Tag Archives: homosexualism

PoliSci Department, Women’s Center, and LGBT

Unlike last time, not “LGBTQ” — someone must have given the Q‘s the boot

Career Success for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Students
Monday, October 3, 2005
7 to 9 pm
Nebraska Union (room posted)

Dr. Y. Barry Chung, Associate Professor of Counseling Psychology at Georgia State University will share practicalstrategies for LGBT students entering the workforce.

This interactive workshop features concrete ideas for
* Managing your sexual identity in job interviews
* Career choice strategies
* Managing your own career development

Sponsored by: the Faculty Convocations Committee; the Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns; Career Services; Women’s Studies Program; the Women’s Center, the Queer Student Alliance; and the Department of Educational Psychology.

Dr. Chung is President Elect for the National Career Development Association, and his work has been honored by the American Psychological Association Division 44, the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues. He has published numerous articles and book chapters based on his research focusing on the career development of LGBT people.

For more information contact Jan Deeds at 472-2598, jdeeds1@unl.edu.

For those keeping track

# of PoliSci departmental emails relating to

Homosexualism v Homosexuality

(This post continues a discussion on Samizdata. Like at CCK, Samizdata’s comment system works… sometimes.)

The reason I’m using “homosexualism” and not “homosexuality” is that the latter is so vague as to be meaningless. As John Derbyshire wrote, homosexuality sometimes is used to include

  • homosexualism (male preference for sex with men over men)
  • ephebophilia/pederasty (male perference for sex with youths)
  • monasticism/faute-de-mieux (male sex with men as a substitute for women)

Monasticism clearly existed then, as it exists now in prisons. Likewise, we have detailed descriptions of ephebophilia from the Greeks (such as the Ganymede story).

Some quote from Leviticus

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

(or more literally)

And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman

as the very preceeding verse is a condemnation of rival religion ceremonies

You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD

And the very next condemns an obvious form of substitution

You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.

The context argues against knowledge of homosexualism. Additionally, as Hebrew boys became “men” at a young age, Leviticus 18:22 may be intended as a double-condemnation of monaticism and ephebophilia. Whatever its meanings, there’s no evidence in the chapter that shows knowledge of homosexualism.

Homosexualist Legislative Collapses

Take Action: Microsoft abandons gays,” by John, America Blog, 20 April 2005, http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/take-action-microsoft-abandons-gays.html (from gay news blog through technocrati).

Texas House Bill Bars Gay Foster Parents,” by Natalie Gott, Associated Press, 20 April 2005, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=11&u=/ap/20050420/ap_on_re_us/gays_foster_parents (from Democratic Underground).

Following Tuesday’s denormalizing debacle, more good news: the collapse of a stateside homosexualist legislative effort, and the rise of an antihomosexualist one

Microsoft abandons support for a Washington State House Bill 1515, which would give the state’s Human Rights Commission sway in homosexuality-related cases

The radical right activist reportedly told Microsoft it had better pull its support for the gays or anti-gay bigots would launch a nationwide boycott of Microsoft, and guess what – Microsoft caved. A single anti-gay jerk, and Microsoft chose to reverse over ten years of policy and bash gays [sic].

In a move that angered many of the company’s gay employees, the Microsoft Corporation, publicly perceived as the vanguard institution of the new economy, has taken a major political stand in favor of age-old discrimination.

The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch.

The pastor, Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, met with a senior Microsoft executive in February and threatened to organize a national boycott of the company’s products if it did not change its stance on the legislation, according to gay rights activists and a Microsoft employee who attended a subsequent April 4 meeting where Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft’s senior vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary, told a group of gay staffers about Hutcherson’s threat..

Meanwhile, in Texas as in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, and many others…

Texas could become the only state to bar gays from becoming foster parents under legislation passed Wednesday by the House.

The ban is part of a bill to revamp the state’s Child Protective Services agency. It passed 135-6 with two abstentions and now heads to the Senate.

“It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children, and I don’t think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual,” said Republican Rep. Robert Talton, who introduced the amendment.

To quote President Bush in a popular song

The war goes on
and we are winning.
We are winning.
The war goes on.
We are winning.

As if to make the news better, the Texas bill also further privitizes the system

It would give all of Child Protective Services’ foster care and case management duties to private companies, which already manage 75 percent of foster homes in Texas.

Let there be no understanding: we are winning.

Update: Slashdot picks up the Microsoft story

Vertical Homosexualism V. Horizontal Antihomosexualism

Students tell of tension on gay tolerance day,” by Kati Phillips, Daily Southtown, 20 April 2005, http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsindex/20-ds3.htm (from Democratic Underground).

(On the lighter side, an alernative title for this post was: Gay? Not fine by me (unless you’re a lesbian) – a stand-out quote from the article.)

An attempted use of the state’s coercive education system to spread homosexualist propoganda was foiled Tuesday.

A student-led effort to oppose homophobia at Homewood-Flossmoor High School may have backfired Tuesday when hundreds of students donned shirts with Christian and anti-gay slogans.

Student activists who wore shirts emblazoned with the words “gay? fine by me” said they were outnumbered by peers wearing hateful [sic] messages and were targeted for harassment.

The T-shirt drive was intended to create a safe place for gay students and to put a human face on gays, lesbians and their allies.

But student journalists covering the event described the atmosphere as “tense.”

“It was crazy. There were all these students with gay shirts and God shirts,” said student newspaper reporter Joe Maloney. “In my first-period class, debate class, there were way more God shirts.”

One of the organizers thinks the school-rally did far more denormalizing than normalizing

Alissa Norby, one of the T-shirt day’s organizers, said she didn’t know whether to define the project as a success or failure.

“If I was still in the closet and came to school (Tuesday) and saw hundreds of kids wearing anti-gay shirts, I’d probably go home crying and begging my parents to let me transfer,” she said.

This is good news for a number of reasons. It demonstrates the overreach of the homosexualists. It shows youthful resistance to government-enforced indoctrination. And relatedly, it shows the power of peaceful networks over the power of a coercive state.

The states have built socialist education bureaucracies that takes money from citizens, operates a terrible system comparable to Tunisia, preempts the emergence of free schools, and tries to brainwash students.

Throughout the past century, the states have suceeded. There were too few media outlets, and churches were too weak and confused, to do anything to stop this. So bureaucrats or petty politicians would take power, determine what children should believe, and use a prison-like setting to make them believe that.

The ability of citizens to know that the state’s views are not the only “wise” views, combined with the technological revolution that makes ideas available to all, combined with strong horizontal church networks, made Tuesday possible. This is our beautiful new world.


Libertarian Antihomosexualism

Marriage and the Limits of Contract,” by Jennifer Roback Morse, Policy Review, April 2005, http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html (from Stanley Kurtz on the Corner).

Yesterday, National Review linked to a libertarian attack on legal recognition homosexualist marriage. The article, written by a Hoover Institution fellow, raises good points and agrees with tdaxp in several places. While I think I would disagree with Jennifer Morse on some other issues, here is she spot-on.

First and most importantly, the article recognizes there are different kinds of freedom

Rousseau could be describing the modern hook-up culture, down to and including the reluctance of hook-up partners to even talk to each other. He seems to define “natural” as acting on impulse and “freedom” as being unencumbered by law, social convention or even attachment to other people.

Libertarians cannot accept these definitions. Being free does not demand that everyone act impulsively rather than deliberately. Libertarian freedom is the modest demand to be left alone by the coercive apparatus of the government. Economic liberty, and libertarian freedom more broadly, is certainly consistent with living with a great many informal social and cultural constraints.

(If only Robert Locke was so wise!)

Morse also shows how increased family size can lead to decreased government size — a brilliant application of the horizontal/vertical dichotomy.

But the influence of the libertarian rationale goes far beyond the membership of the Libertarian Party or the donor list of the Cato Institute. The editors of the Nation, for instance, support gay marriage but do not usually defend the sanctity of contracts. This apparent paradox evaporates when we realize that the dissolution of marriage breaks the family into successively smaller units that are less able to sustain themselves without state assistance.

Families also serve as an alternative to state welfare

But for this minimal government approach to work, there has to be a family in the first place. The family must sustain itself over the course of the life cycle of its members. If too many members spin off into complete isolation, if too many members are unwilling to cooperate with others, the family will not be able to support itself. A woman trying to raise children without their father is unlikely to contribute much to the care of her parents. In fact, unmarried parents are more likely to need help from their parents than to provide it.

Pat Buchanan, normally a loon said it best: “liberals” want government so strong we don’t need families, conservatives want families so strong we don’t need government. Put another way, “conervatives” want to create a culture of freedom by replacing vertical controls with horizontal controls.

Third, she realizes the permance of Old Style Man.

Libertarians have every reason to respect marriage as a social institution. Marriage is an organic institution that emerges spontaneously from society. People of the opposite sex are naturally attracted to one another, couple with each other, co-create children, and raise those children. The little society of the family replenishes and sustains itself. Humanity’s natural sociability expresses itself most vibrantly within the family. A minimum-government libertarian can view this self-sustaining system with unadulterated awe.

Exactly right. Functioning systems of control are ones that survive. Just as “sustainability” is an important part of determing what third-world aid programs we create, “sustainability” must be a vital part of what controls we protect and establish.

tdaxp’s note: The first time I read this article I found four serious flaws. All went away on a second reading. She clearly has a unifying philosophy of the world that I would disagree with. Nonetheless, on homosexual marriage she is exactly right. This paper is a brilliant defense of traditional marriage from the homosexualists and the New Stylists.

Antihomosexualism Rolls On

More Americans oppose gay ‘marriage,’ poll finds,” by Jennifer Harper, Washington Times, 2 April 2005, http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm (from Stanley Kurtz at The Corner).

Kansas Voters Approve Gay Marriage Ban,” by John Hanna, Associated Press, 6 April 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4916964,00.html (from Stanley Kurtz at The Corner).

Homosexualist marriage is truly New Style Marriage. It is found nowhere in history. It track record in thousands of years of human development. It has no forerunners. It is a dangerous innovation. And it will not be coming to Kansas

Kansans overwhelmingly voted to add a ban on gay marriage and civil unions to their state constitution, but supporters and opponents predicted court battles over the amendment.

The ban reaffirms the state’s long-standing policy of recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. It also declares that only such unions are entitled to the “rights and incidents” of marriage, prohibiting the state from authorizing civil unions for gay couples.

With final, unofficial results from 104 of the state’s 105 counties on Tuesday, 414,235, or 70 percent, voted “yes,” and 178,167, or 29 percent voted “no.”

Happily, the nation may be trending the same way

Public opposition to “marriages” between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.

When asked whether they thought same-sex “marriages” should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.

The 2004 collapse of the Democrat Party is like a big bang — it keeps generating waves of change. It weakened every faction of the Democrat Coalition. The success of antihomosexualist initiatives in every state they were tried in 2004 sent the message. Now that message has the momentum.

Federalism on Homosexualism

House OKs citizen vote on gay marriage,” by Jean Hopfensperger and Conrad Defiebre, Star Tribune, 1 April 2005, http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5323674.html (from Democratic Underground).

Governor of Maine Signs Gay Rights Bill,” by Glenn Adams, Associated Press, 1 April 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4906031,00.html (from Democratic Underground).

Different states, different policies. The beauty of federalism.

Minnesota is pondering upping its legislative institution on heterosexual marraigesto a constitutional one.

A controversial bill to let voters decide whether to put a ban on same-sex marriages in the state Constitution was approved by the Minnesota House on Thursday on a vote of 77 to 56.

If the bill passes the Senate, voters in the 2006 election would consider a constitutional amendment to limit marriage or “its legal equivalent” to “only a union of one man and one woman.”

Although Minnesota law already bans same-sex marriage, the amendment is needed to thwart potential court challenges, proponents argued during a heated floor debate.

While Maine decides individuals have too muh freedom. Here come the state controls:

Gov. John Baldacci on Thursday signed legislation that protects gays and lesbians from discrimination. Within hours, a religious group launched a campaign to overturn the new law.

“This act not only offers essential civil rights, but serves as a welcome,” the Democratic governor told supporters who packed the State House Cabinet Room. “Our doors are open to all people. This is a proud day for Maine.”

The law, which received final House and Senate passage Wednesday night, takes effect in late June.

The measure amends the Maine Human Rights Act by making discrimination illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education based on sexual orientation or gender. Maine law now prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, disability, religion, ancestry and national origin.

The new law will exempt religious organizations that do not receive public funds. It also makes clear the law does not condone or authorize gay marriages.

Of course, the news from Minnesota is happier than the news from Maine. Minnesota is defending the status quo, while Maine is sweepign away horizontal bonds with vertical controls. Maine’s unease with private property and freedom of association is obvious (though Augusta has yet to legalize homosexualist marriages).

But on another level, this is good news. Federalism gives voters more power because decisions are made closer to them. Minnesotans may have one future worth creating, Mainites another. This is preferable to nation-wide laws, which the left pushed a few decades ago and the right pushes now.

Michigan To Roll Back Homosexualist Tyranny

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays ,” Proud Parenting, http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes# (from Jaakko at Lounsbury on MENA).

The good news train rolls on

Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

Happy news. The story is about rolling back government social engineering, freedom of contract, and denormalizing homosexualism. Michiganers should be proud.

The law is reasonable. It gives health-care providers twenty-four hours to make an objection known, but requires that emergency care be provided. Licensing gives doctors freedom from competition, and as long as the certification regime remains this is a reasonable cost

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don’t agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Of course, not everyone is happy. Some people insist on special rights.

Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn’t ban discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation.

“Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not,” he said.

Rolling Back Vertical Controls (Control Sustainability)

Judge: Ohio Gay Marriage Ban Affects Law,” by Connie Mabin, Associated Press, 23 March 2005, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=608847 (from Democratic Underground).

I’ve blogged before on vertical control and horizontol control.

Of the four quadrants, the only sustainable one is the upper right — vertical freedom, horizontal control. This also is the one that most lessens misery. Unfortunately, people often confuse the two control types and make the world worse. Health Mullahs, impatient for a future perfect, replace steady strong and lasting horizontal controls wth iron but fleeting vertical controls.

For example, take Mothers Against Drunk Driving. There were very strong peer prohibitions against driving dangerously drunk. MADD, through the legislatures, created pointless vertical laws against impaired driving that do not save lives, and serve only to weaken real fear of real drunks.

I’m happy when this process is reversed, which is why this is such great news

Domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of Ohio’s new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.

Prosecutors immediately appealed.

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation’s broadest, would affect Ohio’s 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn’t limited to married people.

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio’s constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would “create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals.

What great news!

The Agenda

Gay Rights Groups Map Common Agenda,” by Evelyn Nieves, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14261-2005Jan16.html, 17 January 2005.

Wow, there really IS a gay agenda,” by “BR_Parkway,” Democratic Underground, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×1157717, 17 January 2005.

At first this didn’t strike me as particularly newsworthy

To underscore their determination, 22 LGBT organizations, representing a spectrum of political goals and strategies, have, for the first time, released a joint list of priorities. They include pushing for equal employment opportunities; adding sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate crimes law; fighting for protections for children of LGBT couples; overturning military restrictions on gay soldiers; opposing anti-gay state and federal legislation; and fighting for the freedom to marry.

We plan on working in a coordinated fashion,” said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay advocacy organization. “The moment that we’re in now in our civil rights movement is acknowledging that we play different instruments and have different strengths, but we want to hear from that orchestra together.”

Until a plucky poster at DU showed me the truth

Wow, there really IS a gay agenda.

Yup. I’m surprised.