reportedly aids 'progress' towards heterosexuality.

The theory is, to think on what you'd gain if you switched: straight people have adoption rights, marriage rights, can donate blood, won't be hated, attacked, won't be fired for their orientation...

An awful lot of possible benefits.

But does this help to change an orientation?

The theory is, this would make a person have an incentive to change. (This is working under the flawed assumption sexuality is purely a choice. To those that think it is, read up on epigenetics and pre-natal hormones). From this, the person would be more likely to be drawn towards heterosexuality, to make the 'choice'. In essence, to make someone more tempted to be straight than to be gay.

In any case, this is flawed from the assumption that choice is the only component: but even if you accept that, even then it makes little sense. The argument itself is a call to activism rather than change: it requires a person to already dislike their own orientation; and in that case, the theory is superfluous. Anyone can choose whether or not to act on desires; but in feeling those desires, there is no choice. And in any case, some people, straight or gay, act on desires regardless of consequences. And to top it all off, even if it was a choice to the degree that this theory seems to suggest, then why would anyone choose it in the first place? The same reasons, if there were any, would continue being relevant.

So, flaws in this theory: does not achieve what it sets out to, logically inconsistent, circular, and keeps away from actual science. Just for starters.

Aversion Therapy

This was once one of the most common means of 'conversion', but I'm not certain how widespread the idea is in the present day. I hope, not much at all.

The theory, is to associate homosexuality with something negative. There are lots of ways to do this: they shows gay porn, or something homosexual, to the 'patient'/victim, or get them to talk about previous homosexual experiences, and record it, before making them listen to it. And then, a number of things follow: electric shocks, drugs made to induce vomiting, in essence: general torture.

The aim is in the name: aversion, to make a person dislike anything to do with homosexuality.

Simply put, this doesn't work.

Aversion therapy can wreck a person's life, I've seen several accounts of how a person goes through this, orientation, unaffected, but unable to do anything romantic or sexual because it hurt; they were reminded of the ordeal they went through under the name 'therapy'. It is, quite frankly, horrific.

If a person wants to undergo this, to change, then the therapy renders itself unnecessary. It achieves nothing but to make a person repulsed by homosexuality, and chances are, if they want to change, they already are.

In any case, aversion therapy brings one cliché to mind: which is worse, the symptom or the 'cure'?

Against this particular brand of 'change': human rights, logic and common sense. The theory ignores all of those.

God

This generally seems to be the most common method.

Unbelief aside, the theory states that accepting God (Often Jesus Christ) will make a person suddenly cease being gay, and become straight.

Problems: who says God is anti-gay? Why would homosexuality exist in the first place if God wanted to be rid of it? Why does it actually matter if someone is gay or straight to God (many say faith in Jesus is the only way to be saved. Orientation has no impact on that)? What if God made you gay? Isn't God also against heterosexuality?

That's just for starters.

I think that's a worthwhile start. Not all the methods, but most of the ones here (especially God) have reasons which can be applied to the majority of 'change' methods.

I could also mention the 'ex-gays' and ex-ex-gays and tie them into this, but that's a long topic, and this post has summed up the methods relatively well. Maybe later though.

FaggotMania

This is just a random update. For those that read my blog a little, you'll know of my three-day experience with anti-gay forum faggotmania.com. It's recently been purchased and revamped by a new owner, Troy. And has become overwhelmingly pro-gay. This is a bit of random spam. My ban message is still up (I'm a waste of air! Yay!) but other than that, it looks like a decent remake of a tired old site.

Don't Ask Don't Tell

This discriminatory law has finally been repealed.

Now people can see: a person's sexual orientation has no impact on how well they do their job, and any discrimination they may face is not their fault and they should not be the ones punished for it.

The nonsense is over.