 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > A Gay Man Defends Himself | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/8/2003 10:02 AM (GMT -6) |   | This is a good catchall for the phenomenum that hit America in the 70s via Desmond Morris' book "The Naked Ape"
quote:
i posted the following article to the moderated newsgroup <rec.arts.books.reviews>.
the article is also stored in the archive site at <gopher://gopher.colorado.edu>. <rec.arts.books.reviews> archive site
====================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.reviews
Date: 12 May 95 05:07:48 GMT
From: tanaka@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (TANAKA Tomoyuki)
Subject: Review of Robert Wright: "The Moral Animal," and two others (psych)
Robert Wright. "The moral animal: the new science of
evolutionary psychology". Pantheon, 1994. 467 pages. $27.50.
(and two other books on evolutionary psychology)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
evolutionary psychology:
biological basis of human sexual psychology and mating behavior
contents:
(1) basic books
(2) male sexual aggressiveness
(3) some comments on the books
(4) Wright suggests social changes based on evolutionary psychology
(4.1) more even distribution of wealth
(4.2) legalize polygamy in certain situations.
(5) other areas: fighting and feeding
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) basic books
in early Jan 1995 I read the most interesting article on a field called
"evolutionary psychology".
--- Robert Wright. cover story. TIME, Aug 15, 1994.
on the cover: a picture of a broken wedding ring and
the words, "Infidelity: It may be in our genes".
this article prompted me to get three related books, which I am
slowly reading.
--- Robert Wright. "The moral animal: the new science of
evolutionary psychology". Pantheon, 1994. $27.50.
--- Donald Symons. "The evolution of human sexuality".
Oxford Univ Press, 1979. $18.95.
--- David Buss. "The evolution of desire". Basic Books, 1994. $13.
Robert Wright is a senior editor at the magazine "The New Republic".
Donald Symons is Professor of Anthropology at U.C. Santa Barbara.
David Buss is Professor of Psychology at the Univ. of Michigan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) male sexual aggressiveness
when I learned a few weeks ago that this (male sexual aggressiveness)
is found in almost all species of animals, this whole argument began to
seem much more convincing.
this (the cause of male sexual aggressiveness) seems so trivial and
elementary, but this was something Darwin tried to and couldn't figure
out. the first one to say this was Williams in his 1966 book.
from "disparity in Asian/white interracial dating FAQ"
(see the end of the article for access info.)
|
| (2.1) male-dominant dating custom
|
| Even though dating customs have been changing in this country
| for the last few decades, it is still considered more normal
| for men to ask women out. Usually men take the initiative,
| planning things, thinking of things to do, ..., even bringing
| up the big question, "Will you marry me?" All the women have
| to do is to say YES or NO.
|
| (2.1.1) biological basis of the male-dominant dating custom
|
| males taking the initiative in courtship --- this is found in
| all (?) human societies, all apes, all mammals, ..., in almost
| all species of animals. now scientists believe that this
| disparity is biological, and explained as follows.
|
| for most species of animals, the potential rate of reproduction
| is much higher for males than for females. for example, a
| human male can impregnate a different female every day
| (potential reproduction rate: 1/day), whereas a human female
| can get pregnant only once a year (potential reproduction
| rate: 1/year). for such a species, sexual aggressiveness in
| males is an evolutionary advantage, much more so than in
| females. a good strategy for females is to fend off unwanted
| males until a male showing promises of good genes comes along.
|
| while human behavior is heavily influenced by culture, behavior
| of other animals are entirely (or mostly) biologically determined.
| scientists (evolutionary psychologists) now believe that many
| aspects of basic human behavior are based on biology.
|
| (Martin Phipps (cxmp000@musica.mcgill.ca) pointed this out.
| see [Symons 1979] [Wright 1994].)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) some comments on the books
I am very, very impressed by the books by Wright and Symons.
when I was reading Dawkins's "The selfish gene" a few year ago, the
idea that my thoughts and feelings are controlled by my genes was very
exciting. but I wondered, "exactly what thoughts and feelings?"
these books begin to answer that question.
[Symons 1979]
Symons is a person of the most amazing knowledge.
his main sources:
--- study of primates and other mammals
(e.g., experiments in caressing female chimpanzees to
see if they will have orgasm)
--- Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, Hite report, and such studies.
--- ethnographies
(and just about anything else imaginable)
thus, Symons argues with much greater force the points
that Desmond Morris hinted at in "The Naked Ape" (1967).
[Wright 1994]
the book does three things.
1. it introduces evolutionary psychology.
2. it uses Darwin's life in illustrating the points.
(most interesting to me were Darwin's successful
marriage and the story of how Darwin plotted to obscure
Wallace's work and monopolize credit for theory of
evolution.)
3. it suggests some social (policy) changes based on
evolutionary psychology. see Section (4)
[Buss 1994]
I went to Buss's excellent talk (on Jan 20), and asked him a
few questions after the talk.
Buss elaborates Symons's points by contributing the following.
--- emphasis of short-term vs long-term dating strategies
--- a wide cross-cultural study (37 cultures)
--- an interesting experiment on male and female reactions to
sexual infidelity vs emotional infidelity
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Wright suggests social changes based on evolutionary psychology.
Wright seems to suggest that the USA should
strive to achieve more even distribution of wealth.
legalize polygamy in certain situations.
(4.1) more even distribution of wealth
reasons why this is good:
--- economic inequality encourages crime, and causes
dissatisfaction with the society.
--- economic inequality is monogamy's worst enemy.
this must be a major reason divorce rate is much higher in the
USA compared to Japan and other countries.
income received by
highest 20% of households: Japan 31.6%, USA 46.9%
lowest 20% of households: Japan 10.9%, USA 3.8%
(source: "Britannica World Data, 1994")
economic inequality is monogamy's worst enemy.
1. rich men (like Johnny Carson) will exercise serial
marriage, the modern, US version of polygyny.
2. this means poor men are more likely to have no mates,
which further contributes to crime. an unmarried man
between 24-35 is 3 times as likely to murder another male
than a married man of the same age ("the pacifying effect
of marriage", Page 100).
3. (Tanaka's point?) people (women) may be overly influenced
by a person's financial conditions in making the decision
to marry, neglecting compatibility. such marriages are
more likely to end up in a divorce.
(4.2) legalize polygamy in certain situations.
reasons why this is good:
a man is more inclined to have two wives (or a wife and a
mistress) than to divorce a wife to marry another. but this is
not allowed in most modern societies, so (rich) men exercise
serial marriages.
divorces and serial marriages are very harmful to society.
--- they contribute to social instability.
--- they hinder healthy rearing of children.
a study shows that a child living with one or two
stepparents is 100 times as likely to be killed than a
child living with two biological parents.
(similar results for parental abuse.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) other areas: fighting and feeding
there is a joke about the innermost layer of the brain (the "reptilian
brain") having to do with the most basic instincts
--- the three `F's: fighting, feeding, and reproduction.
I haven't seen much application of evolutionary psychology to fighting
and feeding, but there must be such work out there.
(5.1) fighting
I just saw a book entitled, "the genetic seeds of warfare".
(5.2) feeding
Wright makes the following comment.
(paraphrase)
in our ancestral environment, sweetness meant
"nutrition and survival". in modern, rich societies,
sweetness doesn't mean that anymore, but we are fooled
by our ancestral urges and become overweight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--- "disparity in Asian/white interracial dating FAQ" (1300 lines)
(Usenet FAQ file edited by Tanaka)
access methods:
1. anonymous FTP sites for Usenet FAQs (rtfm.mit.edu and mirror
sites). anonymous FTP is much easier with Lynx. enter the
following line:
lynx ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/soc.culture.japan
2. in my WWW site.
Use Lynx (as "lynx http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~tanaka"),
Mosaic, etc.
;;; (Mr.) TANAKA Tomoyuki (Tanaka is my family name.)
;;;
;;; WWW: http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~tanaka
;;; e-mail: tanaka@indiana.edu
It was being argued that since the dominant tendency of males was determined in a certain way for the species...that that behavior superceeded "traditional" moral systems.
Sound familiar. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/9/2003 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"What is being depicted to individuals is a 'user-friendly' God who will smile benignly down upon their lifestyles of choice, as they continue to live as they like."
So Honordude, is Pow right about your views. I took your comments on John Earp's post as implying elsewise.
I don't think you can characterize my views as the above if you go back and read my posts.
I do not defend homosexuality Pow, I define it differently from you, I believe. In my view, I see it as similar to Schizophrenia. Its onset is not the fault of the individual.
I am opposed to homosexual acts, the two should not become one in a homosexual relationship, but do believe that such relationships if they were to emulate Christian Ideals would serve to keep their sinful natures in check.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/9/2003 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
dlw
I am opposed to homosexual acts, the two should not become one in a homosexual relationship, but do believe that such relationships if they were to emulate Christian Ideals would serve to keep their sinful natures in check.
So:
1. ...the two should not become one in a homosexual relationship
2. ...they (should) emulate Christian Ideals (in) such relationships
3. ...(and) keep their sinful natures in check
Are you now (or all along?) MERELY saying that they should practice "brotherly (platonic) love? | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/9/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | The two should not become one but they can engage in a relationship in order to keep their (said) sinful natures in check. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? If the relationship is wrong to began with (regardless of whether one is born with it or chose it), why would anyone want them to engage in any form of it (and how could it be Christian in any way, given that the desires are condemned by God)? And how could it possibly keep their sinful desires in check if is sinful in and of itself? When its nature is to do something that God would not have them do?
The very nature of the homosexual (again whether born or chose) is to commit the act with one of the same sex. That is the the final product. How could two who want to commit such an act engage in any type of relationship that would help them to reframe from the act itself when that is what their bodies are telling them to do?
I agree with POW, DLW, sometimes I think you confuse yourself? Doesn't make any sense to me...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/9/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Honorman: The two should not become one but they can engage in a relationship in order to keep their (said) sinful natures in check. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?
EITHER it is so dangerous, that it fits something I said earlier about "dancing close to the edge or a cliff" (like asking a drunk to carry a bottle of Whiskey around with him, open, but not drink); OR it is so safe that it is "banal" and entirely not worth the 34 webpages of arguement that goes before us.
Dave, either you are confused or honorman and I am. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/9/2003 12:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Honordude:If the relationship is wrong to began with (regardless of whether one is born with it or chose it), why would anyone want them to engage in any form of it (and how could it be Christian in any way, given that the desires are condemned by God)?
The fact that they are attracted to people of the same sex is due to the existence of natural evil in this world. However, that does not imply that the relationship is wrong. Someone with pastoral experience(Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey Doccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)in this area or who has interacted with the question should ideally be addressing this question. However, to the best of my knowledge I don't see why a relationship characterized by affectionate acts would fall under the category of committing homosexual acts. Here, I am interpreting homosexual acts as referring to anal intercourse. Icon would be in a better position to explain why this interpretation would make sense, but here goes... As I see it, back in biblical times, homosexual acts were mostly about dominion(I am getting this from what I have seen in movies that depict Roman times, Roma by Federico Fellini, especially). I.e., I force you to let me have sex with you. In a very concrete real way I am saying, you are a woman(inferior) to me... . This would likely entail anal intercourse.
So I think the confusion is because I believe the homosexuality came about because of the sinfulness of the world(just as my hole in the heart came about), but I and a constitutional homosexual did not sin. We did not choose to be born with something other than the hormonal balance/heart-structure that God intended for us to have. I do not think for constitutional homosexuals to have a monogamous loving relationship is inherently sinful so long as they bear in mind that for them to have anal sex together would be wrong and likely harmful. For example, I get the desire to drink Dr. Pepper or Pop at night sometimes, even though I know it will keep me up very late and send my sleep-schedule into a wreck.
So to answer...
quote:
How could two who want to commit such an act engage in any type of relationship that would help them to reframe from the act itself when that is what their bodies are telling them to do?
Once more, it would be better for one with pastoral experience here to answer(Doc????). But, they do have free-will to not act on their desires in the way that would occur to them "naturally". What they can't do(not with great difficulty) is change the desires themselves.
Spouses do hold each other accountable for how they live out their sexualities. The affection they share would presumably make them less likely to seek out less meaningful and more dangerous sexual encounters. So I guess my answer is that I believe they can sacrifice their flesh and refrain from homosexual acts in their relationship with the help of the Holy Spirit and the accountability of a Christian Community.
So I know this is partly speculation on my behalf, inasmuch as I am not a homosexual and have not done pastoral work in this area, but that is my viewpoint and why I think potentially Churches should accept homosexual marriages that affirm the Christian Ideal of marriage in all other respects, though the two should never become one and so it will necessarily fall short of the glory of a heterosexual marriage.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/9/2003 2:20 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: if you believe you must have pastorial experience in order to truly judge, then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting. Regardless, it seems to me that you are so thoroughly confused that you are making contradictorial statements and cannot see it. Therefore it is senseless to continue responding to this given your position does not, to me, make any sense. It is also a position that promotes sin, which you also don't seem to want to adknowledge. I can only pray that God will open your eyes to this, since you seem unwillingly to do so yourself. I'll pray for you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/9/2003 2:22 PM (GMT -6) | | The reason they are attracted to the same sex is because of natural evil in world. I do not see this as wrong. Evil/notwrong bad/notbad.
DLW, think about what you are saying...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/9/2003 2:28 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: given that Jesus said we would be committing adultery when we look at a woman with lust in our heart, I just had to add that I don't think Jesus would have gone along with your definition of homosexuality (apparently women cannot commit homosexuality). Perhaps you should try and look at how the Bible defines homosexuality. And I would suggest not getting your definitions from movies. They can be highly unreliable.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/9/2003 3:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Well if we can't understand each other then perhaps we should let it rest.
I always appreciate prayer and maybe someone else can come along and help straighten out(no pun intended) our misunderstandings.
As for females, the vast majority of them are not constitutional homosexuals so I tend to focus on males.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/16/2003 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | From today's Washington Post, the story of Dick Gephardt's daughter coming out. It seems somewhat absurd that she would be married and quite along in years before "realizing" that she is gay...
Coming Out Gephardt's Daughter Joins Campaign and Shares Personal 'Coming Out' Story
W A S H I N G T O N, June 9 — Chrissy Gephardt tried to keep her true feelings a secret for nearly a year — until she realized she had to come clean and tell her husband and her prominent political father that she is gay.
Gephardt says she vividly remembers the day that forever changed her life.
"I met this woman at school, Amy [Loder]. "We were having coffee one day at a coffee shop in St. Louis and she said, 'Chrissy, there's something I need to tell you … ... I'm gay.' And my heart started racing," Gephardt said on ABCNEWS' Good Morning America.
"I felt like it was coming out of my chest. And I was like, oh, my goodness, that's it. That's exactly what this is. I have an absolute crush on her," she said.
Gephardt tried to keep her feelings a secret. She didn't want to hurt her husband or her father's political career. Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., is making a run for the presidency in 2004.
"I thought there's no way that I could ever bring this to my parents. Because it would ruin my father's career … that's when I decided that I would just keep it a secret, and try to make it go away," she said.
Crush Leads to Confession
As her friendship with Loder grew, Chrissy said she was finding it more and more difficult to keep her true feelings a secret.
"I finally came out and told her," Gephardt said. "She [Loder] was kind of scared. I was married … and she knew my husband," she said.
Gephardt finally broke the news to the man she still calls her best friend. "I told him and the rest is history," she said.
After the 30-year-old social worker broke the news to her husband two years ago, she prepared for what she thought would be an even more frightening conversation with her parents.
"Here were people who have been with me since the day I was born, who love me unconditionally. And I would have to say to them, 'I'm not who you think I am,'" she said.
Chrissy Gephardt said she expected that her family would want to keep the truth about her sexuality a secret, for political reasons. But her admission brought the kind of reaction she never expected — total and complete acceptance.
"I love Chrissy. I love all my kids beyond reason. And whatever is right for her, I trust her," her father, Dick Gephardt said.
The former Democratic majority leader and longtime congressman said he never worried about whether or not his daughter's news would hurt his political career.
"I don't care about my career when it comes to my family," he said.
Ambassador to Gay Community?
In fact, Gephardt has asked his daughter to join his campaign and she replied by jumping in with both feet. She plans on talking about gay and lesbian rights and she hopes Americans will learn something new from what she has to say.
"I really want people to know that gay and lesbian Americans are no different than any other Americans," she said. "We pay taxes. We're part of the government. We're employees like anybody else. And we just want to be treated fairly and equally," she said.
She and her father have different political views on very few subjects — but one they don't see eye to eye on is the subject of gay marriage.
Dick Gephardt promotes the idea of civil unions, but not gay marriages necessarily.
"I think civil unions is gonna be hard to do in the country," he said. "It's controversial. I think it solves the majority of the problems that people face, who are discriminated against. And I think if we can get that done, it would be real progress."
His daughter, on the other hand, would support going one step further.
"Obviously, I'm pro gay marriage. Why not go for gay marriage? We wanna have our relationships recognized just like heterosexual couples," she said.
Chrissy Gephardt, who is now seriously involved with Loder, says she hopes to be married one day. Her family has been very supportive of her relationship with Loder, 31. The happy couple joined the rest of the family in the 2002 family Christmas card picture.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/16/2003 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | - W A S H I N G T O N, June 9 — Chrissy Gephardt tried to keep her true feelings a secret for nearly a year — until she realized she had to come clean and tell her husband and her prominent political father that she is gay.
- Gephardt tried to keep her feelings a secret. She didn't want to hurt her husband
- "I finally came out and told her," Gephardt said. "She [Loder] was kind of scared. I was married … and she knew my husband," she said.
SO SHE'S LEFT THE PERSON SHE WAS (IS?) MARRIED TO, TO "MARRY" SOMEONE ELSE.
THAT'S NOT NEW. AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT NOBLE. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/16/2003 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Agreed..
It also illustrates the fatalism or biological deterministic view of gay-rights advocates/supporters.
Just because she felt attracted to another female doesn't mean that she should throw her marriage away.
Apparently, she must have felt attracted to her husband at one point or she wouldn't have married him.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/12/2003 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | This is taken from the NewHour.
A Massachusetts court will rule over the next few days in the case of seven homosexual couples who have sued the state for the right to legally marry. Betty Ann Bowser reports on the gay marriage debate.
JULIE GOODRIDGE Are you ready?
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Hillary and Julie Goodridge have been together 16 years. The lesbian couple wanted to share the same last name so several years ago they legally changed it. In 1995, Julie was artificially inseminated and delivered their daughter Annie, now seven. So the Goodridges are a family in most all traditional ways except one: They are unable to legally marry, which they say is unfair.
JULIE GOODRIDGE: Because if I drop dead in the living room for example, Hillary has no right to have my body removed, regardless of the fact that she's my power of attorney and durable power of attorney. She has no right over my body.
HILLARY GOODRIDGE: For example, we are not considered kin to each other. We are not consider spouses. If either of us dies, becomes disabled, all things mostly that happen when you're older or things none of us want to think about, disability, death, bad things, accidents. It's in those times that you realize, I have no relationship to this person. If Julie were to die, it is possible would I have to sell the house because I would have to pay tax on the inheritance, which most spouses would not have to do and we have a child to protect, to consider too. So certainly raising Annie has brought all of this to the fore in a protective way for me that I never considered before.
The Supreme Court sodomy decision
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Last year, the Goodridges joined six other gay or lesbian couples and sued the state of Massachusetts. They claimed they were being discriminated against, being denied equal protection guaranteed under the state's constitution because the state did not allow them to get a marriage license. A decision in their case is expected any day.
This comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision just weeks ago that invalidated a Texas law that made sodomy a crime. Harvard Law Professor Martha Minow says that doesn't automatically mean the next step is to legalize gay marriage, but she says courts are starting to show more acceptance of gay rights issues.
MARTHA MINOW, Harvard Law School: When the United States Supreme Court struck down the sodomy law this past month and said that this actually violates liberty, that is a recognition that we must tolerate practices that are performed privately by free individuals who are consenting. That, I think, is a first step in a free country toward what ultimately, I think will be equality, equal treatment.
It is true, as some commentators indicate, there is a difference between tolerance and equality. But I think the next step, once people start to realize these are people just like us. They're our neighbors, sending their kids to school. We are not allowed by law to discriminate against them, and in fact we see that they deserve the same kind of treatment in the country as everybody else.
The definition of "marriage"
BETTY ANN BOWSER: That's just what worries Ron Crews. He's a former minister and director of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a Christian conservative interest group. Crews says if gay marriage is permitted, it could lead to other more disturbing types of relationships.
RON CREWS, Massachusetts Family Institute: A word means a what it means. Marriage means the union of a man and a woman, and if that definition was changed, it's no longer marriage as far as I'm concerned. If they are successful in redefining marriage between a male and a female, then is the next step to redefine marriage to three people or four or what? What is the ultimate goal, and by what standard do either judges or legislators decide this word is going to be defined? How are they going to define this word?
BETTY ANN BOWSER: The Catholic Church has joined Crews' group in opposition to the Goodridge case. It filed a brief maintaining that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Catholic Conference Associate Policy Director Dan Avila also argues that gay and lesbian couples are not being denied equal protection under the law.
DAN AVILA, Massachusetts Catholic Conference: When we talk of people who are not able to be married, we don't normally think of them as being demeaned. For example, a brother and a sister cannot get married. A grandparent and a grandchild cannot get married. Does that mean that we are sending the message that they are less than equal? That they are somehow as individuals not human beings with dignity? No, we don't normally make that equation.
Canada's marriage laws
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Claire Humphrey and Vickie Henry aren't waiting for arguments like that to be settled in the United States. The Boston couple has been together for nine years. In 1998 on the 4th of July, they had a religious marriage ceremony in Wellesley, complete with a minister and bridesmaids. But they have been unable to be legally married. After being artificially inseminated, Vickie gave birth to their daughter Lucy, 22 months ago.
Now they are expecting a son, and in two weeks they're going to Canada. That's because last month, the province of Ontario threw out a law that banned gay marriage. The province of British Columbia quickly followed suit. So Humphrey and Henry are getting married again, this time legally.
VICKIE HENRY: We are going to have a baby in a couple of months and there are always risks, although we hope everything will turn out, just fine with that. We want to put as many protections in place as we feel like we can.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: And they say if they were married, Humphrey would not have to go through a complicated adoption process like she did after Lucy was born.
CLAIRE HUMPHREY: I had to wait five months before I had any legal relationship to her, even though I'm her primary caretaker, until it came up on the court calendar. And that got pretty frightening because there was a time when Vicki was 3,000 miles away on a business trip, and as infants do, Lucy came down, out of nowhere, with a 103 fever. She was tiny. And I'm racing around the house trying to get to the pediatrician. And I had to go back and hope that the paperwork that I had was enough that I would be able to help her. I have never felt so helpless in my life, so inadequate in my life.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: But it's not clear whether a Canadian marriage license would be recognized in the United States. Still, conservatives are worried that courts are now engaging in judicial activism with gay marriage, and they want to curtail some of that authority.
The next civil rights battleground?
RON CREWS: I do believe that there's going to be a growing movement of folks that says, "Wait a minute. We didn't elect these judges to make laws." Our system says that they're to interpret, not make laws. And these actions have been exceeding the bounds that we believe they have the constitutional responsibility for.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Crews and others are trying to get the Massachusetts legislature to pass an amendment to the state's constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It would be similar to so-called "Defense of Marriage Acts" passed by 37 other states. But whether that happens or not, Harvard's Minow says the issue of gay marriage will likely become the next major civil rights battleground facing America.
MARTHA MINOW: Family law has many functions, but the most important function is to reflect and guide the way people actually live. And if the law has no relationship to the way people are actually living, it will be ignored. This is a worldwide phenomenon. There is a growth of freedom and an exercise of freedom by people to choose how to live and with whom to be intimate, and if people are living in an intimate relationship, the law has to eventually come to recognize that.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: But couples like the Goodridges are concerned. They know conservative lawmakers in Washington have started a movement to pass a constitutional amendment that would make heterosexual marriage the law of the land.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/12/2003 2:04 PM (GMT -6) | | 
an overload of homosexual debate!
bwahahaha says bowser!
 0CT0R0K | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/12/2003 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | It still will be good to have the articles archived for when you all feel you have pinpointed down hell enough.
After all how can one help set up the Kingdom of God without knowing what Hell is first?
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/23/2003 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Homosexuality Issue Threatens to Break Anglicanism in Two
July 19, 2003
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
The election last month of an openly gay bishop in the
Episcopal diocese of New Hampshire is now threatening to
crack open the long-existing fault line over homosexuality
in the worldwide Anglican Communion, a global association
of churches in 164 countries.
In an open letter released yesterday, 24 conservative
American bishops warned that they would join conservative
leaders in Africa, Asia and South America and break ties
with the Episcopal Church USA if it votes to confirm New
Hampshire's chosen bishop, V. Gene Robinson, or if it
endorses a separate resolution to create a blessing for
same-sex unions. There are about 300 active and retired
American bishops.
Episcopalians in the United States are set to vote on both
issues at their convention in Minneapolis, which begins on
July 30. Episcopal conventions are usually as brazenly
political as a presidential primary, with lobbying and
last-minute alliances. But this time the American bishops,
priests and laypeople who will vote say the pressure on
them is exceptionally intense.
Conservatives suggested in interviews that if the Americans
vote yes on either Bishop-elect Robinson or same-sex
blessings, traditionalists around the world may join
together, form a separate communion and try to claim the
mantle of true Anglicanism.
It is unclear whether an affirmative vote in Minneapolis
would actually cause a permanent schism in the the Anglican
Communion, or whether the conservatives are making a
last-ditch effort to influence the upcoming American
convention. However, both sides acknowledge that the gay
issue has opened a potentially irreconcilable divide - one
that also emerged recently in the church in Canada and
Britain.
"Obviously, God's will for the church is unity, and the
breakdown of that communion is a devastating thing," said
the Most Rev. Greg Venables, one of the top church leaders,
or primates, who has vowed to back a split. "But it's clear
that there will be a breakdown in communion."
Bishop Venables is the presiding bishop of the Province of
the Southern Cone, which includes all of South America,
except Brazil.
The Anglican Communion, according to religion scholars, is
the second largest international body of churches after the
Roman Catholic Church, with 79 million members in 38
regional churches that trace their heritage to the Church
of England.
While the conservatives on homosexuality are a minority in
the church in the United States, they are a majority where
the Anglican church is growing most quickly, in Africa and
Asia.
At the Lambeth Conference in 1998, a once-a-decade meeting
of Anglican leaders, a resounding majority endorsed a
resolution declaring homosexuality to be "incompatible with
scripture," but the resolution was non-binding.
Bishop-elect Robinson said in a telephone interview from
New Hampshire on Thursday: "It breaks my heart if any of
them choose to leave. But if they leave it's because they
are choosing to leave, and they are choosing to divide this
communion, not me.
"I am not willing to take responsibility for the future of
the Anglican Church," he said.
The debate over homosexuality has been simmering among
Episcopalians for nearly 30 years, but only recently boiled
over with recent decisions in Canada and England.
The Canadian diocese of New Westminster, which covers
greater Vancouver, declared in May that it would formally
bless same-sex unions. In response, 16 primates in Africa,
India, South America the West Indies, the Philippines and
Southeast Asia severed ecclesiastical relations with the
Vancouver diocese and its bishop.
In addition, nine parishes in the Vancouver area broke away
from their own diocese, and said they would change their
allegiance and redirect their funds to the bishop of the
Yukon, who is a conservative on homosexuality.
Then, in a watershed moment on June 6, a gay man selected
as a bishop in the Church of England withdrew before taking
his seat.
Dr.Jeffrey John had been appointed bishop of Reading in the
Oxford Diocese, where diocesan bishops are appointed by the
bishop of their province, not elected as in the United
States. After his selection, a newspaper revealed that Dr.
John had had a long-term gay relationship. But Dr. John
said that he and his partner, also a priest, had become
celibates after the church in 1991 explicitly forbade
priests from having gay sex.
Conservative primates from around the world argued that Dr.
John was nonetheless unacceptable as a bishop, and appealed
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan
Williams, who spent six hours on a Saturday meeting
privately with Dr. John. The next day, Dr. John stepped
down, "in view of the damage my consecration might cause to
the unity of the church," he said.
The archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop and titular
leader of the Anglican Communion, has not spoken publicly
on the American elections. And while many conservatives are
looking to him to intervene, a spokesman for the Anglican
Communion in London said he would not attend the convention
in Minneapolis.
However, several primates from other countries are planning
to go to Minneapolis to reassert the view that the only
permissible sexual relationships that are between husband
and wife, said Bishop Venables, who lives in Argentina.
"Nobody has consulted with us," he said. "That is the most
alarming thing."
In New Hampshire, Bishop-elect Robinson said that every
morning, in his screened-in porch or den, he asks during
his prayers whether he should step down, like Dr. John.
"If there came a point where I felt like that's what God
was calling me to do, absolutely, I would do it," he said.
"But I do not feel that that is what God is calling me to
do. On the contrary, I feel that God is calling me to move
deliberately forward," he said. "I work very hard to make
sure that the voice I hear in my head is God's and not my
own ego doing a fabulous rendition of God's voice."
Mr. Robinson, who is 56, has served as canon, or assistant
to the bishop, of New Hampshire, for 16 years. He was
married for thirteen years, and has two daughters.
He says he underwent years of therapy, sometimes twice a
week sessions, that he had hoped would "cure" him of his
homosexuality. But he and his wife divorced in 1987. He
says they gave back their rings in a church ceremony and
agreed to share in the the raising of their daughters, now
21 and 25. A few months later, his wife remarried and he
met the man who is now his partner, he said. He says he
remains close with his ex-wife and his daughters.
Both opponents and supporters of Bishop-elect Robinson
agreed in interviews this week that he appeared to be
headed for a victory. About 200 of the bishops and
delegates who will vote at the convention have agreed to
wear buttons saying, "Ask Me About Gene," and to offer
testimony about his worthiness. Altogether, there are about
300 bishops in the United States, but not all of them can
vote on him.
The New Hampshire diocese elected him decisively on the
second ballot in June. Episcopalians traditionally are
loath to interfere with a diocese's choice of bishop. The
only other time a bishop was rejected at general convention
was in the 1870's, church officials say.
The Rev. Dr. Kendall S. Harmon, canon theologian of the
diocese of South Carolina, a conservative, said, "This is
the most serious crisis Anglicanism has faced since it's
founding. You've never had a situation where half of the
Anglican communion is threatening to be out of communion
with the other half."
The practical effect, church officials said, could be that
bishops refuse to meet together, to offer one another the
sacraments, or to recognize one another's legitimacy at
gatherings like the Lambeth Conference, which takes place
every 10 years. There could be massive confusion if a rival
communion arises in the United States and competes for
members, resources and property.
Church liberals insist that the Episcopal Church will
eventually come to accept gay bishops just as it came to
accept women priests and divorcees remarrying. Three of 109
dioceses in the United States still refuse to ordain women,
and in the Church of England it is still not universally
accepted, which proves, according to the liberals, that
Anglicans can tolerate diversity.
"I never knew that the Anglican Communion was together,"
said the Rev. Canon Edward W. Rodman, professor of pastoral
theology and urban ministry at the Episcopal Divinity
School, in Cambridge, and an advisor to a consortium of
liberal Episcopal groups. "That's one of the problems with
the conservatives' rhetoric. All the provinces of the
Anglican Communion are autonomous, so what is there to
fracture?"
But the Very Rev. Canon David C. Anderson president of the
American Anglican Council, which issued the letter from the
24 American bishops, said, "We've kept the Anglican family
together through thick and through thin, and the hope is
that we can continue, but realistically families come to a
point where there's so much strife and stress going on that
you don't know how things will work out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/national/19BISH.html?ex=1059630706&ei=1&en=74d86eb24c12dd26
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Gay rights tough to sharpen into political 'wedge issue' Shifting attitudes highlight risks for both parties
By Susan Page / USA TODAY
WASHINGTON
Televangelist Pat Robertson is praying to God to undo a Supreme Court decision that opened the door to new gay civil rights. Other social conservatives are seeking a more earthbound response: a constitutional amendment barring marriage for gay couples.
But the White House has been tepid to suggestions from some that same-sex marriage and other issues involving gays could be the sort of social issue that divides Democrats from middle-of-the-road voters the way race, crime and welfare have in the past.
Will this new wedge issue cut?
Strategists in both parties caution that the public's views are changing too rapidly to provide an easy answer. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll indicates that public attitudes toward gay people are in the midst of a transformation, though the issues involved remain controversial. Analysts say the shift is fueled by a self-perpetuating cycle: More gay men and lesbians are open about their sexual orientation, prompting some of their family members and co-workers to revise their views. That in turn makes it easier for others to come out of the closet.
More than half of those surveyed said a friend, relative or co-worker had personally told them that he or she was gay; that's more than double the percentage in 1985. Nearly one-third said they had become more accepting of gay people in recent years. Just 8% said they had become less accepting.
''It's been one of the most rapidly changing areas of opinion in the last couple of decades,'' says David Popenoe, a sociologist at Rutgers University. ''More people know gays, see them on television, have them in their own family, and so they just begin to feel more comfortable with the idea.''
Politicians don't have to look far to see the trend. Chrissy Gephardt, 30, who told her parents she was gay in 2001, is campaigning full time for her father, Richard Gephardt, the Missouri representative and Democratic presidential contender. Mary Cheney, 34, who is gay, works behind the scenes at campaign headquarters for her father, Vice President Cheney.
Jeff Jensen, 51, of Cincinnati, reconsidered his views toward gays when he learned that a co-worker at the Internet publishing company where he used to work was gay. ''Whereas I might have been a little bit more unaccepting, the knowledge of just the way he was and the way he acted increased my tolerance,'' Jensen says, although he never spoke directly with his colleague about the issue. Jensen was interviewed for the USA TODAY poll. He called his former co-worker ''a nice guy'' who was ''very competent.''
Gay people are increasingly accepted on the job. Nearly nine of 10 of those surveyed in May said lesbians and gay men deserve equal job opportunities. Almost two-thirds said gay couples should share the same health care and retirement benefits as married heterosexuals.
But the nation is almost evenly split when it comes to issues closer to home. Overall, 49% support allowing gay couples to adopt children, and 48% oppose it. When it comes to a constitutional amendment that would bar gay marriages, 50% are in favor, 45% against.
From such clear divides are hot-button issues sometimes forged.
'No other appeal'
The issue could be inflamed by a decision expected any day from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a lawsuit brought by two lesbians who were blocked from getting a marriage license. Analysts say their case has been strengthened by the U.S. Supreme Court decision that invalidated state anti-sodomy laws.
''This strikes a blow at the historic moral framework of this country, the Judeo-Christian concept'' of marriage as being between a man and a woman, Robertson says. On the Christian Broadcasting Network, Robertson is in the middle of a 21-day prayer campaign asking God to persuade three Supreme Court justices who joined in the majority to retire.
''I am sincere when I say we have no other appeal in America but to the judge of all the Earth,'' Robertson said in an interview. ''It's like a form of legal brief: 'We've gone past the various courts, so please take this under advisement.' ''
Publicity in the wake of the court decision may have created some backlash. In the new survey, those polled said by 50% to 44% that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. That's a decline from the 60%-35% finding in May. Analysts at Gallup said the question would be asked again to test whether the finding reflected a change in attitudes or a temporary blip.
Gary Bauer of American Values, a conservative group, predicts gay marriage will be the defining ''values'' issue in the 2004 election. He calls a constitutional amendment ''unfortunately the only way to stop this freight train that is being driven by court decisions.'' Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., endorsed an amendment soon after the court decision.
But President Bush, who says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, has hedged on amending the Constitution. ''I don't know if it's necessary yet,'' he told reporters. Senior Bush strategist Matthew Dowd is non-committal about whether the president will ever say more: ''It's not an issue average Americans would put on the top of their concerns.''
That dismays some Christian conservatives, a key part of the Republican base vote whose turnout in elections is critical.
''I can't imagine the White House being AWOL on that debate and just repeating, 'We believe marriage is between a man and a woman,' '' says Bauer, who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000. ''You've got to put a policy on the table to implement the values of your supporters. Otherwise, why would your supporters continue to be engaged in your coalition?''
But Bush also must consider live-and-let-live Republicans and independent-minded voters who could be repelled by actions that seem intolerant toward gay people or invasive of people's personal lives. ''I've been a conservative a pretty long time,'' Lynne Cheney, the wife of the vice president, said on CNN after the Supreme Court decision. ''And it's always seemed to me to be a stretch, the idea that somehow government has any business in bedrooms.''
Risks for Democrats
There are risks for Democrats, too.
At a forum this month sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for gay men and lesbians, all nine Democratic presidential candidates endorsed partnership benefits. But none of the major contenders embraced the idea of gay marriage.
Questions relating to homosexuality could cost Democrats the Midwest and border states they probably need to carry to win the White House -- among them Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia.
A 59% majority in the West and 51% in the East say homosexual relations should be legal. But in the South and Midwest, the dominant views, by 49% pluralities, are that they should be illegal.
Views also vary depending on the type of community in which people live. Among big-city residents, 60% say they should be legal, compared with 53% in midsize cities and suburbs and 48% in small towns and rural areas.
Chrissy Gephardt says she was concerned she ''was going to ruin my dad's career'' if her sexual orientation became known. ''He's going to pretend one of his children died,'' she worried to herself before telling her parents. Now, she says the response she has received from most voters has been ''very positive.''
''Attitudes today are different than they were five years ago,'' says Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who advises presidential contender John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator. ''By next year, we're going to have different attitudes toward gay marriage than today.''
Part of that is what Mellman wryly calls ''the inexorable forces of generational replacement.'' That is, voters under 30 are almost twice as likely to say homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal than are voters over 65. That means the shift in public opinion toward acceptance of gay people is likely to continue.
Sam Woods, a 77-year-old widower from Greenville, S.C., thinks a constitutional amendment is probably a good idea. ''We need to maintain the sanctity of the marriage, of the family,'' says Woods, who calls his two grandchildren ''the light of my life.'' He says, ''To me, the same-sex marriage is just throwing that back in the face of it.''
But at age 23, Stacy Bolen of Peoria, Ill., says she has seen attitudes toward gays ease ''since I was a kid.'' The stay-at-home mom says, ''One of my best friends from high school was gay, although he didn't come out of the closet until after we graduated. My view on it is, whatever makes him happy.''
Defining terms
Gay marriage: State-recognized civil marriages between gay or lesbian couples, who then would have the legal protections and rights of married heterosexuals in state and federal law. Not legal in United States. Not available anywhere in the USA. In Canada, an appeals court in June recognized a right for same-sex couples to marry under the Canadian constitution.
Civil unions: State-recognized civil unions that give same-sex couples legal protections and rights in state law. Available only in Vermont since 2000.
Domestic partnerships: A gay man or lesbian can declare a domestic partner who is eligible for health insurance and other employment benefits. Of the Fortune 500 companies, 197 offer benefits to gay partners.
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Interesting article on what drives us to do sick stuff.
I think the implications are overdone. I mean I doubt tumors or what-not do not explain all sick behavior.
Doctors: Pedophile loses urge after tumor removed
Science raises questions for criminal justice system
Monday, July 28, 2003 Posted: 0834 GMT ( 4:34 PM HKT)
Dr. Russell Swerdlow, a neurologist at the University of Virginia who treated the 40-year-old man, says he has never seen a case like this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story Tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Virginia (AP) -- There was something wrong with the schoolteacher with the headache -- doctors could see that from the start.
Though charming and intelligent, the 40-year-old man couldn't stop leering at female nurses. He had been in trouble with the law for sexual advances toward his stepdaughter, and now he was talking about raping his landlady.
University of Virginia Medical Center neurologists Dr. Russell Swerdlow and Dr. Jeffrey Burns had never seen a case like this.
The man had an egg-sized brain tumor pressing on the right frontal lobe. When surgeons removed it, the lewd behavior and pedophilia faded away. Exactly why, the surgeons cannot quite explain.
"It's possible the tumor released some pre-existing urges," Burns said. "But that's a tough debate, we just don't know."
The outcome raises questions not only about how tumors alter brain function, but also how they can influence behavior and judgment.
Daniel T. Tranel, a University of Iowa neurology researcher, said he has seen people with brain tumors lie, damage property, and in extremely rare cases, commit murder.
"The individual simply loses the ability to control impulses or anticipate the consequences of choices," Tranel said.
Vast implications
Dr. Stuart C. Yudofsky, a psychiatrist at the Baylor College of Medicine who specializes in behavioral changes associated with brain disorders, also has seen the way brain tumors can bend a person's behavior.
"This tells us something about being human, doesn't it?" Yudofsky said. If one's actions are governed by how well the brain is working, "does it mean we have less free will than we think?"
It's a question with vast implications in the criminal justice system.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that executing mentally retarded murderers is unconstitutionally cruel because of their diminished ability to reason and control their urges.
Chris Adams, a death penalty specialist for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, thinks the next logical step would be to include people who have brain tumors.
"Some people simply don't have the frontal lobe capacity to stop what they're doing," he said.
Human behavior is governed by complex interactions within the brain. But scientists think most "executive functions" -- decisions with major consequences -- are controlled within the frontal lobes, the most highly evolved section of the brain.
Tumors in that area can squeeze enough blood from the region to effectively put it to sleep, dulling someone's judgment in a way that's similar to drinking too much alcohol.
Only in very rare cases would the tumor turn the person to violence or deviant behavior on its own, Tranel said.
Dr. Patrick J. Kelly, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at New York University Medical Center, said he's never seen a tumor turn someone into a pedophile.
"I've seen them make people hyperactive, forgetful, apathetic," Kelly said. "And it usually takes a fairly extensive tumor to do that ... the size of an orange maybe."
'Pleasure principle' override
The Virginia schoolteacher with the tumor didn't respond to written interview requests by The Associated Press made through his doctors. But according to his case report, which Swerdlow and Burns wrote in the Archives of Neurology, the man didn't remember having abnormal sexual urges for most of his life.
In 2000, the man began collecting sex magazines and visiting pornographic Web sites, focusing much of his attention on images of children and adolescents.
Eventually he couldn't stop himself, telling doctors "the pleasure principle overrode" everything else. When he started making subtle advances on his young stepdaughter, his wife called police. He was arrested for child molestation.
The man was convicted and failed a 12-step rehabilitation program for sexual addiction because he couldn't stop asking for sex favors, according to the case report.
The day before he was to be sentenced to prison, the man walked into the emergency room with a headache. He was distraught, Swerdlow said, and was contemplating suicide.
He also was "totally unable to control his impulses," Burns said. "He'd proposition nurses."
An MRI revealed the tumor, and it was cut out days later. The man's behavior began to improve. Swerdlow said the judge allowed him to complete a Sexaholics Anonymous program. The man eventually moved back home with his wife and stepdaughter.
About a year later, Swerdlow said, the tumor partially grew back and the man started to collect pornography again. He had another operation last year, and his urges again subsided.
"That's one of the interesting things about frontal lobe damage," Swerdlow said. "This guy, he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he thought there wasn't anything wrong with him, and he didn't stop."
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 10:59 AM (GMT -6) | | First public gay high school to open in NYC
Monday, July 28, 2003 Posted: 1918 GMT ( 3:18 AM HKT)
Harvey Milk High School will open in this newly renovated New York City building in the fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story Tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED
• Hetrick-Martin Institute
• New York City Department of Education
NEW YORK (AP) -- New York City is creating the nation's first public high school for gays, bisexuals and transgender students.
The Harvey Milk High School will enroll about 100 students and open in a newly renovated building in the fall. It is named after San Francisco's first openly gay city supervisor, who was assassinated in 1978.
"I think everybody feels that it's a good idea because some of the kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and beaten in other schools," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday. "It lets them get an education without having to worry."
The school is an expansion of a two-classroom public school program that began in 1984. A gay-rights youth advocacy group, the Hetrick-Martin Institute, has managed and financed the program since its inception.
The new school's principal, William Salzman, said the school will be academically challenging and will follow mandatory English and math programs. It also will specialize in computer technology, arts and culinary arts.
State Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long criticized the creation of the school.
"Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? Is there gay math? This is wrong," Long said. "There's no reason these children should be treated separately."
The Hetrick-Martin Institute's Web site says the school will give its students "an opportunity to obtain a secondary education in a safe and supportive environment. ... We believe that success requires the ability to respect and value the diverse human community."
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 2:47 PM (GMT -6) | | 28, 2003, 5:20pm EDT
CDC REPORTS RISE IN HIV INFECTIONS IN GAY, BISEXUAL MEN
The number of gay and bisexual men in the U.S who tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS jumped 7.1 percent in 2002, while the number of new HIV diagnoses remained stable for other vulnerable groups.
Online NewsHour:
Health Spotlight
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the new data Monday at the 2003 National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta. The number of gay and bisexual men testing positive for HIV has increased 17.7 percent since 1999.
The CDC cautioned that the data was based on voluntary testing, so the rise in HIV diagnosis for gay and bisexual men could have been caused by an increase in the number of people in that group who were tested for the virus. The CDC also said that their analysis involved data from 25 states and leaves some racial and ethnic groups underrepresented. It does not include numbers for New York and California, two states that have been hard-hit by the virus.
AIDS researchers also noted the importance of increasing testing and awareness of the disease among pregnant women, to reduce the number of infants born with HIV.
At least one-fifth of pregnant women in some parts of the nation are not tested for HIV despite CDC recommendations that prenatal care include such tests. An estimated 300 U.S. babies contract the virus from their mothers each year.
The CDC also found that an estimated one-quarter of the 850,000 to 950,000 Americans infected with HIV do not know they carry the virus, according to the CDC.
"Efforts to increase the number of HIV-infected people who are aware of their HIV status and to link these infected individuals to testing, treatment and prevention services are critical to reducing new infections," Dr. Ron Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, said at a press conference.
CDC officials also said use of OraSure Technologies Inc.'s OraQuick rapid HIV test appeared an ideal way to reach people at the highest risk of infection.
The test, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2002, yields preliminary results in as little as 20 minutes and is as accurate as standard HIV tests.
"Rapid HIV testing is an enormously important tool to reach people that traditional methods are not reaching," Dr. Bernard Branson, the CDC's lead investigator on rapid HIV testing, told reporters.
Meanwhile, the CDC is hoping to improve its ability to follow HIV's spread within communities through its implementation of a new HIV tracking system. That system is based on a blood test that can determine whether a person has been infected within the six months prior to getting tested.
The CDC plans to have the system in place in 35 areas that account for 93 percent of annual HIV infections by 2004. The agency has allocated $13 million in supplemental funding to state health departments for the program in fiscal 2004.
"It will provide us timely information on HIV transmission that is occurring now," said Dr. Robert Janssen, who directs HIV prevention programs at the Atlanta-based agency.
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/9/2003 1:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Regardless of hormones... EVERY DAY is a new day and a day for free choices.
(Otherwise this whole board should be shut down. (Or handed over to "determinists". [:0][:0][:0])
| | Back to Top | | |
| 548 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:42 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|