DOMA Arigato, But No Thanks!

June 26, 2013

Even womanizer (wink, wink) Barney Stinson is celebrating!

“DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”– Justice Kennedy

From SCOTUSBlog:

Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

Lovely lady liberty kissing a blind chick.

“What this means, in plain terms, is that same-sex couples who are legally married will be entitled to equal treatment under federal law– with regard to, for example, income taxes and Social Security benefits.”

“The Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiciton to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.”

And from everyone’s favorite spokesperson, George Takei:

Today marks a watershed moment in history and a tremendous victory for the principle of equality. The 5-4 decision by our Supreme Court striking down DOMA affirms the universality of love–the desire of all people not only to find, but to value and affirm, a lifelong commitment to another person. I have lived nearly four score years, and have borne witness to both the heartbreak and promise of true justice and equality in America. Today my heart soars, and my faith in the promise of our great nation is renewed. Now, if there’s anything we gays know how to do well, it is to celebrate! Let the joy of this day ring out with PRIDE.

How do you personally feel about the DOMA ruling? (choose the closest one)

  • It's about time! (44%, 60 Votes)
  • I hope the church will steer clear of this type of political matter in future. (26%, 35 Votes)
  • It's the end of marriage as we know it. (17%, 23 Votes)
  • Meh. No dog in this fight. (12%, 16 Votes)
  • Scuze me but what's DOMA? (1%, 1 Votes)
  • I demand a refund for the money I put into Prop 8. (0%, 0 Votes)

Total Voters: 135

Loading ... Loading ...

What statement will the church make about the DOMA ruling? (Choose the one you think is most accurate)

  • A statement supporting anti-discrimination but not affirming gay marriage. (29%, 35 Votes)
  • No statement at all. (26%, 31 Votes)
  • A statement about the court overruling the voice of the people. (21%, 25 Votes)
  • A statement reiterating the church's current pro-celibacy standpoint. (12%, 14 Votes)
  • A statement warning about the slippery slope of tolerance. (9%, 11 Votes)
  • A statement of outreach to gays. (3%, 3 Votes)

Total Voters: 119

Loading ... Loading ...

What do you think members will say about this in your ward, if anything?  What are people saying in your Facebook news feed?

Discuss.

Tags: , , , , , ,

140 Responses to DOMA Arigato, But No Thanks!

  1. Andrew on June 26, 2013 at 10:17 AM

    I imagine little if anything will be said in my ward. Not since the former evangelical passed away have we heard incendiary doom, brimstone, and frog invasion rhetoric from the pulpit. And we’ve never heard advocacy for change in our ward either. And since it’s not open mic… I mean, Fast Sunday, the likelihood of such talk, at least in more formal ways, seems unlikely.

    Nothing but comments of approval from my non-LDS Facebook friends. But so far silence from all my LDS friends, although I imagine they represent (unequally) both sides of the issue.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  2. Dara on June 26, 2013 at 10:40 AM

    No nation/s that embrace homosexuality survive for long.
    Beginning of the end.
    Sings of the times.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  3. Dara on June 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM

    Signs of the times

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  4. Andrew S on June 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM

    I kinda want to take a snapshot of this moment. Because, from the polls, it looks like no one voted correctly on the church’s response.

    What statement will the church make about the DOMA ruling? (Choose the one you think is most accurate)

    No statement at all. (41%, 15 Votes)
    A statement supporting anti-discrimination but not affirming gay marriage. (41%, 15 Votes)
    A statement reiterating the church’s current pro-celibacy standpoint. (16%, 6 Votes)
    A statement warning about the slippery slope of tolerance. (3%, 1 Votes)
    A statement of outreach to gays. (0%, 0 Votes)
    A statement about the court overruling the voice of the people. (0%, 0 Votes)
    Total Voters: 37

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  5. Casey on June 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM

    No nation/s that embrace interracial marriages survive for long.
    Beginning of the end.
    Sings of the times.

    …wonder how many people have said that in the last century?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 11

  6. Porter on June 26, 2013 at 11:38 AM

    From the press release: “the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children.” Really? My recollection is that the LDS Church promoted a type of marriage that was very NON-traditional not too long ago. How did that go? Were the children in those marriages harmed?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 20

  7. Last Lemming on June 26, 2013 at 12:05 PM

    it looks like no one voted correctly on the church’s response.

    The question was what statement the church would make about the DOMA ruling. The church’s statement made no mention of the DOMA ruling–only the Prop 8 ruling. So “No statement at all” was the correct answer.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  8. Dara on June 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

    Gay sex is not healthy physically or spiritually

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  9. Brian on June 26, 2013 at 12:27 PM

    Quotes from the church statement:

    “By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.”

    The church seems to be concerning itself with issues that are not moral issues at all, something it swears it doesn’t do. This statement deals with how the governed are governed.

    I am always surprised that the church continues to talk about the sanctity of the “views of a majority”. The church leaders are simply smarter than that. It is the shotgun approach to disagreeing with an issue. The most recent field poll shows a record 61-32 in favor of SSM in California. If the majority is so important, it is time the church quit talking about how the people of California don’t want SSM.

    “In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.”

    Goodness. Let’s avoid complexity at all costs.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 11

  10. Justin on June 26, 2013 at 12:30 PM

    Dara [#9]:

    Gay sex is not healthy physically or spiritually

    But gay sex is legal. Cohabitating, sexually-active same-gender couples isn’t what was being discussed. So I fail to see how that’s relevant to the matter of DOMA or Prop 8.

    And why is “gay sex” so unhealthy physically. Is it equally unhealthy for heterosexual couples to put their parts into the same orifices? Or are you just grossed out because it’s two men — and therefore infer that your disgust is equated with health?

    So the LDS church said:

    By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates

    (Source)

    Well, I’m sorry — but the Supreme Court already highlighted these “troubling questions” when they ruled that the legally-recognized plural marriages of Mormons were unconstitutional and punishable way-back in the 1890s.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  11. Brian on June 26, 2013 at 12:36 PM

    “Good news for polygamy, and a variety of other abhorrent marriage combinations. They can now be judged legal. And, yes, good news for incarcerated polygamists. When they get out of jail, which should be soon with this SCOTUS ruling, I suggest they sue the government big time for denying your right to marry whom you will.”

    ” Perversion will be held at bay in Utah. Go California! Now, we can have all those who want gay marriage to move to California. Utah has a chance to stand out, rather than being the sheep following the pied piper.”

    A couple of gems from Deseret News comments.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 7

  12. Andrew S on June 26, 2013 at 1:16 PM

    re 8, Last Lemming,

    Touche.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  13. Dara on June 26, 2013 at 4:32 PM

    Justin:
    Unhealthy, unnatural, in every way. Time and science has proven it over and over again. The human body is not designed for gay sex.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  14. Jeff Spector on June 26, 2013 at 4:56 PM

    Well, does Polygamy mean you have more than two wives, which is bigamy? I need to know so I can go shopping for more wives. And if you are practicing Polygamy, does that mean you keep acquiring wives until you get it right?

    That’s next,right? And I wonder what the Church does then?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  15. Dara on June 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM

    Despite our differing opinions, I would like to know what people think about this. Massachusetts started with their gay marriage law which was in conflict with federal law. If gay marriage became federal, could states defy federal law and not recognize gay marriage? You might say that they had to because it’s the law. Well, all these states had gay marriage laws despite the fact that it was in conflict with federal law.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  16. alice on June 26, 2013 at 5:31 PM

    #14

    I am not aware of any finding of time or science that the human body is not designed for gay sex. Mind pointing those studies out?

    As for your comment #16 you raise a question that will undoubtedly still come up as this body of law is further defined. As I understand todays rulings — and I am not a lawyer — a great deal is still ambiguous. It’s really unfortunate that the Supreme Court chose not to take this opportunity to rule on the equal protections issue. Having failed to, they’ve left nearly warring parties to continue ripping this country apart.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  17. Andrew S on June 26, 2013 at 6:48 PM

    re 16,

    Dara,

    I guess the basic issue is that marriage has historically and fundamentally been recognized as a purview of the states. (This is something that is mentioned in the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Windsor case, by the way.) From the decision:

    Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.

    DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. But the Federal Government uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect. New York’s actions were a proper exercise of its sovereign authority..

    So, for Massachusetts to have a state law that is in conflict with federal law is not a problem — because marriage is a state matter.

    What the Windsor case did was pointed out that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is an overstep of federal government boundaries when it comes to marriage — in other words, the federal government in this case cannot override states for the reasons that it asserted. (So, what this means is that in states that recognize gay marriage, the federal government must provide the federal benefits of marriage.)

    However, the Windsor decision doesn’t then say that all states must recognize federal marriage. I guess it’s an interesting question of what would happen if “gay marriage became federal.” I haven’t read into the “certain constitutional guarantees,” but my guess just from this case’s opinion would be that that could probably be seen as just as much an overstep of federal government power as the DOMA stating that federally, marriage is only one man and one woman.

    The interesting thing is that, as far as I know, the Section 2 of the DOMA (stating that no state has to recognize any *other* state’s gay marriage) has not been struck down. So, in the future, the Supreme Court might be approached to address this from a full faith and credit clause POV, but not this time.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  18. Nick Literski on June 26, 2013 at 7:39 PM

    Unhealthy,

    Dara, what’s your basis for this? I’m going to guess you’re working from a particularly famous, long-discredited pamphlet, which pretends (for example) that gay men end up in diapers because of having anal sex—-ignoring the fact that 40% of heterosexual couples do the same thing.

    unnatural, in every way. Time and science has proven it over and over again.

    To the contrary, actual science has proven that homosexuality is entirely natural, present and observed in over 400 species. Homophobia, the unnatural condition, has been documented in only one species.

    The human body is not designed for gay sex.

    Again to the contrary, the human body is designed very well for “gay sex.” If it wasn’t, gays wouldn’t have been doing so much of it, for so many thousands of years!

    Besides, “gay sex” doesn’t consist of any activities that straight people haven’t also been doing for millennia.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 12

  19. Nick Literski on June 26, 2013 at 7:47 PM

    #16:
    Despite our differing opinions, I would like to know what people think about this. Massachusetts started with their gay marriage law which was in conflict with federal law.

    That’s an incorrect statement. Massachusetts’ recognition of marriage equality was never in conflict with federal law. There has never been a federal law barring states from recognizing marriage equality.

    If gay marriage became federal, could states defy federal law and not recognize gay marriage?

    The federal law does not establish marriage. That’s part of the reason that Section 3 of DOMA was struck down today. I can’t help but wonder, though. You zealously embrace a religion that believes in “being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying honoring, and sustaining the law.” Why on earth would you now advocate illegal behavior, by suggesting that states violate any federal rulings which protect marriage equality rights? You’re making no sense!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  20. hawkgrrrl on June 26, 2013 at 8:13 PM

    It is sad to reflect on the number of families that were torn apart in CA over a fight destined to fail. Relationships severed in wards. People ostracized. Money thrown down a rat hole. i am glad to have always lived in an area where leaders have not pressured us to act against personal conscience. Some members who didn’t feel that strongly about the issue succumbed to pressure from local leaders. Those who opposed it were shunned or threatened in some wards. For a church that talks about unrighteous dominion, we don’t seem to be very good at avoiding it, particularly in some wards.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 13

  21. Brian on June 26, 2013 at 9:13 PM

    “money thrown down a rat hole”. Living in Ca and hearing the banter every week about the evils of gays and same sex marriage for months during the campaign, that is the part I am enjoying way too much.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  22. Justin on June 26, 2013 at 9:18 PM

    Oh my — dara [#14]

    The human body is not designed for gay sex.

    How I hate this.

    The human nose is not “designed” to hold glasses. Human fingers are not “designed” for ringed metals. Human legs are not “designed” for cotton pants. Human feet are not “designed” for shoes. Do you suggest we give these up too?

    Part of what makes humans so cool is our ability to create — which means our ability to do things with stuff that they weren’t “designed” to do. Milk wasn’t “designed” to be mixed with renin from goat’s stomachs and curdled into cheese. Grapes weren’t “designed” to be crushed into a drink and then fermented by yeast that weren’t “designed” to produce ethanol for drinking. Trees weren’t “designed” to be cut into neat little boards and nailed together into houses. Cellulose and wool were not “designed” to be spun and string into sheets and sewn together into awesome dresses and shirts.

    What an awful argument to make — “the human body is not designed for gay sex”. If you’re going to say that anything is wrong with same-gender relationships — please don’t let it be about what bodies are “designed” for.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 11

  23. Dara on June 27, 2013 at 6:50 AM

    PerLDS theology,only a man and woman who have been sealed and are faithful may continue to live As husband and wife After this life. All others will live separate and single forever. LDS church members who encourage Others to pursue the path of gay marriage/gay sex Will be held responsible.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  24. Justin on June 27, 2013 at 7:17 AM

    Dara [#24]

    All others will live separate and single forever.

    So what? Maybe some couples want to live separate and single forever. You don’t think our “Eternal Family” doctrine appeals to everyone, do you?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  25. Dara on June 27, 2013 at 8:11 AM

    Nick:
    Dara, what’s your basis for this?

    Just because soociety is more tolerant doesn’t mean the risk factors go away.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  26. Dara on June 27, 2013 at 8:11 AM

    Justin:
    Eternity is forever and ever and ever.
    LDS members should be sounding the voice of warning and not indulgence.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  27. alice on June 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM

    Dara, I am still not seeing what proof time or science has offered to demonstrate the unhealthfulness or unnaturalness of gay sex while, as Nick points out, heterosexual couples may engage in all of the same sexual acts.

    Gay partners may not be able to engage in every heterosexual act but heterosexuals can and do engage in every sexual act that gay people do. In my 45 years of conventional marriage I have yet to experience unhealthy or unnatural consequences while I believe a healthy and vigorous sexual relationship has been an asset to our faithful monogamy. Anecdotal, I concede, but in the absence of the evidence you suggest but have not offered for examination, it will have to stand.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  28. Justin on June 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM

    I think that what’s “healthy” is committed sexual ethics — and what’s “unhealthy” is wanton/unrestrained sexual behavior. And I’d say that marriage [for either gay or straight folks] is “healthy” when it’s associated with fidelity, cooperation, commitment, service, intimacy, fellowship, emotional fulfillment, and companionship — without needing the marriages to be hetero- or monogamous.

    If anything needs to be “warned” against, if anything’s an “abomination” — it’s not same-gender attraction and relations — but it’s unions where people are taken advantage of, abused, lied to, cheated on, etc. That should be illegal. That should be a sin. I’ve said elsewhere that it bothers me that Christians/Mormons/Catholics/ etc. are so focused on the hot button issue of “gay marriage” — that the real issues that affect the sanctity of God’s ordinance of marriage [like spousal abuse, poverty, emotional fulfillment, etc.] end-up being ignored.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 11

  29. alice on June 27, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    Wow, Justin! Just wow! You’re so very right! (Except that I am a proponent of monogamous marriages.)

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  30. Justin on June 27, 2013 at 1:51 PM

    alice:

    (Except that I am a proponent of monogamous marriages.)

    But I’m sure you’d agree that committed sexual ethics and cooperation, commitment, service, intimacy, fellowship, emotional fulfillment, and companionship can exist in both polygynous and polyandrous marriages, as well as in monogamous ones.

    I’m a proponent of monogamous marriages too — or rather, I’m a proponent of marriage. I love to see permanent cohabitating unions between adults who want to be sexually-active with each other. If they want that to be a monogamous arrangement, then I wish them the best — and if they want that to be polygynous or polyandrous, then I hope success for them all the same. And I also wouldn’t bother trying to make a distinction between same-gender or opposite-gender attraction in all of this either.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  31. Nick Literski on June 27, 2013 at 2:48 PM

    #26:
    Just because soociety is more tolerant doesn’t mean the risk factors go away.

    You didn’t answer my question, Dara. On what basis do you speculate that what you consider “gay sex” is physically unhealthy? Spell it out! (Yes, we all know you never will, because you can never manage to back up this repeated trollish claim of yours).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  32. Jeff Spector on June 27, 2013 at 2:54 PM

    I’d love to see more effort made in strengthening marriage, not fighting Gay Marriage. So-called traditional marriage has not fared too well lately and needs some improvement. And I’d go so far as saying children are probably much better off with a committed, loving same sex couple then in some of the situations they find themselves in now with violent parents, single parents etc. Single parenthood is not inherently bad,just hard. But single parents can be bad parents just like a married couple can be bad parents..

    Now that same sex marriage is headed for normalcy, we’ll see if there are long term affects, eithere positive or negative. Many of the changes society has made in the last 30 years has not always yielded positive results….

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  33. Brian on June 27, 2013 at 3:47 PM

    Jeff- is that different than you have felt in the past? Has the new kinder, gentler church approach had an influence on you? I know you are a believer. Just wondering.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  34. Dara on June 27, 2013 at 3:53 PM

    Nick:
    This is what Google is for. There is a treasure trove of info out there.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  35. Will on June 27, 2013 at 4:45 PM

    To me this whole issue is about not judging other unrighteously. There are clearly people born with same gender attraction. Anybody that denies this is not being honest with themselves; or, more likely they don’t have any personal connection to the situation. They just don’t know anyone that does have these feelings. My son struggles with these issues, so I fully understand the pain he does through and the difficulty he faces in reconciling this issue. Trust me; he would not willingly go through what he has been through if he did not truly have these feelings.

    On the other hand, I strongly believe marriage should be between one man and one woman and I don’t think I should be judged for that belief.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  36. Phil on June 27, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    Nick: if someone is determined to have gay sex no matter what, they will accept no stats or proof and will justify it to kingdom come. And yet I have a feeling u know this. You are no dummy.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  37. Jeff Spector on June 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM

    Brian,

    “Jeff- is that different than you have felt in the past? Has the new kinder, gentler church approach had an influence on you? I know you are a believer. Just wondering.”

    Not really. I am sort of a live and let live person much of the time. And while I might think that marriage should between a man and a woman, I cannot see the state’s compelling interesting in it. So I’ve become rather ambivalent about it really. It is a secular thing and I am not so sure the Church should be messing in that world. We can have an opinion, I guess, but should render unto Caesar what is his…..

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  38. hawkgrrrl on June 27, 2013 at 8:20 PM

    Gay marriage is legal and exists. I tend to agree that the church should continue to focus on how we treat one another within families and marriages, including how we treat children being raised by gay couples. That’s just being good people. We should do what we can to eliminate abuse and to ensure marital stability.

    I suspect that a lot of the church’s fight against gay marriage is a belief that these are sham marriages, not truly monogamous like heterosexual marriages, but an open marriage bed designed for multiple partners (and we no longer favor that model). As homosexuality comes into the light of day, it is no longer a seedy back alley deal. Shows like Modern Family do a great job illustrating how similar a committed gay marriage is to a committed straight marriage. Modeling is a helpful way to break down stereotypes.

    We should be equally on guard for exploitative relationships among heterosexuals as we are among homosexuals. It’s exploitation and promiscuity that degrade people. Not commitment and wanting to raise a family. Shouldn’t we want to encourage (as society) stability of families at every possible turn? That’s just good government.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  39. Andrew S on June 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM

    “This is what Google is for. There is a treasure trove of info out there.”

    man, I have read lines like this so many times from ex-mormons talking about how people can learn the “real facts” about Mormonism.

    it’s funny when people think that data is self-interpreting.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  40. Lorian on June 27, 2013 at 11:33 PM

    Phil #37 – People would be a lot more likely to believe “stats” that “prove” being gay is “unhealthy” if such stats were actually provided, and further, if they came from credible scientific/medical sources. Of course, the fact that no such credible statistics exist because Dara’s claims are fallacious complicates the whole process of providing the stats. Which is why she never does it. She just keeps tossing stuff against the wall and hoping something will stick.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  41. Phil on June 28, 2013 at 12:22 AM

    Hawkgrrl alcohol is legal and exists. Does the church embrace it? No.
    Lorain and everyone else go to google.com and type in gay sex unsafe unhealthy and u will find a myriad of resources scientific and otherwise.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  42. Phil on June 28, 2013 at 12:27 AM

    Lorain I have also seen and read your beautiful and justifying words about lesbianism on FMH. Aren’t those the kind of words that lead you carefully down to hell?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  43. Lorian on June 28, 2013 at 12:53 AM

    Phil #42 – No, you won’t — not valid scientific sources, anyway, because “gay sex” is just sex and is no more “unhealthy” than “straight sex,” since everything gay people do in bed, straight people also do in bed. In fact, lesbians have about the lowest rates of STIs of any group other than cloistered nuns. So, again, if you want to attempt to prove your (or Dara’s) point, you’ll need to do you own footwork. I don’t google for other people’s alleged data to support their spurious claims.

    Phil #43 – Thanks for the backhanded compliment. Glad you appreciate my writing. :) And no, God doesn’t send people to hell for being the people God created them to be and engaging in loving, committed, covenantal relationships.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  44. Rockies Gma on June 28, 2013 at 1:14 AM

    I’ve always wondered about the scriptures that say everyone but temple-married people will live separate and singly in the hereafter. I mean, here on earth, humans have devised countless ways to live of their own choosing. If my grandparents who were Baptist can’t be together, it won’t be Heaven for them. I mean, will there be police to tell them they have to remain separate and single? It defies human reasoning. We group. We merge. We cling. Alma says we are the same beings when we are raised up again. How will there not be people finding each other and marrying, if only in their hearts?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  45. Phil on June 28, 2013 at 5:49 AM

    Sorry. Came on a bit too strong. I find it so surprising that LDS church members are advocating gay marriage and gay sex.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  46. Justin on June 28, 2013 at 8:34 AM

    Lol — how can you find anything scientific under the search term:

    gay sex

    — because that’s not a scientific term.

    Lol.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  47. hawkgrrrl on June 28, 2013 at 10:43 AM

    I’m advocating that we deal with the fact that gay marriage is legal and that some gay couples are raising children. Gay people are part of our community as are their children. I want them to be a good part of it. If their rights are protected, they will be.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 7

  48. Dara on June 28, 2013 at 2:25 PM

    Hawkgrrl:
    The church has said that an active homosexual lifestyle is not compatible with church teachings so there is a BIG conflict here. It doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  49. Phil on June 28, 2013 at 3:20 PM

    Lorian if something is wrong the fact that it’s loving doesn’t change anything

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  50. Lorian on June 28, 2013 at 4:21 PM

    Wrong according to whom, Phil? The Pope says its wrong to use birth control. Should birth control be illegal? Do you stop using birth control because the Pope says it’s a sin? Hindu authorities say it’s wrong to eat cows. Should beef consumption be illegal? Have you stopped eating beef because Hindu authorities have maintained for centuries that it is wrong to do so? Jewish teaching holds that pigs are unclean and that it is an abomination to even touch them, let alone eat them. Should eating bacon be illegal? Do you eat bacon, in spite of the fact that you KNOW that Jewish prophets have said it is a sin?

    No more should any LDS prophet be able to determine what rights I have in our society. The God of my understanding does not condemn loving, committed relationships between people of the same sex. If the God of your understanding does, then don’t have a sexual relationship with someone of your own sex. It’s really as simple as that.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 7

  51. Rockies Gma on June 28, 2013 at 4:32 PM

    Phil: I would add that just because something is “right” doesn’t make it loving. And love is the greatest of all things. You and Dara show no love in your “righteousness.” That is opposite of the teachings of Christ. I believe sex outside of marriage is a sin. So, of course!, we must let gay people marry so they are not sinning against God. And remember, there is no scripture that says marriage is ordained ONLY for heterosexual people. Nothing is said by God at all about one man, one woman. We have all put meaning into God’s words that isn’t there. Let us share the blessings of marriage with all, and let us LOVE all people, who are ALL the children of our God. And let each member of the church worry about sanctifying their own marriage before denying anyone else of it. Let us learn to truly love our spouse more than ourselves, putting their needs before our own. Let us set a better example of eternal love, love of the Savior, and love at home. It’s none of my business, or yours, what any marriage but our own is like. None. So let us mind our own business, lest our marriages fail, or are mediocre, or even failures. Let’s spend more time studying how to be better husbands and wives, and better parents. Let us study — a lifelong endeavor — the layers and depths of Christlike love.

    And I just have to say, the fact that something is loving changes every. thing.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  52. dara on June 28, 2013 at 4:43 PM

    Rockies Gma:
    It’s in stark contrast to church teachings. Someone is wrong here and someone is right.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  53. Dara on June 28, 2013 at 4:45 PM

    Lorian:
    The God of my understanding does not condemn loving, committed relationships between people of the same sex.

    But he does.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  54. Lorian on June 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM

    Dara – Um, no. God doesn’t. You are confusing your concept of God with my understanding of God. Clearly, whoever you believe you are worshiping is not the God in whom I believe and place my trust. And I refuse to be bound by the dictates of what you believe your God demands. That’s not God as I understand God. That’s not God, from my perspective. Feel free to believe in it if you want, but I don’t need to, thank you.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 7

  55. hawkgrrrl on June 28, 2013 at 8:23 PM

    Dara: The law of chastity condemns many behaviors that the law protects. People don’t have to live by the Mormon law of chastity to have rights that bear protecting. Just because someone isn’t Mormon doesn’t mean we take away their rights and mistreat them. Isn’t that what happened to the early Mormons in Missouri? Why would we do that to others?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  56. Nick Literski on June 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM

    #35:
    This is what Google is for. There is a treasure trove of info out there.

    Sadly, you’re choosing the Google results that rank right up there with Roswell aliens and the Loch Ness Monster. Thanks for admitting that you have ZERO actual basis, Dara.

    #37:
    Nick: if someone is determined to have gay sex no matter what, they will accept no stats or proof and will justify it to kingdom come.

    But Dara hasn’t given us any “stats or proof,” and neither have you. You can find sources on the Internet to say that the “average” gay man is dead by age 40. Of course, those “sources” conveniently omit the fact that their “studies” consisted only of men who had been diagnosed with AIDS, and their “studies” were conducted long before there were effective treatments for the disease. Dara, unfortunately, is terrified of actually giving us her sources, because deep down, she knows they’re on par with the National Enquirer.

    #42:
    Hawkgrrl alcohol is legal and exists. Does the church embrace it? No.

    To the contrary, the LDS church (I assume that’s the church you’re referring to) does embrace alcohol. Alcoholic beverages are bought and sold on properties owned by the LDS church, such as City Creek Mall. Historically, the LDS church has sold alcohol directly in venues such as the old Saltair Resort. When you make your money off a substance, you are most assuredly “embracing” it.

    Lorain and everyone else go to google.com and type in gay sex unsafe unhealthy and u will find a myriad of resources scientific and otherwise.

    ROTFLMAO!!!!! Wow…that should certainly give you some unbiased results! How about going to Google and typing in “gay sex safe health,” and seeing the 431,000,000 results it just gave me! Curiously, it only gives 2,630,000 results for your proposed search—sounds like you’re far outnumbered!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  57. Nick Literski on June 28, 2013 at 8:46 PM

    Make that typing in “gay sex safe healthy.”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  58. [email protected] on June 28, 2013 at 11:39 PM

    Dara, Just to be clear….when people join the church in the hereafter they are candidates for exaltation too.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  59. Rigel Hawthorne on June 28, 2013 at 11:48 PM

    So what is left for a church to do that has equated exaltation with covenanted heterosexual marriage? I predict that it will be less than two years before being a Mormon will be as unpopular as being a corporate supporter of the BSA or as unpopular as having Paula Deen as the face of a company’s advertising campaign. Instead of “I know my Mormon friends and even though I disagree with their religion, I think they are very nice people, it will be “I cannot say anything good about my Mormon friends because they freely adhere to a doctrine that will not permit committed homosexual couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  60. Phil on June 29, 2013 at 12:24 AM

    Rigel: being popular isn’t something the lds church should ever be concerned with

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  61. Lorian on June 29, 2013 at 12:34 AM

    Perhaps not, Phil, but the hard, cold facts of life are that a church whose popularity wanes collects no tithes. One would like to believe that churches would not be affected by such paltry, mundane, prosaic considerations. But of course, they are.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  62. Hawkgrrrl on June 29, 2013 at 4:05 AM

    Rigel, I think you are overstepping there. The Catholic church’s statements are even more anti-progress than ours, and I don’t see them drying up in two years. Likewise the SBC.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  63. Phil on June 29, 2013 at 7:48 AM

    What do people think that there will be no consequences for this? The cold hard truth is that the land Will be cursed for embracing homosexuality.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  64. Brian on June 29, 2013 at 7:56 AM

    “The cold hard truth is that the land Will be cursed for embracing homosexuality.”

    Phil–I have as much faith in that as I do that the Lamanites turn white when they accept the gospel, as President Kimball testified at General Conference was happening in the 60s.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  65. alice on June 29, 2013 at 8:20 AM

    #61 Following that logic, I wonder if you could say that being unpopular doesn’t make homosexuality wrong.

    #64 Canada has had full marriage equality for 8 years and they simply don’t have the social strife we do while their economy if flourishing.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  66. Phil on June 29, 2013 at 11:42 AM

    Alice: Sooner or later, Consequences always come.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  67. Phil on June 29, 2013 at 11:54 AM

    The people of the Bible and the Book of Mormon lived joyously for a season but if they were living contrary to the commandments and refused to repent, the end always came. The people today are no different from them in that respect.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  68. Rigel Hawthorne on June 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM

    Hawkgrrrl

    It would be great if your view is more accurate….but I don’t hear of the Catholic Church excommunicating Catholic membership for homosexual activity.

    Alice

    I think Canada, and England, for that matter are different. In America it’s like that Seinfeld episode where Elaine was angry at Putty for not being concerned that she was (in his theology) ‘going to hell’, even though she had absolutely no belief in that theology.

    Phil

    My comment wasn’t so much concerned about popularity as it is about living with a conflicted theology. Our Prophet and Apostles have espoused a more loving and accepting outlook to those with SGA, which is much different than that of the Miracle of Forgiveness era. But in doing so, those who have followed that advice find their love and acceptance an eye opening experience, engendering great empathy and yearning for further opportunities for their gay brothers, sisters, and children. Parents of gay Mormon children are no longer going to follow the Oaks counsel of not inviting their gay children to certain family events. Instead, they are not only going to include them, they are ‘agitating’ for the blessings and civil rights that their talented, righteous, and beautiful children need after progressing in life and the gospel to that point. If this is the fruit of that Prophetic counsel, than who can say that the fruit is not borne of the goodness of God? If the fruit of that Prophetic counsel has led us to this point, then further light and knowledge is needed. The revelations of the living Prophets trump the counsel of prophets of previous generations, unless we are speaking of the words of Jesus Christ. Many people have pointed out that He did not speak directly to this issue. Apostle Peter was commanded, ‘What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.’ If the counsel of the living Prophets and Apostles has taken us to this point, I would not feel good about condemning the loving attitudes of your fellow church members the way you can.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  69. fbisti on June 29, 2013 at 4:00 PM

    In some comments here, and from a group of [IMO, vapid] Republican congressmen/women right after the DOMA decision came down, is presented a specious argument that the Supreme Court has ignored the “voice” wishes of the people (as expressed in passing Prop 8, in this example) and abrogated those rights. WRONG. To ensure that the “majority” cannot pass laws to the detriment of the minority, the Constitution specifically addressed that problem with the “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” principles.

    Generally referred to as the “Madisonian Model” (See: http://mckennagov.blogspot.com/2008/09/madisonian-model.html)

    “The Madisonian Model of government established a successful system of government by distributing the powers of the federal government, creating a system of checks and balances, and limiting the control the majority factions held over the government. Madison created a model of government that effectively eliminated the threat of tyranny, and that model is still evident in the Constitution today.
    James Madison believed that, in order for a government to succeed, the power of government must be outside the hands of the majority factions…”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  70. Lorian on June 29, 2013 at 4:14 PM

    Comparisons between the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church are rather more complex, I think, than just which one is most conservative or liberal. There are areas in which both seem to vie for the title of “Most Conservative” — women’s ordination, attitudes towards equal marriage, exclusivism regarding heterosexual marriage (though each has its own quirks on this, with LDS having very private, exclusive sealing ceremonies as compared with RCC having very public nuptial masses, while LDS accepts a couple as legitimately married who were married in a civil ceremony only, while RCC considers a couple married in a civil ceremony to remain unmarried and “living in sin).

    On the other hand, they each have their own areas of particular conservatism as compared with the other. RCC denies the right to birth control, even for married couples, where LDS allows married couples to make their own birth control decisions; RCC completely forbids abortion, sometimes even to save the life of the mother, while LDS would allow that there are some circumstances in which abortion is permissible; RCC considers lifetime vows of celibacy, if not the highest state of existence (though it used to be taught that it was), still extremely praiseworthy and something to be sought after (and not just for homosexually-oriented persons, but for all), while LDS consider marriage (temple sealing) the highest state of existence, and celibacy only a second-best for those who are unable to find a spouse.

    LDS are more conservative in the area of dress, with “modesty” being a huge area of controversy and concern. RCC women wear pants to church with no question asked. Many RCC dress casually for church, including jeans and shorts — a broad range of clothing styles are acceptable. Women are free to wear short skirts, low-cut tops and sleeveless or even strapless dresses and tops which Mormons would find scandalous. I played at the wedding of an RC couple this week. The bride’s dress was strapless (and looked absolutely lovely on her, I must say).

    LDS are also far more conservative about beverage consumption, including alcohol, tea, coffee, etc., all of which are absolutely acceptable for RCC. RCC is far more tolerant of women participating at most levels of church service than LDS, as well, including things like passing the sacrament, lay minister positions, and parish bookkeeping. Women are permitted to use the church building alone or in groups with requiring the presence of a man to supervise them.

    Catholic women, while still bound to traditional roles in some ways, still face less disapproval in general for working outside the home/pursuing a career other than wife and mother than do many LDS women (not all, of course).

    In short, both denominations are in many ways quite conservative, but each has its own areas of emphasis, and both have certain areas where more progressive ideas have taken hold and flourished.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  71. Lorian on June 29, 2013 at 4:27 PM

    Phil #68 –

    I’m still waiting for those fireballs to start falling out of the sky (not). I’ve been out for nearly 30 years, and been in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship with the wonderful woman God brought into my life for 22 years, now. God has blessed us with a reasonably successful business, a comfortably home to live in, and two beautiful daughters who will be 12 next month. God has blessed us with a church which not only *accepts* us but actively *welcomes* same-sex couples like us and treats us as equals. We have worked hard on our relationship over the years, and have a good relationship full of love, mutual affection and respect, and deep trust.

    I really can’t imagine God suddenly deciding it’s time to start tossing flaming fireballs at us, after 22 years of gracious rewards and blessings for our mutual fidelity and caring for one another and our kids.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  72. Stephen R. Marsh on June 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM

    “the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law.” Seems to be an interesting point that I’ve not seen commented on much.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  73. Lorian on June 29, 2013 at 5:52 PM

    Stephen, I think the key issue here is that Protect Marriage’s taking over of the appeals process for Prop 8 was ruled acceptable *under state law* by the CA state supreme court, but that doesn’t guarantee that it is acceptable under federal law for the purposes of a federal appeal, over which SCOTUS has jurisdiction. The fact that it’s permissible under the CA Constitution does not guarantee that it meets the requirements of federal law.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  74. LDS Anarchist on June 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM

    Lorian,

    God has blessed us with a church which not only *accepts* us but actively *welcomes* same-sex couples like us and treats us as equals.

    What church is that?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  75. Nick Literski on June 29, 2013 at 7:02 PM

    Stephen, while the Supreme Court of California certainly could determine that the initiative supporters had standing in state court, that’s quite different than determining standing in federal court (as you no doubt are very well aware). If anything, the Ninth Circuit erred in sending that question to the Supreme Court of California, given that state courts are not subject to Article III, as federal courts are.

    As much as I might have preferred to see a ruling on the merits, I’ve read Roberts’ opinion, and he’s absolutely correct in his reasoning. The initiative proponents had ZERO standing to appeal the decision in federal court, regardless of their having graciously been allowed to intervene at the district court level.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  76. hawkgrrrl on June 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM

    Lorian & Phil – rest assured that if Catholicism could get away with controlling its members lives to that level it would. They still outlaw birth control. But thank goodness they realize it’s impractical to force people without another Inquisition. Controlling the behavior of members is much easier the smaller an organization is and the more control that is wielded by the local leadership. Mormonism is still far more controlling by those standards, I grant you.

    My original comment was just that the statements made by other churches were in some cases more thunderous and less conciliatory than ours so if rhetoric drives people out, theirs was more likely to do so than ours (and I don’t believe it will in their case). I suppose your points that the church being more controlling about what people think of gay marriage could drive people out through the actions of local leaders trying to be the thought police. That’s certainly possible.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  77. Lorian on June 29, 2013 at 8:51 PM

    LDS Anarchist, the United Church of Christ; specifically United Church of the Valley in Temecula/Murrieta.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  78. Brian on June 30, 2013 at 12:19 AM

    Hey, Lorian. I am your neighbor. Have lived in Murrieta for 24 years.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  79. Rockies Gma on June 30, 2013 at 7:56 PM

    How can loving a small minority of good people, of respecting them, giving them equal rights so the bullying and terrorizing will end for them be something that will bring down the judgments of God? He commands us to love one another, and withholding equal rights is not loving. God is no respecter of persons, so if we want to follow Him, how can we be so discriminatory of people who are different from us? Dara, you said someone is wrong here. Can you honestly say and believe that your denial of equal opportunities, blessings, and legal rights are in any way, shape or form remotely Christlike? Obviously, they are not. I used to feel the way you do. But after much study, prayer and fasting, I can never go back to such harmful thoughts and beliefs. If I err, Lord let me err on the side of love and respect, fairness and dignity, forever and ever, amen.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 11

  80. Dara on July 1, 2013 at 8:40 AM

    Rockies GMA:
    GAY SEX is nothing good. It’s not healthy, it’s not natural. Society should not condone this.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  81. hawkgrrrl on July 1, 2013 at 9:15 AM

    Eating donuts is not good for you. Yet the govt keeps giving Krispy Kreme a business license. Given that I’m heterosexual, I would personally benefit more from the donut ban than the gay sex ban (if both are bad for you). What’s your stake in it? I suggest that if you believe gay sex is nothing good, you definitely should not have any.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  82. Justin on July 1, 2013 at 9:17 AM

    Dara — please stop saying “GAY SEX” if what you mean is anal or oral sex. There is no such thing as “gay” sex — there’s only which body parts are going into which orifices. If any of the acts that same-gender couples are doing in their bedroom is “unhealthy” or “unnatural”, then it’s equally unhealthy and against nature when straight folks do the same acts [which many frequently do].

    That is why “gay sex” cannot be unhealthy physically — and why no google search for “gay sex” will yield you anything I’d consider “scientific data”. Such a thing exists only in your mind. I’d asked you previously [but you dodged it, so I'll try again], is it equally unhealthy for heterosexual couples to put their parts into the same orifices as gay folks are doing? Or are you just grossed out because it’s two men — and therefore infer that your disgust is equated with health?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  83. Lorian on July 1, 2013 at 9:33 AM

    I’m afraid there’s little point in addressing Dara. I’ve met her online many times before on other blogs, and she’s kind of like a doll with a pull-string. She just has about 3 or 4 one-liners she tosses out like a broken record, never backs them up with any cites, and never responds to or with logical, rational, interactive dialog. Might as well just nod and smile and say, “Whatevs, Dara.”

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  84. Nick Literski on July 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    I’ve noticed that when a self-identified heterosexual gets as upset and adamant over this issue as Dara does, there’s usually a very personal reason. Either they were left by a spouse who came out of the closet, or they struggle with having a gay/lesbian child, or in some cases, they’re not actually as heterosexual as they’d like us to believe (several politicians come to mind on the last option).

    Does Dara even comment on any other subjects here? Does she repeatedly post disdainful declarations against women wearing pants, when that subject comes up? Does she shotgun-comment on the importance of being honest with your fellow humans in all your dealings? Or about caring for the poor and needy?

    I suspect we’d all understand better where Dara is coming from, if we knew why this topic was such a huge, personal “trigger point” for her.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  85. Dara on July 1, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    GRockies Gma:
    If you knew that gay sex, unrepented of, will keep people from Heavenly Father, would you change your tune?

    Lorian:
    And you are not a broken record? You extol the virtues of lesbianism over and over and over again.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  86. Lorian on July 1, 2013 at 12:10 PM

    “Extol the virtues of lesbianism”? LOL. No, I extol the virtues of each person being the person God created them to be, and living honestly, responsibly and lovingly within the context of their God-given sexual orientation. I know you find that disturbing (probably for one of the reasons listed in Nick’s post above), so all I can say, Dara, is that I love you and accept you, and pray for your peace of mind and heart. Bless you.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  87. LDS Anarchist on July 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM

    I went to scholar.google.com to look up any abstracts on “gay sex.” Right off the bat I found the term used. Here’s a couple:

    “Sanctioning Sodomy: The Supreme Court Liberates Gay Sex and Limits State Power to Vindicate the Moral Sentiments of the People”

    That’s from Gary Dean Allison of the University of Tulsa College of Law, published in the Tulsa Law Review.

    The Health Risks of Gay Sex” by JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.

    The linked article above, in particular, is interesting as it addresses the very health issues and risks associated with gay sex that many people on this post are arguing don’t exist. The article busts open many of the myths being promoted by the pro-gay crowd. His footnote citations are also quite extensive, for those who wish to search out the hard data.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  88. Nick Literski on July 1, 2013 at 7:02 PM

    Yep, that’s the ridiculous paper referred to above. Diggs, of course, wasn’t just an M.D. He was also an Evangelical minister, and co-founder of an anti-gay ministry.

    A description of Diggs’ career, together with a treatment of just SOME of the problems in his study, can be found at http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431 .

    Just as a “fun” example, Diggs uses an alleged “study” to demonstrate that sexually transmitted infections are particularly rampant among gay men. What he doesn’t bother to mention is that his “study” consisted entirely of patients from an STD clinic in Copenhagen. The “study” is exclusively targeted at a group of men seeking STD treatment in a large city, and then extrapolated as if it represents all gay men. Diggs plays the same game to allege that “same sex activity” reduces lifespan by twenty years—by relying on a “study” wherein the author tabulated the ages of men who’s obituaries (all in one local newspaper) specifically stated that they had died due to HIV/AIDS. Got that? They looked only at men dying of HIV/AIDS-related complications, before a time of adequate treatments, who’s families stated that fact in their obituaries. Then, they averaged those death ages, and claimed that the result represented the average death age (20 years short of larger population) of all gay men</b.

    Drigg's "study" sources are like going to a "tea party" convention, questioning the attendees, and then concluding that over 90% of "Americans" hate President Obama.

    Diggs then goes on to say that non-consensual anal sex may cause tissue trauma, but that consensual anal sex is safe. Curiously, he uses heterosexual women as his example of how consensual anal sex is safe, but then he assumes that anal sex between gay men is somehow inherently non-consensual, and thus “dangerous.” Diggs goes on to allege all sorts of sexual activities which he claims constitute “gay sex,” while ignoring the fact that heterosexuals engage in the same activities.

    Diggs goes on to suggest that sex between gay men “causes” mental illness. Remember how, in the old days, masturbation was supposed to do the same thing—right after it grew hair on your palms? Diggs notably makes sex the cause of mental illness, rather than any other factor, such as…oh, I don’t know….maybe stress brought on by homophobic bigots who launch multi-million-dollar campaigns to legislate against the civil rights of gay persons?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  89. Lorian on July 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM

    Thanks, Nick. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    LDS Anarchist, there’s no substitute for understanding scientific method and doing the footwork to research where the “data” and “studies” you cite come from before you embarrass your position by citing ludicrous pseudoscience and claiming that it has any validity.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  90. LDS Anarchist on July 1, 2013 at 10:02 PM

    #89 Nick, your link doesn’t mention Dr. John R. Diggs, at all. Are you confusing him for Dr. James Holsinger?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  91. LDS Anarchist on July 1, 2013 at 10:13 PM

    # 88 Lorian,

    I posted a link to a paper written by one medical doctor by the name of John R. Diggs. Nicks refuted it by linking to an article criticizing James Holsinger. That’s hardly refutation. Diggs gives an extensive list of sources. I haven’t looked them up, but I doubt you have, too. But, then, maybe you have. So, feel free to state which of these sources is pseudoscience and which is real science:

    Endnotes

    “Tracking the Hidden Epidemics: Trends in STDs in the United States, 2000,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), available at http://www.cdc.gov.
    Becky Birtha, “Gay Parents and the Adoption Option,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 04, 2002, http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/ 2787531.htm; Grant Pick, “Make Room for Daddy — and Poppa,” The Chicago Tribune Internet Edition, March 24, 2002, http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi- 0203240463mar24.story
    Ellen C. Perrin, et al., “Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, 109(2): 341-344 (2002).
    Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).
    Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
    Leon McKusick, et al., “Reported Changes in the Sexual Behavior of Men at Risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84 — the AIDS Behavioral Research Project,” Public Health Reports, 100(6): 622-629, p. 625, Table 1 (November- December 1985). In 1982 respondents reported an average of 4.7 new partners in the prior month; in 1984, respondents reported an average of 2.5 new partners in the prior month.
    “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999).
    This was evident by the late 80’s and early 90’s. Jeffrey A. Kelly, PhD, et al., “Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/ Human Immunodeficiency Virus Risk Behavior Among Gay Men in Small Cities,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 152: 2293-2297, pp. 2295-2296 (November 1992); Donald R. Hoover, et al., “Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10): 1190-1205, p. 1203 (1991).
    A lesbian pastor made this assertion during a question and answer session that followed a presentation the author made on homosexual health risks at the Chatauqua Institute in Western New York, summer 2001.
    Paul Van de Ven, et al., “Facts & Figures: 2000 Male Out Survey,” p. 20 & Table 20, monograph published by National Centre in HIV Social Research Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, February 2001.
    Rotello, pp. 43-46.
    Ibid., pp. 165-172.
    Hoover, et al., Figure 3.
    “Basic Statistics,” CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.)
    Figures from a study presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America meeting in San Francisco and reported by Christopher Heredia, “Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2001, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/26/MN7489 3.DTL.
    Catherine Hutchinson, et al., “Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991).
    Katherine Fethers, Caron Marks, et al., “Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345- 349, p. 347 (October 2000).
    James Price, et al., “Perceptions of cervical cancer and pap smear screening behavior by Women’s Sexual Orientation,” Journal of Community Health, 21(2): 89-105 (1996); Daron Ferris, et al., “A Neglected Lesbian Health Concern: Cervical Neoplasia,” The Journal of Family Practice, 43(6): 581-584, p. 581 (December 1996); C. Skinner, J. Stokes, et al., “A Case-Controlled Study of the Sexual Health Needs of Lesbians,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 72(4): 277-280, Abstract (1996).
    The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) recently published a press release entitled “Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” (July 17, 2002), http://www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710gaythings.html. The list includes: HIV/AIDS (Safe Sex), Substance Use, Depression/ Anxiety, Hepatitis Immunization, STDs, Prostate/ Testicular/Colon Cancer, Alcohol, Tobacco, Fitness and Anal Papilloma.
    R. R. Wilcox, “Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male Homosexuals,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981).
    Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: a Definitive Survey, pp. 140-141, Table 11, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994; Rotello, pp. 75-76.
    Rotello, p. 92.
    Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, “Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).
    S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, “Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men,” Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).
    Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990); “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/; “Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/.
    “Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men — King County, Washington, 1997-1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 48(35): 773-777 (September 10, 1999).
    Heredia, “Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most.”
    “Changing Patterns of Groups at High Risk for Hepatitis B in the United States,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 37(28): 429-432, p. 437 (July 22, 1988). Hepatitis B and C are viral diseases of the liver.
    Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, “Sexual Behavior of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales,” British Medical Journal, 298: 1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents,” Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992). See appendix A.
    Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., “Changing patterns of anal cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994).
    James Goedert, et al., for the AIDS-Cancer Match Study Group, “Spectrum of AIDS-associated malignant disorders,” The Lancet, 351: 1833-1839, p. 1836 (June 20, 1998).
    “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/; J. E. Barone, et al., “Management of Foreign Bodies and Trauma of the Rectum,” Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 156(4): 453-457 (April 1983).
    Henry Kazal, et al., “The gay bowel syndrome: Clinicopathologic correlation in 260 cases,” Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 6(2): 184-192 (1976).
    Glen E. Hastings and Richard Weber, “Use of the term ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome,'” reply to a letter to the editor, American Family Physician, 49(3): 582 (1994).
    Ibid.; E. K. Markell, et al., “Intestinal Parasitic Infections in Homosexual Men at a San Francisco Health Fair,” Western Journal of Medicine, 139(2): 177-178 (August, 1983).
    “Hepatitis A among Homosexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992).
    Rompalo, p. 1640.
    H. Naher, B. Lenhard, et al., “Detection of Epstein-Barr virus DNA in anal scrapings from HIV-positive homosexual men,” Archives of Dermatological Research, 287(6): 608- 611, Abstract (1995).
    B. L. Carlson, N. J. Fiumara, et al., “Isolation of Neisseria meningitidis from anogenital specimens from homosexual men,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 7(2): 71-73 (April 1980).
    P. Paulet and G. Stoffels, “Maladies anorectales sexuellement transmissibles” ["Sexually-Transmissible Anorectal Diseases"], Revue Medicale Bruxelles, 10(8): 327-334, Abstract (October 10, 1989).
    “Hepatitis A among Homosexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992).
    Ibid.
    C. M. Thorpe and G. T. Keutsch, “Enteric bacterial pathogens: Shigella, Salmonella, Campylobacter,” in K. K. Holmes, P. A. Mardh, et al., (Eds.), Sexually Transmitted Diseases (3rd edition), p. 549, New York: McGraw-Hill Health Professionals Division, 1999.
    Tim Bonfield, “Typhoid traced to sex encounters,” Cincinnati Enquirer, April 26, 2001; Erin McClam, “Health Officials Document First Sexual Transmission of Typhoid in U.S.,” Associated Press, April 25, 2001, http://www.thebody.com/ cdc/news_updates_archive/apr26_01/typhoid.html. A representative of the Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, confirmed this report and provided a link to the AP story on October 4, 2002.
    Jeffrey Martin, et al., “Sexual Transmission and the Natural History of Human Herpes Virus 8 Infection,” New England Journal of Medicine, 338(14): 948-954, p. 952 (1998).
    Alexandra M. Levine, “Kaposi’s Sarcoma: Far From Gone,” paper presented at 5th International AIDS Malignancy Conference, April 23-25, 2001, Bethesda, Maryland, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/420749.
    “Paraphilias,” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, p. 576, Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles, pp. 554-555, New York: Summit Books (1979).
    Jay and Young, pp. 554-555.
    Sade, Marquis de, Justine or Good Conduct Well Chastised (1791), New York: Grove Press (1965).
    Michigan Rope internet advertisement for “Bondage and Beyond,” which was scheduled for February 9-10, 2002, near Detroit, Michigan, http://www.michiganrope.com/ MichiganRopeWorkshop.html. The explicit nature of the advertisement was changed following unexpected publicity, and the hotel where the conference was scheduled ultimately canceled it. Marsha Low, “Hotel Ties Noose Around 2-Day Bondage Meeting,” Detroit Free Press, January 25, 2002, http://www.freep.com/news/locoak/ nrope25_20020125.htm.
    Allyson Smith, “Ramada to host ‘Vicious Valentine’ Event,” WorldNet Daily, February 14, 2002, http://www.worldnetdaily. com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26453; “Vicious Valentine 5 Celebrates Mardi Gras, Feb 15-17, 2002,” http://www.leatherquest.com/events/vv2002.htm.
    The sadistic rape of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising on September 26, 1999, left him dead. See Andrew Sullivan, “The Death of Jesse Dirkhising,” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 1, 2001.
    Jay and Young, pp. 554-555.
    Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, “MSM: Clinician’s Guide to Incorporating Sexual Risk Assessment in Routine Visits,” http://www.glma.org/medical/clinical/msm_assessment. html.
    S. Bygdeman, “Gonorrhea in men with homosexual contacts. Serogroups of isolated gonococcal strains related to antibiotic susceptibility, site of infection, and symptoms,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(5): 320-324, Abstract (October 1981).
    As of January 1, 1999, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimated the cancer prevalence in the United States to be 8.9 million. “Estimated US Cancer Prevalence Counts: Who Are Our Cancer Survivors in the US?,” Cancer Control & Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, April 2002, http://www.cancercontrol.cancer.gov/ocs/prevalence. In 1999, the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated 1,221,800 new cancer cases in the US and an estimated 563,100 cancer related deaths, “Cancer Facts and Figures 1999,” p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 1999, http://www.cancer.org/ downloads/STT/F&F99.pdf; in 2000, the ACS estimated 1,220,100 new cancer cases and 552,200 deaths from cancer, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2000,” p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2000, http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F00.pdf; in 2001, the ACS estimated a total number of 1,268,000 new cases of cancer and 553,400 deaths, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2001,” p. 5, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2001, http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F2001.pdf. This results in an estimated growth of 2,041,200 new cancer cases over the past three years and an estimated 10,941,200 people with cancer as of January 1, 2002. In 2001 there were 793,025 reported AIDS cases. “Basic Statistics,” CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm.
    The federal spending for AIDS research in 2001 was $2,247,000,000, while the spending for cancer research was not even double that at $4,376,400,000. “Funding For Research Areas of Interest,” National Institute of Health, 2002, www4.od.nih.gov/officeofbudget/ FundingResearchAreas.htm.
    Ibid.; “Fast Stats Ato Z: Diabetes,” CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 04, 2002, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ fastats/diabetes.htm; “Fast Stats A to Z: Heart Disease,” CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 06, 2002, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/heart.htm.
    Gay and Lesbian Medical Association Press Release, “Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” (July 17, 2002), http://www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html. The list includes Breast Cancer, Depression/Anxiety, Gynecological Cancer, Fitness, Substance Use, Tobacco, Alcohol, Domestic Violence, Osteoporosis and Heart Health.
    Michael, et al., p. 176 (“about 1.4 percent of women said they thought of themselves as homosexual or bisexual and about 2.8% of the men identified themselves in this way”).
    See Appendix A.
    Skinner, et al., Abstract; Ferris, et al. p. 581; James Price, et al., p. 90; see Appendix A.
    Katherine Fethers, et al., “Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000).
    Ibid., p. 347.
    Ibid.
    Ibid.
    Ibid., p. 348.
    Ibid., p. 347, Table 1; Susan D. Cochran, et al., “Cancer- Related Risk Indicators and Preventive Screening Behaviors Among Lesbians and Bisexual Women,” American Journal of Public Health, 91(4): 591-597 (April 2001); Juliet Richters, Sara Lubowitz, et al., “HIV risks among women in contact with Sydney’s gay and lesbian community,” Venereology, 11(3): 35-38 (1998); Juliet Richters, Sarah Bergin, et al., “Women in Contact with the Gay and Lesbian Community: Sydney Women and Sexual Health Survey 1996 and 1998,” National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales, 1999.
    Fethers, et al., p. 347 and Table 1.
    Barbara Berger, Shelley Kolton, et al., “Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21: 1402-1405 (1995).
    E. H. Koumans, et al., “Preventing adverse sequelae of Bacterial Vaginosis: a Public Health Program and Research Agenda,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 28(5): 292-297 (May 2001); R. L. Sweet, “Gynecologic Conditions and Bacterial Vaginosis: Implications for the Non-Pregnant Patient,” Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8(3): 184-190 (2000).
    Kathleen M. Morrow, Ph.D., et al., “Sexual Risk in Lesbians and Bisexual Women,” Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 4(4): 159-165, p. 161 (2000).
    Ibid., p. 159.
    For example, Judith Bradford, Caitlin Ryan, and Esther D. Rothblum, “National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2): 228-242 (1994); Richard C. Pillard, “Sexual orientation and mental disorder,” Psychiatric Annals, 18(1): 52-56 (1988); see also Mubarak S. Dahir, “The Gay Community’s New Epidemic,” Daily News (June 5, 2000), http://www.gaywired.com/story detail.cfm?Section=12&ID=148&ShowDate=1.
    Katherine A. O’Hanlan, M.D., et al., “Homophobia As a Health Hazard,” Report of the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, pp. 3, 5, http://www.ohanlan.com/phobiahzd.htm; Laura Dean, et al., “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Findings & Concerns,” Journal of the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, 4(3): 102-151, pp. 102, 116 (2000).
    “Netherlands Ends Discrimination in Civil Marriage: Gays to Wed,” Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Press Release, March 30, 2001, http://lambdalegal.org/cgibin/ pages/documents/record?record=814.
    Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001).
    Ibid.
    Ibid., p. 89.
    Ibid., p. 90 (emphasis added).
    Ibid.
    Erica Goode, “With Fears Fading, More Gays Spurn Old Preventive Message,” New York Times, August 19, 2001.
    Ibid.
    Ibid.
    Ibid.
    “Officials Voice Alarm Over Halt in AIDS Decline,” New York Times, August 14, 2001.
    “A uniform definition of a circuit party does not exist, partly because such parties continue to evolve. However, a circuit party tends to be a multi-event weekend that occurs each year at around the same time and in the same town . . . .” Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., “The Circuit Party Men’s Health Survey: Findings and Implications for Gay and Bisexual Men,” American Journal of Public Health, 91(6): 953-958, p. 953 (June 2001).
    Ibid., p. 955.
    Ibid., p. 956.
    Ibid., pp. 956-957, Tables 2 & 3.
    Ibid., pp. 956-957.
    Ibid., p. 957. The authors’ recommendation was more education.
    Julie Robotham, “Safe sex by arrangement as gay men reject condoms,” Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 2001. Data source: 2000 Male Out Survey, National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia.
    R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. “Life Expectancy Hits New High in 2000; Mortality Declines for Several Leading Causes of Death,” CDC News Release, October 10, 2001, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/mort2k.htm. Nevertheless, it remains a significant factor in shortened life expectancy for homosexual practitioners.
    Press Release, Smoking costs nation $150 billion each year in health costs, lost productivity, CDC, Office of Communication, April 12, 2002, http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/ pressrel/r020412.htm.
    Hogg, et al., p. 660.
    Ibid.
    “Hepatitis A vaccination of men who have sex with men — Atlanta, Georgia, 1996-1997,” Morbidity and Mortality Report, CDC, 47(34): 708-711 (September 4, 1998).
    Robert T. Michael, et al., p. 89.
    Ibid., p. 101.
    Camille Paglia, “I’ll take religion over gay culture,” Salon.com online magazine, June 1998, http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/ paglia/gayculture.htm.
    Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., p. 955.
    Joseph Harry, Gay Couples, p. 116, New York: Praeger Books, 1984.
    Marcel T. Saghir, M.D. and Eli Robins, M.D., Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation, p. 57 Table 4.13, p. 225 Table 12.10, Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1973.
    The existence of limited homosexual relationships in primitive cultures, or even extensive homosexuality in declining civilizations, such as those cited by advocates of same-sex marriage, does not challenge the existence of a prevailing norm. See, for example, William N. Eskridge, Jr., The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, Chapter 2, New York: The Free Press, 1996.
    Joseph D. Unwin, “Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour,” pp. 18-19, reprint of Oxford University Press publication of speech given before the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society, March 27, 1935.
    For example, see the website of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, Inc., http://www.ncsfreedom.org.
    “The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections . . . .” 1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU, Policy #91, p. 175.
    Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002; Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” Psychological Bulletin, 124(1): 22-53 (July 1998).
    Paglia, June 23, 1998.
    Rotello, p. 42.
    Goode, August 19, 2001.
    Ibid.
    See Michael Hamrick, The Hidden Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits, pp. 3-4 (Corporate Resource Council, 2002).
    David Gelman, et al., “Tune In, Come Out,” Newsweek, p. 70, November 8, 1993.
    “Iowa study suggests tolerance of homosexuals is growing,” Associated Press, March 23, 2001.
    Sally Kohn, The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for Employee Benefits, p. 1, the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, http://www.ngltf.org/ downloads/dp-/dp_99.pdf.
    John Horgan, “Gay Genes, Revisited,” Scientific American, p. 26, November 1995.
    Matthew Brelis, “The Fading ‘Gay Gene,'” The Boston Globe, March 20, 2002, p. C1.
    Michael, et al., p. 172.
    Lynn Scherr, “Lesbian Leader Loves a Man,” ABCNews.com, April 17, 1998.
    “Former Lesbian Anne Heche Engaged to Cameraman,” ABCNews.com, June 1, 2001 (emphasis added), reprinted at http://www.gaywired.com/index.cfm?linkPage=/storydetail.cf m&Section=68&ID=5304.
    “The Facts: Anne Heche,” Eonline.msn, April 1, 2002, http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,31319,00.html.
    “Sinead O’Connor to Marry a Man,” Reuters, June 27, 2000, http://www.q.co.za/2001.2001.06.27-sinead.html.
    “Sinead Drops out of Wotapalava Tour,” JAM! Music, May 31, 2001, http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicArtistsO/oconnor_ sinead.html.
    John Stoltenberg, “Living with Andrea Dworkin,” Lambda Book Report, May/June 1994, reprinted at http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LivingWithAnd rea.html.
    Julie Robotham, “Safe sex by arrangement as gay men reject condoms,” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 2001. Data source: “2000 Male Out Survey,” National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia.
    Michael, et al., p. 172.
    Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, “Sexual Behavior of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales,” British Medical Journal, 298: 1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents,” Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  92. Nick Literski on July 1, 2013 at 10:14 PM

    Thanks, LDSA. What can I say—these snake oil salesmen are interchangeable!
    The specific criticisms I mentioned, of course, apply to Diggs’ propaganda piece.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  93. LDS Anarchist on July 1, 2013 at 10:20 PM

    Correction: the above comment was directed at #90 Lorian, not #88 Lorian. But since it is now in the moderation queue, it has likely gone down the memory hole. Here is what I originally wrote:

    # [90] Lorian,

    I posted a link to a paper written by one medical doctor by the name of John R. Diggs. Nicks “refuted” it by linking to an article criticizing James Holsinger. That’s hardly refutation. Diggs gives an extensive list of sources. I haven’t looked them up, but I doubt you have, too. But, then, maybe you have. So, feel free to state which of these sources is pseudoscience and which is real science:

    And then I listed the cited sources.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  94. Lorian on July 2, 2013 at 12:55 AM

    LDSA, I’m too tired tonight to type up all the same things Nick has already pointed out that are wrong with the source you posted. but there are a number of places where you can find comprehensive run-downs of the serious issues with Diggs’ pseudoscientific claptrap. Here’s a blog post that does a pretty good job:

    http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-on-phony-expert-john-r.html

    The problem with merely cutting and pasting pages of endnotes referenced in an article or book by someone like Diggs (and the AFA, fo r whom he shills), is that what these organizations and their representatives do is to gather actual data from real, respectable scientific studies (which data does not by any means demonstrate the things they claim it does), and misuse those studies to mislead people with little or no scientific background, who do not realize they are being duped.

    One example (and the AFA is notorious for doing this sort of thing) is when the AFA claims that it has numerous studies which “prove” that same-sex couples are inferior parenting teams as compared with opposite-sex couples. They will go on for paragraph after paragraph, claiming that this study showed that these children had poor test scores and those children in that study over there suffered from depression or poor peer relationships, or whatever, and they will cite pages upon pages of references and endnotes pointing to the work of this respected psychologist or that well-known sociologist, or to some meta-study released by the CDC. It all looks very professional and convincing, until someone actually digs into the reference cites and realizes that not one of the studies or papers referenced actually compared same-sex couple parenting teams with opposite-sex couple parenting teams. Instead, they compared intact, heterosexual-parented households, with both parents participating in the raising of the children, to families in which one parent, usually the father, had been absent since birth or early childhood, due to death, divorce or abandonment.

    The studies in question were designed to demonstrate that children do better in intact, two-parent homes than when raised by single mothers (but generally, single mothers in economically-disadvantaged, conditions, as well, not typically by affluent single mothers — so generally there is also a significant difference in socioeconomic levels, as well).

    To use such a study, claiming that it proves that “children do better when there are both a *father* and a *mother* in the home, and therefore do more poorly with same-sex parents” is flat out deceitful. It completely misrepresents the data being presented and draws conclusions which are blatantly unwarranted.

    Anytime you see a “study” or “paper” which is remotely linked to or referenced by the AFA, or the Family Research Council (FRC) or James Dobson, particularly if it relates to same-sex couples or same-sex parents, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a gross distortion of someone else’s data which doesn’t come close to proving what they say it does, or is a special “study” commissioned by the AFA or FRC which has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal because it is so poorly done and with such bias that it could not pass professional peer-review. These are organizations with an agenda, not scientists interested in real, unbiased research.

    Just in case you are unaware, the AFA was designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hategroup, just like the Westboro Baptist Church (only a tad more subtle). If you don’t want to associate yourself with the Westboro Baptist folks by quoting them as “experts,” you don’t want to be associated with the AFA or any of its representatives by quoting their “studies,” either. To do so will completely destroy any credibility you might have on a topic like this.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  95. LDS Anarchist on July 2, 2013 at 5:23 AM

    Lol! The admins actually pulled that out of moderation!

    Btw, Lorian, I appreciate you attempting to address even one point Diggs brought up. And I’m well aware how both sides of every argument often use data selectively to boost their truth claims.

    My own point was just to show that the term “gay sex” is used in published abstracts and papers. A search of Google Scholar yielded 266 results since the beginning of this year, with 7,850 citations total, for all years that Google has been collecting this data.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  96. LDS Anarchist on July 2, 2013 at 6:02 AM

    Oops. Only “both sides” was supposed to have italics.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  97. Phil on July 2, 2013 at 6:33 AM

    Point proven. Someone who is determined to have gay or lesbian sex will not listen to any proof or statistics

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  98. Nick Literski on July 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM

    Point proven. Someone who uses their religion as an excuse to rage against the existence of gays and lesbians will desperately grasp supposed “studies” as “proof or statistics” to rationalize their bigotry, no matter how clearly anyone explains the obvious methodology faults therein. In their blind anger, such people will actually believe that a “study” consisting only of patients at an STD clinic reflects all gay men. In their self-righteous ignorance, such people will even swallow the insane idea that trolling one city’s obituaries for HIV/AIDS related deaths is an accurate way to “prove” that being gay shortens your lifespan by 20 years.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  99. Lorian on July 2, 2013 at 9:56 AM

    Actually, Phil, the point is that if you want to be taken seriously, you’d better at least rely on real scientists who present real, peer-reviewed science for your data. I realize that some people may not have enough scientific background or understanding of how to distinguish real scientific research from pseudoscience, and that’s unfortunate, because it means they’re going to fall for the quacks.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  100. Phil on July 2, 2013 at 8:30 PM

    Lorain and her pro lesbian rants. Same old tune.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  101. Lorian on July 2, 2013 at 11:08 PM

    What can I say? When you tell the truth, as I do, you don’t have to change your tune. Thanks for listening. ;)

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  102. Douglas on July 2, 2013 at 11:23 PM

    #102 – My Pop long ago advised that by always telling the truth you never had to remember what you said and to whom.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  103. Douglas on July 2, 2013 at 11:28 PM

    By the title of the OP, is it implied that Mr. Roboto is gay? (though it wouldn’t take away from Styx’s “Kilroy was here” one whit, and he could keep See-Threepio company, LoL).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzzZkkiJMv8

    Thirty years old, and it’s just as relevant today….

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  104. Phil on July 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    California has fallen. The land is cursed.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  105. Lorian on July 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM

    LOL. Your use of hyperbole is hilarious, Phil.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  106. LDS Anarchist on July 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM

    From the sidebar:

    Couples with children live longer, study finds

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865568489/Couples-with-children-live-longer-study-finds.html

    This is interesting since the article John R. Diggs wrote (linked to above by me in comment #88) makes the claim that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  107. Douglas on July 16, 2013 at 8:03 PM

    #105 – Hey, with 158 Stakes of Zion and some 750,000 Latter-Day Saints in California, and seven (count ‘em) Houses of the Lord, it’s hardly the time to throw in the towel on the Golden State notwithstanding the (misguided) efforts of the LGBT folk and their ideological fellow travelers to tarnish it. Though my wish is to acquire property in UT, where the Second Amendment is still respected and the Lord’s definition of marriage is encoded in state law.

    “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  108. Nick Literski on July 17, 2013 at 8:30 AM

    #107
    This is interesting since the article John R. Diggs wrote (linked to above by me in comment #88) makes the claim that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals.

    Your continual repetition of that claim is even more interesting, considering the fact that we’ve told you it’s based on a “study” which consisted of scanning the obituaries of only AIDS-related deaths, in only one. To any honest observer, this would be the same as scanning Chicago obituaries of shooting victims, and claiming your result as the “average lifespan” of people living in Chicago.

    Why are you so invested in repeating such an obviously bogus allegation, LDS Anarchist? Did that whole “Thou shalt not bear false witness” thing come with an exception, like “…unless you’re making up scary stories about those icky, icky gay people”?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  109. LDS Anarchist on July 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM

    Nick, of the two of us, you, as a professed homosexual, are the one that has an obvious investment in shooting down such claims. Diggs’ claim, regardless of the source he takes it from, is, itself, interesting, and should be looked into. I have no data that shows that a homosexual lifestyle gives an equivalent lifespan as a heterosexual one and I suspect you don’t either. It is fine to analyze the sources and data and say that such-and-such a claim is supported or unsupported, which is often done by two sides of an issue using the same data set, but your posts come off as reactionary because of your investment in homosexuality being a normal, healthy lifestyle and not a perversion. It doesn’t matter to me whether the two lifestyles give the same lifespan, but it does to you and thus you are uniquely biased to bear down on anything that can potentially cast homosexual behavior in a negative light. In other words, your reaction comes as if it was a counter-claim, as unsupported as the original.

    The couples with children study is quite interesting because, despite its obvious limitations and the multiplicity of possible other variables, it may give us a glimpse into lifespan limitations for homosexual couples. It doesn’t prove anything, but it shows a possible pattern, pointing in the same direction: lifespan limitation.

    Now, I expect another knee-jerk reaction from you in response to this comment, because of your personal investment in the issue, but maybe you will surprise me and not turn the conversation into a study of me and actually keep to the topic at hand.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  110. Lorian on July 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM

    It doesn’t matter to me whether the two lifestyles give the same lifespan

    To the contrary, LDS Anarchist. Clearly, it matters to you very much, or you would not continue citing the same discredited “studies” over and over again, despite the fact that they have been shown to have been created to further a biased viewpoint. If you could find actual, valid, scientific, peer-reviewed studies which supported your claims, I’m sure you would cite them. But they don’t exist, so you continue to rely on the junk-“science” literature produced by hate-groups like FRC and AFA.

    As to gay people living shorter lifespans because of not having children, you forget the fact that lots and lots of gay couples do have children, by the same means as hetero couples who suffer from infertility — adoption, donor gametes, gestational surrogates, etc. But if you were truly, actually interested in scientific evidence, rather than simply in casting aspersions upon gay people who merely seek to be accepted on a level footing with the rest of humanity, you’d be looking at all of the valid, peer-reviewed, scientific research which shows that gay people are health, normal individuals who have healthy, normal families, and who do best when simply treated like the typical members of society we are.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  111. LDS Anarchist on July 17, 2013 at 8:40 PM

    #111 Lorian,

    It doesn’t matter to me whether the two lifestyles give the same lifespan

    To the contrary, LDS Anarchist. Clearly, it matters to you very much

    Why don’t you just come right out and say that you are calling me a liar? Lol.

    For the record–which you (and Nick) apparently won’t believe, since you don’t think when I tell you what I really think, that I am telling you what I really think–I really don’t give a damn whether the two lifestyles give equivalent lifespans. I don’t base my assessment of homosexual behavior solely on any studies. Like I’ve repeatedly said, (to no avail apparently, since neither of you believe the words I write), the data sets are often interpreted in opposing ways. I find certain questions and studies interesting, not because they support what I believe, but simply because of my curiosity with the questions and conclusions. I have no belief, one way or another, about longevity and homosexual behavior, but the question is an interesting one.

    To be perfectly frank, so you know exactly where I’m coming from, I view homosexual behavior as a sinful perversion, not because science says this is so, but because of my theological understandings. Trying to back me into a scientific corner is pointless because it simply doesn’t sway me one way or the other. That said, though, I do find certain studies interesting, because of the patterns they apparently show.

    And in case you missed it, please see comment # 96 for my whole point in bringing up the Diggs info.

    As to gay people living shorter lifespans because of not having children, you forget the fact that lots and lots of gay couples do have children, by the same means as hetero couples who suffer from infertility

    No, Lorian, I have not forgotten that fact. This is why I stated, “despite its obvious limitations and the multiplicity of possible other variables.”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  112. Lorian on July 18, 2013 at 10:57 PM

    I view homosexual behavior as a sinful perversion, not because science says this is so, but because of my theological understandings.

    And this is why you will always prefer to satisfy your “curiosity” with unscientific, biased perversions of “data” which appear to support your bias, rather than actually seeking out real, valid, scientific data which would risk contradicting your bias (which in reality has nothing whatsoever to do with real curiosity, since curiosity seeks truthful answers and listens when others correct its errors and incorrect assumptions).

    No, Lorian, I have not forgotten that fact. This is why I stated, “despite its obvious limitations and the multiplicity of possible other variables.”

    And this is why you tend to speak in vagaries, so that anyone who questions your conclusions can be called up short with a reference to a statement which had no specific meaning in your prior comment. Bravo, LDS Anarchist. Well played.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  113. Nick Literski on July 23, 2013 at 10:09 AM

    #112:
    It doesn’t matter to me whether the two lifestyles give the same lifespan, but it does to you and thus you are uniquely biased to bear down on anything that can potentially cast homosexual behavior in a negative light.

    To the contrary, I’ve said nothing about whether sexual orientation (what you derisively call “a lifestyle”) bears any casual link to lifespan. No legitimate study has been published on that question, so we simply don’t know. What I’ve said is that the study your source cited was an outrageous miscarriage of “scientific” research. We don’t “research” lifespan in 1840s Nauvoo by averaging the age of newspaper-reported cholera deaths. To do so would be either laughably stupid, or else an intentional effort in anti-Mormon propaganda. The proper way to research lifespan in 1840s Nauvoo would be to average *all* reported deaths in 1840s Nauvoo–or at least a legitimately representative sample.

    Likewise, the proper way to determine the average lifespan of gay men would be to study a legitimately representative sample and average the ages of death. Newspaper-reporated AIDS-related deaths in one city is not a legitimately representative sample of “gay men.” You’re not a stupid person, LDS Anarchist, so if you persist in defending your source on this issue, it can only become obvious that you’re engaged in an intentional deception. Your “sleight of hand” effort to claim that the bias exists in my supposed motivation to discredit “anything negative” about homosexuality simply adds to the inference that you are intentionally bearing false witness. Repent.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  114. LDS Anarchist on July 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM

    Nick #114,

    #112: It doesn’t matter to me whether the two lifestyles give the same lifespan, but it does to you and thus you are uniquely biased to bear down on anything that can potentially cast homosexual behavior in a negative light.

    To the contrary, I’ve said nothing about whether sexual orientation (what you derisively call “a lifestyle”) bears any casual link to lifespan.

    How in the world can you claim that my written statement, “It doesn’t matter to me whether the two lifestyles give the same lifespan,” is me being derisive? Two lifestyles obviously refers to heterosexual lifestyles and homosexual lifestyles. There is nothing, whatsoever, derisive about that textual statement. That you took it to be derisive shows your knee-jerk reactions to anything that you perceive (in your own mind) as putting homosexual behavior in a bad light. This shows that you are, indeed, biased. And fyi, last I checked, “lifestyle” meant “the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture.”

    You keep bringing up “my source” as if I’m making any claim or basing anything, at all, on someone’s research. I stated the reason why I linked to what I did (in #96), but you keep wanting to ignore the reason and twist my words into me proving that homosexuals die sooner that heterosexuals, a claim I did not make. Nevertheless, as I stated before, the question is an interesting one, and the second study I linked to (in #107) may warrant such a hypothesis because of the non-reproductive nature of homosexual behavior. This is part of the scientific method. You’ve heard of that, right?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  115. Lorian on July 23, 2013 at 8:47 PM

    LDS Anarchist # 115 – Gaslighting doesn’t make a valid argument. You’re behavior here is pretty troll-like. I know that you are well aware that terms like “lifestyle” are offensive and demeaning to GLBT people, and your continued insistence upon using and defending them simply and clearly demonstrates your desire to be provocative rather than actually engaging the topic substantively. Your perpetual defense of the “study” you cited earlier, despite its having been very clearly and definitively debunked, also demonstrates that your intent in this discussion is less than honorable.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  116. LDS Anarchist on July 23, 2013 at 11:39 PM

    No, Lorian, I do not see how “lifestyle” is offensive and demeaning to GLBT people. I actually think it’s quite silly that you and Nick have both gotten in a huff over the use of the word. I used it to refer to BOTH hetero- and homo- lifestyles, not to just one. It is not an offensive term and my statement was not derisive. Also, I’m not sure where you see me “defending” any study. I mentioned two studies, but where exactly did I “defend” one? You are twisting my words, like Nick, which “demonstrates that your intent in this discussion is less than honorable” and equally biased.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  117. LDS Anarchist on July 23, 2013 at 11:58 PM

    And just to nitpick with the two of you, since you two keep missing stuff, Nick made the claim that I called sexual orientation a lifestyle. Wrote Nick:

    I’ve said nothing about whether sexual orientation (what you derisively call “a lifestyle”)

    But I said no such thing. What I wrote was the following, unedited by Nick, with the important words in bold type, so you don’t miss it this time:

    I really don’t give a damn whether the two lifestyles give equivalent lifespans. I don’t base my assessment of homosexual behavior solely on any studies. Like I’ve repeatedly said, (to no avail apparently, since neither of you believe the words I write), the data sets are often interpreted in opposing ways. I find certain questions and studies interesting, not because they support what I believe, but simply because of my curiosity with the questions and conclusions. I have no belief, one way or another, about longevity and homosexual behavior, but the question is an interesting one.

    So I was talking of behaviors, not orientations. You can be oriented any way you damn well please, and that possibly will have no effect on how long you live, but one’s behavior does affect lifespan. Now, I will, once again, give the definition of “lifespan”: “the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture.” That, my dear, encompasses much more than mere orientation, but deals with behaviors.

    That said, let the knee-jerking begin anew.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  118. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 12:52 AM

    Lorian wrote:

    And this is why you will always prefer to satisfy your “curiosity” with unscientific, biased perversions of “data” which appear to support your bias, rather than actually seeking out real, valid, scientific data which would risk contradicting your bias (which in reality has nothing whatsoever to do with real curiosity, since curiosity seeks truthful answers and listens when others correct its errors and incorrect assumptions).

    The claim that Diggs used unscientific, biased perversions of “data” is interesting. Let’s see if we can track down the “data” he used and determine how unscientific it is, shall we?

    Footnote #20 is:

    R. R. Wilcox, “Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male Homosexuals,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981).

    An Ixquick search turns the paper up. Here’s the link:

    Sexual behaviour and sexually transmitted disease patterns in male homosexuals.

    Here’s the abstract:

    Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either “active” or “passive”, since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. A simplified method for recording sexual behaviour–a “sexual behaviour record (SBR)”–can be of value in determining the sites to be investigated and as a basis for further epidemiological questioning. Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. Similarly, granuloma inguinale, condylomata acuminata, and amoebiasis may be spread from the bowel of the passive homosexual contact. In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.

    It’s only three pages long, so it’s a quick, and interesting, read. This paper was originally published by the British Journal of Venereal Diseases which is now published as Sexually Transmitted Infections.

    Now, Lorian, are you calling this paper that Diggs cited unscientific, biased perversions of “data”?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  119. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 1:16 AM

    Here’s another. Footnote #21:

    Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: a Definitive Survey, pp. 140-141, Table 11, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994; Rotello, pp. 75-76.

    Sex in America: a Definitive Survey is a book. It can be found here, as well as on Amazon dot com and other book selling web sites. The three reviewers on the site said the following about the book:

    Super dry. Super academic. If you want a titillating read masquerading as scientific research you should go read Kinsey. This is a book of facts and figures. The study was done using sound scientific research methods. If you are looking for a factual statistical snap shot of American sexual habits this is the book you are looking for. I loved it but I am a sex educator with psychological research training.

    The most extensive study in America to date and funded by the US government. I like that this book presents the data in a way that is easy for everyone to read. The study has some flaws but much more impressive and far reaching than past attempts to obtain the same statistics.

    They ask some very strange questions. The skinny is that people are a lot more normal than you think they are – when it comes to sex. For me, I found it very interesting.

    And here are two reviews from Amazon dot com:

    This book is the culmination of an enormous undertaking. 9,000 addresses were selected from random geographical locations. The participants, aged 18 to 55 years, completed an hour and a half interview about their sexual practices. Anyone interested in human sexuality will want to learn about the results from this study. Although this book does not go into the depth or detail of “The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the Unites States,” this book is more user-friendly. This book is a must for therapists who deal not only with sexulaity issuess but also relationship issues. Previous research has demonstrated that all couples have arguments about work, money and sex. Thus, it is essential to learn what the actual sexual practices of couples are and this book is a tool with a wealth of information.

    Driven by the publicity of American sexual habits after movies like Kinsey, I took it upon myself to begin reading into just how much of the hype was realistic. Could Americans truly be as hypersexed as Kinsey’s studies seemed to show? Was it true that one out of every ten Americans was homosexual? Sex in America answers these questions as part of the first scientifically-sound mass-studies of American sexuality ever undertaken by social science. Breaking through the harsh stigma of sex and sexuality, Sex in America points in an unexpected direction: Americans aren’t as Bohemian as we might think.

    This finding: That Americans are not as erotic as the media and popular myth believes us to be, may be the most significant thing about Sex in America. We have been trained to think many things about ourselves and others: That AIDS can affect anyone, that sex drops off with marriage, that young people have the most partners and the shortest relationships. Through thorough, statistically-sound research, the social scientists behind Sex in America show that just about every preconception we have about human sexuality has turned out to be wrong.

    The book description is:

    Based on interviews with 3,432 adults, a group of social scientists offers a detailed, accurate report on Americans’ sexual habits, including how frequently they have sexual intercourse, what they do in bed, and how many people are homosexual. 75,000 first printing. Tour.

    The Booklist Editorial Review is:

    Embargoed until the day–October 10–the press announced its overall findings, this is the popular report of the most authoritative study ever of sexual behavior in the U.S. (A companion report, The Social Organization of Sexuality [Univ. of Chicago, $49.95, 0-226-46957-3], is addressed to social scientists, counselors, and health professionals.) Its most startling conclusion is that most Americans don’t “do it” as much as the media and such previous surveys as Kinsey’s have made us think. First explaining why this study accurately represents the entire U.S. population in its target age-range (18-59) and why the information gleaned from its respondents is credible, the smoothly edited text presents findings in 11 fields of inquiry: who our sex partners are, how we find them, how many of them we have, how often we have sex, how prevalent particular sexual practices and preferences are among us, how much we masturbate and use erotica and what we think of these things, how many of us have experienced homosexual feelings and behavior and how frequently, how many and what kinds of persons among us have ever contracted sexually transmitted diseases, how many and what kinds of persons among us have contracted the AIDS virus, how many have experienced forced sex, and how social attitudes correlate with the prevalences of certain kinds of sexual behavior. To say this is all fascinating is understatement, but to say it’s at all scandalous is ridiculous. Instead, many will find it reassuringly commonsensical. They’ll discover that their own sex lives are pretty normal and that if somebody else is making out like bandits, they’re not enjoying it as much as Mr. and Mrs. John Doe. What a relief! Ray Olson

    So, Lorian, are you calling this book that Diggs cited unscientific, biased perversions of “data”?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  120. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 1:43 AM

    Here is another footnote, #19:

    The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) recently published a press release entitled “Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” (July 17, 2002). The list includes: HIV/AIDS (Safe Sex), Substance Use, Depression/ Anxiety, Hepatitis Immunization, STDs, Prostate/ Testicular/Colon Cancer, Alcohol, Tobacco, Fitness and Anal Papilloma.

    I tracked down the article, found on The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), whose tagline is Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality:

    Ten Things Gay Men Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider

    Notice, in particular, how many times the article mentions that gay men “are at an increased risk” or that they engage in risky behavior “at a higher rate.”

    So, Lorian, I’ve looked up three references cited by Diggs, one of which comes from an organization seeking to advance LGBT equality. The three footnotes, #19-21, are all taken from Diggs’ “Male Homosexual Behavior” subsection, under the “Physical Health” section. All three citations indicate that typical homosexual practices are risky to their health.

    Now, I will ask you again, as I asked you before, but this time about the citation in Footnote #19: are you calling this article published by the GLMA, which Diggs cited, unscientific, biased perversions of “data”?

    I’ll wait for your answers before looking over the rest of the footnotes, okay?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  121. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 6:50 AM

    Homosexual lifestyle

    If you go to Google Scholar and type in “homosexual lifestyle” you’ll find 41,600 results that use the term. So it’s perfectly acceptable speech. In fact, it’s even codified in the laws of several States. However, like with many other things, certain special interests are trying to make it unacceptable to use the word in connection with homosexual behavior. Specifically, I found this essay by Larry Mutz:

    ESSAY: A Fairy Tale: the Myth of the Homosexual Lifestyle in Anti-Gay-and-Lesbian Rhetoric

    Here is an excerpt of the introduction:

    INTRODUCTION

    Across the United States, two very different stories are told about how lesbians and gay men come to be. According to the story told by those who support same-sex rights, 1 gay men and lesbians are either born with or develop their sexual orientation at an early age, and have no choice in the matter. Further, because gay men and lesbians face discrimination and moral condemnation equivalent to sexism and racism, they should be afforded similar legal protection against unequal treatment. A far different story is told by opponents of same-sex rights. According to their version, homosexuality is a depraved, immoral and decadent “lifestyle,” not an immutable sexual orientation. Children are not born homosexual, but instead, are taught to be so by adult gay men and lesbians, either through example or by sexual seduction. 2 For those who believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior, discrimination against lesbians and gay men is not only acceptable, but also necessary, to prevent gay men and lesbians from indoctrinating more children into a lifestyle that will lead them to inevitable ruin and despair. 3

    That was published in the Spring of 2006, so perhaps that is the original source essay that got the LGBT community on the bandwagon to vilify the use of the word “lifestyle” in connection with homosexual behavior. Personally, I find the idea proposed by this essay of an “immutable sexual orientation” preposterous as it contradicts what we know about human sexuality and so I will continue to say homosexual lifestyle and heterosexual lifestyle. If Nick and Lorian, or any others want to take offense, be my guest.

    Derision

    Since I was falsely accused of “derisively calling” sexual orientation a lifestyle (which I’ve already addressed), I thought that it might be useful to demonstrate what real derision is. First, derision is “the use of ridicule or scorn to show contempt.” And now for some examples:

    Nick’s comment #15, #22, #23, #31, #35, #36, #46, and #55 on the Marriage Equality post.

    Labels

    Lorian stated,

    You’re behavior here is pretty troll-like.

    If memory serves me right, I’ve been commenting on this blog since its inception, which is a lot longer than you have. If anyone is baiting, that would be you with your insistence that there is no scientific data to support any claim that puts homosexual in a negative light, that all such science is pseudo, or if it is real science, then the interpretation of the data is biased and therefore wrong. What is that except a bait to show some data to the contrary? Now, on this post, the claim was made that “gay sex’ was in the scientific literature and anyone could look it up on Google. A bait, to be sure. A counter-claim was made that there was no such thing as “gay sex” in the scientific literature. That claim was a bait, too, and I finally bit, for I was curious, and I proved that the term “gay sex” IS found in the scientific literature. But let’s brush that aside, right? So then the focus has been on the obituaries study, which was an obvious strawman tactic since I never even brought that study up once, nor defended it. (Re-check the comments above, you’ll see this has been put on me repeatedly, even though I never mentioned it even once! Lol.) Then I’m being accused of being derisive, even though I’ve shown that I’m not, and the one who makes the accusation does so after repeatedly deriding me. Ironic, no? And last, but not least, you accuse me of being a troll! Lol.

    If you feel you must resort to labels, then does this mean I’m winning the argument?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  122. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 6:52 AM

    I can’t stand it when formatting goes wrong…! The bold type should have been only on “Labels”.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  123. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 7:27 AM

    Here, Lorian and Nick, I’m going to throw some fodder at you, since the obituary study that you constantly bring up is getting a little old and tiresome. Here is a 1997 study that shows that homosexual men lived shorter lives than heterosexual men. However, given that it was published in 1997, its findings may or may not be applicable today, since advances in medicine have come a long way in the last 16 years. This study is pure science, nothing pseudo about it, and its findings are conclusive. But, as I said, since it’s from 1997, it is unknown whether its findings still apply for today.

    Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.

    An excerpt:

    CONCLUSION:

    In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  124. Nick Literski on July 24, 2013 at 8:08 AM

    #119:
    Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either “active” or “passive”, since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent.

    This first abstract raises a very simple question, LDS Anarchist, which I’m sure you won’t be willing to honestly confront. You claim to be referring to “homosexual behavior,” and this abstract does the same. Please identify for us, LDS Anarchist, which of the above-described acts constitute specifically homosexual behavior. (Hint: Be prepared for us all to openly mock you, since these are all behaviors engaged in by heterosexual couples.)

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  125. Nick Literski on July 24, 2013 at 8:30 AM

    #122:
    If you go to Google Scholar and type in “homosexual lifestyle” you’ll find 41,600 results that use the term. So it’s perfectly acceptable speech.

    If you go to Google Scholar and type in “f**k” (without the filter-avoiding asterisks I’ve used here, of course) you’ll find 184,000 results that use the term. So it’s even more perfectly acceptable speech than “homosexual lifestyle.” Right?

    Personally, I find the idea proposed by this essay of an “immutable sexual orientation” preposterous as it contradicts what we know about human sexuality and so I will continue to say homosexual lifestyle and heterosexual lifestyle. If Nick and Lorian, or any others want to take offense, be my guest.

    “Any others” will merely find it humorous that you pretend that the scientific consensus opposes the concept of immutable sexual orientation. If yours happens to be mutable, have at it, but please keep it far away from me, as I prefer to keep my breakfast inside my stomach.

    Your insistance upon using terminology that you know to be offensive to others–specifically those you direct your comments toward–suggests that you aren’t interested in a mature, respectful discussion. If I were to insist upon referring to the “cult-centered lifestyle” or the “brainwashed lifestyle” when discussing your faith tradition, I doubt you’d be satisfied with a snarky “If you choose to be offended, be my guest.”

    If anyone is baiting, that would be you with your insistence that there is no scientific data to support any claim that puts homosexual [sic] in a negative light, that all such science is pseudo, or if it is real science, then the interpretation of the data is biased and therefore wrong.

    Grownups reading this thread are well aware that I’ve made no such statements. I’ve never so much as suggested that “there is no scientific data to support any claim that puts homosexual [sic] in a negative light, that all such science is pseudo, or if it is real science, then the interpretation of the data is biased and therefore wrong.” To the contrary, I’ve shown you repeatedly why one study, which was heavily relied upon by one author which you seem inordinately fond of, is faulty and unreliable.

    Sadly, you don’t even have the intellectual honesty to admit that the obituary story is complete hogwash. Perhaps this is because you believe “there is no scientific data to support any claim that puts homosexual[ity] in a positive light, that all such science is pseudo, or if it is real science, then the interpretation of the data is biased and therefore wrong?”

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  126. Phil on July 24, 2013 at 8:52 AM

    Satan is guiding the gay rights movement.
    Pray for Pennsylvania!!!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  127. Nick Literski on July 24, 2013 at 8:54 AM

    #124:
    Here, Lorian and Nick, I’m going to throw some fodder at you, since the obituary study that you constantly bring up is getting a little old and tiresome. Here is a 1997 study that shows that homosexual men lived shorter lives than heterosexual men.

    LDS Anarchist, why do you say that the linked study shows that “homosexual men” live shorter lives than heterosexual men, when it does nothing of the sort? The title of the linked study is: “Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.” The study objective is clearly stated as “To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men.” To any honest person, the linked article clearly refers to HIV/AIDS patients, not “homosexual men.”

    According to this abstract, the researchers did something rather odd. First, they pulled all death data for a male population. But since death certificates don’t state sexual orientation, the researchers made some assumptions. The abstract clearly states that the researchers had to “attribute” deaths to either heterosexual or homosexual categories. In doing so, they made the assumption that 95% of the HIV/AIDS-related deaths must have been gay or bisexual men. While it’s true that a HIV is more prevalent among gay men than heterosexual men, the 95% figure has no basis in reality. The researchers simply took what my Army trainers called “SWAG,” or a “scientific wild-ass guess.” They essentially created an imitation data set, which ensured that nearly every case of untimely death due to HIV/AIDS was attributed to the “gay or bisexual men” category. Once they pretended that 95% of all HIV/AIDS-related deaths were gay or bisexual men, the results were a foregone conclusion. Ultimately, this wasn’t much different than the obituary study, other than in sample size.

    None of this, of course, tells us whether or not the average lifespan of gay men is different than the average lifespan of heterosexual men. You’re correct that it’s an interesting question, of course, but the answer to that question requires honest, competent science. Studying HIV/AIDS-related deaths is not a legitimate way to determine the average lifespan of gay men.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  128. Nick Literski on July 24, 2013 at 9:04 AM

    LDS Anarchist wrote:
    First, derision is “the use of ridicule or scorn to show contempt.” And now for some examples: Nick’s comment #15, #22, #23, #31, #35, #36, #46, and #55 on the Marriage Equality post.

    Thank you, LDS Anarchist, for reminding me of the need to temper my responses. I must admit that my manner on blogs can be rather biting at times. I’m working on responding with compassion and respect, but I’m afraid I don’t always reach that ideal.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  129. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 9:31 AM

    If you go to Google Scholar and type in “f**k” (without the filter-avoiding asterisks I’ve used here, of course) you’ll find 184,000 results that use the term. So it’s even more perfectly acceptable speech than “homosexual lifestyle.” Right?

    R.A. F**k is the name of a Brazilian researcher, which is why I got 179,000 results without that word in them (except for listing his or her name.) Lol. I’ll come back later and answer the rest…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  130. Phil on July 24, 2013 at 9:34 AM

    For however much Lorian and Nick try, you cannot make gay sex natural and wholesome, when it is, by it’s very nature, unnatural and unwholesome.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  131. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    Your insistance upon using terminology that you know to be offensive to others–specifically those you direct your comments toward–suggests that you aren’t interested in a mature, respectful discussion. If I were to insist upon referring to the “cult-centered lifestyle” or the “brainwashed lifestyle” when discussing your faith tradition, I doubt you’d be satisfied with a snarky “If you choose to be offended, be my guest.”

    I see. So you believe that in the expressions, “cult-centered lifestyle” and “brainwashed lifestyle,” the offensive word is “lifestyle,” Nick?

    Grownups reading this thread are well aware that I’ve made no such statements.

    I was writing to Lorian, Nick. I preceded my statement with “Lorian stated,” to tip her (and everyone else) off as to who I was addressing, but I guess it didn’t work.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  132. Lorian on July 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM

    LDS Anarchist, the fact that you stayed up half the night and got up and started posting on this early this morning suggests that this topic is a great deal more important to you than you would like to represent with all your protestations to the contrary. You have a strong emotional investment in trying to prove how you have made a good “choice” which will ultimately benefit you in some way. I get that. It’s a painful way to live. I hope that you are able to find some peace and happiness. God bless you. I will pray for you. I sincerely mean that.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  133. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM

    Nick #128,

    The assumptions were based on estimates which were based, where possible, on empirical data. Read the paper, not just the abstract summary. Notice, in particular, the stated limitations and shortcomings of the analysis. This study has come under no fire from any quarter, but I’m not surprised that you don’t find it convincing.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  134. LDS Anarchist on July 24, 2013 at 10:23 AM

    LDS Anarchist, the fact that you stayed up half the night and got up and started posting on this early this morning suggests that this topic is a great deal more important to you than you would like to represent with all your protestations to the contrary.

    It just means that I was working on the computer and when I took a break, I relaxed by commenting. Don’t read more into it than that.

    Btw, admins, my previous comment is in moderation.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  135. Nick Literski on July 24, 2013 at 10:34 AM

    #132:
    So you believe that in the expressions, “cult-centered lifestyle” and “brainwashed lifestyle,” the offensive word is “lifestyle,” Nick?

    No, LDS Anarchist, I was just using those as examples of how the intentional use of offensive language isn’t helpful in creating respectful dialogue.

    Perhaps you genuinely don’t understand why so many find your “homosexual lifestyle” phrase offensive. You’ve noted a dictionary definition of “lifestyle” as “the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture.” The problem, of course, is that you’re not really using the word that way. When you say “homosexual lifestyle,” it’s quite clear that you mean “men having sex with men” and/or “women having sex with women.” In using the phrase that way, you reduce another person’s entire existence to sexual acts. In effect, you say “The only thing that matters about YOU PEOPLE is who you have sex with—Nothing else in your life is of any interest or value to the world.”

    You see, LDS Anarchist, I wouldn’t use the phrase “heterosexual lifestyle,” because each and every professed heterosexual has THEIR OWN lifestyle. Some of them are obsessed with physical fitness. Others are nearly hopeless drug addicts. Some are celibate. Some are monogamous. Some are promiscuous. Some are spiritual. Some are atheists. I could go on and on. Likewise, every homosexual person is different. It’s called being HUMAN—something we ALL share.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  136. Lorian on July 24, 2013 at 12:20 PM

    Your study cite, LDSA, is from a 1997 paper. Even if one assumed for a moment that its methodologies were valid, or that treatments for HIV infection haven’t progressed in the last 1.5 decades to the point where those infected now have a life expectancy approaching that of the average population, or that it remotely applied to “all gays and lesbians” (keeping in mind that gay men in monogamous relationships have HIV risk no higher than heterosexuals in monogamous relationships, and that lesbians in general have HIV risk just slightly higher than that of cloistered nuns), a paper discussing specifically how HIV affected the gay male population in the 80’s and 90’s has zero applicability to a discussion of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples. Other than, perhaps, to demonstrate the valid interest the state has in *encouraging* same-sex couples to form stable, lasting, committed, monogamous relationships with the support, encouragement, respect and honor of their families and surrounding communities.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  137. Phil on July 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

    Lds anarchist statistics matter little to someone who is determined not to let go of the gay sex way of life

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  138. Lorian on July 24, 2013 at 5:34 PM

    Lds anarchist statistics matter little to someone who is determined not to let go of the gay sex way of life

    Let alone to someone who has been in a committed, loving marriage for 22-1/2 years and is raising two beautiful children with her wife. Yeah, LDSA’s “statistics” don’t mean much to me at all, Phil. You’re right. Call it “the gay sex way of life,” or call it a loving marriage in the eyes of God, our families and the state; either way, I’m not about to dump it in the trash because LDSA or you or anyone else says so.

    I would hope you would have a similar level of commitment to your wife, children and marriage (assuming you have them), but maybe marriage just doesn’t mean as much to you as it does to me.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  139. Phil on August 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

    Minnesota has fallen! Once society realized what a huge mistake this was, it will be virtually impossible to root out the evil. WHen you dance with the Devil, the Devil don’t change. The Devil changes you.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

Archives

%d bloggers like this: