Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness? – Conservapedia

January 11, 2012 at 8:45 pm (Politics)

YES

You’d have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, “wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned”. Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.

Just so you know, not everyone believes in your Bible. You’d have to be crazy to believe that everyone does.

Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it “normal” are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It’s like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society’s refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the “gay community”, the murder rate is high, The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. [1] and even in “gay enclaves” like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. [2] drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. —Ed Poor 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

• N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote: A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that “the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.” Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else–not even life and health itself–is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. [2] —Ed Poor 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

• My scientific and theological statements each stand on their own. Please respond to science with science and theology with theology, rather than dismissing my statements. Otherwise, there is no debate.

To state unequivocally that homosexuality “is a development disorder which begins in early childhood,” is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. [3] [4] Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. [5]

• Your accusation of dishonesty is misplaced. Positions taken by the APA or WHO are not related to the science; those organizations are politicized (see politicized science). What matters is the research.
• Additionally, your reference to a biological basis is incorrect, as scientists have yet to find one – despite media campaigns about a “gay gene“, the research points away from genetics.
• As to “environment”, if you mean the way children are brought up in their families, then this proves my point. If homosexuals are made, then homosexuals can be cured (although this is harder: see reparative therapy). —Ed Poor Talk 08:38, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. —Ed Poor 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

• N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote: A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that “the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.” Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else–not even life and health itself–is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. [2] —Ed Poor 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

To state unequivocally that homosexuality “is a development disorder which begins in early childhood,” is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. [6] [7] Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. [8]

If “attempts to consider [homosexuality] ‘normal’ are politically and ideologically motivated,” then attempts to consider it abnormal are also politically and ideologically motivated.

I’m really not sure why the cleft palate analogy would make sense. Does cleft palate develop “from unhappiness with the family?” And does it lead “to further unhappiness when embraced?” That aside, the gist of this statement is that homosexuality can be treated. I’ll explain how that is just plain false.

People who denigrate or attack homosexuals for their behavior can negatively impact those individuals and can lead to depression. Is that so hard to understand? Again, making statements about the correlation of homosexuality with crime rates, depression and suicide is intellectually dishonest. Correlation is not the same as causation.

By far the biggest concern with Ed’s statements is the use of his references. The first reference leads to “Notes From the Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School” at http://www.logosresourcepages.org. These notes, not to mention the parent site, are chalk full of religious ideology and scriptural references. Remember my first paragraph concerning the religious realm cutting into scientific inquiry? Keep it scientific and leave theology out of it.

The second reference is even more disturbing, hands down. NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality espouses using reparative therapy to “cure” homosexual behavior. Reparative therapy has never been proven to work and papers published by those who use this method are never peer-reviewed. [9] Here is one of their mission statements from their website:

“NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education.” [10]

Again, what does religion have to do with a scientific issue? Why are there pastoral counselors and religious lay-people working for a research and therapy organization?

Not only that but, those working as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and educators at NARTH are not backed by their peers. Organizations that do not accept reparative therapy include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association. [11]

Finally, N.E. Whitehead’s, or Neil E. Whitehead’s, quote makes serious assumptions and leaps of logic. If a gay advocate sees the “outlaw” aspect of homosexuality as a positive benefit, that doesn’t mean that all homosexuals do. Nor does it mean that “outlaw” behavior is negative. “Outlaw” behavior is in response to what society already deems to be taboo, or a sin. To then say that many people who value same-sex behavior and therefore see this behavior as the only value of existence, is just false. Is there not room to be gay, have a family, do community service, go to church, and generally “value life?” Everyone values life. In sum, this debate has already been settled by the scientific community. —Edge333 16:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Is Sin a mental illness? It does affect the mind. You can’t seperate God from man. Man was created in His image and likeness. To go against the Creator and sin, you are writing checks to the Devil and his demons.– jp 23:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

NO

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person’s actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one’s ability to function; it does not impair a person’s ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. Developmental Psychology, 31, 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual’s sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual’s ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. —Laches 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don’t approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn’t be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.–Roopilots6 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don’t know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.–Laches 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

NO!!! Homosexuality is not a mental illness,is not immoral, and is not wrong in any way, ask yourself is it your fault you like choclate, or, better yet is it your fault your conservetive, there is nothing wrong being homosexual, and homosexuality s not a mental illness, twins may have identical genetics but just grew up differently and one became homosexual it has no basis in genetics -RG :{

I understand why some people disagree with homosexuality, but, as Laches said, just because people disagree with it does not constitute calling it a mental illness. If that was so, you could call democrats, conservatives, Michael Moore (alright, he is kind of nuts), liking or not liking a TV show, or any number of things a mental illness. Also, tolerating homosexuality is different from accepting it. You don’t have to think it’s totally alright. Heck, I don’t think a lot of things the government does are totally alright. That doesn’t mean that I’m an anarchist. I tolerate it. The same thing goes for homosexuality. You may not agree with it, but at least be respectful of it. —SapphoChan17 7:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT) Let me say that it is as much a mental illness as liking the color red, or living in a big house, or anything else that is just a way of life Eljawa 08:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Are you kidding me? Whoever thinks homosexuality is a mental illness is so wrong. The majority of homosexuals are mentally sane and probably moreso than most of the idiots who think there is something wrong with it. Have you people been living in caves? A large proportion of people who have really made an impact on the world in some way are/were homosexuals…think about Oscar Wilde etc! You people who think it is a mental illness, I have one more thing to say to you, Return to your amish hovels and churn butter until you can do so no more, then sod-off back to the dark ages from whence you came! User:bealecr 14:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

leave the bible out of this! For gosh sakes, not everthing has to do with the bible. It is a book, and like the Koran, even Harry Potter, you can chose to believe in it. If you don’t want to, thats fine. Homosexualioty may be a disorder from birth, a disorder won choses, or even just someone choosing to be gay. Most gays proby wouldnt chose this though considering how much flack they get mind you. if it is a disorder who cares though? Being gay should be no differnt then being black, white, or born with only one leg. We should all strive to achieve whats best for ourselfs and if being gay makes you happy, then go ahead. it doesnt matter if you chose to or not, do what you want. And by the way, how is discriminating against the gays good for heterosexuals? It benifits them in NO way.

It can’t be cured and it can’t be controlled. So no, of course not. Its seen in nature [and in people]. So what’s the problem? That Bible of morals you have also says oppressors should oppress their people (Romans 13), women should be silent in assembly, should submit to their husbands, etc.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Someone said it is “a development disorder which begins in early childhood”. That is not true. They are confused with an actual psychological disorder called Gender Identity Disorder, or GID. Gender Identity Disorder is commonly first seen in childhood. Children who show these symptoms are sometime called tom boys or nancy boys. Those with GID are homosexual, but they are homosexuals who seek a relationship with a heterosexual. An example would be a natural born male who dresses in woman clothing who seekes a relationship with a heterosexual man. He feels he was born in the wrong body and he should be a female. Many crossdress and consider sex reassignment surgury.

just as much as heterosexuality-Greenmeanie 01:07, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Is it anyones fault that they like the color blue? Is it anyones fault they like coffee? Is it anyones fault that they’re sexually attracted to animals, corpses, or little children? If that’s the case, then bestiality, necrophilia, and child molestation aren’t immoral either. I mean, you can’t help that you want to partake in sexual intercourse with an animal or corpse or child, right? Moral and immoral are based on how you feel towards a matter. Thats great to know you don’t think its immoral, just know you speak for yourself and your own feelings. I would say to leave morality out of this since obviously there will be different truths. In terms of feelings and most everything, truth is in the mind of the beholder. but back to mental illness, mental illness is a health condition that changes a person’s thinking, feelings, or behavior or all three. But the question with that is, changes their thinking feelings or behavior from what? normal? natural? who decides what is normal or natural? the answer to that is popular opinion. its not necessarily truth, its just an agreement amongst multiple people. So why did the majority of people decide that homosexuality was a mental illness (before 1973 when popular opinion changed) ? I guess that they looked around for answers instead of just deciding things based on feelings. Penis and anus, vagina and vagina, they cant reproduce. The survival of a species is based on its ability to survive and reproduce. If we didn’t have the technology we have (such as artificial insemination) , and if everyone was homosexual, there would eventually be no more humans. I guess that people said it was a mental illness because they figured that the want of survival of ones’ species is normal or natural. (i say we need both homosexual and heterosexual in order to limit the population so that theres enough recourses to go around so that the race of human can continue.) -nathan

The real mental disorder is in believing what Conservapedia writes of homosexuality. Not only is the information misrepresentative, it excludes the fact that while some cases are inflicted by psychosocial causes, homosexuality can sometimes be genetically predisposed and has been observed in many species of animals, but most famously sheep. Either way, homosexuals are still people too and discrimination and persecution is not the answer. There once was a time when interracial marriage was illegal. Gays may become the blacks of tomorrow.

Freud stated that religion is a psychosis. A mental illness. When someone with mental illness accuses someone else of having mental illness, is he informed or crazy? James101.

Being black is genetic, homosexuality on the other hand is behavior, thus a comparison of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, makes no sense–  Deborah (contributions) (talk) email me 22:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

In some cases, homosexuality has been proven to be genetic.

My following reply answers both this question and if homosexuality is a choice.

No, it’s just a sin. With what previous people have stated, mental illnesses dictate a person’s actions. Only with medication and severe therapy are they able to overcome it.

Homosexuals, whether someone thinks they are (choice) or they were actually melded into that state, they have will power. They can choose whether to act upon it or not. Summary: Homosexuality (attraction) is not a choice. Fake homosexuality (experimentation) is a choice. Homosexuals are not sinful (in this one sexual immorality sense) unless they act upon their attraction.

Counterpoints/criticism encouraged on my above comments. o.O Nate my opinion matters? 14:41, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

yeah of course being gay is amental illness just like being left handed those revolting left handers how dare they go against the norm! and those people who can’t curl their tongue in a tube why it sickens me just to look at them something is obviously wrong with them. and last the most disgusting of all those people who are immune to poison ivy eww can’t believe they chose such sick lifestyles can you.(Gosweden)

I’m sorry, but if you think homosexuality is a mental illness (or worse, a choice) then your an ignorant bigot (or just mean, stupid, and/or gullible). Homosexuals are homosexual because of their genes. The ONLY reason people think otherwise is because their religion tells them so and they feel compelled to defend their infallible religion. Unfortunately (sarcasm) we don’t live in a biblical world anymore; people can explain homosexuality properly and can be tolerant. I don’t really like how religious people today still embrace the terribly old-fashioned viewpoint of the Bible and discriminate. C’mon people! Think for yourselves for once. You’re grown adults . . . act that way! Sorta went off on a tangent there…my bad… AShep 21:38, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
Being a gay male, I can tell you that it certainly isn’t a choice that I’m attracted to males. And since it does not negatively impact my ability to function in society or impair my thought process in any way, I think I can safely say that it isn’t a mental illness. It is a choice to act on desires, but the desires themselves aren’t a choice. Just to be clear. So…how is it a disease, again? – MattOfMadison

More Research Needed

I dunno about this one. I know it’s not normal, but I think before we go trying to fix or change something, we should understand it. I’m definitely in favor of research into homosexuality. Only then can we find the right way to fix it. —Hitchens 23:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Why would we need to fix something that does not need to be corrected? ChrisQ 22:40, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

That is the major point. Where is the problem? As far as we know, Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein, Torquemada, Musolini, all the current African dictators, Somoza, Pinochet, all Chinese presidents or emperators, and so on (we may fill several pages), are/were not homosexual, however, just one of them made more crimes that all the homosexual men together. We need to focus…..

Are we talking about homosexuality as an attraction or acting upon homosexuality? God doesn’t hate His children, He hates their sins. Fellow God-believers…am I right? o.O Nate my opinion matters? 14:46, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

References

1. ↑ Manfred E. Kober, “Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?” class notes, p. 1 [1]

1. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html [2]

1. ↑ http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [3]
2. ↑ http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [4]
3. ↑ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [5]
4. ↑ http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [6]
5. ↑ http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [7]
6. ↑ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [8]
7. ↑ http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html [9]
8. ↑ http://www.narth.com [10]
9. ↑ http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html [11]

Hellooooooooooo?? Just because it is not “Normal” ~ doesn’t mean it needs to be “fixed”. Some of history’s greats are also not “normal”. We have a Taiwanese basketball star in Houston who is 7 feet tall. He doesn’t need to be “fixed”. Some more “not normal” greats in history are: Michaelangelo, Alexander The Great, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ira Gershwin, Sir Elton John, Daniel of the Bible, …………. Oh, I could go on and on.

Daniel of the Bible was not a homosexual; he knew what God’s law was and knew it was an abomination. Your rants have been noted. Karajou 05:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Basically…

People hate homosexuality because it’s different. It’s as normal as heterosexuality is, but because it’s not the norm, people hate it. It’s that simple. —GunnerRecall 16:54, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

You should refine your comment and say, “ultra Conservative Christians” instead of “people”. o.O Natebecause people listen to what I say? 17:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Opposition to homosexuality is based on religious and scientific principles. We oppose race prejudice and discrimination without hating racists, simply because we believe that each person should be “judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.”[1] Doctors try to cure mental illness out of concern for their patients’ well-being. —Ed Poor Talk 08:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

By definition, NO

A mental illness is something that disrupts a person’s ability to reason and perform everyday activities. Homosexuality does neither of these. There are plenty of intelligent, successful homosexuals that contribute to society. They can still drive their cars, go to work, and do everything else a heterosexual person can do. They can even have sex with the opposite gender, they just don’t prefer that. Homosexuality is far from a mental illness. This should really be a morality issue, not an mental health issue. SEdwin 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

ref: cvhttp://conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_homosexuality_a_mental_illness%3F#Basically…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Causes of Homosexuality – Conservapedia

January 11, 2012 at 8:42 pm (Politics)

Homosexuality is rare in Orthodox Jews. For more information please see: Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality.

The causes of homosexuality are attributable to man’s sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice. How important each factor is, though, is an issue that is debated. Those from the most liberal school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as an identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out.[1] The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment.

 Causes of homosexuality – Biblical explanation

The Bible, being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since the Fall. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality. Man is shown to have been created as a perfectly made being (Gn. 1:31) – yet not as a robot – but as a being designed to be able to make choices, which thereby allowed him to distort his perfection. God from the beginning also joined male and female in life-long marriage, and placed a priority on the family, and provided laws, as needed, for its health and preservation and that of society, while aberrations result from failure to abide by them. For more information please see: Homosexuality and the Bible and Homosexuality and biblical interpretation

Nature of man and causes of homosexuality

In the beginning, man disobeyed his Creator, and as part of the punishment for so doing both mankind and that which he was given stewardship of was negatively affected. In addition to physical decay and the suffering and natural death of living creatures being introduced into the world, (Gn. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rm. 5:12,17; 6:23; ) the Fall resulted in the nature of man demonstrating a certain proclivity to sin. However, this does not determine that a man must practice a certain sin, nor does it justify man giving into this attraction to sin, as God also gave man ability to resist sin. (Gn. 4:7)[2]

Certain negative physical effects of sin are also seen as being progressive, as with time more diseases and other aberrations seemed to have occurred, and laws against incest later became necessary. In addition, as men continued to act contrary to the basic moral laws which they knew innately and through creation, conscience and oral tradition, a formal body of law was given through Moses, which detailed and codified the immutable morality God enjoins upon man. (Ex. 20; Dt. 4:8,9; Lv. 18; Gal. 3:19) Addition laws include ceremonial laws which the New Testament reveals were typological. For more information please see: Leviticus 18.

As regards homosexuality, from the beginning of the Bible and throughout, it consistently teaches that God only sexually joined opposite genders together, sanctifying them in marriage, having created men and women uniquely compatible and complementary.(Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4; 1Cor. 11:8-12)[3]

In contrast to what God had ordained by design and decree, homosexuality is one of many sins which are a result of man yielding to his sinful nature, and is a form of fornication, although a most perverse kind. The prohibition of it is given along with sexual relations with animals, (Lv. 18:23) and is clearly condemned wherever it is manifestly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:20-27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10)

The Bible, as well as history, also evidences that while there are three areas in which man sins, those of lust for pleasure, possessions and power, (1Jn. 2:16) individuals may differ as regards which type of sins present the greatest temptation for them, with genetics playing at least a part in that. That judgment upon a people who gave into a specific sin could result in a genetic predisposition to that same sin among their offspring may be speculated, but it is not proven.

Environment

The Bible provides a clear link between the adherence of a family or a nation to the laws of God and the moral choices of offspring. (Prov. 22:6) The Bible also positively examples close father-son and familial relationships, and may be seen to partially implicate detachment with rebellion. (Gn. 37-50; 2 Sam. 13-18) Studies today have shown that religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality.

The record of Sodom, as well as accounts of nations elsewhere, testify that living within the environment of people where iniquity abounds is conducive to furthering the same iniquity among succeeding generations, resulting in the necessity of Divine judgment when nations became given over to such. (Lv. 18:24; 20:22; Dt. 18:12; 28; Jer. 14:9,10; Rm. 2:2)

In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term “sodomy” was derived (like as homosexuals use the term “gay”, although this is contradictory in the end), and Jude 7 refers to Sodom and its region being given to fornication, including that of unnatural relations.

In Ezekiel 16:49 the general iniquity of Sodom and its “sisters” is given as “pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness” and general indifference to the needy. The next verse proceeds to inform that “the Sodomites were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.” The word for abomination here is tô‛êbah, which is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin, in particular sexual sins and including sodomy. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26) Sodom is also associated more with sexual sins than with any other physical type of sin.

What the Bible, as well as secular history, reveals is that prevalent homosexuality is concomitant with pride, affluence, increased free time, and selfish indulgence and carelessness.[4] Therefore, rebellion against God’s laws and order and the resultant environmental factors are seen to be a cause in promoting sensuality and homosexuality.

Idolatry and judgment

Destruction of Sodom by God

In Romans 1, God, through the apostle Paul, condemns both male and female homoeroticism, which, as a cultural practice, is shown to be a manifestation and a result of idolatry, in which man progressively acted contrary to that which God has revealed by creation, by design and normality. This is morality which is confirmed by written decree (the Law), as the next chapter declares. As a result of this continued rebellion, which was partly manifest in God being reduced to an image like unto corruptible creatures (like as today with homosexuals construing Christ to be homosexual, or sanctioning it, as well as nature effectively being worshiped), “God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.” (v. 24)

It is also stated that a certain afflictive punishment(s) of the body were incurred by those men who engaged in relations with each other. (v. 27) Unless repentance takes place, worse consequences will follow. (Rv. 21:28)

While some seek to render this chapter as only condemning homosexual relations when done as part of idolatry, the condemnation is not due to its association with paganism, rather as it inherently contrary to that which God ordained, then it is a manifestation of false religion, regardless of its form, though in ancient times in which religion was an inseparable part of culture, then formal idolatry was what was more manifested. Romans 1 proceeds to show that homosexuality is not alone as a fruit of idolatry, but that this particular pernicious physical sin is one of many inherently evil things. (Rm. 1:28-32) For more information please see: Romans 1.

In summary, God’s eternal power is manifest in His creation (Romans 1:18-20). Nonetheless, certain people chose to worship the creature more than the Creator (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, God gave them up to homosexuality and other sins and gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:26-32). As an example of the truth of this teaching, feminists, wishing to deny the God-given role of women, often engage in goddess worship and other forms of idolatry[5] and as a consequence are often given up to lesbianism.[6]

Conclusion of Biblical explanation

What is revealed in the Bible is that homosexuality is a practice due to man yielding to his sinful nature and disobeying the good laws of God, and misusing, among other things, his sexual abilities. This disobedience itself is idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance is your god, at least at that time), while continued idolatry results in homosexuality as a practice, as God delivers one over to perverse desires. In addition, individual and societal disobedience to the laws of God creates an environment which is conducive to perpetuating and further intensifying iniquity, which if continued, in time requires judgment. Studies today have shown that Religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality.

Modern studies concerning the causes of homosexuality

Some studies indicate environmental factors can be involved in persons becoming homosexuals. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse state in Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate (and a main source for this section),

The origins of homosexuality are not clearly understood by scientists, and the topic is a subject of hot debate. Theories and and empirical studies, which often contrast sharply, abound. The theories about the etiology of homosexuality fall into two very large categories: theories that point to nature (that is, biological variables) and theories that point to nurture (that is, the influence of experience, of psychological variables.” (p. 52).

Those who emphasize nurture, sometimes known as the psychoanalytical theory, see powerful psychological forces at work, shaping and molding children from their birth, while those who emphasize nature contend that early homosexual traits attest to a biological cause. (p. 53)

Despite many psychological studies which indicate that the parent-child relationship, early childhood development, early homosexual experiences, and childhood abuse foster homosexuality, liberals tend to reject the environmental aspect, and favor a biological influence.[7] This is then used to render homosexuals to be slaves to genes, and justified in acting it out.

Environment and nurture

Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: “There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a biological theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data”.[8]

That homosexuality is affected by environment and nurture has been the historical secular position.

In his 1980 work Overcoming Homosexuality, Robert Kronemeyer writes: “With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born ‘that way.’ I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is ‘curable.'[9]

Similarly, in a 1989 USA Today article, San Francisco State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, Journal of Homosexuality, stated, “The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish”. Homosexuality is “a behavior, not a condition,” and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits.”[10]

Parental relationships with offspring

The psychoanalytical theory is the historical position, which implicates a detached, rejecting or absent father, often along with a close bond to the mother, as working, on the conscious and unconscious level, against a secure sexual identity. Also contributing to this can be a mother who has animosity toward the father, or men in general, and who works to present him negatively, and to make the child side with her.

One of the earliest studies supporting this position was that of Irving Bieber and associates.[11] Comparison of 106 homosexuals with 100 male heterosexuals showed that mothers of the former had enmeshed seductive type relationships with their sons, while their fathers were detached, distant or rejecting. This study was contested by some who charged the researchers with bias, but a further study by Ray B. Evans, which also compared homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported similar results, this time among self-identified homosexuals who had never sought treatment.[12]

Based upon his work with 200 male homosexuals, Gerard van den Aardweg stated that 79 percent described their mother as “overanxious”, or “overconcerned” about them; their safety, health, and being overly sentimental when they met with some hardship, as well as manifesting other aspects of over-mothering. In addition, in 71 percent of homosexual cases, “the most important factor was the father’s detachedness or nonparticipation in the son’s upbringing. The fathers of 38 percent of the men were so hypercritical that the sons were made to feel either rejected and/or inferior. [13]

Another study of about 1500 homosexuals showed much less influence by the mother, while far more reported an unaffectionate or detached father, and approximately half of homosexuals reported they had negative feelings toward their fathers, versus 29 percent of heterosexuals.[14]

While these factors are conducive to homosexuality, it should be stressed that these do not ensure that children raised this way will become homosexual, nor are these factors alone in influencing it.

Sexual abuse

Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals, versus that of heterosexuals.[15][16] Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals.[17] In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.[18]

Educational indoctrination

As part of the liberal ideology in modern education, and as a result of psychological tactics used by homosexual activists, schools have increasingly fostered the promotion of homosexuality, whether as part of official policy through homosexual activists working with or in schools. As a form of indoctrination which begins at the kindergarten level, homosexuality is treated as healthy and normal, with students at very impressionable ages sometimes being influenced to experiment with homosexual behavior. This is often done under the rubric of HIV instruction of preventing suicide by homosexuals, and preventing homophobia. [19][20][21][22] [23][24][25]

Biological research on the causes of homosexuality

For more information please see: Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science and Homosexuality and Genetics.

The belief that homosexuality has a biological cause can be traced back to the preliminary findings of neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay. In 1991 LeVay’s studied the brains of 41 cadavers which included 19 homosexual males, and claimed that “a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals.”[26][27] This study was immediately seized upon by many as proof that homosexuality was biologically determined.

However, further scrutiny showed this hasty conclusion as lacking in warrant.

• 1. The range of sizes of the hypothalamic region varied and was inconsistent. The region at subject was the same size in a few homosexual men as that of the heterosexuals, while in a few other heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.
• 2. The fact that all 19 of the homosexual men had died of AIDS could easily have accounted for or contributed to the differences.
• 3. It has not been determined if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause rather than the effect of homosexual activity. “Researchers have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger.”[28][29]
• 4. Levay’s study was based study was based upon a supposed sexual functional correlation between the SDN-POA brain center in male rats and a brain center called INAH3 in humans, but which assumption was shown to be false.[30]
• 5. The sexual history of the “heterosexual” men was not known, and Levay’s samples included 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown.[31]
• 6. And as William Byne noted, LeVay’s work “has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray”.[32].
• 7. The conclusions were that which were sought by the researcher. Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, confessed that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor,[33] He also later stated, “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.”[34][35]

Two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, commenting on the quality of the LeVay research, stated that LeVay, “could not really be certain about his subject’s sexual preferences, since they were dead”, and that his “research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects’ brains.” And in addition, it was very likely that LeVay’s method of defining homosexuality would “create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups.” [36]

Another study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, examined the anterior commissure (a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain) of male heterosexuals and homosexual men, most of whom died of AIDS. The study shows that the anterior commissure was larger in women and in 27 of the 30 homosexual men than in heterosexual men.[37].

Here again, how AIDS might have factored in this difference is an issue, and the findings of this study were overall in contradiction to another study published in 1988, which found, in part, that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.[38]

A 1991 study of twins by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard was also promoted as establishing biological determination of homosexuality, but which conclusion was also soon found to be lacking in warrant, and contrary to other studies.[39][40]

That blood chemistry as well as brains can change over time in response to environment and lifestyle has been documented by studies.[41][42][43]

Conclusions

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,

Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists…such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role…I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.

Goldberg also expressed, “Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration”; it has merely “asserted away the considerable evidence” for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are “convincing only to those with a need to believe.” [44]

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey: “Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality.” [45]

Psychiatrist and author Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. concludes,

Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is…neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences…postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.[46]

Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute,having carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality, found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised.” Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3. (1993)

Other similarly express that nurture and choice factor as being mostly or wholly determinative.[47]

Indications of onset homosexuality

Childhood manifestations of gender non-conformity such as consistent preference by a boy for the clothing, company and play things (dolls, etc.) of girls over that of boys is generally seen as predisposing such to homosexuality.[48]

Homosexuality as a choice

The Bible shows that while nurture and environment can make one more predisposed to certain types of behavior, man’s sinful nature can also deceive one into believing that sinful behaviors are not sin, while yielding to sin reduces ones ability to resist it. Secular studies also indicate that most homosexuals have been attracted to the opposite gender.

A research project (2004) of Robert Goetze identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change. Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.[49]

Former homosexuals

St. Paul defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)

For more information please see: Ex-Homosexuals and Overcoming Homosexuality

One of the earliest historical records of the existence of ex-homosexuals is found in the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian Christian church (approx. 59 AD).

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual by being born again through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.[50][51][52][53][54] [55][56][57][58]

Peter LaBarbera is the President of Americans for Truth which is a organization which counters the homosexual agenda. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:

ref:http://conservapedia.com/Causes_of_Homosexuality

Permalink Leave a Comment

LGBT social movements

January 11, 2012 at 8:28 pm (Politics)

See also: LGBT rights by country or territory and Timeline of LGBT history

Gay rights demonstration in New York City, 1976.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender social movements share inter-related goals of social acceptance of sexual and gender minorities. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and their allies have a long history of campaigning for what is generally called LGBT rights, also called gay rights and gay and lesbian rights. Various communities have worked not only together, but also independent of each other in various configurations including gay liberation, lesbian feminism, the queer movement and transgender activism. There is no one organization representing all LGBT people and interests, although arguably two organizations come close; InterPride by coordinating and networking gay pride events worldwide, and International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) which addresses human rights violations against LGBT and HIV-positive people and works with the United Nations are seen as broadly inclusive all LGBT communities and interests.

A commonly stated goal is social equality for LGBT people; some have also focused on building LGBT communities, or worked towards liberation for the broader society from sexual oppression.[1] LGBT movements organized today are made up of a wide range of political activism and cultural activity, such as lobbying and street marches; social groups, support groups and community events; magazines, films and literature; academic research and writing; and even business activity.

Workers of the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association participating in 2005 Taiwan Pride parade in Taipei.

Overview

As with other social movements, there is also conflict within and between LGBT movements, especially about strategies for change and debates over exactly who comprises the constituency that these movements represent. There is debate over to what extent lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered people, intersexed people and others share common interests and a need to work together. Leaders of the lesbian and gay movement of the 1970s, 80s and 90s often attempted to hide masculine lesbians, feminine gay men, transgendered people, and bisexuals from the public eye, creating internal divisions within LGBT communities.[3]Sociologist Mary Bernstein writes: “For the lesbian and gay movement, then, cultural goals include (but are not limited to) challenging dominant constructions of masculinity and femininity, homophobia, and the primacy of the gendered heterosexual nuclear family (heteronormativity). Political goals include changing laws and policies in order to gain new rights, benefits, and protections from harm.”[2] Bernstein emphasizes that activists seek both types of goals in both the civil and political spheres.

LGBT movements have often adopted a kind of identity politics that sees gay, bisexual and/or transgender people as a fixed class of people; a minority group or groups. Those using this approach aspire to liberal political goals of freedom and equal opportunity, and aim to join the political mainstream on the same level as other groups in society.[4] In arguing that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate and cannot be consciously changed, attempts to change gay, lesbian and bisexual people into heterosexuals (“conversion therapy“) are generally opposed by the LGBT community. Such attempts are often based in religious beliefs that perceive gay, lesbian and bisexual activity as immoral.

However, others within LGBT movements have criticised identity politics as limited and flawed, elements of the queer movement have argued that the categories of gay and lesbian are restrictive, and attempted to deconstruct those categories, which are seen to “reinforce rather than challenge a cultural system that will always mark the nonheterosexual as inferior.”[5]

After the French Revolution the anticlerical feeling in Catholic countries coupled with the liberalizing effect of the Napoleonic Code made it possible to sweep away sodomy laws. However, in Protestant countries, where the tyranny of the church was less severe, there was no general reaction against statutes that were religious in origin. As a result, many of those countries retained their statutes on sodomy until late in the 20th century. The prominent Nazi jurist Rudolf Klare argued for the moral superiority of harsh anti-homosexual Teutonic traditions (such as Germany, England and American states) over Latin countries (such as France, Spain, Italy, and Poland) which no longer punished homosexual acts.[6]

History

Before 1860

In eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe, same-sex sexual behaviour and cross-dressing were widely considered to be socially unacceptable, and were serious crimes under sodomy and sumptuary laws. There were, however, some exceptions. For example, in the 17th century cross dressing was common in plays, as, for example, evident in the content of many of William Shakespeare‘s plays (and by the actors in the actual performances, since female roles in Elizabethan Theater were always performed by males, usually prepubescent boys). And Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart‘s opera “Apollo et Hyacinthus” was performed by males only, although the libretto differed from the original text of Ovidius to reduce homosexual relations among Apollon, Hyacinthus, and Zephyrus.

Many Native American cultures also widely respected individuals who, in today’s terms, might have been transgender, bisexual or homosexual, stating that they embodied characteristics of both male and female counterparts.

Thomas Cannon wrote what may be the earliest published defence of homosexuality in English, Ancient and Modern Pederasty Investigated and Exemplify’d (1749). Social reformer Jeremy Bentham wrote the first known argument for homosexual law reform in England around 1785, at a time when the legal penalty for buggery was death by hanging.[7] However, he feared reprisal, and his powerful essay was not published until 1978.

The emerging currents of secular humanist thought which had inspired Bentham also informed the French Revolution, and when the newly-formed National Constituent Assembly began drafting the policies and laws of the new republic in 1792, groups of militant ‘sodomite-citizens’ in Paris petitioned the Assemblée nationale, the governing body of the French Revolution, for freedom and recognition.[8] In 1791 France became the first nation to decriminalise homosexuality, probably thanks in part to the homosexual Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès who was one of the authors of the Napoleonic code.

In 1830, the new Penal Code of the Brazilian Empire did not repeat the title XIII of fifth book of the “Ordenações Philipinas”, which made sodomy a crime.

In 1833, an anonymous English-language writer wrote a poetic defence of Captain Nicholas Nicholls, who had been sentenced to death in London for sodomy:

Whence spring these inclinations, rank and strong?

And harming no one, wherefore call them wrong?[8]

Three years later in Switzerland, Heinrich Hoessli published the first volume of Eros: Die Männerliebe der Griechen (“Eros: The Male-love of the Greeks”), another defence of same-sex love.[8]

During that period, Poland never criminalized homosexuality. 18th century Poland was marked by an Enlightenment-driven tolerant attitude to sexuality, with public figures reported to engage in homosexual activities or transvestitism. Such “scandalous” events drew public attention, but did not result in prosecution. One example is Poland’s last king, Stanislaw August Poniatowski, who was said to have slept with the British ambassador in his youth. After the partitions of Poland Polish territories came under control of the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia; the law of those countries ruled homosexual acts illegal. Nevertheless, prominent figures were known to form homosexual relationships, including Narcyza Żmichowska (1819–1876), a writer and founder of the Polish feminist movement, who used her private experiences in her writing.

1860–1944

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, German gay rights activist of the 1860s

From the 1870s, social reformers in other countries had begun to defend homosexuality, but their identities were kept secret. A secret British society called the “Order of Chaeronea” campaigned for the legalisation of homosexuality, and counted playwright Oscar Wilde among its members in the last decades of the 19th century.[10] In the 1890s, English socialist poet Edward Carpenter and Scottish anarchist John Henry Mackay wrote in defense of same-sex love and androgyny; Carpenter and British homosexual rights advocate John Addington Symonds contributed to the development of Havelock Ellis‘s groundbreaking book Sexual Inversion, which called for tolerance towards “inverts” and was suppressed when first published in England.

In Europe and America, a broader movement of “free love” was also emerging from the 1860s among first-wave feminists and radicals of the libertarian left. They critiqued Victorian sexual morality and the traditional institutions of family and marriage that were seen to enslave women. Some advocates of free love in the early 20th century, including Russian anarchist and feminist Emma Goldman, also spoke in defence of same-sex love and challenged repressive legislation.

In 1897, German doctor and writer Magnus Hirschfeld formed the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee to campaign publicly against the notorious law “Paragraph 175“, which made sex between men illegal. Adolf Brand later broke away from the group, disagreeing with Hirschfeld’s medical view of the “intermediate sex“, seeing male-male sex as merely an aspect of manly virility and male social bonding. Brand was the first to use “outing” as a political strategy, claiming that German Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow engaged in homosexual activity.

May 14, 1928 issue of German lesbian periodical Die Freundin (The Girlfriend).

The 1901 book Sind es Frauen? Roman über das dritte Geschlecht (Are These Women? Novel about the Third Sex) by Aimée Duc was as much a political treatise as a novel, criticising pathological theories of homosexuality and gender inversion in women.[11] Anna Rüling, delivering a public speech in 1904 at the request of Hirschfeld, became the first female Uranian activist. Rüling, who also saw “men, women, and homosexuals” as three distinct genders, called for an alliance between the women’s and sexual reform movements, but this speech is her only known contribution to the cause. Women only began to join the previously male-dominated sexual reform movement around 1910 when the German government tried to expand Paragraph 175 to outlaw sex between women. Heterosexual feminist leader Helene Stöcker became a prominent figure in the movement. Friedrich Radszuweit published LGBT literature and magazines in Berlin (for example “Die Freundin”).

Hirschfeld, whose life was dedicated to social progress for people who were transsexual, transvestite and homosexual, formed the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexology) in 1919. The institute conducted an enormous amount of research, saw thousands of transgender and homosexual clients at consultations, and championed a broad range of sexual reforms including sex education, contraception and women’s rights. However, the gains made in Germany would soon be drastically reversed with the rise of Nazism, and the institute and its library were destroyed in 1933. The Swiss journal Der Kreis was the only part of the movement to continue through the Nazi era.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 decriminalised homosexuality and recognised same-sex marriage.^[citation needed^] This was a remarkable step in Russia of the time – which was very backward economically and socially, and where many conservative attitudes towards sexuality prevailed. This step was part of a larger project of freeing sexual relationships and expanding women’s rights – including legalising abortion, granting divorce on demand, equal rights for women, and attempts to socialise house-work. With the era of Stalin, however, Russia reverted all these progressive measures – re-criminalising homosexuality and imprisoning gay men and banning abortion.

In the United States, several secret or semi-secret groups were formed explicitly to advance the rights of homosexuals as early as the turn of the 20th century, but little is known about them.[12] A better documented group is Henry Gerber‘s The Society for Human Rights formed in Chicago in 1924, which was quickly suppressed.[13]

Cover of U.S. lesbian publication ‘The Ladder‘ from October 1957. The motif of masks and unmasking was prevalent in the homophile era, prefiguring the political strategy of coming out and giving the Mattachine Society its name.

After 1918, the newly independent Polish state returned to the Napoleonic tradition and the 1932 criminal code did not specify homosexuality as a crime. The police still used gross indecency laws instead to harass homosexuals, but the gay community in Poland thrived, with many important public figures, such as the composer Karol Szymanowski, the poet Bolesław Leśmian and the novelists Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz and Maria Dąbrowska being of homosexual orientation. The German Nazi invasion of 1939 put an end to it.

1945–1968

Main article: Homophile

Immediately following World War II, a number of homosexual rights groups came into being or were revived across the Western world, in Britain, France, Germany, Holland, the Scandinavian countries and the United States. These groups usually preferred the term “homophile” to “homosexual”, emphasizing love over sex. The homophile movement began in the late 1940s with groups in the Netherlands and Denmark, and continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s with groups in Sweden, Norway, the United States, France, Britain and elsewhere. ONE, Inc., the first public homosexual organization in the U.S,[14] was bankrolled by the wealthy transsexual man Reed Erickson. A U.S. transgender-rights journal, Transvestia: The Journal of the American Society for Equality in Dress, also published two issues in 1952.

The homophile movement lobbied to establish a prominent influence in political systems of social acceptability; radicals of the 1970s would later disparage the homophile groups for being assimilationist. Any demonstrations were orderly and polite.[15] By 1969, there were dozens of homophile organizations and publications in the U.S,[16] and a national organization had been formed, but they were largely ignored by the media. A 1965 gay march held in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, according to some historians, marked the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. Meanwhile in San Francisco in 1966, transgender street prostitutes in the poor neighborhood of Tenderloin rioted against police harassment at a popular all-night restaurant, Gene Compton’s Cafeteria.

After the introduction of Soviet-style communism to Poland, the 1948 law stated that the age of consent for all sexual acts, homosexual or heterosexual, was 15. However, the powerful influence of the Roman Catholic Church made open homosexuality a matter of scandal. While a gay poet Grzegorz Musiał could publish officially, Jerzy Andrzejewski‘s last novel dealing with the subject of homosexuality was censored. While the gay subculture grew, with official and underground press alike discussing the subject of homosexuality, the traditionally conservative attitudes towards sexuality were used by the secret police to harass and put pressure on individuals.

1969–1974

Main article: Gay Liberation

See also: 1970s in LGBT rights

The new social movements of the sixties, such as the Black Power and anti-Vietnam war movements in the U.S, the May 1968 insurrection in France, and Women’s Liberation throughout the Western world, inspired some LGBT activists to become more radical,[15] and the Gay Liberation Movement emerged towards the end of the decade. This new radicalism is often attributed to the Stonewall riots of 1969, when a group of transsexual, butch/femme lesbians, drag queens and gay male patrons at a bar in New York resisted a police raid.[13] Although Gay Liberation was already underway, Stonewall certainly provided a rallying point for the fledgling movement.

Immediately after Stonewall, such groups as the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) and the Gay Activists’ Alliance (GAA) were formed. Their use of the word “gay” represented a new unapologetic defiance — as an antonym for “straight” (‘respectable sexual behaviour’), it encompassed a range of non-normative sexualities and gender expressions, such as transgender street prostitutes, and sought ultimately to free the bisexual potential in everyone, rendering obsolete the categories of homosexual and heterosexual.[17][18] According to Gay Lib writer Toby Marotta, “their Gay political outlooks were not homophile but liberationist”.[19] “Out, loud and proud”, they engaged in colourful street theatre.[20] The GLF’s “A Gay Manifesto” set out the aims for the fledgling gay liberation movement, and influential intellectual Paul Goodman published “The Politics of Being Queer” (1969).

Chapters of the GLF were established across the U.S. and in other parts of the Western world. The Front Homosexuel d’Action Révolutionnaire was formed in 1971 by lesbians who split from the Mouvement Homophile de France.

One of the values of the movement was gay pride. Within weeks of the Stonewall Riots, Craig Rodwell, proprieter of the Oscar Wilde Memorial Bookshop in lower Manhattan, was working to commemorate them by replacing the Annual Reminder, which had been held annually in at Independence Hall in Philadelphia since 1965, with a celebration of the Stonewall Riots. In September 1969, Rodwell and local lesbian allies led by Ellen Broidy, attended an Eastern Regional Conference of Homophile Organizations (ERCHO) meeting in Philadelphia and got it to vote to replace the Fourth of July Annual Reminder at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, which ERCHO had been sponsoring since 1965, with a first commemoration of the Stonewall Riots. Rodwell and the committee he assembled to organize this event spent the next nine months assembling the first end-of-June commemoration of the Stonewall Riots. Other liberation groups that had been formed during the previous year—-consecutively, the Gay Liberation Front, Queens, the Gay Activists Alliance, Radicalesbians, and Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries (STAR)—-asked for an opportunity to hold officially recommended commemorative events of their own. Rodwell and his committee accommodated them by organizing the first Gay Pride Week. The secretary of their planning committee circulated copies of their meeting minutes to movement leaders in cities throughout the country. Los Angeles held a big parade on the first Gay Pride Day. Smaller demonstrations were held in San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston. (Toby Marotta).

Organized by an early GLF leader Brenda Howard, the Stonewall riots were commemorated by annual marches that became known as Gay pride parades. From 1970 activists protested the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and in 1974 it was replaced with a category of “sexual orientation disturbance” then “ego-dystonic homosexuality”, which was also deleted, although “gender identity disorder” remains.

Sweden became first country in the world to allow people who were transsexual by legislation to correct their sex in 1972, and provides free hormone replacement therapy, equal age of consent set at 15.

1975–1986

From the anarchistic Gay Liberation Movement of the early 1970s arose a more reformist and single-issue “Gay Rights Movement”, which portrayed gays and lesbians as a minority group and used the language of civil rights — in many respects continuing the work of the homophile period.[21] In Berlin, for example, the radical Homosexuelle Aktion Westberlin was eclipsed by the Allgemeine Homosexuelle Arbeitsgemeinschaft.[22]

Gay and lesbian rights advocates argued that one’s sexual orientation does not reflect on one’s gender; that is, “you can be a man and desire a man… without any implications for your gender identity as a man,” and the same is true if you are a woman.[23] Gays and lesbians were presented as identical to heterosexuals in all ways but private sexual practices, and butch “bar dykes” and flamboyant “street queens” were seen as negative stereotypes of lesbians and gays. Veteran activists such as Sylvia Rivera and Beth Elliot were sidelined or expelled because they were transgender.

In 1977, a former Miss America contestant and orange juice spokesperson, Anita Bryant, began a campaign “Save Our Children”, in Dade County, Florida (greater Miami), which proved to be a major set-back in the Gay Liberation movement. Essentially, she established an organization which put forth an amendment to the laws of the county which resulted in the firing of many public school teachers on the suspicion that they were homosexual.

In 1979, a number of people in Sweden called in sick with a case of being homosexual, in protest of homosexuality being classified as an illness. This was followed by an activist occupation of the main office of the National Board of Health and Welfare. Within a few months, Sweden became the first country in the world to remove homosexuality as an illness.[24]

Lesbian feminism, which was most influential from the mid 1970s to the mid 1980s, encouraged women to direct their energies toward other women rather than men, and advocated lesbianism as the logical result of feminism.[25] As with Gay Liberation, this understanding of the lesbian potential in all women was at odds with the minority-rights framework of the Gay Rights movement. Many women of the Gay Liberation movement felt frustrated at the domination of the movement by men and formed separate organisations; some who felt gender differences between men and women could not be resolved developed “lesbian separatism“, influenced by writings such as Jill Johnston‘s 1973 book Lesbian Nation. Disagreements between different political philosophies were, at times, extremely heated, and became known as the lesbian sex wars,[26] clashing in particular over views on sadomasochism, prostitution and transsexuality. The term “gay” came to be more strongly associated with homosexual males.

In Canada, the coming into effect of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1985 saw a shift in the gay rights movement in Canada, as Canadian gays and lesbians moved from liberation to litigious strategies. Premised on Charter protections and on the notion of the immutability of homosexuality, judicial rulings rapidly advanced rights, including those that compelled the Canadian government to legalize same-sex marriage. It has been argued that while this strategy was extremely effective in advancing the safety, dignity and equality of Canadian homosexuals, its emphasis of sameness came at the expense of difference and may have undermined opportunities for more meaningful change.

The Rainbow flag

Mark Segal, an early member of Gay Liberation, has continued to pave the road of gay equality. Many [who?] refer to Mark Segal as the dean of American gay journalism. As a pioneer of the local gay press movement, he was one of the founders and former president of both The National Gay Press Association and the National Gay Newspaper Guild. He also is the founder and publisher of the award-winning Philadelphia Gay News. As a young gay activist, Segal understood the power of media. In 1973 Segal disrupted the CBS evening news with Walter Cronkite, an event covered in newspapers across the country and viewed by 60% of American households, many seeing or hearing about homosexuality for the first time. Before the networks agreed to put a stop to censorship and bias in the news division, Segal went on to disrupt The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, and Barbara Walters on The Today Show. The trade newspaper Variety claimed that Segal had cost the industry $750,000 in production, tape delays and lost advertising revenue.^[citation needed^]

Aside from publishing, Segal has also reported on gay life from far reaching places as Lebanon, Cuba, and East Berlin during the fall of the Berlin Wall. He and Bob Ross, former publisher of San Francisco’s Bay Area Reporter represented the gay press and lectured in Moscow and St. Petersburg at Russia’s first openly gay conference, referred to as Russia’s Stonewall. He recently coordinated a network of local gay publications nationally to celebrate October as gay history month, with a combined print run reaching over a half million people. His determination to gain acceptance and respect for the gay press can be summed up by his 15 year battle to gain membership in the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, one of the nation’s oldest and most respected organizations for daily and weekly newspapers. The 15 year battled ended after the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette joined forces and called for PGN’s membership. Today Segal sits on the Board of Directors of PNA. In 2005, he produced Philadelphia’s official July 4 concert for a crowd estimated at 500,000 people. The star-studded show featured Sir Elton John, Pattie Labelle, Bryan Adams, and Rufus Wainwright. On a recent anniversary of PGN an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer stated “Segal and PGN continue to step up admirably to the challenge set for newspapers by H.L. Menchen. “To afflict the comfortable and to comfort the afflicted.”

1987 – present

Some historians consider that a new era of the gay rights movement began in the 1980s with the emergence of AIDS, which decimated the leadership and shifted the focus for many.[14] This era saw a resurgence of militancy with direct action groups like AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) (formed in 1987), and its offshoots Queer Nation (1990) and the Lesbian Avengers (1992). Some younger activists, seeing “gay and lesbian” as increasingly normative and politically conservative, began using queer as a defiant statement of all sexual minorities and gender variant people — just as the earlier liberationists had done with gay. Less confrontational terms that attempt to reunite the interests of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transpeople also became prominent, including various acronyms like LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTI, where the Q and I stand for Questioning and Intersex respectively.

In the 1990s, organizations began to spring up in non-western countries, such as Progay Philippines, which was founded in 1993 and organized the first Gay Pride march in Asia on June 26, 1994. In many countries, LGBT organizations remain illegal and transsexual, transgender and homosexual activists face extreme opposition from the state.^[citation needed^] The 1990s also saw the emergence of many LGBT youth movements and organizations such as LGBT youth centers, Gay-straight alliances in high schools and youth specific activism such as the National Day of Silence.

The 1990s also saw a rapid push of the transgender movements, while at the same time a sidelining of the identity of those who are transsexual. In the English-speaking world, Leslie Feinberg‘s, “Transgender Liberation: A Movement Whose Time Has Come — The Story of Ben Wells”, published in 1992. In 1993 Cheryl Chase founded the Intersex Society of North America. Gender different peoples across the globe also formed minority rights movements – Hijra activists campaigned for recognition as a third sex in India and Travesti groups began to organize against police brutality across Latin America, while activists in the United States formed direct-confrontation groups such as Transexual Menace.

In many cases, LGBTI rights movements came to focus on questions of intersectionality, the interplay of oppressions arising from being both queer and underclass, colored, disabled, etc.

The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage, in 2001. As of today, same-sex marriages are also legal in Sweden, Argentina, Iceland, Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and Portugal, along with six states in the United States: Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York, as well as the District of Columbia.[28] During this same period, some municipalities have been enacting laws against homosexuality. E.g., Rhea County, Tennessee unsuccessfully tried to “ban homosexuals” in 2006.[29]

From 6 to 9 November 2006, The Yogyakarta Principles on application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity was adopted by international meetig of 29 specialists, International Commission of Jurists and International Service for Human Rights. On 13 December 2008, UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity was adopted by United Nations General Assembly. And on August 2010, Yogyakarta Principles in Action published “An Activist’s Guide” for activists and human rights defenders.

On 22 October 2009, the assembly of the Church of Sweden, voted strongly in favour of giving its blessing to homosexual couples.,[30] including the use of the term marriage, (“matrimony”). The new law was introduced on November 1, 2009 and is the first case in the world.

In 2010 in the U.S. an ad campaign was launched to inform people not to use the term “that’s so gay” to mean “that’s so stupid”, claiming that it is offensive.

On 11 June 2010, Iceland became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage through a unanimous vote: 49-0.[31]

On July 2010, Argentina became the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage.

On December 18, 2010, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 1993 law forbidding homosexual people from serving openly in the United States military, was repealed. This meant that gays and lesbians could now serve openly in the military without any fear of being discharged because of their sexual orientation.

Opposition

See also: LGBT rights opposition

LGBT movements are opposed by a variety of individuals and organizations.,[32][33][34][35][36] They may have a personal, moral, political or religious objection to gay rights, homosexual relations or gay people. Opponents have said same-sex relationships are not marriages,[37] that legalization of same-sex marriage will open the door for the legalization of polygamy,[38] that it is unnatural[39] and that it encourages unhealthy behavior.[40][41] Some social conservatives believe that all sexual relationships with people other than an opposite-sex spouse undermines the traditional family[42] and that children should be reared in homes with both a father and a mother.[43][44] The 1990s saw the establishment of the ex-gay movement.

There is also concern that gay rights may conflict with individuals’ freedom of speech,[45][46][47][48][49] religious freedoms in the workplace,[50][51] and the ability to run churches,[52] charitable organizations[53][54] and other religious organizations[55] that hold opposing social and cultural views to LGBT rights. There is also concern that religious organizations might be forced to accept and perform same-sex marriages or risk losing their tax-exempt status.[56][57][58][59]

Eric Rofes author of the book, A Radical Rethinking of Sexuality and Schooling: Status Quo or Status Queer?, argues that the inclusion of teachings on homosexuality in public schools will play an important role in transforming public ideas about lesbian and gay individuals.[60] As a former teacher in the public school system, Rofes recounts how he was fired from his teaching position after making the decision to come out as gay. As a result of the stigma that he faced as a gay teacher he emphasizes the necessity of the public to take radical approaches to making significant changes in public attitudes about homosexuality.[60] According to Rofes, radical approaches are grounded in the belief that “something fundamental needs to be transformed for authentic and sweeping changes to occur.”The radical approaches proposed by Rofes have been met with strong opposition from anti-gay rights activists such as John Briggs. Former California senator, John Briggs proposed Proposition 6, a ballot initiative that would require that all California state public schools fire any gay or lesbian teachers or counselors, along with any faculty that displayed support for gay rights in an effort to prevent what he believe to be ” the corruption of the children’s minds”.[61] The exclusion of homosexuality from the sexual education curriculum, in addition to the absence of sexual counseling programs in public schools, has resulted in increased feelings of isolation and alienation for gay and lesbian students who desire to have gay counseling programs that will help them come to terms with their sexual orientation.[60] Eric Rofes founder of youth homosexual programs,such as Out There and Committee for Gay Youth, stresses the importance of having support programs that help youth learn to identify with their sexual orientation.

David Campos, author of the book, Sex, Youth, and Sex Education: A Reference Handbook, illuminates the argument proposed by proponents of sexual education programs in public schools. Many gay rights supporters argue that teachings about the diverse sexual orientations that exist outside of heterosexuality are pertinent to creating students that are well informed about the world around them. However, Campos also acknowledges that the sex education curriculum alone cannot teach youth about factors associated with sexual orientation but instead he suggests that schools implement policies that create safe school learning environments and foster support for gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth.[62] It is his belief that schools that provide unbiased, factual information about sexual orientation, along with supportive counseling programs for these homosexual youth will transform the way society treats homosexuality.[62] Many opponents of LGBT social movements have attributed their indifference toward homosexuality as being a result of the immoral values that it may instill in children who are exposed to homosexual individuals.[61] In opposition to this claim, many proponents of increased education about homosexuality suggest that educators should refrain from teaching about sexuality in schools entirely. In her book entitled “Gay and Lesbian Movement”, Margaret Cruickshank provides statistical data from the Harris and Yankelvoich polls which confirmed that over 80% of American adults believe that students should be educated about sexuality within their public school. In addition, the poll also found that 75% of parents believe that homosexuality and abortion should be included in the curriculum as well. An assessment conducted on California public school systems discovered that only 2% of all parents actually disproved of their child being taught about sexuality in school.[63]

Overall, education has a consistent positive impact on support for same sex marriage, and African Americans statistically have lower rates of educational attainment. However, the education level of African Americans does not have as much significance on their attitude towards same-sex marriage as it does on white attitudes. Educational attainment among whites has a significant positive effect on support for same-sex marriage, whereas the direct effect of education among African Americans is less significant. White income level has a direct and positive correlation with support for same-sex marriage, but African American income level is not significantly associated with attitudes toward same-sex marriage.[64]

Location also affects ideas towards same-sex marriage; residents of rural and southern areas are significantly more opposed to same-sex marriage in comparison to residents elsewhere. Women are consistently more supportive than men of LGBT rights, and individuals that are divorced or have never married are also more likely to grant marital rights to same-sex couples than married or widowed individuals. Also, white women are significantly more supportive than white men, but there are no gender discrepancies among African Americans. The year in which one was born is a strong indicator of attitude towards same-sex marriage—generations born after 1946 are considerably more supportive of same-sex marriage than older generations. Statistics show that African Americans are more opposed to same-sex marriage than any other ethnicity.[65]

Studies show that Non-Protestants are much more likely to support same-sex unions than Protestants; 63% of African Americans claim that they are Baptist or Protestant, whereas only 30% of white Americans are. Religion, as measured by individuals’ religious affiliations, behaviors, and beliefs, has a lot of influence in structuring same-sex union attitudes and consistently influences opinions about homosexuality. The most liberal attitudes are generally reflected by Jews, liberal Protestants, and people who are not affiliated with religion. This is because many of their religious traditions have not “systematically condemned homosexual behaviors” in recent years. Moderate and tolerant attitudes are generally reflected by Catholics and moderate Protestants. And lastly, the most conservative views are held by Evangelical Protestants. Moreover, it is a tendency for one to be less tolerant of homosexuality if their social network is strongly tied to a religious congregation. Organized religion, especially Protestant and Baptist affiliations, espouse conservative views which traditionally denounce same-sex unions. Therefore, these congregations are more likely to hear messages of this nature. Polls have also indicated that the amount and level of personal contact that individuals have with homosexual individuals and traditional morality affects attitudes of same-sex marriage and homosexuality.[66]

ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_social_movements

Permalink Leave a Comment