You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
When will the idiot child George W. Bush learn that the right wing has held his fledgling presidency hostage and in the end will destroy his already bruised and bloodied legacy? Today, he continued down the path to historical oblivion and capitulated to right wing demands by nominating Samuel A. Alito, known as "Scalia-lite", for the Supreme Court. Lambda Legal immediately raised "red flags" over the nomination.
The Republicans are in a very weak position, after knee-capping Harriet Miers. The Democrats are in a stronger position after holding fire on Miers and confirming Roberts. Bush has no political capital to spend, at the moment. This means that if Alito turns out to be a right wing nut, the Democrats must filibuster the nomination. If the Republicans retaliate by going "nuclear", it will destabilize our country, cause the Supreme Court to be viewed by half the nation as illegitimate and hurt America. This will be a disaster that causes major setbacks for the Republican Party. As for now, let us sit back and wait to we learn more about Scalia-lite. Here is a quick snapshot of his record.
** In 2001, Judge Alito authored a decision in Saxe v. State that declared unconstitutional a public school district policy that prohibited harassment against students because of their sexual orientation or other characteristics.
** Among his noteworthy opinions was his lone dissent in the 1991 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.
** In 2000, though, Alito joined the majority that found a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion, Alito said the Supreme Court required such a ban to include an exception if the mother's health was endangered.
** In Fatin v. INS (1993), Alito joined the majority in ruling that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish eligibility based on citing that she would be persecuted for gender and belief in feminism.
HRC's Reaction: "President Bush chose to placate the far right instead of appealing tothe fair-minded values of the American people," said Human RightsCampaign President Joe Solmonese.
NGLTF's Reaction: "President Bush capitulated to the howling from the extreme, evangelical right and threw them red meat in the form of U.S. Circuit Court Judge Samuel Alito. The country will now be put through a wrenching, divisive and damaging confirmation process. One more travesty inflicted on this nation by the president and his right wing allies," said Matt Foreman, NGLTF's Executive Director.
Gary, I've been saying it for a long time, the democrats are nowhere and definitely going nowhere when it comes to us. We're really fucked over and over.
You two are probably right. If I were young and just getting out of college, I'd strongly consider moving to Canada. Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at
10/31/2005 8:31 PM
After spending all day researching Alito, I'm convinced he's as bad as he looks. We may be fucked, but maybe not for certain: if we make enough noise maybe we can get some dems and moderate repubs to oppose his nomination. I've already contacted my senators about Alito.
All the hate groups are cheering for Alito's nomination, (check out the homepage for the Traditional Values Coalition - full of frightening anti-gay propaganda that looks like something from 1930s Germany). We have to make noise from the other side. Maybe we can even prompt the dems to filibuster. If we don't try, we'll lose for certain. At least call your senators and ask them to oppose Alito.
"The Republicans are in a very weak position, after knee-capping Harriet Miers. The Democrats are in a stronger position after holding fire on Miers and confirming Roberts."
Wayne, I'm a conservative, evangelical Christian who fully agrees with Sheryl Swoopes that one isn't "born that way" (and I'll go one step further in saying that I believe I know exactly why I developed every facet (those I like, those I don't) of my sexuality).
I also know some GLBT people, very wonderful ones, who know you. I respect you because of the compliments they've given.
But if you really believe that quote I excerpted above, then you are being very foolish. The republicans are, instead of being weak, quite energized. If the democrats fight this, they are going to (to coin a familiar phrase) "be who they are", and show the American public (at least those who care enough to truly listen to them) how idealogically bankrupt they are at this point in time.
And you (if your hope is to have this conservative judge "borked" away from the SC) are going to lose, once again.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 10:41 AM
KJW, you must be living in lala land with your boderline personality president and the rest of the rapture right! OK, let's see who's REALLY ideologically bankrupt here? The Democrats: civil rights for ALL Americans, protecting the poor, the weak, and the environment, protecting workers from exploitation by the rich and powerful, separation of church and state, expecting the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, the right to privacy for women and everyone else, universal health care in the world's richest nation. The republicans: government for the rich and by the rich, discrimination against minorities, especially Gay people who pay the same taxes as everyone else (if not more), plundering and polluting the environment is ok if it's to make money, no choice or privacy in medical matters or what you do in your own bedroom, no separation of church and state (only fundamentalist christians need apply), war first-diplomacy later, lying, corruption, greed and treason in government, love the fetus but hate the child--cut all social programs which help them, pro-life but pro-war and capital punishment, take from the poor and the elderly and the middle class and give to the rich. And yes KJW, we ARE born that way, you and swoopes (whoever she is) need more science in your life and less religious propaganda. Who the hell are you to tell us whether it's a choice or not?! I was attracted to men when I was a very young child, long before I knew what sex was, or that girls didnt have penises. DONT tell us we werent born that way!! If you think Jesus would pick the neo-con republican agenda over the progressive's, you and your church have wasted your time in reading the new testament; you havent understood a thing!! Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 11:32 AM
Gary,
Respectfully asked, leaving aside the republican/democrat comparisons for a moment...
Where do you have proof that same-sex attraction is indeed inborn? (If you've genuinely got such proof, you're obviously on the path to becoming a very rich man.)
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 11:57 AM
Sorry, I should have said "inborn" (due to [i]in utero[/i] factors) and/or "genetic" (hereditary).
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 11:58 AM
Hey Besen,
You better get with it. Just because he does not agree with your radical, fringe hard-left agenda, does not mean he is unfit for the high court. While hostile to gays, minorities, women and the elderly, Alito has backed up these important positions with reason and, more importantly, faith. I am not sure why you hate him merely because you disagree with his well-accepted views. He is clearly in the mainstream and I think you need to stop pushing your extremist agenda on law abiding americans. I never understood why you were so insecure about your sexuality, why can't you just let it be? Even if the court decides to permit discrimination against gays, women, minorities and the elderly, and outlaw abortion and sodomy, there will still be areas in the country that will permit this type of activity, like New York and San Francisco. So I'm not really sure what the problem is.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 12:49 PM
KJW - There is ample evidence that sexuality is inborn. Try reading Channdler Burr's book, "A Separate Creatio". That is a good place to start. There is as much evidence that homosexulity is inborn as there is for left handedness.
KJW - please point out to me the left handed gene. You can't? I didn't think so. So, I guess left handedness is a lifestyle choice. Please do your homework before you make such broad and grand pronouncements about how people were born.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
11/01/2005 12:53 PM
Anonymous,
I've done my homework, now you do yours.
If Chandler Burr had proof of sexuality being inborn/genetic, his book would be required reading in every public school today. It isn't, because all he is dealing with are possible, not proven causes.
As for "handedness", there are some of us out here (myself included) who switched from being left-handed to right-handed at a young age. (Long story, but it happened.) I've never regretted it, and I do very well as a "righty" now. (And indeed, I was the son of two left-handed parents who didn't want me to change over...my Mom did her best to discourage me from doing so.)
So using your logic, this means lasting change is possible, isn't it?
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 1:10 PM
KJW - Thanks so much for the handedness story. Now that I have a glimpse of your mind-set, I can see why you are the way you are. Some weak minded people will do anything to fit in...and, you did not answer any of my questions. What homework have you done? Please elaborate on what books you've read. Where is your proof that backs up your skewed point of view? I've offered a reference book, please offer one backing your assertions. I'd love to see your "proof" that you know how people are born. That is a bold satement, so back it up.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
11/01/2005 1:28 PM
KJW, I'M the living proof! I no more picked being gay than you picked being hetero (assuming you are--why are you on this site) and yes there is loads of biological evidence that homosexuality is a part of the natural spectrum of sexuality in the animal kingdom. We have an entire book on the subject in my library. There is also scientific evidence suggestive of a biological connection-- it seems to run down the mothers' side of the family, differences in the finger lengths of gay and hetero. men and in autopsies differences were found in the brains of homo and heterosexual men. And also, why do so many gay men have "gay mannerisms" and a distinctive way of speaking; even as children we see this. This is not chosen, nor the result of any childhood trauma. Mine was very happy thank you. Proof? No, but strong evidence in support of,yes!,just like evolution. Whereas your position has no proof and quite the contrary, all the evidence is against it (just like creationism which I'm sure you believe in too). And for the charmer who wrote the "Hey Besen" blog; as Judge Judy would shout, "YOU'RE AN IDIOT"! There is NEVER any cogent "reasoning" for discrimination against any group of human beings; and when it's based on "faith", it's the most dangerous and irrational of all. Faith based discrimination gave us the inquisition, the crusades, the witch hunts, 9/11, and laid the ground work for the holocaust. If you consider simply wanting the same rights as every other TAX PAYING American to be a radical leftist agenda, then so be it, and we're proud to stand on the side of justice! Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 1:48 PM
Hey Gary,
Grow up. From your comments, I can see that you are not even a homosexual. My only point is that true freedom comes from a recognition of inner self-worth, and not from external approval by those who think differently. Besen is just provoking a fight when he attacks people who have opinions that are reasonably tolerant yet different that his radical agenda. The truth is, the government cannot discriminate against us even if they so desire, because we live in areas (NYC) where public opinion falls in our favor. By trying to control society's thought, Besen is only seeking to impose his fringe moral view upon law abiding people.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 2:33 PM
Wayne, I've been asking the same question of many of my GLBT acquaintances for years.
Respectfully said, you'd love to know my answer, because you yourself have no proof, do you?
And respectfully said, it really must have burned you the other day when in her coming out story Sheryl Swoopes said words to the effect of: "I wasn't born gay". In fact, I remember thinking that if she was going to try and ingratiate herself within the GLBT community, her line of thinking on that subject was either going to have to be shut up or shut down. Sure enough, a gay acquaintance of mine pointed out that some (not all) news stories reporting this were quietly editing out her comments.
Gary:
1. "KJW, I'M the living proof! I no more picked being gay than you picked being hetero (assuming you are--why are you on this site) and yes there is loads of biological evidence that homosexuality is a part of the natural spectrum of sexuality in the animal kingdom."
I fully believe you. My own sexuality wasn't chosen, either, though it is a result of a lot of cumulative choices I made. (Two different things.) Still doesn't prove that it's inborn/genetic, though we are indeed created as sexual beings.
As for the animal kingdom, I'll put more credence in findings there toward human beings when I see more behavior of other kinds exhibited in humans that's commonplace among animals, such as mothers eating their infants if someone else touches them (as female rodents are prone to do, sadly).
2.
"We have an entire book on the subject in my library. There is also scientific evidence suggestive of a biological connection-- it seems to run down the mothers' side of the family, differences in the finger lengths of gay and hetero."
A happily gay man I know who's also a scientist has said that, while these things are noteworthy, they are not direct evidence of their being a biological cause for same-sex attraction. They're only evidence of what appears to be a (frequently) common trait among GLBT people.
3. "men and in autopsies differences were found in the brains of homo and heterosexual men."
4. "And also, why do so many gay men have "gay mannerisms" and a distinctive way of speaking; even as children we see this."
Have you ever noticed how frequently straight men have effeminate mannerisms, or are very talented artistically, etc. These are not traits exclusive to gay men.
5. "This is not chosen, nor the result of any childhood trauma. Mine was very happy thank you."
That's excellent to hear. I know of other GLBT people who had happy childhoods...always glad to hear that.
6. Proof?
"No, but strong evidence in support of,yes!,just like evolution."
Friend, the more I learn about the theory of evolution (assuming you believe in it) the more I see you yourself must be a true man of faith, because one needs more of it to believe in evolution than in creationism, but I digress.
7. "Whereas your position has no proof and quite the contrary, all the evidence is against it (just like creationism which I'm sure you believe in too)."
Where is all the evidence against my position?
How important is your gayness to you? Inside, how much does it really influence who you are and how you live your life?
I remember seeing a Discovery Channel special on identical twins once, and how supposedly identical they were. There was a snippet on their commercial with two twin grown men saying something like:
MAN 1: "We're so much alike that..."
MAN 2: "...we often finish each other's sentences."
Again, how important and significant INTERNALLY is a gay man's identity to him? (And for what it's worth, I believe that the vast majority of gay men live their lives as quietly and normally as the majority of str8t Americans).
Did you happen to read the results of a researcher named Dr. Kenneth Kendler back in the year 2000? He was studying identical twins, and the frequency of concordance for being gay among them. He said at the time his findings were released that his research used the most superior methodology of any such studies before him. (Including, ostensibly, the famous Bailey/Pillard study.)
You know what he found?
That the rate of concordance for gayness was somewhere around 32.5%, just under a third of a chance, that if one identical twin was gay then the other one would be. Notice how we didn't hear that study trumpeted loudly throughout the mass media.
Sorry, no matter what genetic significance that is, if something so internally powerful as gayness has less than 1/3 of a chance of being shared by one's identical twin, that really shakes my faith in the "born that way" theory. (I've got more studies that bother me on this if you want them.)
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 3:12 PM
Your assumption is of course WRONG!! I AM a homosexual and always have been. And your comment about "true freedom" was absurd! I DO have self-worth, but self-worth wont give me the "true freedom" to marry my life partner in the state where I live (not yet anyway), nor to make medical decisions for each other, nor a whole host of other rights that heterosexuals enjoy. I'm sure Rosa Parks had self-worth, but that didnt give her the "true freedom" to ride, walk, shop and eat where she chose. And believe me, your or anyone else's APPROVAL is the LAST thing I need or expect!!!! Wayne is not provoking fights nor promoting "fringe" politics, unless you consider EQUAL rights to be fringe!? And no you DON'T have equality from the government, not even in New York City. The last I heard gay marriage was still not legal there. (I'm finished with this pointless thread) Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 3:13 PM
Sorry, I forgot to address:
3. "men and in autopsies differences were found in the brains of homo and heterosexual men."
Is that Simon LeVay's research? Because the similar studies I've seen analyzed indicate that it's indeterminate whether these differences were as a result of inborn/genetic factors or whether they were a result of factor occurring after birth.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/01/2005 3:14 PM
No biological evidence? Hmm.
** A study released in May by Swedish scientists demonstrates that biology plays a key role in determining a person’s sexuality. The research showed that the portion of the brain that helps regulate sexuality - the hypothalamus - reacted the exact same way in straight women and gay men when exposed to male pheromones, which are chemicals designed to provoke a behavior, such as sexual arousal. The same area of the brain only became stimulated in heterosexual men when introduced to female pheromones.
While this study shed some new light, evidence showing homosexuality is biological is light years ahead of where most people think it is. Here are a few major findings:
** In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in the esteemed biomedical journal Human Genetics, claiming he identified three chromosomal regions linked to sexual orientation in men: 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.
** In 2003, University of Texas psychoacoustics specialist Dennis McFadden found that when measuring the way the brain reacts to sound, lesbians fell in between heterosexual men and straight women, suggesting they might be exposed to higher than normal levels of male hormone in utero.
** In 2003, University of Liverpool biologist John T. Manning found that the lesbians whom he studied have a hand pattern that resembles a man’s more than a straight female’s. Manning concluded from his study that this "strongly tells us that female homosexuals have had higher levels of exposure to testosterone before birth."
** In 1993, the National Institute of Health’s Dean Hamer illustrated that homosexuality might be inherited from the mother by her sons through a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28). Hamer demonstrated this by noting that 33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers whom he studied showed the same variation in the tip of the chromosome.
** A 1991 study by Dr. Simon LeVay found that the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men as it is in women or gay men. This strongly points to biological influences on sexual orientation.
** Another 1991 study by scientists Richard Pillard and John M. Baily studied homosexuality among brothers and found that 53 percent of identical twins were both gay. In adoptive brothers, 11 percent were both homosexual. Of non-twin biological siblings, 9 percent were gay. Again, this points to solid evidence that homosexuality is a matter of nature.
Look there is much more of where this came from. Anyone who says that there is not a very strong indication that sexual orientation is biological, has a hidden agenda, or is just ignorant of the facts. I know the emerging evidence is inconvenient to right wing ideolouges, but the science is the science.
So,KJW, go slither off and deny evolution and fight against stem cell research and look for your weapons of mass destruction while you are at it. You have no truth. You have no facts. And you certainly don't have science on your side.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
11/01/2005 5:26 PM
KJW is probably a deeply closeted self-loathing gay man, not an ex-gay man. He can live in denial all he wants and use religion to suppress his natural orientation. Deep down, they know they are gay even when they attempt marriage with the opposite sex...anyone can do that, even gay people, if they're prepared to live a life of denial and deceipt, then let them. They have to live with it, we don't.
Has anyone ever told a straight man that he can turn gay if he wants to? I'd like to see some studies on that and I think the results would be quite compelling........they can't.
I understand why "we" spend so much time debating with idiots whether or not we're "born that way" or "if its a choice". Personally - I don't remember making a choice I've always found that I'm a weiner-man myself and have been all of my natural life as far as I'm concerned ... but SO WHAT!?
I believe we've allowed the Neo-Facist Right to dictate this argument long enough. In America, It shouldn't matter whether an ADULT MAN OR FEMALE choses to take up and have a SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP with a member of the OPPOSITE OR SAME SEX. As long as its consentual ADULTS deciding that they want to be be TOGETHER ... who, OR better yet ... WHY SHOULD THE US GOVERNMENT OR ANY STATE GIVE A SHIT!?
This entire argument is a RED HERRING. In a FREE SOCIETY - where RELIGION should be kept OUT OF POLITICS -- as PRESCRIBED BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS ... it shouldn't make one big damn deal whether someone's REligious beliefs hold that same-sex coupling is a SIN. Not everyone has to agree with your religion.
O - and before you go off and claim that the MAJORITY are christian -- SINCE WHEN SHOULD THAT MATTER IN USA EITHER. Its well established that our GOVERNMENT WAS CREATED AND ORDERED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PROTECT THE MINORITY FROM THE MAJORITY. Case in Point: Do you think the Majority of White Southerners would have EVER VOTED TO eradicate SEGREGATION ON THEIR OWN? WOULD THEY HAVE INTEGRATED BY CHOICE?
I'm sick to death of this BULLSHIT argument. It DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER WE'RE BORN THAT WAY OR CHOOSE TO BE ... IN AMERICA. Its about FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE and FREE TO LIVE WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT OR YOUR NOISY RIGHT-WING FACIST BIBLE-THUMPING BIGOT NEIGHBOR BEING IN YOUR PERSONAL ... BUSINESS!!
When reading the posts on this subject, one begs the question as to why do gays and lesbians have to justify our existence to the likes of KJW? He/she has an opinion based on a religious background that is not rooted in modern thinking or science. It makes sense that KJW would reject genetic influence on sexual orientation because of the apparent inerrancy of the bible in condemning us as sinners worthy of death. I do not feel the need to justify myself to the likes of KJW because of the fact that I do know that I am genetically/hormonally gay and no amount of study or religous bullshit is going to change that fact. I do ask the evangelical christians a couple of key questions: 1. If the god exists, where is your proof? If proof is demanded about the biological/environmental causes of homosexuality, then proof can also be demanded of god's existence. 2. If the bible is the infalliable word of god, why are christians not speaking out about all sin, such as mixing clothing fibres, mixing seeds or sleeping with a menstruating women? Answer those questions and I may grant you some credibility in your arguements.
posted by Anonymous, at
11/03/2005 8:25 AM
