Praise: Sean Chapin on Ex-Gay Therapy

The music is not exactly to my taste, but the message is solid.  Ex-gay therapy, also known as conversion therapy or reparative therapy, does not work.  It is against the ethical codes of the National Assocation of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association, the International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and nearly all other medical professional organizations.

FollowUp 1: 100 Orthodox Rabbis Against Same-Sex Marriage

On 12 December 2011 the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the largest organization of American Orthodox rabbis, published five points that clarified their positions on homosexuality, same sex marriage, and so-called reparative therapy.

1. The Torah and Jewish tradition, in the clearest of terms, prohibit the practice of homosexuality. Same-sex unions are against both the letter and the spirit of Jewish law, which sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.

The wording here is very precise.  There are two lines of Torah that prohibits homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.  As I discussed previously, many, including Rabbi Steve Greenberg, believe that these are specific references to anal sex, not to homosexuality in general.

Jewish tradition is not limited to Jewish law, so the rest of what is written is completely accurate.

2. Attempts to ritualize or celebrate same-sex unions are antithetical to Jewish law. Any clergyman who performs or celebrates a same-sex union cannot claim the mantle of Orthodox Judaism.

Better phrasing would be that the RCA does not recognize those marriages as Orthodox Jewish marriages and they denounce those who claim to be Orthodox Jewish rabbis, specifically Rabbi Greenberg, who perform such weddings.  There is not hierarchical organization to Judaism and the RCA cannot and does not speak for all Jews, not even for all Orthodox Jews.

3. While homosexual behavior is prohibited, individuals with homosexual inclinations should be treated with the care and concern appropriate to all human beings. As Rabbis we recognize the acute and painful challenges faced by homosexual Jews in their quest to remain connected and faithful to God and tradition. We urge those Orthodox Jews with homosexual tendencies to seek counsel from their Rabbis. Equally, we urge all Rabbis to show compassion to all those who approach them.

Very big of them. 

4. On the subject of reparative therapy, it is our view that, as Rabbis, we can neither endorse nor reject any therapy or method that is intended to assist those who are struggling with same-sex attraction. We insist, however, that therapy of any type be performed only by licensed, trained practitioners. In addition, we maintain that no individual should be coerced to participate in a therapeutic course with which he or she is acutely uncomfortable.

This is an interesting statement.  Those who seek so-called reparative therapy are those who are struggling with who they are, struggle because of pressures from society to be other than who they are.  Pressures from those like the RCA who make homosexuals feel less than whole and less than welcome.  Licensed counselors who practice reparative therapy are doing so despite the ethical codes of the National Assocation of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association, the International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and nearly all other medical professional organizations.

5. We pray that God will ease the way for all who struggle with a full heart to feel His presence in their lives.

The prayer would be less necessary if the RCA were not creating a greater struggle for gays.

The RCA has its opinion, succinctly written and published.  I support their right to deny marriage to anyone they wish, including myself.  As a patriotic American, I embrace the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  If my partner and I wed, we will seek a officiator who welcomes us, not one who merely tolerates and "shows compassion" of us.

They still do not get to decide that someone who is a rabbi loses that status.  A rabbi may be unwelcome in their group, but that rabbi is still a rabbi.

Maybe one day the RCA will be enlightened and see the errors of their decisions, but I do not anticipate it within my lifetime.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

6 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

Repudiation: FRC's Fake Quiz

The Family Research Council has put together a "Quiz on Defending Family Values", complete with answers that do not agree with facts.  Sorry if you wanted to play their game, but I going to refute each of the supposed answers here and now.  Each of the five questions are supposed to be answered with a True or False.

1. Due to religious exemptions, same-sex “marriage” would not harm the rights of parents, schools, churches, or religious ministries.

Of course the answer should be true.

False. In Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” was legalized, public school children as young as first grade are taught that homosexuality is morally good, and parents are prohibited by court order from opting out their children or even being informed of when the “instruction” will occur. Further, when Catholic Charities of Boston’s adoption services refused to place children with homosexual couples, the large and respected ministry was forced to shut down. Family Research Council experts are making Congress and the public aware of such dangers, as homosexual activists work to impose same-sex “marriage” on the entire nation.

Sexuality of any nature is a fact.  For those who are heterosexual, heterosexuality is morally good.  For those who are homosexual, homosexuality is morally good.  To act differently than we are created by God would be morally offensive.

Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced to shut down.  Catholic News Service wrote at the time, Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese announced March 10 that it will stop providing adoption services rather than continue to comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt.
It was their own choice ... they were not forced.

2. Science indicates that homosexuality is likely inborn and unchangeable.

Again, the answer should be true.

False. The U.S. Justice Department recently claimed that homosexuality is unchangeable and thus refused to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. Yet the best science actually refutes this assertion. The handful of small studies that purport to show a “gay gene” have been widely discounted by the majority of the scientific community. On the other hand, decades of sociological and psychological research indicate that same-sex attraction is not inborn but is likely a product of external factors. And leading psychologists have affirmed the existence of thousands of people who changed from homosexual attractions to heterosexual. FRC is exploding the myths and making sure that lawmakers, judges, and the public know the facts.

So, why did the Justice Department make this claim?  Because major health organizations say so.  The immutable nature of sexuality is part of the statements of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and others.

The same documents indicate that the full nature of sexuality is not known.  Claiming that "same-sex attraction is not inborn but is likely a product of external factors" cannot be shown at this point in the research into the nature of sexuality. 

The claim that people change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction is fiction.  I discussed the liars behind "reparative therapy" in a recent posting.

3. Homosexual activists have grossly overstated the number of homosexuals in the population as being 10%, when surveys actually show it is only half that number, at about 5%!

This is an area where a definitive true or false cannot be stated.

False. It’s even lower! The vast majority of recent surveys put the figure at about 2%–3%. In other words, the Left is demanding that parents be forced to allow their children to learn that homosexuality is healthy and moral . . . that the 5,000-year-old-plus definition of marriage be abolished . . . that religious adoption agencies violate their beliefs or close down . . . to accommodate the behavior of 2%–3% of the population. FRC experts are forcefully making the case to Congress that this demand is unreasonable and unjust.

The origin of population estimates of homosexuals goes back to the studies of Dr. Alfred Kinsey who, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, determined that approximately ten percent of the population is homosexual.  (Really it was more complicated, but that is the simplified answer).  There are many recent studies that find between two percent and thirteen percent of the population identifies as homosexual or bisexual.  There are numerous reasons why there may be such disparity in the numbers.  Among these reasons are how the question is posed, who is posing the question, and what assurance there is that the answer will not be used against those responding to the question.  Many gays and lesbians are in the closet.  We cannot at this time know a certain number.

Perhaps more important is that the Family Research Council thinks that a smaller minority is more deserving of discrimination.  That flies in the face of fairness and decency. 

4. Members of Congress from both parties support a pro-homosexual law that could force Christians to remove family photos from their workplace.

This is absurd on its face.  False.

True. The proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)—co-sponsored in the Senate by two Republicans and two Democrats—would force most employers to ensure a workplace free of “discrimination” against homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender people. When such a policy was imposed at Sandia National Laboratories, many employees were ordered to take down Bible verses from screensavers and remove photos of their “traditional” families because homosexual employees found the images to be demeaning. FRC is in the trenches in Washington exposing the proposed law.

Absurd.  The 2009 ENDA is online.  It includes nothing about limiting family photos.  If the Bible verses on screensavers on work computers are discriminatory, then that might be limited.  In my search online for the basis of the allegation that Sandia National Laboratories forced employees to remove family photos, every source cited Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council.  There may be more evidence, but I did not find it.

5. The proposed federal ENDA law would force all employers to hire transsexuals, cross-dressers, and “drag queens” and “drag kings” for any job—including customer service jobs and ones with children, such as teachers and day care workers.

If the people are the most qualified, then they should not be discriminated against and kept from holding jobs.  This is probably the only quiz question when I have any agreement with the answer.

You are correct!True. This radical bill (H.R. 1397 and S. 811) not only mandates acceptance of all “sexual orientations,” but also of all “gender identities.” “Gender identity” is defined in the bill as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” In other words—the individual does not have to undergo “sex change” surgery. He or she does not even have to present the same “gender identity” consistently—it could change from day to day. And for employers covered by the bill, NO occupations or job positions are exempted. FRC experts are making sure that members of Congress are aware of this threat.

The threat of treating all American citizens equally.  The language that FRC uses is designed to evoke fear.  The truth is that a person's sexual orientation and gender identity do not cause them to be better or worse employees.  The truth is that FRC's campaign of fear to maintain discriminatory laws is based on lies.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Praise: California Transgender Laws

Transgender, the 'T' in LGBTQ, is the toughest in sexuality for many of us to understand.  If one is straight, gay, or lesbian, then the sexual orientation is very clear.  No confusion.  If one is bi, then either gender is attractive and, while others are confused, the bi individual can be as comfortable with herself or himself as a straight, gay, or lesbian person.  People who are transgender are not comfortable with who they appear to be.  For anyone who is comfortable in their own skin (other than the details like wanting to lose a few pounds), it doesn't make sense that someone might not be as comfortable with themselves.

Not easily understanding another person, of course, does not make it right to discriminate.  California has two new laws as of 10 October, the Gender Nondiscrimination Act and the Vital Statistics Modernization Act.  There are articles on these at the Huffington Post and at Care2 (among others).  The Gender Nondiscrimination Act deals with gender identity and expression, which clarifies existing non-discrimination laws and makes transgender persons a protected class.  The Vital Statistics Modernization Act lets a person update their ID with their doctor's verification and without the need for proof of surgery.  San Francisco's Transgender Law Center is hailing both laws as huge victories.

It would be wonderful to live in a world where this was a non-issue.  Sadly, those who hate and fear are not going away.  Catholic Online does not approve of equality.  Here are the last two paragraphs of their article:

The laws mark the latest in a round of increasingly government sponsored changes to the culture in California. As the state steadily moves away from the two parent, heterosexual marriage - and the family and society founded upon it - it is apparently trying to stand out as a leader in promoting the homosexual equivalency movement and a cultural revolution.

While few will argue against equality and legal protection for all citizens, critics say the new laws are much more than that. They reflect a fundmantal [sic] re-making of of the social order and an erosion of the marriage bound, heterosexual, two parent family as the foundation for civil society in America.

Like sexuality, being transgender is not a choice.  The only choice for such a person is whether to go through a major surgery to bring their body into alignment with their identity.  This is not just my opinion, but that of the American Psychological Association in a lengthy (106 page) study.  Among the reports recommendations are:

• Amend the Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Harassment sections in the APA Policies and Procedures Manual to include gender identity and gender expression.
• Ensure that all APA policies that make reference to gender identity be amended to include gender expression as well.

The American Medical Association also opposes discrimination against transgender persons.  We can only hope that eventually we can move beyond the hate and fear that makes such policies necessary.

Praise: California's SB-48

Introduced in December 2010 and enacted this year, SB-48 is perhaps the most wide-reaching law for inclusion of all groups in social studies classes in public schools.  I had mentioned this briefly in discussing the mayoral candidates for San Diego, but had not explained why this is praiseworthy or the ongoing obstacles.

Groups that must be included in social studies in California now include "men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups.  Instructional materials and activities "must not reflect adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation".  The full law is online.

It currently looks like efforts to overturn SB-48 are going to fail.  The repeal effort is not going to be the end of the hatred.  Let's look directly at the lies on the Stop SB-48 website.

Implementing SB 48 would require the use of extensive taxpayer dollars to review, revise, and adopt curriculum with an eye to promoting a political agenda instead of with an eye to promoting successful education. SB 48 costs California’s taxpayers, students, and schools too much.

No.  Textbooks rotation varies from state to state and district to district, but purchasing new materials, after a full review process, will happen with or without SB-48.  The costs do not change.

Even if SB 48 were not so costly, it would be a harmful bill because it goes too far in its attempts to keep bisexual, transgender, and homosexual individuals from being offended. California law prohibits bullying, and rightly so. But SB 48 moves beyond provisions regarding bullying and crosses a line into indoctrination.

No.  Read the law.  There is inclusion and lack of bigotry in the process, no indoctrination.

It uses all social science curriculum, including history books and other instructional materials, to teach children as young as five not only to accept but also to endorse transgenderism, bisexuality, and homosexuality, looking to individuals with these lifestyles as models and viewing their sexual lifestyles positively.

No.  Accept, but not endorse.  The law has nothing about endorsement.  When an individual has done great or horrific things, things worthy of note in a social studies text, that should be included.  If they have done great things and are not heterosexual, that is part of who they are and should be included.  Doing so does increase acceptance of LGBTQ persons as normal, but does not change who the students are.

SB 48 has been referred to as “The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act” and the Attorney General’s office has given our referendum the official title, “Referendum to Overturn Non-Discrimination Requirements for School Instruction.” But SB 48′s wishful approach to education does not address discrimination or deal fairly and accurately with the facts of history.

I can't help but wonder what the Stop-48 people were reading.  The bill is clear, it does address discrimination, and it does deal fairly and accurately with the facts of history.

SB 48 is inconsistent with accepted and legally-established standards of fair and accurate history.

If they are claiming that SB-48 changes the old standard where the LGBTQ community is ignored or vilified, then this claim is correct.  Fair and inclusive treatment of minorities has not always been true in social studies courses.

The bill prohibits materials that contain “any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of” membership in a protected class such as race, ethnicity, or nationality. Yet it fails to define adverse reflection or provide standards for determining whether an adverse reflection was made on a legal basis. This vagueness allows challenges against any curriculum that discusses a single human action in a negative light, presenting curriculum writers, teachers, and school districts with a legal dilemma.

I hope that it is glaringly obvious that there is a huge difference between saying that someone is a thief who is of a particular group and saying that someone is of a particular group and therefore is a thief.  That is the "vagueness" which is not really very vague.

The Stop-48 arguments go on and each can easily be refuted based on common sense and based on the actual text of the law.

So, why write about this now, when the timeline to overturn SB-48 has nearly run out?  It is important to document the bigotry and hatred and have a clear record of what discrimination looks like so that it can be more easily fought against in the future.

The big fear is that of indoctrination.  There is an irrational fear that exposure to anyone in the LGBTQ community, particularly if that exposure is in a positive light, might somehow make it easier for children to become gay or become transgender.  The fact is that children are not going to change who they are because of SB-48 or anything else, the American Medical Association makes this clear in their policy statement.

23 October 2011, FollowUp 1.

28 November 2011, FollowUp 2.

9 December 2011, FollowUp 3.

28 January 2012, FollowUp 4.