Bisexuality-Bigender-Bi bye!

One Point

2011-08-13T17:07:00.001+01:00

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

2011-08-13T14:20:00.003+01:00

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

2011-07-01T18:20:00.004+01:00

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

2011-06-28T17:32:00.008+01:00

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?

2011-05-13T18:05:00.002+01:00

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...

2011-03-30T18:22:00.002+01:00

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...

2011-01-27T16:29:00.002Z

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

2011-01-09T16:32:00.007Z

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

2010-12-22T16:33:00.002Z

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

2010-12-18T17:54:00.002Z

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.

Manhattan Declaration

2010-12-03T19:00:00.004Z

You might have heard of the iPhone app known as the Manhattan Declaration, which said it was a survey, and ended up rating a person on their responses: if pro-gay, marked down etc. Of course, it wasn't solely about homosexuality, but the amount NOM has been raving about it, you'd think it was.

NOM, the National Organization for Marriage, is attempting to pressure Apple to put the app back in stores, after it was removed for being intentionally misleading, offensive and mocking. A petition signed by thousands, if not millions of names (of which mine is a proud part) from site change.org, was a prime cause of this.

As NOM appear so distraught over the loss of the app, I thought I'd make a demonstration. Below is a link to Google Docs, and a program on it I created, intended to give you the full Manhattan Declaration experience, with a twist.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BzXMvBNljAXsNTRiYTYwZTUtNmE4Ny00Nzc5LTkzMzQtY2JlNDJlZjkzYjE5&hl=en

In conclusion, the app was blatantly inciting discord, I have no problem with religion, but I do have a problem when it is used as feeble justification for hatred. which the Manhattan Declaration is clearly an example of.

The Gay Agenda

2010-11-25T16:47:00.004Z

The room is darkened, the many people sat neatly around the triangular, central table are unable to make out much detail. The only illumination came from a small scented candle in the middle of the table. The tiny flame revealed the garish pink tablecloth, but little more than that.

"Welcome," the figure at the head of the table spoke, "To Meeting 234 of the Gay Agenda."

Silence greeted his proclamation.

He surveyed the people around the table.

"Each of you are among the Elite," he spoke slowly, "The people who succeeded in converting the largest amount of straight youth. I give you my congratulations."

Reading from a list, he spoke again.

"Well done, Agent Barrowman, Agent Degeneres, and Agents Quin and Quin."

The nameless head of the Gay Agenda lowered the files. Again, slowly, he looked up. Around the table, those four named sat, Agents Quin and Quin just next to each other, the rest far apart, on other sides of the triangle. Several empty chairs rested between them however, outlining the triangle, each in honour of another Gay Elite who was unable to attend due to another engagement, or an untimely demise.

A gold plaque was raised from the table in front of each space, a name painstakingly carved in each. Mercury, Wilde, Gaynor, Gaga, Herman, were among the clearest. Several other names were there, only too hard to read in the darkness.

Hidden behind a plaid robe, the head of the Gay Agenda turned a page.

"Our aims for the next year are much the same. The Priesthood are still a major target, however this year we have achieved a record number of converts." the Head lifted the sheet, taking a little effort to make out the next few sentences.

"I wish to dedicate this meeting to new Agent, Lauper. Her recent campaigning has been instrumental in our growing debauched army. As you are no doubt aware, Anna Paquin and Ricky Martin have been taken in by our web."

Agent Barrowman and Agent Degeneres both cheered at the announcement.

"What's the status on Tennant?" Barrowman queried

The Head of the Gay Agenda lifted a small PDA, entering the name 'David Tennant' quickly.

"The Kinseymeter," he soon spoke, "Rates him at 1.03."

Agent Barrowman sighed, his suit glittering a little even in the vague light.

"Perry?" the Quin twins spoke together

"Katy Perry is rated at 4.3. She recently failed the entry test."

A silence seemed to swell, until the Head stood up.

"It is time for a recess. I have been informed Agent Elton John, and Agent David Bowie should be able to join us in part 2 where we discuss the gradual decay of the sanctity of marriage, and the persecution of Christianity. Meanwhile, I hope you make full use of our sauna and gym below."

The Elite of the Gay Agenda slowly trekked out, leaving the pink, triangular table in the dimly lit room. 'I Will Survive' played from outside the door, until that too was muted as the doors slid shut.

If anyone can find any proof of this, well done. Until then, the 'Gay Agenda' is the last resort of paranoid homophobes. And I use that word with full knowledge of what it implies: I much prefer the term 'anti-gay' for in many cases it is not a fear. However, when a campaign for equality, whatever you may think of it, becomes an 'Agenda', a fear is the only way to describe it.

Mormons and Homosexuality

2010-11-11T00:42:00.005Z

Book Of Mormon. Mosiah 27: 3 And there was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men;

Enough said.

Fear

2010-11-08T18:24:00.002Z

Rollercoasters. What do they have to do with gay rights? Not much, except as a key analogy.

They make you scared: they make you scream. Like horror movies: their purpose is to make you afraid, fearful. And what is fear? The body's warning system, keep away, don't do that. So, why do people do back for more?

It's unnatural. It is a conscious decision to go against the body's inborn desires and partake in an unnatural, possibly harmful activity, for a momentary, unnatural happiness.

Where have I heard that argument before?

(Sorry for the large amount of short posts, very busy at the moment so I'm leaving these 'teaser' points).

God Made Adam And Eve (etc etc)

2010-11-03T22:12:00.002Z

It's a common enough argument: "God Made Adam And Eve Not Adam And Steve!!"

Substitute in whatever names appropriate.

There are two responses, excluding the non-believer one.

1. http://adamandevenotadamandsteve.tumblr.com/

2. Why yes, yes he did. How did that turn out again? Ah, right, exiled from Eden. So this is what? Pro-straight? You're sure?

Sex On The Brain

2010-10-23T18:36:00.007+01:00

This is something that's always bothered me. Anti-gays have always complained about the apparent promiscuity of lesbian, gay and bisexual, especially the latter according to stereotypes. Well, first off, dispelling that, a study carried out over millions of people.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/

Anyway, moving on.

Why do so many anti-gays obsessed with sex? I say this not as an ad hominem, but as an observation.

Arguments against homosexuality: a focus on the sexual aspect, the sexual aspect, ah yes, more issues to do with the sexual aspect, a little more on the sexual aspect, and on occasion, very rarely, a smattering of confusion about physical attraction. Okay, I kind of understand it, according to some the sexual aspect of homosexuality can be unhealthy (except for lesbians, but they don't mention that), but this appears to be higher in anti-gay places.

http://www.africaninterest.com/africa/uganda%E2%80%99s-anti-gay-law-threatens-hivaids-fights/

Now, the pro-straight attitudes, I have nothing against people being proud of being straight, my issue is when they try to promote social superiority.

In my research, I have found several places, promoting heterosexual superiority as much as homosexual inferiority. Without fail, they have been orientated almost exclusively around sex.

One is a forum, a whole board devoted to porn of heterosexual sex and women, with one female member threatened with being banned simply for saying women are not solely for sex. Just one example of many, of pro-heterosexuality places dissolving to little more than unbridled promiscuity.

Another is a rapper with an album entitled 'Straight Pride'. Titles: 'I Look Good', 'Who's That Girl 2010' (http://www.taylorkarras.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/dedicatedtoanybody_thumb.jpg), 'Rock Ya Baby', 'Controlled By The Pussy', among others. See for yourself: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/charliecheckm4

Preferably, don't buy it.

These are just the first few examples I can find, I know that there are more. Some of the most common anti-gay and pro-straight things seem little more than pro-sex, ignoring love, as many accuse gay and lesbian people of doing, and simply referring to lust.

I am not saying this is applicable to all anti-gays, nor am I attacking heterosexuality, I am only mentioning the part-hypocrisy, part-sexism of many extreme-pro-straight anti-gays.

Is this right?

Their Stories

2010-10-20T16:23:00.004+01:00

October 20th 2010: Spirit Day.

Wear purple: purple in honour of the purple stripe on the rainbow flag, the stripe representing spirit.

People have killed themselves for being gay, for being the victims of bullying for that very reason. Just one person would be too many, but there has been more than just one suicide.

Tyler Clementi

A 19 year old student at Rutger's University. His roommate watched Tyler and his boyfriend on webcam, and recorded this. Tyler Clementi threw himself off a bridge upon finding out.

Raymond Chase

A 19 year old student at Johnson & Wales University, nothing would make him different to any other student, he was a member of a popular facebook page, and enjoyed common programmes. He hung himself.

Seth Walsh

Thirteen years old, and yet bullied relentlessly by peers, online, offline, phone, just because he was gay. His mother found him hanging from a tree, and he spent a week on life support before finally passing away.

Asher Brown

A thirteen year old at Hamilton Middle School who shot himself after bullying on basis of his height, his religious beliefs, and his sexuality: his peers acted out mock gay sex acts in class.

Billy Lucas

A fifteen year old at Greensburg High School. Like Asher, the school knew he was a victim of bullying, and yet nothing was done. A friend says the bullies told him he was gay, so he should kill himself. Hateful messages have been left on his facebook memorial page.

These are not the only ones. But these are still too many lives lost.

Organizations

2010-10-15T23:50:00.003+01:00

There are a lot of anti-gay organizations. A lot. Here's a brief discussion of a few.

They come from my posts here: http://faggotmania.net/index.php?topic=7

You may need an account to view them, sorry. I'll be continuing this post along that forum, so if you're interested then you should sign up.

Americans For 'Truth'
http://americansfortruth.com/
Peter LaBarbera is their president. Their name is also the acronym AFTAH (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality). They say they're working for an America "in the spirit of love and truth commanded by God", and believe by becoming Christian, one can stop being gay. However, they only seem to reference biased sources: such as those claims about 'ex-gays', saying many people have stopped being gay, while ignoring that most of these statistics come from people with a bias, and that no 'ex-gay' organization has ever claimed to make people straight, and the few that do get married heterosexually most often experienced heterosexual attraction before the 'change'.
They claim they oppose violence and hate against homosexuals, and yet have quoted Leviticus, the same chapter death to homosexuals is suggested, and continually say the media is "exploiting" the tragic suicides of gay teens, but aren't they doing the same by downplaying the pity?
I could go on for a long, long time about those people. Instead, I'll just say one more thing: a blogger compared their tactics to the hate tactics of the KKK, most likely a relatively light-hearted post, but AFTAH responded in full force, angry mocking, attacking the blogger. It wasn't actually about their main topic, homosexuality, they instead decided to break from tradition and defend their pride: they also use ad hominems a great deal, such as one against Frank Kameny.

NARTH
http://www.narth.com/
An organization a lot of people seem to quote as 'reliable' information. An organization which appears to try and remove links to Christianity, though they have made posts like 'The Bible Still Matters'. The National Organization for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. The say they are not anti-gay, and say they respect a person's right to "choose" to be gay, but their actual work dos not reflect this. They have a box saying 'defend the truth' just above an area to donate to them, which doesn't sound specifically accepting. They also "dispel three myths" about homosexuality, one being that it's an acceptable alternative, and instead say it's "unhealthy, and more vulnerable to substance abuse" which seems to ignore the root cause of the event: the hatred inspired. Indeed, they believe homosexuality is a choice, so how can substance abuse be related?
They also say homosexuality is not biologically determined, and that no studies support this, which is in direct contrast to the many studies showing the physical differences between gay and straight people, as well as the famous elder brother studies. They also say it is possible to change, and so also struggle with the same problem AFTAH did, which is ignoring the actual people who claimed to change. Peterson Toscano illustrates my point: a gay man who spent 17 years and $13,000 trying to change his orientation. It didn't work, and he is now the joint founder of BeyondExGay to help those who struggled with ex-gay experiences.
NARTH also appears to imply sexism in some posts: one post a while ago about same-sex adoption, stated people were less likely to take gender-normal jobs when raised by same-sex parents, which begs the question, why? Why is it so bad that people don't follow outdated stereotypes of gender?

Westboro Baptist Church
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Enough said. Who likes them? They are a hateful organization, made obvious by their signs 'Thank God For 9/11', 'God Hates Fags', 'God Hates Sweden', 'God Hates Australia', 'God Hates Lady Gaga' (that's going too far!) and countless other things. Their founder, Fred Phelps, beats his children, and once threw his wife down a staircase, damaging her shoulder so she needed to attend hospital, which I believe he refused to do. There is also the tale of Debbie Valgos, which I refuse to relate again, I almost cry upon thinking about it. Look it up.
They have also made many song parodies, of Queen, Lady Gaga, the Beatles etc, all promoting their message-which is frowned upon by pro-gays and anti-gays alike.

Ruth Institute (Project of NOM, National Organization for Marriage)
http://www.ruthinstitute.org/index.html
So, you've no doubt heard of NOM, who firmly oppose same-sex marriages, and have recently embarked on a bus tour over America promoting 'traditional' marriage. One of their projects is known as the Ruth Institute, who apparently take their name from the book in the Bible, I haven't seen them say this, but a separate site explained this, and it's the only thing that makes sense as the founder is called Dr Jennifer, not Ruth. Anyway, their use of that particular person is interesting as there's evidence suggesting that particular biblical character was a lesbian (http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html) so, well, it's something to think about.
There's so, so much to say about the Ruth Institute (you can see their core values here: http://www.ruthblog.org/about/ ). There's sexism in their second aim, and in the fourth: which is one thing that's always bugged me, in all too many anti-gay organizations, sexism is rampant. An anti-gay site (www.faggotmania.com) ranks women as second to men, and threatened banning one woman for complaining that other members were treating women as if they were solely for sex. But that's not the Ruth Institute, so back on subject.
The reason for this post is because the Ruth Institute has broken the law. Section 501(c)(3) of the Federal Tax Code states non-profit groups, like Ruth, don't have to pay taxes, but in return, they must not endorse or oppose candidates for elected office, and should stick to their 'charitable mission'. The Ruth Institute however has dedicated staff and resources to defeating Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled for equal marriage, campaigned for Carly Fiorina, an anti-gay candidate for a US senate seat, and have participated in Californian Judicial Elections: all of which violate federal law. Thanks to the phenomenal HRC to this information.
Read the full story: http://nomexposed.org/blog/nom-ruth-institute-busted/

In Support

2010-10-13T15:53:00.002+01:00

I think it's time to make a cheerier post. I'll get back to my normal kinds of posting soon, when my time isn't divided between work and other sites.

For now, I must make a mention of a separate site.

http://faggotmania.net/

Despite the similarity of the URL to the ridiculously sexist and anti-gay site discussed a while ago, this site is accepting. I highly recommend any readers to journey over there and sign up: it's quite early on in its life, though the posts are worth a read. You might even see me there!

I'm Bi

2010-10-11T21:44:00.002+01:00

I'm bisexual!

Well, you probably already knew that if you're on this blog, but it's National Coming out Day and I haven't posted anything for a while. So there you go.

Beware Straight Marriage!

2010-09-17T21:38:00.003+01:00

Gay marriage will lead to polyamory, bestiality, pedophilia etc: right, you hear that a lot, but we need to nip this issue in the bud. If gay marriage is such a terror, and if the consequences are truly linked, then we must go for the root cause.

Gay marriage is not the issue here.

Straight marriages are.

Straight marriages have spread over the world, due to what I shall term the 'straight agenda', people have started to accept it. These people even indoctrinate children to believe in their chosen lifestyle! Disgusting, isn't it?

But the Agenda is not the issue here: straight marriages are. As gay marriages lead to polyamory, bestiality, pedophilia etc, as evidenced by such unbiased sources as NARTH and FRC, then we must ask ourselves: what leads to gay marriage? The answer is obvious. Straight marriage.

There is not one place in the world that legalized gay marriage, that did not also legalize straight marriage. And if pedophilia is sure to follow from gay marriage, then by extension, it is sure to follow from straight marriage.

In conclusion, this post was sarcastic, and just highlights the frank absurdity of this argument.

If gay marriage leads to whatever atrocities you can think of, then by the same principle, heterosexual marriages lead to the same.

Biblically, 1st Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.

What, this doesn't count? Why not? Ah, context. Try applying that standard to other passages.

Racism

2010-08-24T12:22:00.007+01:00

It's a common debate: can the anti-gay movement be compared to racism? In my view yes. As Correta Scott King, wife of Martin Luther King, said:

Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.

So, that's my surface view summed up pretty well, but people do still have problems with the idea, two especially. I thought I'd make a mention of them.

Homosexuality is a choice: you can be 'ex-gay' but not'ex-African-American'

I have three responses to this:

1. Michael Jackson

2. Would racism be right if you could choose your race?

3. Homosexuality isn't a choice. Those that say they are 'ex-gay' have often simply repressed the need to act on their desires-anyone can choose to not act on a feeling, but startlingly few have managed to create heterosexual desires. Many either have a strong, often religiously motivated, bias, or they are bisexual.

For more information on the causes of homosexuality, see here: http://bijane.blogspot.com/2010/06/causes-of-homosexuality.html

There is a difference between a male and female, but not between different races

Does that mean sexism is right?
Of course not, but it's an obvious response to the above argument.

If there is a difference between a male and a female, does that mean one is inferior? Ask any civilized person and the answer is obvious: genders are equal. So, what relevance do the differences between genders have?

Anyway, yes, there are differences between the genders. And there are differences between people of different races, apart from the obvious. For one, easy-to-research point, people with darker skin are less susceptible to sunburn. So? Does that make them superior? No, it just makes them more adept in one certain area.

Oh, and to those who like the 'life wouldn't exist without straight people' argument, life wouldn't exist without Africans, according to some researchers. The first human life emerged in Africa millions of years ago: so does that make those people, those responsible for the origin, and those with some physical superiorities, higher class citizens than those of a different race?

No.

Ok, I veered off-topic there a little, but the point stands: a few differences don't constitute a difference in perception or rank. Nothing in law makes something applicable only to women, or only to men. Gender equality.

So to conclude the discussion of this point: there are differences between people of different races, but people don't care about these points. And there are differences between genders, pretty major ones at that, but no one really pays attention to them, save for the area of attraction. But again, many people are attracted to one skin colour more than the other, so the two areas are considerably more analogous than people think.

Anti-Gay Site

2010-08-08T20:54:00.018+01:00

This post is rated 15, in the UK film certificate manner. Contains strong language and somewhat adult themes.

I recently saw an anti-gay site, made an account to refute some points, and was banned within a week to the charming message that I'm a waste of air.

Of course, with a little practice it's easy to view the site again, so I thought I'd make a mention of the, frankly, idiotic forum. On the surface, it's just a forum discussing the 'gay agenda' (a non-existent, ridiculous idea, by the way) and trying to promote the inferiority of homosexuals, of course they use the words 'fag' and 'faggot' as opposed to 'gay' or 'homosexual'.

The site is: www.faggotmania.com

A bit of free advertising for them. I do not endorse their message, but you can feel free to join up if you agree with their point of view, or if you feel like joining up to point out obvious flaws.

They've even got a ranking system.

Ah, but first, to make an account there's a little test you do to make sure you're not a spambot. That's always a good, thing except when they're using a variant on the Turing Test. The Turing Test is a way to tell who's human and who's a robot. Namesake is Alan Turing, a homosexual man. There's one element of hypocrisy already, before you've even made an account.

Anyway, back to the ranking system.

1. Straight Men - Superior in every way.
2. Straight Women - Superior in every way.
3. Fags Who Know Their Lifestyle is Wrong - These Fags have admitted to their sinful ways and do not promote the gay agenda. They try to help promote a healthy straight lifestyle.
4. Lesbians Who Know Their Lifestyle is Wrong - These Lesbians have admitted to their sinful ways and do not promote the gay agenda. They also try to help promote a healthy straight lifestyle.

5. Proud Fags and Lesbians - You are the lowest common denominator.

Well, that was informative. Notice how women are shown as inferior to men, unless they're homosexuals who are happy about their identity. It shows that the man who's running the website happily groups together genders if they're LGBT, but otherwise, even if they're self-hating LGBT, women are inferior.

Misogyny and hypocrisy and so far, we've only looked at the rules.

This is the page showing the rules of the site. Read the ranks for yourself, maybe look at some of the other rules while you're at it.

Now that's over with, a few more points.

There is a whole topic on this site dedicated to porn. The euphemistic title is 'fag conversion material' and it solely appears to feature women. It's an attempt to, apparently, make gay people become attracted to women. This makes absolutely no sense, and it doesn't take a genius to see that. Is it turning women into lesbians? No. So why would it turn gay men straight? Several people in the topic said they thought it wouldn't work, which raises an interesting question. With all the people, even anti-gays, who say it won't work, and the logical fallacies behind the idea, why are they even bothering to include it?

I'm really not impressed so far, and yet I've seen an anti-gay, who's been through several accounts on Youtube, move to the site and name it as his new home.

So far I've only done a light overview of the site, and I'll probably stick with that, not going into too much detail, simply because it would be unfair to single any one person out.

I've covered the points which would give even radical, non-misogynistic and non-idiotic anti-gays a pause for thought.

Now for one of the topics and some of the posts which appear to be moving homosexuals to a sub-human state, or in an appropriately Nazi manner, making homosexuals appear as untermensch.

To introduce the next bit, a word about the site's members. An alarming amount of them are in fact homosexuals who have begun to hate themselves, even a user with the name 'SelfLoathing'. I'm hesitant to claim they're all gay, as it's not hard to lie when setting up a profile. Interestingly, all these people still identify as 'gay' (or 'fag' as the site so eloquently puts it) despite the frequent claims that it's a choice.

Anyway, here are several printscreens, some written by these self-declared self-haters about degrading homosexuals to Untermensch.

So, apart from a blatant disregard for the educational system and the actual point of college (no comment), they suggest homosexuals, their Untermenschen, are worth little, except as slaves just so a few heterosexuals can have sex-in a manner which, if it even produced a child, would be a child with a great deal of problems, if conceived by a college-going woman. So their precious reproduction, their main (however flawed) reason for being 'superior' is irrelevant in this case.

And yet it is supported by the founder of that site, and no doubt others, evident by the creation of the topic.

And as a side note, how can they say a homosexual could have better knowledge, as well as the ability to put effort into work, and yet still be inferior?

Why are they saying a person who refuses to actually do work, is superior to one who does their work and puts effort in?

What else can I say? The aforementioned ex-youtuber on this site called it 'inspirational'. Inspirational indeed. Sexism, hypocrisy, and segregation of human beings to a state of being untermensch due to who they love.

Also, my browsing unearthed an interesting thread during which, for whatever reason, another unsigned want-to-be member had my same ban message. Anyway, this person was called 'a good addition to the forum' by one person, who met him on Youtube. A few posts later, this person is happily agreeing to the idea that the not-yet member is in fact an alternate identity of me. As a disclaimer, who do I look like, Dr Jekyll? Which begs the question: how is it possible that a 'good addition' to an anti-gay forum is me, or as Kudo, the member described me: 'that creepy faggot'.

That's this site done and dusted, as best I can. I can't do anything on the site, I can't even view the threads, because I'm banned. I'm also 'a waste of air' according to the ban message. But of course, I managed to get printscreens, and I have to confess I resorted to using a proxy site to be able to view this forum at all.

Three days I was on there.

Here is my snazzy final avatar on the site:

And I'm left asking one thing: Why?

All I did was disagree. No swearing, unlike other members, mild mannered posting, I didn't say they were 'homophobic', I used their term, as I normally do-'anti-gay'-and I didn't try to advertise anything.

I just disagreed, and provided trustworthy, sometimes two-sided links to back up my points. I went out of my way to not reference at all LGBT supportive (biased) material, save for scientific studies, and to avoid 'gay websites'.

I just posted a contrary viewpoint.

And I'm left asking one thing.

What could make my words worth banning me? How could my words be so threatening, so extreme, that the site's moderators resorted to preventing me from ever writing again on the website?

Why?

Prop 8!

2010-08-07T23:31:00.004+01:00

Proposition 8, an amendment in California to ban gay marriage, has been overturned as unconstitutional.

I'm in the UK and I I still feel the impact of this.

Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

So what does that say about those who are against same-sex marriage? What does that say about the many places which have no same-sex marriage?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

Youtube Highlights

2010-07-22T10:27:00.009+01:00

I've been on Youtube a while now, and have left it before going back on it again, recently, to post videos. So I thought that, as a bit of variation, I'd share the top few experiences I've had on Youtube, among other places.

Seeing the WBC 'dance'. If you get a chance, watch their 'Everburn' video on mute, so you don't get the ridiculous lyrics but you get to see them making fools out of themselves.

Finding someone who uses the Bible to support his anti-gay attitudes while being fine with adultery and fornication.

A discussion in the comments of a video in which someone informed me of the ill-effects on those places that support homosexuality. One of those places, supportive of homosexuality, was Nazi Germany.

Being asked on a date by an anti-gay who has the same gender as my biological sex.

Joining up on a very anti-gay forum, and receiving a warning pretty much explicitly stating that the warning was for posting a factual link-and as best I can tell, the link was one that gave a pro-gay and anti-gay viewpoint. Read that however you want.

Update: I've now been banned from that forum despite the fact since my warning the only post I'd made included no links-save for one to a dictionary, and some to an anti-gay site-or anything and actually obeyed the rules.

Intelligence

2010-07-19T11:23:00.006+01:00

BDFHJL C PRTXVZNYEIWGAKMUSQO

I take it you know what that means. No? Well, it's quite simple, give it a few goes trying to decipher it and it should be obvious. Alternatively, you can go here to see what the code really says: http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~eporton/abc.gif

Look: http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/enigma/example1.htm

So, what has this got to do with anything? Well, if you didn't understand the code, you are less intelligent than a homosexual. No, I'm not saying we're all that clever, but I am saying that if you plan to group all homosexuals as sub-human, or worthy of death-like in an alarming number of places-then you are also condemning geniuses like this.

Who am I talking about?

Well, that's the main topic of this post: I'm considering starting up a theme in the next few posts, discussing prominent LGBT figures, so, without further ado, I give you:

Alan Turing

Alan Turing was a brilliant mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst and computer scientist during World War II. He was born on the 21st June, 1912.

At age 6, he went to St Michael's school, and his headmistress, among many others, recognized his talent. In 1926, at age 14, he was enrolled at the famous independent school, Sherbourne School. Unfortunately his first day there coincided with the General Strike in Britain, but as he was so determined, he rode 60 miles (96.56km) solo, on a bicycle. How many 14 year olds could perform such an astounding feat?

Alan Turing had a natural inclination towards mathematics and science, in 1927 he solved several advanced problems before he'd even studied elementary calculus. By age 16, 1928, he read and understood Albert Einstein.

His first love interest was the slightly older fellow student, Christopher Morcom, who sadly died a few weeks into their last term at Sherbourne due to bovine tuberculosis.

Next, Turing went on to study in King's College, Cambridge. Undergraduate from 1931-1934, he graduated with first class honours in mathematics, and in 1935 was elected a fellow. In 1936, his momentous paper "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" was published, in which he reformulated Kurt Gödel's 1931 results and replaced Gödel's universal arithmetic based form language with what are known as, now, Turing Machines.

Around 1938 he started to work part time with the Government Code and Cipher School (GCCS).

Then, 1939. War.

The day after the UK declared war on Germany, he reported to Bletchely Park, the wartime division of GCCS. This was where he came up with the idea for a way to break the Enigma code, within weeks of arriving he had specified such a machine. It was known as a 'bombe'. The first was installed on the 18th March, 1940.

Turing also began work on the German naval Enigma, which involved an indicator system more complex than those used by other services. In December 1939, he cracked it, and in the same night conceived the idea of Banberismus, a statistical technique to aid in breaking the naval Enigma.

In 1941, he proposed marriage to co-worker Joan Clarke, to whom he admitted his homosexuality. She was reportedly 'unfazed'. However, Turing felt he could not go through with it and ended the engagement.

Turing also helped develop SIGSALY, a secure speech system used on the highest level Allied communications.

In 1945, he was awarded an OBE, despite the fact his work had to be kept secret.

Three remarkable papers written just before the war, on three diverse mathematical subjects, show the quality of the work that might have been produced if he had settled down to work on some big problem at that critical time. For his work at the Foreign Office he was awarded the OBE.

-Royal Society, 1955

On the 19th February, 1946, he presented a paper which was the first detailed design of a stored-program computer. The first Automatic Computing Engine (ACE) was built in his absence while he returned to Cambridge in 1947 for a sabbatical year. It executed its first program on the 10th May, 1950. In 1948, Turing was pronounced Reader in the Mathematics Department in Manchester. In 1949, he became deputy director of the computing laboratory in the University of Manchester.

In 1952, Turing met Arnold Murray outside a cinema. The following Monday they met again in Manchester, Murray accompanied Turing to Turing's house. A few weeks later, Murray visited Turing's house and spent the night.

Later, after a series of events in which Murray helped an accomplice break into Turing's house, and the crime was reported to the police, Turing admitted to a homosexual relationship with Murray. Under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, this was a crime.

The same 'crime' the phenomenal Oscar Wilde committed fifty years earlier.

He had a choice: imprisonment, or chemical castration and probation. He accepted the latter.

On the 8th, June, 1954, Alan Turing's cleaner found him dead, after committing suicide by taking a bite out of a cyanide poisoned apple. Even then, Turing had made sure that his mother would have plausible deniability of a suicide.

RIP Alan Turing, 1912-1954.

Hyperboloids of wondrous Light
Rolling for aye through Space and Time
Harbour those Waves which somehow Might
Play out God's holy pantomime

On the 10th September, 2010, over 50 years after his death, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in one of the few acts of his I will agree with, publicly apologized for the old British Government's treatment of Alan Turing, calling the government's actions 'appalling'.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2009/09/treatment-of-alan-turing-was-appalling-pm-20571

You may have heard of the Turing Test. It's evident who created this, but for those who don't know what it is, permit me to explain. Essentially, it was one of the pioneering ideas of artificial intelligence, in which it was possible to converse with a machine, and think it was human. Essentially, it was a way to see what was human, and what was machine.

To illustrate how far the work of Alan Turing has spread, I invite you to post a comment on this post. As you do so, you will most likely be prompted to type in a random string of letters into a CAPTCHA box to make sure you're not a bot. This principle comes from Alan Turing. So next time you write a comment somewhere online, and are prompted to make sure you're human, spare a thought for Alan Turing, wrongly arrested and humiliated.

Alan Turing: hailed by some as the inventor of the computer program

Homosexuals Are Perfect?

2010-06-25T22:59:00.010+01:00

Are homosexuals perfect?

Um...no. Who is? What is? (Don't say God, partly because I don't believe, and partly because God is evidently somewhat imperfect if He/She/It/They created the imperfect humanity. No offense to anyone, that's merely how I see it).

Look at heterosexuality: it's not perfect. Even childbirth, the one defining characteristic of heterosexuality, is imperfect. For a start, not all heterosexuals can achieve it, and some simply choose not to. Not only that, but it's increasing the population of the world, using up precious resources, and many more heterosexuals have died through childbirth than homosexuals have.

Then, look at the community as a whole. Some are great, like Alan Turing and Colm O'Gorman, some not so much. But judging on the negative figure is akin to comparing all heterosexuals to, say, Hitler and Stalin.

Now we come onto the actions. It's relatively easy to find antisocial, even violent actions by LGBT people. In many cases, this is simply because of who they are. No, I'm not defending them, I'm just saying it's not because they're gay, just like Hitler wasn't evil because he was straight. Then you move onto others, which in an attempt for equality committed violence. They do exist, I'm not pretending they don't, but for a start this doesn't mean every LGBT person is inherently bad. And again, there is an analogy: suffragettes. In the UK at the very least, when women wanted suffrage, they tried a lot, from huge marches (a lot like the pride parades of today) by the suffragists, to the actions of the suffragettes. The suffragettes set churches on fire, interrupted parliament, assaulted policemen, set bombs, broke windows, chained themselves to railings (an action performed outside the White House recently to protest Don't Ask Don't Tell). In essence, they were very violent. But not one civilized person of today would tell you that their cause was wrong, and the debate is still going on as to whether their actions were justified.

In short, just because a few LGBT people may be less than perfect, and because of violence from some does not mean all LGBT people should be despised as criminals. 9/11 was caused by heterosexuals, no matter which version you believe-unless you're in the WBC in which case you're a moron. There's no simpler way to put it. Anyway, that doesn't make all heterosexuals evil, so why does a few criminals make all homosexuals evil?

No one is perfect. No one person is wholly good, and no community is made up of only pure saints. The rainbow is used to symbolize diversity: not just in the LGBT community, but in various places worldwide it was used to show the diversity and variation within a group. It seems relevant here. The diversity in the LGBT community: some good, some bad.

Anti-gays seem to expect homosexuals to be perfect. This doesn't make much sense to me-the people they're against they seem to expect to be perfect, and yet they point out tiny little flaws. Flaws which some heterosexuals experience, and some that mean nothing, that say nothing about the community as a whole. Not every homosexual is perfect, so why do they expect that?

Homosexual Statistics

2010-06-24T17:19:00.025+01:00

First off, an announcement: my Youtube channel has pretty much been shut down. That is, the videos have gone and I'm not using it too much, for plenty of reasons. I visit it occasionally due to comment responses and messages, but outside of that it's fairly unused.

Maybe you've seen them, maybe you haven't, but on several sites I have seen statistics supposedly on homosexuals. Every time I've seen them, I've seen little indication of how or where the information was gathered, which should raise eyebrows as it is, but there are even more flaws. The times sources are mentioned, they come from frankly dodgy, and extremely biased studies. I've taken a selection of them from one site:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

This isn't all of them, just a clip of the more bizarre, untrustworthy ones. As I said, I can't find the original source so the information shouldn't be taken at face value.

I warn you, this is a very long post.

So, without further ado, the source-less, baseless, biased information refuted.

One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners. One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

First off: we don't know where this information actually came from, but later on they make one point which is illuminating: "About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians". In prisons, as you no doubt know, people have sex with others of the same gender, simply to relieve stress, signal dominance, or to satisfy the sex drive. In prisons, people have sex with the same gender, have sex in a homosexual manner, just because it's the only real way they cam have sex: and if it is these people who were interviewed, well, is it any surprise the statistics change violently? Taking into account the huge, increasing prison population (which is similar if not greater than the number of homosexuals) then the statistics will be heavily weighted, even more so if it was just prisoners interviewed.

Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting.

This is self defeating. Drunk, on drugs, or practically drunk by arousal (orgy setting). How can someone be judged on who they have sex with in these situations? I can't help being reminded of a line from a comedy series: "A man who lies with a man should be stoned. It helps, that's all I'm saying".

Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior".

Again, if it was prisoners being interviewed, the values are irrelevant. Plus, 'knowledge of health guidelines' is subjective. Very few places instruct on homosexual conduct, in fact, I remember reading on the askDanandJennifer forums (a year or so ago, so I can't remember the exact link) about someone who had no idea condoms etc were necessary for homosexual sex. These health guidelines could be about heterosexuality, and the person involved may have thought condoms were only necessary as a contraceptive, rather than to prevents STDs.

Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" . Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress").

First off, you can't classify everything you don't like as a mental illness. I could say: "if you like Brussels Sprouts, you have a mental illness." Next, part of the reason the APA stopped classifying homosexuality as a mental illness, is the work of Evelyn Hooker (which is too often ignored by anti-gays). The pedophilia point will be addressed lower down, suffice to say while I don't agree with it, that doesn't make it an illness.

Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population.

Try 5-7% of the population, and plonk on bisexuals, pansexuals, closeted etc to reach a nice healthy 9/10%. On the 'hospital admissions' point, try to remember hate crimes. And finally, remember that these statistics are pretty much only going to apply to gay men-not to all by any means-and remember the aforementioned point on education. Also, don't forget that, according to one study I've seen, AIDS is now more prevalent among heterosexuals.

Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus.

See above.

73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization.

First of all, 70% of 73% is barely over half, so it's not as bold and dramatic as it sounds, and you've got to take into account rounding in the percentages, so what this statistic really shows is that psychiatrists are divided. Around now, I'd quote Evelyn Hooker again: homosexuals have the same mindsets and way of thinking as heterosexuals.

25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics.

See above: social stigmatization.

Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex.

I like how they quote a movie as a source. Again, I'd mention prisons, and touch on the idea of sexual repression: from what I've seen, many homosexuals have a normal sex drive, and those that don't are often repressed. Sexual repression has plenty of effects, not the least of which being the pedophilia among the Catholic Church.

78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.

Is it just me or are plenty of these points just previous ones repeated over and over and over?

Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities".

Judge John Martaugh? Wow, so one person says something. It's telling when they don't mention any (biased) statistics and just quote a random person. Let's look at one of the credibility criteria: expertise. Judge John id a magistrate, which makes him an expert in one particular area: justice. he knows not to punish some people for what others have done, but he also doesn't know about the sexual orientation of the accused. He could simply be referring to who they have sex with once they are in prison.

And, seeing as there's so much more wrong with this point, I'll condense it and conclude by editing it to show what it really says.

Homosexuals account for half the convicted murders in large cities

He's simply saying homosexuals are persecuted more often. Not necessarily that they're guilty. Even if we accept the dodgy opinion as fact, it could simply be describing a negative view of homosexuals in public, making them more likely targets.

Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals".

Um, no, they were abused by pedophiles. In many cases, pedophiles never had sexual attraction to adults: they are attracted to children, only children. This isn't homosexuality or heterosexuality, it is pedosexuality as it is referred to elsewhere. Calling it homosexuality is akin to calling rape, consensual sex. In fact, it is calling rape consensual sex.

50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals.

If you think a high rate of suicide is reason to discriminate against a community, then you are one sick individual, quite frankly. Again, I'll say social stigmatization.

Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person". For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Referencing NARTH does not raise credibility, some free advice for you. Daniel Capron along with many of the people on this were researched by me: that is, I googled them, just to see who they were. The only place I found a mention of nearly all of them was in quotes of this chain of slander towards homosexuals, which gives an idea of how major they are. Anyway, personal biases can influence views: when they mention relatively minor psychiatrists with clear biases ('sexually normal' solely applying to heterosexuals) then it's not very credible at all.

It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us.

Look at these out of date statistics: http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

Transmissions among heterosexuals is rising, which makes an interesting point reading this chart. Homosexuals (gay men only, lesbians have practically a 0% transmission rate) number half, or most likely less than that, the number of AIDS cases.

Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne .

Notice that the number of cases drops a great deal in places like Denver and Melbourne, which are considerably more accepting than say San Francisco (where Harvey Milk was shot I think). You can look this pattern up: STD rates are much higher in places less accepting of homosexuality, most likely because they dare not ask for help/education. This shows how important teaching about homosexuality is.

37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism.

Again, it's easy to take a biased sample for this study, not to mention: so what? Are they planning to dictate every aspect of a person's sex life and thus also condemn heterosexuals who practice this? Finally, sadomasochism can be a result of homosexuality, not a cause. I did a little research, and from what I've seen men have sex with other men for the pain/pleasure balance of it, and not out of an actual homosexual orientation.

41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs.

Again, which sample are they interviewing? The mention of illegal drugs is a point in itself: cause or effect? Like alcohol, illegal drugs can reduce inhibitions, which would cause this exhibitionism. Not to mention the point earlier, about some people engaging in gay sex because of drugs.

Then we come onto the next 40%. I did a little research, http://www.tressugar.com/Sex-Public-Restroom-7292583 which shows (at the time I read it) the poll of who would is about a third, and then another third are undecided, which even if we assume half the people who read it are gay (a lot more than likely) 33 or so percent of heterosexuals do engage in this, so the statistic really isn't that dramatic.

Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries .

I'd like to draw your attention to the words I put in bold. You can read this on their site: this is exactly what they say, so it gives us the idea of how they view anyone different. Poor countries are 'filthy'.

Anyway, I read up on the causes of some of these conditions, mainly based around a weak immune system or bad hygiene. This could refer to the AIDS point (see earlier) or the matter of hygiene, which again could most likely be fixed with more education. They as good as say it themselves: you'd expect a more constant percentage throughout cities, unless you take into account variations in education levels. Educate people about homosexuality, and I doubt many of these points will be relevant. If you treat homosexuality like heterosexuality, the only way to make any real comparison between the two, you'd see a lot of similarities.

The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.

Note that they specify 'married heterosexual' so that statistic is questionable in its value to compare. Not to mention, the lack of education and STD rate, hate crimes, death penalty in many places... Don't forget, they use a median value, not a mean, and the median is an odd value in such studies because of people such as Lawrence King: fifteen years old and shot for being gay.

The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.

Again, specifying marriage.

Well, if you actually look at the facts, lesbians have a much, much lower rate of STDs. So what could actually cause this death rate? Depression? Suicide? Murder? What causes all these? Hate.

21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things.

They're not helping their cause here. Read the words in bold. We can also relatively easily state the latter cause, traffic accidents, could mostly be a combination of murder and suicide, with some real accidents. All of these however have already been mentioned-murder and suicide-stemming from society's hate and stigma.

50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals).

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1273

Around a quarter of women have experienced domestic violence, and the statistic is theorized to be much higher (four times as much according to the end of the link, though that's probably relevant to other parts) so anyway, this shows the statistic isn't a huge leap from heterosexuals. You've also got to take into account the stress and anger a homosexual will experience, how it feels constantly being condemned, hated, threatened, attacked even. Anger makes all people do things they regret.

About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians. Homosexuals prey on children.

I don't know what the latter part of the sentence has to do with anything, but it's wrong.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

So, to move on to the initial point: people become gay in prison due to the need to engage in something sexual and the lack of the opposite sex.

33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex.

Pedophiles aren't gay: see previous link.

There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

See above again. NAMBLA have nothing to do with homosexuals. As Gregory King of the phenomenal HRC said: "NAMBLA is not a gay organization ... They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights."

Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality".

See above. I'm pretty sure this quote comes from NAMBLA.

So, there you have it, a few of the frankly false statistics refuted. Lies, twisted statistics, and, to put it mildly, misunderstandings.

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

Dr. Lawrence J. Peter.

Causes Of Homosexuality

2010-06-04T09:49:00.017+01:00

What makes people gay?

It's a question plenty of people ask and personally I don't think it actually matters, but in the interests of science, I'm going to discuss theorized causes here. So, there are many possible causes, but few of them hold any water.

Choice
Really now? This is a common anti-gay view on the cause of homosexuality, but it really makes no sense at all. Some people believe you can choose who you love, or you can choose to stop loving someone. This is quite simply false.
But, in the interests of the pursuit of scientific knowledge, I will gladly swallow my words if, anti-gays, you can but do one thing: for the next week, become gay yourself. If it's a choice, you won't have any trouble.
Of course, then you hear hasty backtracking and several answers like 'but I don't want to be'. However, if they are unwilling/unable to 'choose' to be gay, why do they expect others to be able to?

Environmental and social influences
This theory states that upbringing can affect sexual orientation, while the theory simultaneously confuses cause and effect. There's a theory that if a boy has no strong male role model, he'll be gay, and if a girl has no strong female role model then she'll be a lesbian. Does this seem ridiculous to anyone else? The same idea could also be applied to, say, a genetic source of androgynous behaviour that affects sexual orientation. That is, genes which make a person 'non-gender conforming' to use the technical term. Not to mention, not all homosexuals have androgynous parents, and some heterosexuals do. That's not proof by itself, but the idea of social and environmental effects ignores a lot of what we know; such as the physical differences between gay and straight men and women.
Another aspect of this theory is that, if a boy hangs around with girls, when puberty starts they'll be interested in what's new to them: the same gender. However, this theory has a number of flaws: firstly, it states that, if a boy/girl isn't friends with the same gender, then later in life the repressed friendship will manifest itself as romantic attraction. This seems to be implying that love is merely heightened friendship, which means everyone is gay if they're friends with the same gender, as that's the beginning of romantic love. Not only that, but the theory ignores why people are more commonly friends with the same gender. If it was being friends with a gender that affected orientation, then you'd expect a 50/50 split, depending on who a child is friends with. instead, you have to wonder; what makes someone prefer one gender over the other in terms of friendship?
Yet another theorized social influence is sexual abuse. Apparently if a person is sexually abused as a child then they will grow up gay. Of course, this still makes no sense: how could abuse lead to love? Short answer: it can't. However, many people report having gay friends who were sexually abused. This is a minority by all standards, from what I've heard. That being said, there is a reason behind the misconception: technically, these people aren't actually gay (see 'The Biggest Misconception' post I did a while ago) as they don't love the same gender. Hear me out. The only way a person could seemingly change sexual orientation after sexual abuse is due to conditioning. The person will either associate heterosexuality with something negative, thus rejecting it, or associate homosexuality with something positive. However, this is purely in the realm of sex: pure sexual attraction, no romantic attraction. And, just to clarify, you can't be conditioned into homosexual love, simply because you need to experience the love first to become 'conditioned'. For obvious reasons, you can't experience homosexual love if you aren't romantically attracted to the same gender.

Fear
This is a slightly ridiculous idea I've seen, but it merits a mention: homosexuals are gay because they're afraid of and this reject the opposite gender. In one case, this turned into someone claiming homosexuals reject that which is different and thus are comparable to racists. My thoughts on this matter: what an idiot.
For a start, homosexuals don't reject the opposite gender: that's why we can be friends with them, that's why we are friends with them. Furthermore, if rejecting a gender is a cause of sexuality, does that mean heterosexuals reject their own gender, and thus reject themselves, by loving the opposite gender?
Of course not. I feel I can safely move on now after that ridiculous argument.

Genes
Now we're getting into controversial territory. It homosexuality in our genes?
Well, according to some people, Colberg skinny jeans make you gay, but that's a whole other topic. And a whole other spelling.
So, is there a genetic cause of homosexuality? In my view, no. That being said, I think there are genes that make a person more likely to be gay-like genes that, say, make a person more susceptible to opposite-sex hormones. For example, one study has found that gay men often have female relatives who are more fertile. Maybe it could be a gene with an extra quirk which can affect sexuality, or maybe the gene affects the ratio of hormones a person is exposed to. And that brings us on to what I believe, and what science believes, is the cause of homosexuality.

Pre-Natal Hormones
Hormones in the womb. This is without a doubt the most major, and most likely cause of homosexuality. A male foetus would be exposed to less testosterone, and more female hormones, like oestrogen, while a female foetus would be exposed to more testosterone and less oestrogen etc.
What evidence is there for this?
Well, if the hormones affect the brain in terms of orientation, then you'd expect them to affect other aspects of a person. And they do: not 100% of the time, but this is natural. A person could be exposed to different levels of hormones, or their genes could grant them a susceptibility or immunity to some hormones. Also, in cases of twins, the times both twins are gay is invariably much higher than the normal occurrence of homosexuality. It's not going to be 100% evidently, because maybe they'd each get exposed to differing levels of hormones, and there's the matter of twin-to-twin-transfusion-syndrome.
So besides that, what physical changes are there? Well, plenty, few of which can be changed after birth, and the sheer frequency of these often slight changes gives as good as irrefutable proof that the environment before birth is a deciding factor in sexual orientation.

Finger ratios: gay men often have ring fingers at index fingers in a feminized fashion: equal lengths.
Inner ears: lesbian women can pick up different sounds due to a more masculine inner ear structure
Brain sizes: the hemispheres of the brain often resemble that of the opposite sex, and often certain areas can be bigger or smaller, resembling the opposite sex again.
Chemical responses: gay men respond differently to fluoxetine, a drug used as an antidepressant
Relative fertility: the female relatives of homosexuals are more likely to be more fertile and have more children
Startle response: lesbians have a masculine eyeblink response after a surprising event, like a loud noise
Odours: gay and straight people emit different underarm odours (I pity the people who tested this)
Pheromone responses: they respond differently to sex pheromones
Amygdala: this area of the brain is more active in homosexuals
Left handed: lesbians and gay men are more likely to be left handed or ambidextrous
Hair whirl: there is a much higher chance for homosexuals to have a counter-clockwise hair whirl than the general population
Ridges: homosexuals have increased ridge depth on their left thumbs and little fingers
Length: length of limbs and hands is generally smaller compared to height
Words: Lesbians and gay men are often more verbally fluent
Object location memory: gay men received higher test scores than heterosexual men in tests of this aspect
Xq28: this is a genetic marker found in many, many homosexuals.
Brothers: the more elder brothers a man has, the more chance he has of being gay*

So, there you have it, lots of physical and mental changes in homosexuals, many of which determined early in a pregnancy.

Conclusion

Homosexuals become gay due to pre-natal hormones. Maybe you want to hear it, maybe you don't, but you cannot dispute the facts.

*This is a footnote to the elder brothers point. This happens because a female's body sees the male foetus as an alien organism, naturally. It tries to feminize it and with each successive male child, the more adept the body becomes at achieving this. This is why around 70% of men with elder brothers are gay, and 64% or so with three. With one older brother it was just over 50%. The study was fairly limited in who it could interview, but the fact remains that the percentage goes up: as in other studies.

How Homosexuality Is Natural

2010-05-31T13:39:00.006+01:00

Is homosexuality natural?
Well, talk to plenty of people and you'll hear a 'no'. Personally, I don't think it matters: nowadays, we find some natural things morally repugnant (such as adultery), and find comfort in the unnatural, but still, the point seems to be used.
So, in this post, I will attempt to show why homosexuality is in fact natural.

The point of attraction?
You may have heard it said that the only reason for attraction is to have children. In many cases, maybe, but I think the key point here is how? If the need to have children was the primary drive for love, then the divorce rate would skyrocket for elderly couples: which is false. The sex drive decreases, but they do not stop loving each other.
So that is point one: procreation is not the founding instinct of love. A sexual attraction is separate to a romantic one, hence why asexuals can still be hetero/homo/bi/panromantic.

For a side note, homosexuals do still have sex: this is evidently not driven by procreation, but neither is much heterosexuality. For example, many heterosexuals utilize birth control, thus the sex is for pleasure or a method of consummating a relationship. The same can be said for homosexuals.

Anyway, back on topic. How does attraction take place, what causes it? Contrary to what many say, it does not appear to be solely for providing good characteristics for a child.
Who do people love?
This appears to be a key point. There are many scientific facts about love that you can look up, but there appears to be one theme present in many relationships. However ironically, narcissism plays a major role in love.
http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/01/27/love-10-crazy-scientific-facts/
The first point is the most interesting. People appear to love those who look similar.

Therein is the main point. If people love those who look similar, scientific fact, how is unnatural to experience this, just to a slightly greater degree?
Homosexuals love the same gender. The many, minor features that set genders apart, shoulder width, even finger length, height, weight, etc, what happens if a person pays attention to these? They'd love those who look similar: those of the same gender.
So, here is the main point:

The natural way to love, is to be attracted to those who look similar. Scientific fact. So those who love those who look similar must be natural, even if they do it to a greater degree than many others.

As I said, I don't believe it matters what is natural and what's not, but if this argument is used, then remember: homosexuality is natural.

The Real History Of Gay Marriage

2010-05-19T12:12:00.005+01:00

27 BC: First recorded same-sex marriages occur.
0: Christ Born-supposedly, there are lots of conflicting dates
33 AD: Jesus died-again, just an estimate
342 AD: same-sex marriages outlawed

So why did it take over three centuries for homosexual marriages to be outlawed?
If you look into history, you will see that the people who pushed the law against same-sex marriages into place were children of Emperor Constantine the Great. Constantine was best known for being the first Christian Roman Emperor.

So, what does all this mean? Well, Constantine died in 337 AD. So the first Emperor to spread Christianity throughout Rome was not even alive when gay marriages were outlawed. that's interesting in itself; it was some five years after his death when it was outlawed.

But there is still one question: the Bible should condemn homosexuality, correct? I've done what research I can to show the dates approximately during which the New Testament was written.

0: Jesus born
33: Jesus died
33-70: Writings of Paul the Apostle
70+: Mark, Matthew, John, Luke

So, around 70 AD, maybe 80AD, the four Gospels were written, and the writings of the Apostle Paul came before this. So the Bible had centuries to condemn homosexual marriages: however, it was not until after the death of the first Christian Emperor that gay marriages were made illegal. You'd think it would've been high on his list of priorities.
Those who know history will probably jump on one fact: 314 AD, any male (not female, male) who engaged in homosexuality could be banned from communion for 15 years, and several other religious events. This happened during the reign of Constantine I believe.
So, what can we take from this? well, Constantine was decidedly against homosexuals engaging in religion-though you must remember the Bible was written some centuries before and context could still be lost in that time. And yet, though he barred homosexuals (male only) from taking part in religious events, he made no attack on homosexual marriage. Isn't this odd?
Not really. You see, Christianity could not have been too widely spread around the Empire at that time; and the marriages could not have been purely religion based, much like today. So, Constantine was against homosexuals taking part in Christianity, but he allowed them celebrations of love outside those beliefs; he allowed them to get married as this was an institution not aligned with his Church.
Then his children came along and, with their own prejudices evidently not stemming from the Scripture their father helped promote, they condemned gay marriages.

So, in essence, homosexuality was barred from religious rituals, while they were allowed to marry and live equal, normal lives under the first Christian Emperor.
Then his children passed a law some time after their father died, a law that should've come from their father if a) marriage was a purely religious institution and b) if Constantine thought it was wrong for homosexuals to get married.
And yet, this man who allowed gay marriages, has been given the title Constantine the Great by the Churches of today.

If homosexuality is so bad, why did it take over a century after the New Testament was written, and half a decade after the death of the first Christian Emperor, for equal marriage to be outlawed?

Transgenderism In The Bible

2010-05-10T21:20:00.010+01:00

Seeing as it's becoming a greater part of who I am, having recently come out as bigender/transgender to friends, I thought I'd make yet another Bible based post, this time on transgenderism. Christianity seems to be the most commonly used item against homosexuality, and I've spent plenty of time debating with Christians.
To them I say: born gay. Science says so-prenatal hormones. So if you so believe, God made us gay. So take it up with him.
Without further ado, ladies, gentlemen, androgynes and third-genders, I give you: The Bible On Transgenderism

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Doesn't look good, does it?
Well, a lot can be said on this topic. Firstly, it's in the Old Testament. The same place recommending the stoning to death of many people.
And secondly, what defines clothing that 'pertaineth unto a man'? Go back in time and trousers /pants (if you're American, But I'm not, so tough) were male only. Now trousers are pretty gender neutral. Go further back in time and dress like robes were masculine; now society would dismiss them as feminine. Manner of dress doesn't just vary temporally; it also varies depending on where you are. Look at the Islamic burkha; pertains to a woman apparently, and yet a similar headdress is used by men who want to cover their face for one reason or another.

So far:
1. Not necessarily relevant in modern day issues as it's Old Testament
2. Depends when you are
3. Depends where you are

But the grounds for this verse become even more shaky when you ask yourself one thing:
What is gender?
Sure, some people may see it as finding fault with God, if you believe you were born in the wrong body, but really, why? The majority of Christians I've heard believe God sends tests to challenge people; one of these tests could be being born in the wrong body. Not to mention, it's akin to saying that it's fine to have an inherited disease as God made you have it. I'm not saying transgenderism is a disease, what I am saying is that there is a defect: the body is wrong, whether it be an illness or the body being the wrong sex.
Put it like this: what happens when you die? Your mind/soul goes to heaven. Not your body, that stays behind, but your mind/soul with ascend. In heaven, you either get a new body or you wander around as a disembodied spirit. Assuming the latter, then you have no physical sex, and instead you are defined by the gender of your mind. Assuming the former, then your body must come from the mind/soul. What body would babies get? those with an amputated limbs? It can't be a mimicry of the human body, so it must be fairly original. So, in heaven, transgendered men and women will get the reward of the right body.

In essence: Deuteronomy condemns those who cross-dress, an action often undertaken for sexual pleasure, a fetish more than anything. Transgender people dress as who their mind says they are: and really, the mind is what defines a person.
The people who need to repent are those who force the transgendered to dress in a manner not pertaining to their gender. It is those who pressure us to live under outdated ideals of gender that are the true sinners.

Gays Are Superior?!

2010-04-25T00:27:00.007+01:00

This is not a heterophobic post, it's just something small that I found interesting.
Would you believe me if I told you homosexuals were generally superior to heterosexuals in at least one aspect?
What aspect?
Words.
As simple as that: using words to express yourself. This trait is less common in heterosexual men, but is more common for heterosexual women and is a lot more common, and to a higher standard, in homosexual men.
For some reason most studies are done on gay men rather than lesbians. I don't understand this and sincerely hope it will be rectified soon.
Here's one scientific example on word fluency, a clip from the documentary based on John Barrowman, entitled 'The Making Of Me'. No copyright infringement intended.

You can find many examples.

Oscar Wilde
Dear Christ! the very prison walls
Suddenly seemed to reel,
And the sky above my head became
Like a casque of scorching steel;
And, though I was a soul in pain,
My pain I could not feel.

I only knew what haunted thought
Quickened his step, and why
He looked upon the garish day
With such a wistful eye;
The man had killed the thing he loved,
And so he had to die.

Yet each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/prisonwritings.html

Stephen Sondheim
Just when I'd stopped
Opening doors,
Finally knowing
The one that I wanted was yours,
Making my entrance again
With my usual flair,
Sure of my lines,
No one is there.

Don't you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want -
Sorry, my dear.
And where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.

Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer?
Losing my timing this late
In my career?

Freddie Mercury
Open up your mind and let me step inside
Rest your weary head and let your heart decide
It's so easy when you know the rules
It's so easy all you have to do
Is fall in love
Play the game
Everybody play the game of love,

A fitting end to this post.

These are just two (possibly unintended copyright infringing) examples. You can no doubt find more, but it is amazing how many gay men are writers, lyricists, comedians etc. All of these crafts require knowledge and ability to use words well and correctly. Using words expressively and successfully: a common attribute to many, many gay men.

Oscar Wilde

2010-04-21T22:41:00.008+01:00

Like two doomed ships that pass in storm
We had crossed each other's way:
But we made no sign, we said no word,
We had no word to say;
For we did not meet in the holy night,
But in the shameful day.

A prison wall was round us both,
Two outcast men we were:
The world had thrust us from its heart,
And God from out His care:
And the iron gin that waits for Sin
Had caught us in its snare.

Read the rest here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/prisonwritings.html

Written by Oscar Wilde, fantastic poet, whilst in prison. Why was he arrested you ask? Because he was homosexual.

“All trials are trials for one’s life, just as all sentences are sentences of death, and three times I have been tried. The first time I left the box to be arrested, the second time to be led back to the house of detention, and the third time to pass into prison for two years. Society as we have constituted it, will have no place for me, has none to offer; but Nature, whose sweet rains fall on just and unjust alike, will have clefts in the rocks where I may hide, and secret valleys in whose silence I may weep undisturbed. She will hang with stars so that I may walk abroad in the darkness without stumbling, and send the wind over my footprints so that none may track me to my hurt: she will cleanse me in great waters, and with bitter herbs make me whole.”
Oscar Wilde, De Profundis

The words of his lover, Lord Alfred Douglas:

'Sweet youth,
Tell me why, sad and sighing, thou dost rove
These pleasent realms? I pray thee speak me sooth
What is thy name?' He said, 'My name is Love.'
Then straight the first did turn himself to me
And cried, 'He lieth, for his name is Shame,
But I am Love, and I was wont to be
Alone in this fair garden, till he came
Unasked by night; I am true Love, I fill
The hearts of boy and girl with mutual flame.'
Then sighing, said the other, 'Have thy will,
I am the love that dare not speak its name.'

This poem was used in the most memorable part of Oscar Wilde's trial. He recited this poem in his trial, and the prosecution asked him: but what is the Love that dare not speak its name?

"The love that dare not speak its name" in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as the "Love that dare not speak its name," and on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so the world does not understand. The world mocks it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.

Note: he is not discussing pedophilia. true, there was an age difference between Oscar Wilde and his partner, but they were both adults. You'd have to understand Wilde to fully comprehend it: but from what I've read, this phenomenal man arrested for love was more than himself, if that makes any sense.

From the father of Lord Alfred Douglas, to Wilde's lover:

ALFRED,

Your intimacy with this man Wilde must either cease or I will disown you and stop all money supplies. I am not going to try and analyse this intimacy, and I make no charge; but to my mind to pose as a thing is as bad as to be it. With my own eyes I saw you in the most loathsome and disgusting relationship, as expressed by your manner and expression. Never in my experience have I seen such a sight as that in your horrible features. No wonder people are talking as they are. Also I now hear on good authority, but this may be false, that his wife is petitioning to divorce him for sodomy and other crimes. Is this true, or do you not know of it? If I thought the actual thing was true, and it became public property, I should be quite justified in shooting him on sight.

YOUR DISGUSTED, SO-CALLED FATHER,
Queensberry

I find this truly repulsive. I don't know about you.

The letter Oscar Wilde sent, after he was released from prison (before he died of an ear infection he contracted in prison):

My own Darling Boy,
I got your telegram half an hour ago, and just send a line to say that I feel that my only hope of again doing beautiful work in art is being with you. It was not so in the old days, but now it is different, and you can really recreate in me that energy and sense of joyous power on which art depends.
Everyone is furious with me for going back to you, but they don't understand us. I feel that it is only with you that I can do anything at all. Do remake my ruined life for me, and then our friendship and love will have a different meaning to the world.
I wish that when we met at Rouen we had not parted at all. There are such wide abysses now of space and land between us. But we love each other.
Goodnight, dear. Ever yours,
Oscar

Yet all is well; he has but passed
To Life's appointed bourne:
And alien tears will fill for him
Pity's long-broken urn,
For his mourners be outcast men,
And outcasts always mourn.

More Anti-Gays

2010-04-12T17:20:00.005+01:00

I would like to thank Joe Solmonese and the HRC for bringing this group to my attention. I sent them a long, long message highlighting a few obvious flaws on their site here: http://factsaboutyouth.com/
They replied, nd I sent a reply.
It is run by the 'American College of Pediatricians'. They are completely unrelated to the 'American Academy of Pediatrics'.

The letter:

I am writing because I have noticed a number of flaws in your articles stating, among other things, that homosexuality is changeable behaviour.

Like heterosexuals, homosexuals can abstain from homosexual behaviour, that much is true. However, this does not allow anyone to become heterosexual-I am not sure if this is what you were saying, but if it was I just needed to point it out.
While it is possible to repress sexual urges, there are some things that should be known. Homosexuality is based on more than sexual lusts. For the purposes of this letter I will refer to the sexual aspect as 'homosexual' to avoid coining a new term, while I will refer to the love-the aspect not based on sex, like asexuals experience-as 'homoromantic'.
Everyone has the potential to be homosexual: you see the behaviour in such places as prisons, where people engage in homosexual sex whilst not experiencing homoromantic desires. This is a vital distinction.
Research has shown people to be able to suppress their homosexual desires, and through means such as the repugnant aversion therapies, the homoromantic view has been seen as less appealing. However, this does not give a person heterosexual attraction, it merely stops them loving: which in my view is far worse than being homosexual. Stunningly few people who have attempted to repress homosexuality have experienced heterosexual love-and some that do later admit to be living a lie. As it is, many homosexual and homoromantic people are married simply to avoid society's stigma.
You are no doubt thinking of the 'ex-gays' that did experience heterosexual attraction. These statistics can be misleading as they are an example of bisexual erasure: the idea that bisexuality is a phase or non-existent. Many of the 'ex-gays' in heterosexual relationships were bisexual/biromantic to some degree: their homosexuality was suppressed and their homoromantic side was made to seem unwanted.

You referenced a number of claims that homosexuality is somehow inferior to heterosexuality-I may be misunderstanding your intent, but this is what it appeared like to me.
To quote the common slogan, love is love. There are no consequences of homosexuality that are unique to homosexuality: many of the commonly seen differences, such as AIDS risk, suicide rate and the inability to have children, are often flawed or irrelevant.
For example, the latter point: homosexuals cannot have children. True. The person they love does not allow them to carry children: however, many heterosexuals experience the same thing, thee are infertile couples and some simply choose not to have children.
The AIDS risk is an idea which is, in my view, a reason people need to explain more about homosexuality. People will be gay: the majority of studies show mild physical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and many report always feeling different in their early lives. The majority of science shows that there are biological causes to homosexuality such as hormones in the womb. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but NARTH is not the most reliable source of information: they are extremely biased and selective about the information they put forward, whereas much science is more open and pretty much unambiguously shows hormones before birth are the most major, if not only, cause of homoromantic and homosexual desires.
That aside, people need to be educated about homosexuality: this is what will prevent the spread of STDs, and surely you agree the life of a human, be it LGBT or otherwise, is worthwhile?
Finally, the suicide rate. There is much speculation about this, but Evelyn Hooker proved that homosexuals think in similar, if not identical, ways to heterosexuals. Also, if normally heterosexual people do in fact become homosexual or homoromantic, then it cannot be nothing ingrained making them kill themselves. Instead, it is much more likely that the prejudice in wider society is a primary cause of these suicides. Unfortunately, there is no way in retrospect to discover the cause of a suicide, but accepting that homoromantics/homosexuals and heterosexuals/heteroromantics have similar mindsets (I refer you once again to Evelyn Hooker) then, outside of the common causes, the most likely cause of suicide unique to homoromantics and homosexuals is the discrimination they face.

You also mentioned promiscuity: while there is much I could say on this topic, I will attempt to keep it to a minimum.
You mentioned that lesbian women often had many male partners: this in itself is informative. They are unable to form a heteroromantic or heterosexual bond: as they are homosexual/homoromantic (I'll condense those two words from now on). Because of this, they date men partly to be seen as acceptable by society due to the pressure to be heterosexual. A homosexual cannot be heterosexual: any such relationships are doomed to fail when there is no pressure like that with 'ex-gays'.
You also cited the rates of adulterous behaviour among homosexual men. Firstly, it is unlikely for people to be honest about committing adultery: so this in itself could mean that homosexuals are more honest than heterosexuals and that heterosexuals are keeping their extra-marital affairs secret. These statistics cannot be trusted.
However, there are other reasons for this statement: possible sexual openness as homosexual couples could be more open in their sexual lives-interested in an open relationship maybe. Alternatively, it could be a result, yet again of the discrimination in society, the pitiful nature of some homosexuals leading to 'mercy-sex'. There is also the stereotype of promiscuous homosexuals and the people who hear this have this idea inserted into their minds-and as many things that happen to you as a child often have a permanent effect, it is likely that the homosexuals feel as if they have to be promiscuous.

In conclusion, it is close to impossible to replace homoromantic love with heteroromantic love, and as it is, homosexuality and heterosexuality are more or less equal. Also, promiscuity is one of many things caused more by the anti-gay prejudice in modern society than by homoromantics.
I believe that it is the discrimination that should be eliminated, as opposed to homosexuality: we will see then how a society open to the idea of homosexuality will fare, and if the ideas spread by anti-gay organizations will turn out to be fact or lies.

Yours faithfully,
From Jane.

I received a response from Lisa H. Here it is, my reply follows:

Dear Jane:

Thank you for contacting the American College of Pediatricians.

If prenatal hormones alone caused homosexuality, identical twins would both
be homosexual 100% of the time just as they would if there were a "gay
gene." Instead the concordance rates among identical twins are only between
10-30%.

Evelyn Hooker's work (which is from the 1950s I think) has been discredited.

I replied to this, though I'm not sure if it will get through.

I'm not sure if I can reply to these emails, sorry, but I just want to say two things.
First: Evelyn Hooker's work to my knowledge hasn't been discredited, instead it has been corroborated by later studies-though the method itself was criticized, the results have been proven and proven again.
Second, I'm not 100% sure on the science, but from what I've heard hormone concentrations differ around the womb: so one child would get a greater volume of hormones. 10-30% is also slightly greater than what is generally considered to be the normal percentage of homosexuals, showing the excess hormone levels do have a mild effect.

Biblical Homosexuality: The Truth

2010-04-11T23:36:00.007+01:00

This is a topic I appear to be required to cover a great deal, so I'll just write this to hopefully sort a few things out.
Source: http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/index.html

Included:
Three Biblically Supported Homosexuals
Refutations Of Anti-Gay Passages

Refutations
You hear it all the time, from nowhere more so than the infamous WBC, but I've covered them all too often, so they'll be ignored. Mainly because they are really just plain idiotic.
So, the big one: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Seems pretty clear cut, doesn't it? Well, aside from being a few passages away from calling shellfish an abomination, the chapters themselves limit themselves. What do I mean by that? Well, read the chapters in context. You will find a few interesting remarks:
18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
The meaning of this is simple enough: Egypt and Canaan had 'doings'; that were an abomination. With a little historical research, it isn't hard to see what. They carried out Pagan rituals involving adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality-I believe, and, yes, homosexuality. Interestingly, it is these things which are condemned by the passage: providing strong evidence for the simple fact that it was forbidden to take part in such rituals.
To my knowledge, this is the only homosexuality-condemning passage in the Jewish Torah also.
Next up, the good old classic Sodom and Gomorrah. Not only is this the sole anti-gay passage in the Quran, it is also one of the most widely used Christian passages.
You no doubt know the story, but if you don't, read Genesis 19 and Jude 1.
This story has nothing to do with love: I want to make that abundantly clear. Homosexuality is about love primarily, which is why many homosexual Christians choose to remain celibate believing that it is the sex that is a sin. Anyway, this story has some interpretations that are not at all sexual-the sodomites were inhospitable-and some that refer instead to bestiality: in the sense that the angels were a different species. However, there is one simple point to make: the men of Sodom were guilty of adultery, as they apparently left their wives, fornication, for those that were not married, and also rape. Male to male rape. However, there are many people today who rape others of the same sex-not for any sexual attraction, but simply to establish dominance. So male to male rape has no connection to homoromantic and homosexual love.
Next up, the least clear passage. Romans.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
There is no real evidence that this refers to homosexuals as it is: the 'improper use' could be anything, ranging from fornication and adultery to such things as rape.
However, one thing that is evident: it condemns God-Haters. those who use homosexuality as, almost, a weapon against God. Read the whole or Romans 1 and you'll see; the entirety of the chapter describes those who hate God-such as idolaters, so it makes no sense to suddenly leap to a description of people who love the same gender, while minding their own business. In context, it obviously refers to people who practice homosexuality in such contexts as the aforementioned Egyptian and Canaanite rituals.
Now for two passages to be refuted at once.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
In Corinthians, the word 'effeminate', in the original Greek that the New Testament was written in, was Malakoi. This word literally means 'soft' and morally weak, and has nothing to do with feminine men.
But, the words 'abusers of themselves with mankind' and 'them that defile themselves with mankind' were both the same word in Greek. Arsenokoitai. The interesting thing? No one knows what this word means. However, it is made from two separate words: one meaning 'male', and one meaning 'bed' referring to sexual intercourse. But does this automatically mean homosexuality? It seems so, but read the word in context. To my knowledge, every time it has been used, the word has applied to just one thing: rape. Male to male rape, yet again. Two examples are when Zeus abducted and raped a young boy named Ganymede, and an ancient legend in which, in the Garden of Eden, the snake was a satanic figure known as Naas who slept with both Adam and Eve. His sin with Adam was 'arsenokoitai': rape, or more precisely, sex as a sign of dominance.
Finally, just a lighter ending: people state that the fact God made male and female is a reason against homosexuality. This is ridiculous. it's using the idea that omitting one detail is a reason against that detail. Well, there is no Biblical condemnation for gay marriage, so by following that logic then you should support gay marriage.

Biblically Supported Homosexuals
There are many examples, but I'll stick to three couples.
First of all, there's the classic Samuel and Jonathan tale. I don't have to go into anything too complicated for this, just a quick bit from 2 Samuel:
1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
'Passing the love of women'? Enough said.
Of course, if you still need more, 1 Samuel:
18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
How would this be read if it was between a man and a woman?
20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
20:31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.
20:32 And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?
Read this in context: in the times where people believed homosexuals should be killed, Saul is trying to kill the homosexuals. What other reason is there?
20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
So, that's one couple. Next is the nice story of Ruth and Naomi. There's a lot to be said about them, but you can read about that elsewhere.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Ruth 1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
They appear completely unrelated on the surface don't they? But, yet again in the original Hebrew, there are hidden meanings. the word 'cleave' in the former passage was the Hebrew word Dabaq. It's evident what that means from the context. Guess which word was used instead of 'clave' in Ruth? You got it! Dabaq.
So this is simple isn't it? Ruth loved Naomi in the same way a man loves his wife. The exact same way.
Read the book of Ruth again, without preconceptions: it reads a lot like a tale of two women in love. This includes the support, the way it is written, and even references to the fact that lesbians would've been put to death. This speech has also been used in weddings-first spoken woman to woman-and I would like to quote it here as it is one of the best speeches I have ever heard.
Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
1:17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
And, just to finish off, Jesus Christ supporting a gay couple. Think it's never going to happen? Wrong. Matthew:
8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
Means nothing does it? Well, if you read the Greek then you will see that the word the centurion uses to describe his servant is Pais. This has three meanings: son, slave or male partner.
I should explain: centurions could not take wives on duty, so it was common practice to choose a favourite slave as a homosexual partner.
So, how do I know it is not one of the other meanings? The same story is told in Luke.
7:6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
7:7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
The words used are Entimos Duolos. What do these mean? Honoured servant. So it cannot be a son, it can't be an ordinary slave, so it stands to reason that it must be a servant, honoured-the centurion's favourite and consequently the only viable answer is that the servant is the centurion's male partner.
What did Jesus do? Ask them to change? Tell them they were sinners? No such thing. Luke:
7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
He held them up as an example.
And, interestingly, throughout the gospels people come for healing for friends and relatives. This is the only time a servant was asked to be healed: how much connection must they have had?

To conclude, I'll leave you with some more biblical passages.
My personal favourite:
1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
And indeed, much of 1 John chapter 4 is interesting.
Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Disagree? Let me know: and give a reason.
You can email me at bijanewhite@gmail.com if you have anything to say that you don't want to put in a comment. Please say in the message if you do not wish me to reply.

The Biggest Misconception

2010-04-10T23:01:00.004+01:00

It's been a while since I did a post, so I'll add this point. It is perhaps the biggest misconception about homosexuality.

Everyone is homosexual.
Sounds stupid, doesn't it? But it's true. Why do I say that? Well, homosexual, looking at the word, directly refers to sex. Sexual attraction is separate to love, true, while in some cases they come together relationships are often based more on love. The labels homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and pansexual by definition refer to sexual attraction, though they are used in terms of love also. For this post alone I will use them solely to refer to sex.
Right now, if you're heterosexual, you could have sex with someone of the same gender. It might not be pleasurable, it might not be easy, but it is physically possible; some people who repeatedly do this (victims of child abuse) eventually begin to associate homosexuality with feelings of pleasure, or heterosexuality with feelings of dismay. In the former case, the person can identify as homosexual despite having heteroromantic desires, and in the latter they'd be alienated from heterosexuality-and mildly afraid of being heteroromantic. Society is partly to blame for the next stage: many people will think a purely sexual attraction is based on homoromantic desires, or they'd think that they weren't heterosexual so they must be gay.
This also applies to 'ex-gays': countless methods an repress sexual desires, such as the repugnant aversion therapy, and everyone can choose whether or not to act on desires. The homosexual desires are repressed-and people are forced not to act on homoromantic ones. This doesn't make them heteroromantic; few 'ex-gays' have actually fully suppressed desires, even fewer have had a longish lasting heterosexual relationship, and even fewer of these had no heteroromantic desires before hand. Some gay men are married as it is-to avoid society's stigma-some are parents. It doesn't make them heteroromantic.
A final point: asexuals. A widely discriminated against community, but they are people with no sexual desires whatsoever. However, they still love. The labels-a few of them-are:
Heteroromantic-loving the opposite gender
Homoromantic-loving the same gender
Biromantic-loving both genders
Panromantic-ignoring gender when loving
Aromantic-not loving.
These romantic desires also apply to the person with the sexual orientation with the same prefix-though they can be blurred a little-but it is the love that defines an LGBT person. Not the sex.
If it was sex, then according to Kinsey, 38% of men would be gay.

Sex can be repressed: sex is the basis for just that, sex.
Love cannot be suppressed. It is love, and is the basis for romantic love an marriage-soon.

Gay Man At Long Last Out

2010-03-31T23:21:00.003+01:00

Ricky Martin is gay. you've no doubt heard the news.
If you don't know who he is:

Cross-Dressing?

2010-03-05T00:45:00.006Z

Above is a simplistic logo design I created, using the Greek letter L, Lambda-the second most widely recognized LGBT symbol after the rainbow flag-to spell out love. Love is love.

There's a fairly widespread misunderstanding about the word crossdressing, which I thought I'd clear up.
The word means dressing up as the opposite gender. It is often associated with transgenderism but it means no such thing. Transgenders identify as a sex different to that which they were born with. As such, they often dress up as this gender. This does not make them cross dressers: they are dressing up as their real gender. While some may choose to call themselves cross-dressers, that is technically not what they are.
A cross dresser is a man or woman secure in their gender identity who dresses up as a woman or man respectively. The label crossdresser is hard to apply to andrgynes because they have no affliation with any gender; where's the crossing part of cross-dressing?
Crossdressing can be carried out by any orientation, and serves a variety of purposes. there are drag kings/queens, people who dress up for show, those who do it to relax, and those who gain sexual enjoyment from it: the fairly common 'cross-dressing fetish'. None of these people are transgender; transgenders dress up as something other than their birth sex because their gender is not applicable to their physical body. To quote a cliche, it's what's on the inside that counts.
On a final note, bigenders such as myself pretty much cannot cross-dress as we identify with both genders.

Just so you know, I am more active on my Youtube account than I am on Blogger as it's often easier to respond to queries there. I still cover a variety of topics here but for more information about my LGBT activism visit http://www.youtube.com/user/BiJaneWhite

Americans For Truth

2010-02-16T11:23:00.003Z

A fairly anti-gay organization, though not quite as infamous as the WBC. I found a way to contact them and sent the following text.

To Americans For Truth

What makes homosexuals and heterosexuals different? We are identical. We act the same way, we are virtually identical in everything except who we love.
Who does homosexuality harm? Ok, so there's a greater AIDS risk in the LGBTQ community; but what makes the infected heterosexuals different to the infected homosexuals? The gender of who they love. Besides, if AIDS risk is a reason to discriminate, then shouldn't you support lesbianism?
The only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the gender of who's loved. Who defines the right gender? Children? Is this statement saying infertile or elderly people are not worthwhile, or that people who have no children aren't worthy of equal rights?
I notice you mentioned 'God-Ordained sexuality' on your 'about' page. I always do my research, and I've come to the conclusion, believe it or not, the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.
This may seem bizarre, but please hear me out.
The classic Leviticus passages in context (18:3, 20:3) apply to Egyptian and Canaanite practices; practices involving fornication, adultery, incest and of course homosexuality. All these sins except for homosexuality are condemned elsewhere.
Romans in context condemns God-haters, like the aforementioned Egyptian and Canaanite passages. The original wording mentioned male temple prostitutes, not loving homosexuals.
Corinthians and Timothy I believe are the ones that say 'homosexuals' (And 'effeminate' but the Greek source of that word was one literally translated as 'soft' or 'mentally weak') but the word stating 'homosexuals' was in fact translated from the Greek word arsenokoitai. Arsenokoitai is made up of two words, 'bed' implying the sexual act, and 'male' implying two men. However this method of translation is faulty and inaccurate (look at the word 'lady-killer') and, in context, the word arsenokoitai in fact takes on an entirely different meaning. It means one who uses their own abilities to gain dominance and sex. By no means is this homosexuality.
Finally, the classic Sodom tale. There are countless sins here, such as rape and adultery, but the often focused on point is homosexuality. Same sex rape is bad, but so is rape of all orientations; in fact there have been a number of cases of a heterosexual man raping another man simply to humiliate and establish dominance. These men weren't gay.
My last point is that of judging. You provide examples of homosexuals who have fairly perverse ideals, such as your Frank Kameny post allowing beastiality, but you fail to mention other homosexuals who have benefitted society. These include Joe Solmonese, human rights activist, and Colm O'Gorman, head of Amnesty International Ireland. There are good and bad members of all LGBT or heterosexual communities.
I hope you will listen, and at the very least, think about this message to live up to your oft repeated statement of not being bigots.

Yours Faithfully
Jane White,
Bisexual, Bigender, Proud, and Equal.

Love Is Love.

Fred Phelps: His Greatest Atrocity

2010-02-11T22:01:00.007Z

In this post I will discuss the greatest atrocity committed by Fred Phelps Sr, founder of the WBC. It has little to do with the LGBT community, but instead should make people think. I am on the verge of tears after writing it.
The people within:
Fred Phelps Sr-Tyrannical so called Christian who runs the Westboro Baptist Church
Nathaniel "Nate" Phelps-Son of Fred, later leaves WBC
Fred Phelps Jr-The main family member in this post. Fred Sr's eldest son.
Mark Phelps-One of Fred Sr's children who sought to avoid beatings by getting close to Fred Sr. Later leaves WBC.
Luava-Mark Phelps' wife
Bob Martin-Retired army officer
Margie Phelps-Daughter of Fred Sr

The mother of Debbie Valgos, the subject of this post, has this to say about Fred Phelps Senior.
"You tell Fred Phelps I'll wait in hell for him."

Now, this may turn out to be the most heartbreaking tale to do with Fred Phelps. Debbie Valgos. Who was she? A simple teenage girl, who suffered from fainting fits, a great skater, warm, friendly, free, beautiful, and in love with Fred Phelps Jr, Fred's eldest son.
When she was 14, Debbie sent this poem to her Mum:

I settled down west from town,
though no one knew I was a clown,
My face was clean,
and all around were children,
though I heard no sound

Mom, I love you very much!

Fred and Debbie were made for each other, according to a number of the Phelps' siblings. When Fred was 17, and Debbie 16, Fred bought a golden ring with a diamond set in. They considered getting married; before you discuss teenage marriage issues, you must understand the Phelps' believed God would send wives/husbands. The only problem was Fred Phelps Senior thought he'd be the dictator of love. Through New Year 1971, this happiness was kept from Phelps Sr. Fred Jr and Debbie had spent countless secret moments at the skating rink, or during the candy selling rounds all the children had to take.
But it had to end.
When Phelps Sr caught wind of his son's relationship, one his precious Bible should allow, Phelps Sr began beating Fred Jr with a mattock handle, despite the fact Fred Jr was just a few months before his eighteenth birthday.
Fred Jr and Debbie eloped-who'd blame them? But due to Phelps Sr's preachings, their only safe haven was in the home of another preacher who was also affliated with the WBC. Forrest Judd. Judd almost immediately phoned Phelps Sr and Debbie and Fred were persuaded by religous based blackmail to return to Topeka, Kansas, and to live with Phelps Sr. From then on, Debbie and Fred were banned from seeing each other, though they found ways.
May 1971. Phelps decided Fred could meet with Debbie; if Debbie attended his sunday sermons. That was the only time they could meet. These sermons were also attended by Mark Phelps' future wife, Luava. The first of these sermons Debbie attended turned out to be nothing more than its title repeated in various fashions: "Debbie Valgos is a whore".
Debbie took it in silence, shell shocked. Who wouldn't be?
From then on, nearly all his sermons were based around that theme. Yes, Debbie did continue visiting those sermons of hatred; more proof of the love she felt for Fred Jr.
Then, out of the blue, Phelps Sr announced the entire family was going roller skating. This instantly put Fred, Mark, Nate and the other children on edge: at no point during their childhood had they been invited to go out 'for fun'.
The first atrocity committed seems simple; Mark Phelps' future wife, Luava, also went skating, but of course Mark couldn't appear to be that interested in her with Phelps Sr present. So even when Phelps insulted her parents, with earshot of Luava, Mark was forced to laugh.
But then, due to the stress of the situation, Debbie had another seizure, as she often did. The Phelps family were forced to ignore her due to the tyrannical nature of Phelps' control. Luava went to help, and once Debbie had reawakened, still recovering, Phelps skated past with the comment 'whore'. She burst into tears.
After many similar events, Debbie all the while asking what Phelps Sr wanted her to be (the response being 'a degree in law, but right now you're a whore') and why Phelps Sr was asking these things, Fred Jr moved out of Phelps's house. At his father's command, he had to move in with Bob Martin, retired army officer and former associate of Phelps.
After a single week, Mark Phelps, Fred Phelps Sr, and Bob Martin confronted Fred Jr after he'd come out of the shower, and forced him to go home. Mark Phelps remembers the next bit vividly, so he says. In the car, Bob Martin placed a revolver next to Fred Jr's knee, "Next time you run away, I'll shoot you right here."
At this time, 'knee-capping' was a punishment carried out by underworld gangs and the like, causing immense pain and crippling the victim for life. To quote another site:
This article does not imply Fred Phelps Sr. has underworld ties. It only remarks that anyone who dresses badly, who lives handsomely off the work of urchins hustling in the streets, who disciplines subordinates by beating them senseless, who fosters filiar piety by threats of knee-capping, who knocks his wife around regularly, who surrounds himself with lawyers, and who is apparently beyond the long arm of the law could have made a very respectable gangster.
December 1971, despite the threats, Fred Jr ran away from home.
Not much is known about what happened next, but what is known is that Fred Jr proposed to Debbie.
But Phelps Sr had coerced Fred jr. Fred had very real fears of hell; and believed that, because of his father's indoctrination, Debbie would be one to put him into eternal fire and damnation. On Valentine's day, Fred Jr showed up in Topeka, with Betty, a Methodist Christian. A new girlfriend; he'd left Debbie.
Debbie, a few weeks after Valentine's Day, was walking with her mother in a park where her friends used to live.
"He's never going to marry me, Mama," she said, "but I know I'll never love anyone else."
That was the last time mother and daughter saw each other. Through bitterness, depression and Fred Phelps Sr's everlasting influence, she became the embodiment of what Phelps said she was. Anonymous sex, soon moving in with a soldier, amphetamines, heroin, many kinds of drugs-which moved her from being 130 pounds to a mere 87.
And who can blame her? She'd had the love of her life stolen after becoming his fiancee, had that self same love start a relationship with someone else, and return to the 'friendship' of one who'd done nothing but insult her publicly.
April 17th, 1972. Blue Light: A soldier's bar. After four attempts to kill herself, Debbie overdosed on amphetamines.
She was loaded into a car, smuggled to her boyfriends house where she was put in a tub of cold water. She had slipped into a coma. Five hours after ingesting crushed bendrezine, she was taken to hospital.
April 18th, 1972, 1:00 am. 17 years old, only looking for love. Debbie Valgoz's heart stopped.
Fred Jr cried upon hearing the news.
The Phelps siblings:
Margie: "Fred was crying, I heard afterward it was for Debbie."
Mark: "There's no question that my brother wanted to spend his life with Debbie, she was who he loved. And I knew her well enough to say my brother was the first light of hope she'd had in her life. When he left her, that light went out."
And what was the reaction of Fred Phelps Sr?
Dancing, coming down the stairs and singing to the tune of 'Ding dong the wicked with is dead ' from Wizard of Oz, 'The whore is dead'.
Betty, Fred's wife, the one he met solely to appease his father, to avoid his inbred terror of hell, has stated that he still carries Debbie's picture in his wallet. He still loves her.
From Chapter 7 of http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Fred_Phelps.html

Sitting in her mother's house, the sinking afternoon sun pours through the screen door, casting its soft gold across the widow's tattered carpet. Debbie's mother offers, a little reluctantly and her eyes bright with guilt, the last moments of her daughter: a First Communion veil; a dried corsage from an Easter Sunday get-to-together, and the photo album Debbie kept at the orphanage. On its cover, printed in the awkward, block letters of a bruised but hopeful new reed, a flickering candle not yet quenched, are the words:

I LOVE FRED PHELPS

"Debbie Valgos was a whore extraordinaire," snaps Margie. But the father's words sound empty and formulaic on the daughter's tongue.

Murdered by hatred, by outdated ideals, by fear, by blind faith, by corruption, by blackmail, by indults. Debbie Valgos was murdered by Fred Phelps Sr.

Never Forget.

A Light Hearted WBC Post

2010-02-02T00:28:00.010Z

I just had to share this. A perfect point as to what the WBC really says. and it's a good photoshop.
Speaking of photoshops, how'd you like my Agendas And conspiracies logo; the title of a series on Youtube.

Gay Marriage

2010-01-31T21:03:00.008Z

In this post I will discuss the ever controversial debate on gay marriage. There is a website I've found that mentions and condemns homosexual marriage, so I will link to it and refute it.
http://www.allaboutlove.org/cons-of-same-sex-marriage.htm
This has ten points which I will mention and then counter. Please bear in mind that this is a relatively professional website, and I'm fifteen, so it says plenty if I can point out logical flaws.

Income taxes will be increased to make up for the marriage tax benefits given to homosexual couples and to pay for the social costs resulting from the increase in illegitimacy. We provide financial benefits to married couples because they produce and care for children. Why should homosexual couples get the same benefits as men and women raising children? Moreover, providing financial incentives for homosexual unions would be doubly counterproductive. First, taxpayers would be subsidizing, and thus encouraging destructive behavior. Second, we then would pay for the results of that behavior in the form of increased medical and social costs.
One thing really leaps out at me in this post: heterosexual couples get benefits because they look after children. No they don't, well, not all of them. Some heterosexuals are infertile, can't look after children for any number of reasons, or simply don't want children. What sets homosexuals apart from these couples? The fact they are same-sex. What makes same-sex relationships wrong? They can't have children? Neither can some heterosexuals. What makes them different? They are the same sex, and so on and so forth. A bit of a double standard and circular argument. Also, this argument calls homosexuality 'destructive behaviour'. Excuse me, but since when was love between two perfectly natural/ordinary adults destructive? The only reason I've found against this has been the idea that AIDS is more prevalent among the gay community. There are plenty of reasons why this doesn't make much sense, but I'll only mention a few. Firstly, if some people are more likely to have a disease, shouldn't they be pitied? Secondly, children are more likely to have any number of diseases, so where does that leave them? Thirdly, heterosexuals have AIDS too, so what makes the infected heterosexuals any different to homosexuals? Double standard again. Finally, what about lesbianism? That's the safest way to avoid AIDS, so shouldn't that be encouraged? The AIDS argument is a triple standard, not just a double standard.

Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) in order to pay survivor support benefits to homosexual “widows” and “widowers.”
Double standard again. Are they intending to limit the husbands and wives that can die in heterosexual relationships, because that's what it sound like to me. In fact, taking human nature into account, there are likely to be countless anti-gays out there who won't utilize the system of marriage due to the fact homosexuals can, if gay marriage is legalized. Not to mention, there are still homosexuals who have a heterosexual marriage to try and 'cure' themselves, often at the insistence of parents or a religion. And besides, can they claim to know the future? Do they claim to have a method to foresee these tax changes?

Medical insurance premiums will rise to offset the higher health care costs associated with homosexual behavior (i.e., AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases) which will likely increase if we approve same-sex marriage. Medical premiums would rise further if insurance companies are mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples (there’s sure to be some judge somewhere to order that!).
Higher health care costs? Where did that come from? Homosexuals aren't suddenly going to have more sex than ever if they get married; marriage is a way of getting a union respected legally, and a way to take another 'big step'. Why don't they make heterosexual marriage illegal, and prevent diseases that way? It's a double standard and still completely pointless; it makes no sense, unless a marriage ceremony is the new way to transmit diseases. Oh, and why would lesbians want fertility treatments? And besides, I don't know about you but, in my book, more money given to hospitals is a good thing. There isn't a 'homosexual' department-it applies to everyone.

Employee benefits will be reduced as employers are mandated to spread their limited benefit dollars to include homosexual partners. Limited benefit dollars given to homosexuals must come from somewhere; indeed, they are taken away from everyone else—married couples raising children.
As I've said, not all heterosexual couples raise children, and employers can only hire a limited amount of people. This isn't going to suddenly quadruple if you allow gay marriage. Nearly all these arguments employ a bizarre double standard.

Homosexual couples will be given legal preference to adopt due to their inability to procreate. In other words, homosexuals will not be granted equal rights but super rights—rights that will supersede your rights as a citizen. Tragically, children will be treated as trophies that, in effect, validate homosexual relationships.
Erm...what? Breaking news: anti-gay-marriage-activists have a method to see the future. I don't think there's going to be any legal preference to adopt, and besides, there are countless orphans worldwide. Are you saying they don't deserve parents? This is one of the more bizarre points, as it entirely hinges on guesswork and invalidated paranoid guesses. Children will be treated as trophies? Why?

Your children will be indoctrinated, with or without your consent, to accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage (we are seeing this in our public schools already, especially in California and Massachusetts).
Indoctrinated? I prefer the word 'informed' or 'taught'. Why? Because it is. Is racism legal? No. Why? Because it's discrimination based ons omething that can't be helped, and that has no basis on a person's abilities, attributes or actions. What makes racism any different to the anti-gay movement? Nothing.

Your workplace will attempt to indoctrinate you to the same ends—and if you refuse, you will either lose your job or not be considered a “team player.” (This is already happening through “diversity” training in many companies; it will become universal if same-sex marriage becomes law.)
So, would you prefer to work with a sexist, racist or agist? These arguments all are based on the point that homosexuality is wrong, which logically isn't so. In fact, even if you don't support homosexuality, these points are easy to see through to what they are: blind fear. It's like during the times in which people campaigned for women's suffrage. that's a perfectly ordinary, commonplace thing now, isn't it? You can see some similarities: the violence of the haters, the marches, the impassioned legal and moral pleas...

Your place of worship will be forced to hire homosexuals and play by new draconian rules that impose homosexuality. A Catholic adoption charity recently closed its doors in Massachusetts rather than offer children to homosexual couples as the state mandated. This new rule was the direct result of government-backed same-sex marriage. Tolerance will become a one-way street—you need to tolerate and even advance homosexuality, but homosexual activists don’t need to tolerate your views.
I refer you once again to sexism and racism. Do you tolerate racist beliefs? No. Why? Because it's wrong. So is being anti-gay, and I will hold that view until someone can prove to me that homosexuality is wrong in an argument I cannot logically refute. Feel free to challwnge me: email me at bijanewhite@gmail.com or send me a Youtube message.

Free speech and religion rights will be curtailed as opposition to homosexuality is criminalized as “hate speech” (as is now the case in Canada and Sweden). This should wake up religious people who erroneously believe they ought not to be involved in politics. Politics affects your ability to practice your religion! Once same-sex marriage is approved, it will not be long before you will be fined or imprisoned for expressing any opposition to homosexuality. People with religious moral convictions will be considered worse than racists.
Racism is hate speech. Sexism is hate speech. Homophobia is hate speech. Discrimination based on something that isn't wrong. Oh, and ability to practice religion? I don't see people campaigning for the endorsed and thoroughly supported by the Bible ideal of slavery.

Your government and its intrusive ways will grow as a result of the changes we have just reviewed. That’s another reason why liberals love same-sex marriage—it means more big government. They will call for more government programs to fix the mess caused by the destruction of the family and more government regulation to ensure that their new morality of political correctness is imposed on you, your children, and your place of worship.
There is no argument here. it's just a vague guess that homosexuals will worm their way into families and tear them apart. Excuse me, but that makes no sense. 'New morality of politcal correctness'? What, disallowing baseless hatred is wrong?

How will gay marriage affect you? It will not. It will simply allow some of the world to validate their love. The end of that webpage goes on about homosexuality harms homosexuals. Why? It doesn't say, it just appeals to the reader's anti-gay side. I cannot think of a single reason why homosexuality is wrong, or why it harms anyone. Let me know if you can think of a reason homosexuality can harm someone.

As a note: http://www.allaboutlove.org/homosexuality-and-racism-faq.htm
This states the difference between homosexuality and racism is that homosexuality is a choice, and that it harms people. Homosexuality isn't a choice (can you choose who you love? If so, love the next person you see. If you can, but you don't, if you love someone then you didn't choose that love) and harms no one. I've mentioned the only two real points previously. It harms no one. What business do you have in who we love?
They also say bodies are not designed for homosexuality. Says who? Try to picture it:
Gay man one: Oh no! Our bodies can't do this!
Gay man two: What, are you sure?
Gay man one: Yes! What are we going to do?
Gay man two: I don't know... Want to go bowling?
Gay man one: Sure, this isn't working...
It doesn't really make any sense, does it? On the next point, if you're going to press the point about gays not producing children and will ignore the double standard of infertile, elderly or deciding-not-to couples, here's a graph for you:

By letting homosexuals not be forced into heterosexual relationships, and by accepting homosexuality, this graph can be turned around, or at the very least affected. And would not having children really be so terrible, judging by this? Wouldn't you rather let the existing children who were made orphans be given their own parents, parents who care about them and will likely not have another child, and so would care immensely about the child?

Equality Now

2010-01-24T15:02:00.003Z

Join in on this please!
I've submitted my video.
The video is a link to the youtube page. the description contains more instructions.
Remember:
One Voice.
One Person.
One Idea.
Stand Up.
Be Heard
Equality NOW!

Christianity and Homophobia

2010-01-22T23:51:00.005Z

This will be my first post dealing directly with Christianity and the anti-gay movement. I've had one called 'Religion and Sexuality' but that went off on several tangents, and only really discussed slogans. This post is the new and improved version of that one.
I will do my best to keep the WBC out of this, but no promises.
And, for clarification, this deals with Christianity-which is the life of Jesus Christ. I was brought up Christian so I know a lot about the beliefs inside the religion.
My understanding-and I think there's a quote in the Bible somewhere-is that the death of Jesus on the cross washed away a number of the sins in the Old Testament. My Christian upbringing has lead me to believe this was because the Old Testament set forward beliefs too far in advance of mankind's abilities; God focused too much on the 'in His image' part of mankinds supposed creation and tried to get humanity to have the same morales as God. In the end though, this failed and God lessened his commands; commands presumably decided on by Jesus's life among humans.
What are Jesus's commands? This I do not know, but I do know that at no point in his life did Jesus mention homosexuality, much less condemn it. A less strict view may see this as a hint that God has changed His rules so they no longer include homosexuality, but let's continue. What does Jesus say?

Matthew 5:43-48
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Love thy neighbour. Speaks for itself.

John 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

A great lesson; let the one free from sin throw the first stone, to begin the stoning of an adultress. However, it contradicts a passage in the Old Testament: yet more proof things have changed.
The passage:

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

As you see, Jesus prevents the murder of the adultress.

1 Kings 15:12
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

What does this have to do with my tale you may ask. Well, it's just a little curiosity as there's a mildly famous Leviticus passage stating homosexuals shall be put to death. A contradiction in the same testament as the previous line was 'did what was right in the eyes of the Lord'. Which was not to kill homosexuals, but to exile them.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So, where was I? Ah yes, I was preparing to show why Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.

Timothy 2 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

What has this got to do with anything? Well, it states Jesus Christ gave each person a 'holy calling' that has no relation to that person's 'works'; which can be taken to mean either body or job. Accepting the teaching of the Bible that homosexuality is unnatural, could it not be said that homosexuality and transgenderism are not according to our works: and are instead according to some higher purpose or grace? We have no way to be sure, but what we do know is that a person has a holy calling. So Christians out there, while I may not accept your religion, you cannot say I don't research it. If the New Testament really is 'New' and does wash away some of the Old (such as the statements regarding shellfish as an abomination) then is it too much to accept that homosexuality also changed? Maybe now, homosexuality is part of a purpose.
None of Jesus' teachings mentioned homosexuality, I say again. Surely such a grievous sin-an abomination-would have at least been mentioned once?

The WBC still being insane!

2010-01-21T20:01:00.010Z

The Westboro Baptist Church are still ever so slightly mad. They don't affect me; I'm in the UK, but I still feel their actions.
Why are they mad? Please look at the video below:

The WBC created the website God Hates Fags. Then what? They were so 'popular' they decided to expand. Despite the fact, to my knowledge, their congegation is made up of around one hundred people; eighty percent of which are family.
A list; the WBC hate, as does (apparently) God:
Homosexuals
Jews
Muslims
Sikhs
Any non-Christian
Catholicism
The Pope
Anyone outside the WBC
Barack Obama
Sins condemned by the Bible (more on that later)
The Episcopal Church
American Soldiers
The Marine Corps
Santa Claus (?!)
Methodists
Presybyterians
Lutherans
Baptists
The Laramie Project
Michael Jackson
Hindus
China
Ireland
Italy
Sweden
Australia
America
The World
and now... Lady Gaga.
Ok, I won't say I'm a big fan of her music (I only heard a single track of hers less than a month ago, which was quite good I'll say) but still.

God apparently loves:
9/11
Australian bushfires
any kind of natural disaster; probably Haiti sometime soon.

The interesting thing about the Phelps's: you'd expect their family to be close knit correct? Wrong. Mark and Nate Phelps, two of Fred Phelps' sons fled the Church and, despite their Biblical teachings, are now Christian; but no kind of Christian endorsed by the WBC.
And who's surprised? In their household, their father had the hobby of beating them. At only seven years of age, Nate Phelps was punished by his father by being lifted into the air and having Fred Phelps' knee smashed repeatedly into his stomach and groin. At only five years of age, regular beatings started for Nate Phelps in the form of forty hits with a mattock handle.
That's not all. Fred also convinced Mark Phelps-one who later left the church-to join in with the violence. He was allowed to hit anyone who fell asleep in church, for a start. He even assisted with the beatings. However, in church, Mark once hit Nate-his own brother-so hard blood spurted across the pew.
One time, Fred Phelps threw his wife down a staircase-one with sixteen steps. There was no rail. She tried to stay up, grabbing onto the steps, and tore a ligament in her right shoulder. Fred refused to get the required surgery and her shoulder hasn't fully recovered since.
Fred Phelps is also obssessed with keeping his family thin. Once he locked his daughter Kathy in her room for forty days, giving her only water. At one point her siblings smuggled her tomato juice, and Fred caught her with it. She refused to tell him who gave it to her. Following this, she was beaten for two hours with fist and mattock handle. While she was quite literally starving, having been given no food.
There are many more horrors, but you can read up on these yourself:
http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Fred_Phelps.html

Next: the WBC, the Phelps's obey the Bible to the letter correct? Well, apart from the countless 'love thy neighbour' passages.
Do they?
No.
For a start, Leviticus, the same chapter that cendemns homosexuality, also condemns shellfish. Shirley Phelps Roper went onto a phone call with the parody site 'God Hates Shrimp' and publicly stated that God's law not to eat shrimp was (wait for it) a law one could choose whether or not to follow.
Not to mention, Shirley Phelps Roper herself has defied the Bible by her own admission!
Her crime? She...

Listen to the video; she herself admits that Shirley Phelps-Roper has conceived a child through fornication, condemned by the quotes mentioned in the video.
And, for the sake of it, from 2 Timothy in the Bible:
1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
If this is true then God made homosexuals gay, well, Jesus did: and Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Maybe God is against it-but Jesus appears to support it.

Just to finish off; Phelps-Roper stated Jesus died on the cross to stop her Biblical crime being a sin. Died for her. Not for all sinners; just her. She is forgiven, not because she repented, but because Jesus died.
In her own words.
So why doesn't this apply to homosexuals?

Coming Out Of The Closet Complication

2010-01-18T15:09:00.002Z

I'm half way out of the closet, as of 8:05 am on the 18th January 2010.
And even then, only kind of. First my mother asked if I was gay, after I pretty much did the same, and I responded 'half.' For ease of use, rather than simply being 50:50 homosexual/heterosexual. She then said there were no half measures; I said 'bisexual.'
That's the complication. In her words, there is no 'bisexual', it's just a 'cover-up'. A cover up with its own flag, own letter in the LGBT acronym, recognized on the Kinsey Scale...
It hurt. that's really all I can say; I know who I am, I know what I am, and to me it is incomprehensible how someone can only love one gender. to me that, defines a complete bisexual pretty well. I accept those who are homosexual or heterosexual: it doesn't mean I want to be one.

Islam and Homophobia

2010-01-14T21:45:00.008Z

Due to repeated arguments with a Muslim homophobe on Youtube, I have taken to educating myself about the Quran.
To begin with, it features an astounding four verses against homosexuality. Yes, that's right, four. All of these relate to a story-one it shares with the Bible-about Sodom.
Here's a synopsis:

Two angels were wondering the land, and they went to Sodom. As they entered, a citizen, known as Lot, asked them if they'd like to spend the night in his house. The two angels-both male-agreed.
Lot had two daughters.
Anyway, the villagers soon found out Lot had two men in his house and demanded that he let the angels out so that the males could rape them, which is horrific I'll admit.
Lot said that he wouldn't, and instead offered out his daughters. yes, that's right, instead of allowing the villagers to rape two other people, he offered his own children, his own daughters. The men said no.
The angels then condemned the villagers for 'leaving their wives to satisfy lusts with men.' Then the angels magically escaped with lot, and possibly with his two daughters though I am not sure on that point. Lot's wife remained behind, in Sodom, as the city was destroyed by Allah.
Note: in the Bible, Lot's wife also escaped but was turned to salt when she looked back.

The Quran condemns those who repeat 'the sin of Sodom.' However, in this context the sin is rape and adultery. No mention of homosexuality is present. Instead, the angels were to be raped by the villagers-who had left their wives. Wives who were presumably still in the city when it was destroyed, and so killed despite the fact they were innocent and were as much victims of the whole affair as the angels.

To quote the opinion of the person I argued with on Youtube, homosexuals are atheists and should be killed.
Right. Does that 'homosexuals are atheists' extend to Reverend Paul Moore-Bishop of the Episocal Church of Christianity, the bisexual and Jewish Anne Frank, and the Muslim Ismail Merchant? Not to mention, the Quran allows you to choose a belief without coercion:
Verse 109:6: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion
This verse alone is the reason I have not been as violent as I was when I discussed Christianity and homophobia.
The question is, how many people listen to it? I accept the majority of Muslims may not be full of hatred, but the minority of homophobic and violent Muslims are the target of this post.

Back on topic, those four verses dealt only with that story, so as a matter of fact I have pointed out the flaw in the sole point in the Quran that opposes homosexuality. To go into more detail however;

Verse 7:80: And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?

The abomination, as I said, was not homosexuality but, for a moment, let's pretend it was. So at this time, the countless existing homosexual animals didn't exist, and only humanity was gay?

In fact, transgenderism and lesbianism is not mentioned at all in the Quran. Every verse mentions 'laying with a male' and not a female with a female. Therefore, it follows that lesbianism is not condemned so, bad luck, but you're going to have to think of a new reason against them. In fact, lesbianism is where most homophobic arguments fall down, but I'll probably discuss that later.
On the subject of transgenderism and transsexuality: apart from the simple fact it is omitted, the 'abomination that no creature has commited before you' definitely doesn't apply to transgenderism. There are countless animals, such as clownfish, which change sex.

All four homophobic verses in the Quran are:

7:80-81 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

As I've said, this point is incorrect on the intial point, and then it goes onto discuss lust. That is completely different to homosexuality; homosexuality is about love.

26:165-166 What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward folk.

This verse focuses more on the adulterous side of the story as opposed to the homosexuality, but it's the presence of this which moves the verse count up to four. Yet again I say: adultery, not homosexuality.

27:54-55 And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination knowingly ? Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly.

Yet again this says 'lust.' Not love. And if i'm not mistaken Lot is addressing the rapist town so the 'acting senselessly' applies to the rape and adultery.

29:28-29 And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you. For come ye not in unto males, and cut ye not the road, and commit ye not abomination in your meetings ? But the answer of his folk was only that they said: Bring Allah's doom upon us if thou art a truthteller!

Yet again, this discusses adulterous rape, and makes a factual innaccuracy in saying there are no homosexual animals.

The Quran is open to interpretation. Primarily, Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, and yet there are countless people who use it to justify violence. There are also many different sects of Islam-such as Sunni and Shia-which believe different things. They interpret such things as the Quran many different ways. To some, AIDS is Allah's modern-day Sodom tale, whereas some see AIDS as the work of a demon. Is it too much to believe that Islam could in fact not be filled with hatred towards homosexuals?

Two more quotes for you:

5:8 O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.

Speaks for itself: let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly.

16:101 And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.

And so, Allah with put for revelations forward-possibly one such as the idea that Sodom does not condemn homosexuality-and the public will say it was an invention, and that they 'know not' what the truth is. To all of you out there: do you know that this is not a new revelation? The Tafseer were written by the Bukhari, and the Bukhari were, no offense intended, still human. In fact, they're akin to the Disciples of Jesus in Christianity: and those disciples were known to make mistakes-such as the infamous Judas Iscariot, Peter and his denial... Who's to say the Bukhari aren't like Judas and stabbing their prophet in the back, metaphorically, and lying about his message? Who's to say they aren't denying the truth?
The Tafseer are a holy truth?
Prove it.

Finally, a last note to homophobic Muslims:

Verse 3:66 Lo! ye are those who argue about that whereof ye have some knowledge: Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge? Allah knoweth. Ye know not.

Bisexual Or Pansexual?

2010-01-07T12:41:00.007Z

I recently saw this on Youtube and decided it merited a mention here.
Pansexual-an attraction to a person of either sex regardless of gender. Essentially 'gender-blind' which means they can also be attracted to transgender people.
I decided to discuss pansexuality here as it is represented a lot less than it deserves to be. The acronym for the community, LGBT, doesn't even make a mention of pansexuality.

In my opinion, there is only one real choice in the matters of sexual orientation. When all is said and done, and you've chosen how to define yourself, whould it be bisexual or pansexual? As I've said, the main difference whether or not you are attracted to transgender people.
I say this is a choice because, despite the fact you cannot choose who you love, you can choose how you view transgender people. Pansexuals love people outside the gender binary, while bisexuals love those within it, and I personally view a transgender/transexual as whichever gender they are mentally, thus making them fall within the gender binary.
So, to turn this into an advice post, if you are attracted to transgender peole, how do you view them? Do you see them as a blend of both genders, or as a gender in their own right, or as whichever gender they strive to be? The latter makes you bisexual in my eyes, but it is really down to you.
That being said however, I would begin to think of myself as pansexual if I find myself attracted to a self-declared third-gender. I would however remain bisexual if I am attracted to another bigender-my masculine side would love the masculine/feminine side of them, and my feminine side would love the other, in essence. Sorry abot the mildly confusing ending.

As a final note, pansexuality should be represented more. It reminds me of the early days of bisexuality; when it was considered a cop-out, a phase, and just a minority of confused lesbian and gays. Now it even has its own flag, a separate community and its own 'night life.' With any luck, pansexuality will have the same growth.

My Misinterpretation Of The Bible

2010-01-06T12:49:00.003Z

This all about my apparently horrific mistake I made quoting the Bible on Youtube.

I said:
You have to disregard parts of the Bible. Bad luck.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

and

Thou Shalt Not Kill-the ten commandments.

Which do you choose?
In response to someone who said they'd never disregard the Bible.

Someone responded with:
FagJane, only the ungodly--who reject the Holy Bible selectively or totally--would try to twist the intent of the commandment not to kill

Yes, I'm very sorry. What was it supposed to mean? Ah, yes, he said it was meant to mean 'not to murder.' My sincere (and incredibly sarky) apology.

To: Parents

2010-01-01T01:28:00.005Z

To all parents in the world, that understand English,

Is your child at all homosexual, bisexual or transgender? Do you think they might be?
This is the opinion of a soon-to-be-with-any-luck uncloseted bisexual. We do want to tell you, despite any embarassment we might feel. If we act like we're joking, but refer to ourselves as feminine, or constantly make LGBT references (or, like I've done, and directly describe a bisexual flag, or any other LGBT symbol) then we're trying to tell you something. We do need you to know what we are and accept us for it.
I might be your child; don't forget that bit. I did my best to engineer this blog and various other accounts so that my parents might find them. If you're reading this and you have a child, I may well be your child. Remember that. I want my parents to know, in fact I'm planning to tell them tomorrow. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. We'll see. And even then, is there any difference between me right now and the other closeted LGBT people? We want you to know. Ask us, if you're ready to know the truth.

Love, Jane.

Coming Out Of The Closet: Thoughts

2010-01-01T00:40:00.003Z

This is a subject that's been featuring in my thoughts lately. The metaphorical closet all LGBT people live in, until they 'come out' and express to the world who they really are. At the time I am writing this, I am uncloseted to all except for my parents, and I thought I could live with this. I mean, my sexuality has had very little bearing with anything to do with my parents-I haven't brought home a girlfriend or boyfriend or anything yet. However, now I think about it, I thought about how much I was missing.
Quite simply, they have a right to know. I'm bisexual so it's entirely possible I'll marry a woman in the future. However, there is an almost equal chance that I'll end up with a male and I don't think they'd appreciate that kind of informative means. I do have to come out of the closet sometime.
On a different note, I am more than just bisexual. I am bigender which is currently manifesting itself as more transgender than anything. I linger in the jewellry sections of shops, wish I could wear high heels, spend time figuring how my hair would look if it was shoulder length, even looking up make-up tips. A previous post ('What We Have To Bear') details a haircut, which for me at least was surprisingly traumatic. I lost part of myself. Why? Because my parents didn't know I was trangender. If I came out of the closet, I wouldn't have to live through that. I could grow my hair long (shoulder length, curled a little at the end. I think these things through) and wear gender-neutral clothes in public, maybe dresses around the house (pale blue, like the earrings I imagined and loved). The possibilities are almost endless.

So, back on topic. Doubtless, it is beneficial to come out of the closet. For a perspective on the closet from a closeted bisexual, I will write this:
We need people to see who we are. I felt like I could live easily without my parents knowing, but the little assumptions they made were driving me mad within a week. Grandchildren (not possible if I end up with a male), a wife (same point) etc etc. I'm also mid way through puberty currently (a great loss to me. Deep voice and the like) so when I'm being slightly blatant, more or less yelling that I don't want facial hair, they act like I'm joking and say there's no way to stop it. I did my best not to shout 'oestrogen treatment' and the various other transexual treatments. On the subject of facial hair, no thanks. Transgender for the most part currently. I am partly male, but that persona is fairly artificial. I lived my life as a male, so if anything I'm a tomboy. Even with that, I don't want to say goodbye to my masculine side, so I'm staying as bigender, even if I do end up getting SRS (Sexual Reassignment Surgery. The legal way to become physically female). Yet another reason i hate this closety. It limits how I can live my life. I need to get out of this closet so I can be myself. To join the LGBT pride marches later in life hopefully. My lifes ambition is to go see Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, garbed in a dress, earrngs, necklace, make up, preferrably post-SRS, the works, act like I'm interested in their views, act like I want to join-calling myself Jane all the while. then I'll say something like 'Oh, and my birth name is (insert my male name here), that's not a problem is it?' before running like crazy. Alternatively, I could pull another Michael Moore. See previous post.
Hopefully, sometime soon I will write a post entitled 'Coming Out Of The Closet: Aftermath.' My New Years Resolution was to become uncloseted, so with any luck i won't have anything to worry about after January.
I will also discuss my method for coming out and any suggestions for any other closeted people out there. There are surprisingly few real stories that can benefit people.

God Hates Fags Continued

2009-12-18T14:22:00.004Z

They've been directly attacking me and my community, so I thought I'd return the favour.
The Westboro Baptist Church, runners of a website called 'god hates fags' (one I don't deign to give capital letters) is evidently opposed to homosexuality in all its forms. I've already done a previous post about them, where I detailed how little they actually say, and have also done a post where I knock down most Christian related anti-homosexual arguments.
In this one, I will just directly attack the WBC in direct retaliation for the hundreds of protests they have done against the LGBT people.

First of all, I'll just say that I am in the process of reading a blog they have set up. One that I have noticed does not support comments. How interesting. There is no way to point out anything to them on that blog.
I am not sure of the context, but there is a post based around an email someone sent to them. yes, someone contacted them, via an email link that I myself have used...ON A DIFFERENT WEBSITE. I had to get that out of my system. Anyway, this email sent to them was asking why they said God sent a shooter, when it could have been the easy accessibility of guns in the USA. As a matter of fact, he was very respectful. The reply:

ONLY because you do not believe, do you say those words. You have no faith and you say plainly that God is a liar. Bad plan!

Thanks for writing.

The Lord is coming, this nation’s destruction is IMMINENT - FEAR GOD, OBEY HIM and give the glory of the 13 dead at the hands of their fellow war-monger, TO GOD! It is HIS work and it is marvelous before our eyes!! MUSH!!

Mush? Mush what?
Anywa, don't believe me? Here's the link: http://blogs.sparenot.com/index.php/workmen/?title=yeah-you-fool-god-sent-the-shooter-deal-with-it&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

This is not spam, I just believe I need to back up my points with fact or I'll get ripped to shreds.
I am not normally this violent. It's just that I've recently had a haircut, which made me more masculine, and I really hate the WBC.

Elsewhere: they attack Barack Obama. Did you know, Obama is apparently the antichrist? They in fact have a whole post about 'Obama the murderer' which deals with his stance on abortion. I am not pro-abortion by any stretch of imagination, but they say that Obama's view that 'an unprepared pregnancy is a punishment' as evil. Well, an unprepared pregnancy is not going to be enjoyable for mother, father or child. Interestingly, the WBC also discusses children borne of fornication as evil. well, they don't say it in so many words, but they attack Obama for things his mother may or may not have done, thereby saying a child is as much to blame as their parents. By the same logic, a child born outside marriage to them is deserving of death. And yet they oppose a similar view for no reason other than their sick, selfish hatred of a man. In fact, I sent a version of this paragraph to them via their well hidden contact us section.

I also love Micheal Moore's method of facing off against the WBC.

I have plenty more of this coming. Just wait!

BiJane on Youtube!

2009-12-15T17:58:00.003Z

I have made a Youtube channel in which I will explore topics put forward in this blog and anything else suggested.
I made it a few days ago, but due to unavoidable issues-my microphone and my bad speaking voice and diction-the introduction has only just been put up.
Feel free to suggest any topics.

Here I am: http://www.youtube.com/user/BiJaneWhite

Homophobia

2009-12-10T18:22:00.004Z

This brings the intelectuality of homophobia up a few levels.
I do not normally go in for Ad Hominem arguments, I just think I may have been overly serious in my previous posts, well not overly as this is a serious topic, but some people might get bored. This was something more interesting.

God Hates Fags

2009-12-03T21:39:00.001Z

I'm focusing a bit too much on religion now I think but what can you do?

I just found a very interesting website that made me the angriest I've ever been. Here's the URL: http://www.godhatesfags.com/

By no means I am endorsing this site. I am essentially knocking it to pieces as, essentially, they're scared. I say those words with a meaning behind them. I rummaged through that packet of hateful lies for well over an hour and not once did I find a 'contact us' section. Surely 'men of God' would not be scared of a few words transmitted by email? Evidently so. It would appear such a 'brave, strong, just' cause is afraid. Why?

Strangely, there was a section, on a separate blog based web page, that said they'd reply to emails there.

Ah, wait, there is a way to contact them. i have that website open in a separate window. I had to search 'email' on a small search box,one that's very hard to find. I then had to read through search results written in html code. I was then put through to a form where I entered this:

Let's see if I get a response... If I do, I'll post it here and quite possibily tear it to shreds.

This post was originally put up on the third of December 2009. I have not received a reply; could it be that they couldn't support their own beliefs?

Acceptance

2009-12-02T20:48:00.000Z

The key to any happy non-heterosexual relationship, or any relationship outside your normal range, is quite simply acceptance.
Accept who you are. Accept who you like. Accept your orientation.

To quote Kurt Cobain: "Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are."

Religion and Sexuality

2009-12-01T23:37:00.001Z

This post will focus primarily on Christianity and Homosexuality, as I was brought up in a Christian Primary School, though I moved on to become, thankfully, agnostic.

Christianity and the Bible. The Bible directly states to kill homosexuals. That's one tenth of the world. There are also the slogans (Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, God Abhors You, AIDS cures fags and yadda yadda yadda). Right, let's see if I can counter each and every one of them.

First of all, the 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' slogan. I refer you to Eve's 'birth.' She was grown from Adam's rib. Nowadays, that would be called cloning. If God is almighty, why not just fabricate Eve? Why take Adam's rib? At the very least, Eve must be considered transexual as she was once male.
Next: 'God Abhors You.' So, what you're saying is the almighty, benevolent God has singled out the homosexuals as abhorrent? Seriously? The point is most of the world knows this is wrong, and yet Christians believe it.
And the last slogan 'AIDS cures fags.' So, to 'cure the disease' of homosexuality, you suggest killing us? I refer you to Commandment VI. Thou Shalt Not Kill. You suggest breaking one of the ten rules put down by God to deal with a natural status. I'm not even going to bother with countering that. it's obvious.

Next, here's the destruction of the 'gays are paedophiles' lie. A large amount of sexually abused children are males, abused by males. But does that mean it's related to LGBT? No. For the most part, LGBT are attracted to masculinity, not to feminity otherwise we'd be heterosexual. Young boys have smooth skin, feminine facial features and a higher voice. It's fairly evident that heterosexual cravings causes a large proportion of paedophilia.

Finally, the 'ex-gay' ministries. While I say people can change orientation, it's not a complete change and is instead a repression of one set of desires and acting on the other set. It is also a conscious decision; if you want to stop being gay, fair enough. Avoid the predujices (the main reason I took so long confessing my own bisexuality) or maybe you believe the Bible. Don't expect to remove the urges. Think of it as a food. You like the food, you can get it, but maybe it's like chocolate and is unhealthy. Bad analogy, I know, but it gets the point across; it won't be easy to stop. To clarify the point, I say people can change their orientation because I define orientation as how a person sees themself. You can choose to call yourself heterosexual and be homosexual, and many do. For example, there are a surprising number of 'ex-gay' councillors who try to supposedly 'desensitize' their 'patients' by acting out homosexual scenarios. The interesting thing is that these 'ex-gay' councillors themselves are 'ex-gay;' they didn't remove their desires. However, it is possible that the councillors believed they were simply desensitizing their patients and not fulfilling their own sexual cravings. Ex-gay is the wrong term. Personally, I prefer asexual as they'll never truly experience love or sexuality unless they're bisexual. If they're bisexual, they have a choice as to whether or not to be homosexual.

The ex-ex-gays are when it just gets confusing. A member or supporter of the ex-gay ministries deciding to release his own sexuality and let themself be who they truly are, and let others be who they truly are.

Key phrase: Be who you truly are. If you're Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Rastifarian, Atheist or even Jedi, I won't stop you. If you're homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, pomosexual or asexual, fair enough. Can the two co-exist?

Don't blame us for everything that's wrong in the world. That's the work of God and Humanity. No more, no less. Humanity as a whole is to blame, not the subjects of the label LGBT.

Polyamorist?

2009-12-01T23:06:00.000Z

This is an issue I've seen growing recently.
There is an increasing stereotype of bisexuals being polyamorists or unfaithful. This post is simply a statement of fact. Bisexuality does not mean polyamory. A polyamorist could be heterosexual, homosexual or, yes, bisexual. It's a possibility, but not every bisexual is an automatic polyamorist. We are essentially heterosexuals when we love the opposite sex or homosexuals when we love the same sex. Oh, and that is not a good metaphor-we are and always will be bisexual, attracted to both sexes, but we are the same as the other sexual orientations. If that doesn't make any sense, simply remember: Bisexuals, homosexuals, heterosexuals, pansexuals and pomosexuals are the same, we just choose different roads to our goals. It is a possibility someone is a polyamorist. it is by no means a certainty that a bisexual is a polyamorist or is unfaithful.
My apologies for grouping polyamory and unfaithfulness together, I understand they are different, it's just that they're both used as stereotypes.
As a side note related to stereotypes: Experimenting. Common bisexual stereotype. Now I want to make one thing blindingly clear:

Bisexuality is an orientation. It is not just a phase, not made up purely of curious males, females, transmen or transwomen. It is a valid, true and accepted, plain and simple, sexual orientation.

Rant over. That specific stereotype however is the reason I brought up Katy Perry in my first post. 'I Kissed A Girl.' Remember that song? It contains the lyrics 'you're my experimental game,' 'don't mean I'm in love tonight' and 'not the way good girls should behave.' The first two quite clearly show the experimental stereotype, the last just shows homophobia plain and simple. Yes, Iam expecting this paragraph to be controversial. Controversiality is good for you; it lets you think about both sides of something.

If you don't agree, let me know.