Agreed, but please keep in mind too that there is another significant civil rights movement going on simultaneously in this country that gains far less attention.   It's the movement to grant children, as citizens from birth per the U.S. Constitution, their overdue "equal protection" to assault in all environments, including schools (as 20 states still permit corporal punishment) and homes in the U.S.

Children deserve to be safe.  They are people too.

*from* assault, rather.

I always say LGBT and include you guys and gals because I especially understand what it feels like to be left out. -hugs- Keep up the fight Abigail, and take care.

The reason it probably didn't mention trans people is because DODT and DOMA don't really apply to trans folk.

This is about marriage equality regardless of sexual orientation (and like you said, some tranny's are straight, and as such can get married legally), or holding your tongue if you're gay in the military. 

Trans folk may be discriminated against, like most homosexuals are, but these two policies specifically target sexual orientation, NOT sexual identity.

I assume that is why they were not mentioned.

Just think of sick gay people too? You know ones who are cancelled off their insurance because they have cancer or other medical problems. Do you know its twice as hard getting the same premium as a straight male, we usually pay 30% more because of our sexual orientation. Since we cant insure our spouses as children in a family plan as well, you not only have to pay a higher premium, but separate rates for each member of your household. Ouch...

I've never seen a health insurance application that asks about sexual orientation (and I've seen lots).  Gay or straight, don't get sick in America. The not being able to include (or even have) a spouse is definitely discrimination.  We should ALL have the SAME coverage (if we get sick , we are covered, like in every other civilized nation on Earth but ours).  You can include children, but (again, gay or straight) what often happens is there is no option for "single parent with child" only "family" coverage, which means single parents pay the same as if they are a married with a dozen kids.  That's discrimination too.

Yes but you fail to realize that a gay family has to pay for separate insurance policies for themselves and their children most of the time. They cannot file themselves as married most of the time. Even some insurance companies refused to codify the marriage of gay couples in state that have sex marriages. So yes a single parent has to pay for themselves and their child, but a gay family has to pay for not only themselves and their children, separately, but their spouse as well.

Both are discrimination, but as long as DOMA remains in effect LGBT families will be far more discriminated against than single parent households in terms of insurancepolicies. On average a gay family with no kids pays on average $250,000 more in a lifetime in insurance than the average heterosexual household because of marriage discrimination. If you add children into the equation those numbers skyrocket. Sadly, even are legislatures idea of national health care will not fix this problem for both parties. So this is more of a "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation, and another reason why my immigration to Canada will be so much greater.

I do not fail to realize it.  I said so, and you missed it.  Here it is again: "The ...[part about]... not being able to include (or even have) a ...[legal]... spouse is definitely discrimination".  Unmarried co-habitating hetero couples face the same discrimination by health insurers.  The difference is they could get married if they want to, but they don't want to be forced into doing so. 

I repeat: We should ALL have the SAME health coverage, just like in every other civilized nation on Earth.  And gays should be allowed to have the same legal and societal protections that marriage provides, and be able to be marrried in any church that is willing to do so.  I don't think the government should force anyone to perform any marriage ceremony against their own personal wishes, but there are plenty of people available who are (or would be if they could be) more than willing.

I once knew a woman who was a [pastor?] of a [Unitarian?] church. Although she couldn't perform marriages for the LGBT couples who attended, she was more than willing, in her church,to perform Ceremonies of Commitment for people who chose to make their vows of lifetime support to each other before the congregation.

No, I never attended, and honestly don't know much about that kind of thing, but I have a lot of respect for this woman who, though married, was willing to do this kind of ceremony during the Regan administration era.

I am certain that, though many churches will deny the sanctity of LGBT marriage in their halls, there will be billions who will more than gladly accept these rites in their halls [and the donations to their churches] the nanosecond each town, city, county and state finally permits civil unions.

Of course, once the initial shock wears off, they will realize just how much they are mi$$ing, and they will relent on their initial dismissal against the LGBT communities [much like other churches had resisted interracial marriages...]

I write this as a traditionally-married, Christian mother who has intolerance for prejudices, painted, framed, or phrased in any language or medium.

I agree with you fully.  Marriage has gone from a religious ceremony, to a secular spending smorgasbord.  Anything that can be described as "legally sanctioned" should not be also considered a religious ceremony, and vice-versa.  People have lost sight of this.  If a church doesn't want to allow gay marriage (or, for that matter, interracial marriage, etc.), and lose out on the money that it can bring them, then that's their prerogative.  But the government is not a church, and should not act like one.

There's legal discrimination which is sanctioned by written law, and then there's people's own discrimination, which is difficult if not downright impossible to legislate (other that legally punishing proven discriminstors).

"Don't ask don't tell" is legal discrimination, and so is denying, singling out and/or rating up (and therefore out) sick (or fat) people for health insurance.  I don't think they rate up people because they are gay, unless they have AIDS or another illness.  Fat people are discriminated against the same as sick people.  I hope that once we understand more about obesity and its causes, we as a nation will  look back in shame at how we as a society treat fat, sick, black and GLBT people. 

Age discrimination is still legal too except for one small age group.

It isn't choice. It's birthright.

If you believe it is a choice, than you are practically admitting that you may have been born bisexual or gay, yet chose to be straight.

Many straight people have a scene style. In the work place, most people appear appropriate to their job. Some people don't even get hired because of that. LGBTQ people having equal rights isn't going to change that fact. Also you make it sound as if LGBTQ people all appear like that. You're wrong.

The only thing about most LGBTQ people that's different from straight people are their sexual preferences. In almost every other way everyone is the same. People are religious. People are bigots. People are activists. People, yes on both sides, have the same fetishes.

Open up, don't be so homophobic and make a gay friend. You can learn a thing or two.

Wrong mr. thompson...

On all counts.

First of all, granting equality to all violates the rights of none...Unless you consider it a "right" to discriminate and you certainly wouldnt be forced to hire someone who didnt represent your company the way you wanted just because theyre gay any more than you would be forced to hire a heterosexual who didnt represent your company well...

As for sexual orientation being a choice...

Do you have any idea of all the factors that would be involved in making such a choice...If it were possible ?

First, you would have to have a complete understanding of what sex was all about...

Secondly you would have to be conciously aware of what it means to be heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual...

Third you would have to be conciously aware that such a choice even existed...

Fourth you would have to already know how it felt to be with someone sexually...

Now...Considering that we dont even know what our sexual orientation is untill we hit puberty...Which for me, was around 9 or 10 years of age...Sure does seem amazing that our young folks would possess that kind of fundemental understanding and knowledge yet still be a virgin when you think about it doesnt it mr. thompson ?

I never chose to be heterosexual...I just am.

Homosexuals dont choose to be gay...They just are.

Thats logic mr. thompson and I will always choose logic over fear and lies any day.

That's gibberish not logic,enumerated gibberish.

As far as your statement that the Hate laws could not be used to threaten and coerce employers into hiring people they would not freely hire, the existing history of such laws does not bear that out. One needn't look far to see the discrimnation cry being used as a bludgeon.

I hire without respect to race, nationality or sexual orientation, as is my right. I would like to retain that right. I do not know if any gays have ever worked for me and that is how it should be. Roll the joist, drive the nails and keep your private life to yourself.

Well that gibberish is called scientific fact. Without science the building your employees work in would not even exist, nor would these computers we use to talk to one another. So yes scientific fact is nothing but gibberish when it does not conform to our opinions that some call belief and faith. However science does not work that way. It is a tool to understand reality whether you like it or not. The facts are simple and plain.

"Homosexuality is a normal, natural, positive variant of sexual orientation, and those who are homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual can live equally healthy productive lives as well as nurturing environments for children. Denying and depriving this segment of society from protections against discrimination, legal rights including marriage, and employment discrimination, only causes more harm to an already disenfranchised minority." - AMA, APA, ASA, NASW, AAA, NAP (American medical association, American psychological association, American psychiatric association, the American sociological association, the national association of social workers, American anthropological association, the national association of pediatrics)

Well with all those scientific organizations who have more than six decades of scientific research stating these things, It would accurate and precise to say: that what you spout James is the real "gibberish." You fail.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - the statistics as copy/paste - mined from:

http://moran.house.gov/list/press/va08_moran/DADTJan.shtml

 * * *
In January 2009, the Army fired 11 soldiers for homosexuality: one human intelligence collector, one military police officer, 4 infantry personnel, a health care specialist, motor transport operator and water treatment specialist. Mission-critical intelligence specialists.

A 2005 Government Accountability Office study reported that the military discharged 730 intelligence specialists under DADT during the policy's first decade.  Frank's new book, Unfriendly Fire, documents the stories of some of those specialists who were fired.

Moran, a member of the Military Appropriations subcommittee, is a long-time opponent of the DADT policy and an original cosponsor of the proposed law to lift the ban, the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act” (H.R. 1283) recently introduced by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D-CA).

I don't think I could add anything, in my own words, that could top this direct-sourced data.

Something to note: I post as a hetero, married, Christian mother of two straight sons.

It's gibberish not scientific fact, and in looking up the Official Statement on Homosexuality by AMA, APA, NASW, ASA, AAP I find your quote nowhere. Your summation could be classified as theoretical at best, making it one of many unproven scientific theories. Smoke.

I have no problem with gays living their lifestyle so long as they don't try to force it upon me through legal channels. Again I state that, so far, the record indicates that many well intentioned anti discriminatory laws have resulted in many lawsuits brought by anyone who FEELS they have not been hired due to their status whether that is the case or not. These suits cost money to defend.

People who assume they know the reason for others thoughts or actions are always going to add to the animosity of the other side. There are a lot more concerned people out there than homophobes.

Here are my link buddy. Also study what a scientific theory is. Let me give you one clue. Its not a guess or a hypothesis but a tool used to study and predict future phenomenon and facts of nature. As for lifestyles.... homosexuality is as much of a lifestyle as heterosexuality. It is as normal and as natural as heterosexuality. That is scientific fact. By allowing gays to be married and be honest about their lives is shoving it as much down your throat as allowing women live free lives and vote, or black people being integrated into society. You are such a bigot it is not only revolting but hilarious. Allowing people to live their lives and have all the same freedoms and liberties you do does nothing. However because you don't even understand a single aptitude of science, or even what a theory is your point is completely moot and you are discredited. So here are the links that define what I just told you. Time to put up or shut up.

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.shtml

http://www.socialworkers.org/diversity/lgb/reparative.asp

http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_GayParent.htm

http://www.clgs.org/official-statement-concerning-homosexuality-american-academy-pediatrics

And the hum dinger that includes all of what these organizations say as a whole written by them

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf

So buddy do you really wan to keep lying and debating with a scientist in his respected field? Not a smart move on your part, but you can continue incriminating yourself and I will keep discrediting you.

Does anyone find it funny James refuses to consider the science fact, but misunderstands it, and incorrectly calls it, what he thinks a "theory" is.

I find it interesting that unless the science concludes what people believe they disregard it like it is some sort of belief. Science is nothing more than a tool to understand reality. The reality is LGBT people are no different than heterosexuals and therefore should not be denied their full equal rights. As for those who believe we should disregard science because they feel it is a belief; is the hammer a carpenter uses a belief? How would that carpenter pound in nails if he refused to use the tool known as a hammer because such a tool goes against his beliefs?

Just a thought. LOL

"I have no problem with gays living their lifestyle so long as they don't try to force it upon me through legal channels."

So it's perfectly OK that the likewise is happening?

I agree mr. marshall...

He continues to show his willfull ignorance with every one of his posts...

And mr. butler has a good point there...

I have to wonder if there was ever a claim by white supremists about the african americans forcing their "lifestyle" on them back during the civil rights fight in the 60's ?

Or for that matter, any other claims that echo what we hear now-a-days ?

My post doesn't make a lot of sense since the post prior to mine was removed.  That post used the phrase "loud, aggressive, and shock troops" referring to gays.  He also said he knew people whose grand kids had been abused by gays, and said that gays could not expect support for their cause until they cleaned up their act.  I was commenting on those statements.

As usual you descend into personal attack and rhetoric. You offered no science. From YOUR links:

apahelpcenter. "There are numerous theories about the origins of a persons sexual orientation." Theory not science.

apa. "There is no consensus among scientist about the exact reason that an individual develops a hetro, bi, gay or lesbian orientation." No science here.

AMA. and socialworkers; these links are policy statements and have no scientific value.

AAP. This is a how to for gay parents. No science here either.

clgs. More policy and politics. Again "Where's the beef?"

Your so called "Humdinger" is a publication put together by Glsen with the help of other gay and lesbian groups. Again it centers on policy and has no scientific base. That it is "endorsed by" all the aforementioned groups adds no scientific validity because it offers none. Read before you post. Your many words don't make them true. You throw the word science around but offer none of it. You say I am lying when I state what I see and yet you compare the existence of a hammer to speculation and theory about sexual orientation. Attack away, I have wasted enough time on your babbling.

And you still dont know what a theory is in science. As i have stated a theory is a tool to use to understand and predict future and present phenomenon. Because you cannot understand what a scientific theory is your words, like i stated before are moot and you are discredited for your lack of knowledge on the science communities policies and studies.

As for your assertions, you pull one passage from each paper i gave you and assume that that discredits the entire passage. That is not how science works. Just because we as scientist dont know how the big bang happened, doesnt mean evolution, both celestial and biological does not exist.

While there is no defined "one word answer" that describes what causes sexual orientation that doesnt mean that is not science. Science is not in the business to give one word answers. There is a multitude of factors that contribute to everything. Sexual orientation is far to complex to simplify into one cause. So let it be noted that it has been concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice, is not due to nurture, and cannot be changed. Homosexuality occurs often in nature, and is a normal and positive variant of sexual orientation. 

Just because you think you are a logical person and you think there are loop holes in science, as you try to point out, does not mean you understand science. Quite the contrary, your wordings and your reasons are so far outside the functionality of science that you negate any progress you are trying to make in your arguments with me.

As for you assertion about the paper from the GLSEN if you actually read it and read the sources you will find that it is work that was done by all these organizations and written by them. The GLSEN only sponsored the paper and help publish it.

As for thomas mchugh's arguments I add one more.

"who would choose to live a life of oppression where the whole world is against you and you cant live free or happy with the same equal rights as others?"

Just from a purely logical approach no one in their right mind would choose to be bisexual or homosexual. While homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgerism are not choices, religion and bigoted ideas are a choice and those can be changed through resocialization.

I'm not sure what Mr. Thompson's point is, but if he, like many people, believes that being queer is a choice, let me say this:

I personally don't believe orientation is a choice, but even if it was, why would it matter? We make lots of choices throughout our lives. As long as we are happy, healthy, and not harming others, people should be able to live their lives as they see fit.

Amen

Mr. gilmore jr...

Why does it matter whether you know a person's sexual orientation or not IF as you say, they do their job and do it well ?

I too served in the navy and I couldnt care less what my fellow shipmate's sexual orientation was or even if I knew it...But then thats because I dont spend my time worrying or even thinking about such things.

The problem Maxine is that these people dont think what they do is bigotry, evil or cruel. They think of it as inclusion, love, and compassion to save the sinners. Their minds are so far gone thanks to brainwashing that not even the best psychological treatment can cure them from their mental diseases caused by psychological abuse from the church.

I know...but I have spoken, as the, "Straight, but never narrow", at a few assemblies, with a Bible in tow [with bookmarks and notations from www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/ ]

It was once believed that other discriminatory practices - from slavery to the supposed sin of interracial marriage [and even - God Forbid!- interfaith marriage!!!] was a righteous action to take.

Prejudice is prejudice, whatever color or texture it is painted in. I rather prefer to splash a bit of acetone on the finish, and let the buyer find what it's really made of.

Needless to say, I've not always made many friends...

Well miss mesko...

I'd wager that youve made a few friends here, myself included and as for your point about prejudice being all the same...I agree.

In fact, I think theres an applicable bible quotation along the lines of "Theres nothing new under the sun" in either the book of psalms or proverbs that may apply to that statement you made.

I'm working on it on my end. My living room and my dining room oftentimes, as commented by a friend of mine, "...is like a UN gathering in a Sci-Fi flick...", and my kids grew up in this open atmosphere. The kids in question are now teens, and I've dragged them to various cross-cultural spots here and there [including a teen - and - up LGBT and liberal - friendly coffee house, a science and laser enthusiasts' meet, an "all-ages" rock/burlesque show, and an evangelical bible college]. 

At the end of it all, the kids seem to have learned, to varying degrees, the ability to see from perspectives outside their own, and to form their own insight from that launching point.

I think people can take a gander of what you were saying by the comments. Besides most of it is parroted rhetoric we hear all the time from the religious Reich so its nothing we are not unaware of.

Talk about one sided mr. thompson...

You and every other bible thumper/homohater want to deny equality to a minority that doesnt harm anyone by their existance or by who they love and not only are you willing to ignore science in favor of a "holy" book that is not only long outdated but altered according to the prevailing church politics of the day...

Seems to me that your very one sided in your own thought patterns and beliefs.

I would like to add, as mentioned a handful of times here, that I'm a Christian, "traditionally married" woman, biological mother of two straight kids, and I'm also *still* posting in stating that those who are lesbian, gay, trans, etc. should have the same human rights as their straight counterparts in so-called civilized society.

There's a phrase we're all familiar with, "Divide and conquer", I'm certain readers here have seen it historically, and know that to be true.

Consider this: the continual dividing of our nation's people, especially during times of war, and times of economic recession, surely cannot be strengthening our position in global leadership; if it is demonstrated that this nation cannot lead its own people in a strong, united front - how is it likely to succeed in "promoting and defending democracy" overseas? By the outstanding inequalities presented to *our own people*, we demonstrate the inherent weaknesses and phobias we have in our own soliders ["I don't know and I don't *wanna* know that our best sniper has a Life Companion, back in the States, who can't share his partner's insurance plan, because they have the same gender.]

They don't care to know the lives and lifestyles of the soldiers whose job it is to protect the U.S. Constitution, at home and abroad, because it scares the beejeezus out of him more than a car bomb in camp.

Makes perfect nonsense to me...

I commend your efforts to understand scripture, however your ending sentenced condemned your whole piece. You follow the misconception that homosexuality is some sort of lifestyle. Sexual orientation, whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual is not a lifestyle, a conscious, or unconscious choice, or depraving to ones full potential as a human being. You might believe your opinions take precedent over science and reality but they do not. What I have stated was concluded by thousands of scientist over the course of six decades starting with Sigmund Freud, then explained in detail by Alfred Kinsey.

Mr. graybear...

While you are mistaken about any sexual orientation being a lifestyle, as mr. marshall points out...I too apreciate your efforts to know the true meaning as originaly intended of christian scripture and indeed, I wish that many more christians were as dedicated as you are in this endeavor.

Also, while you may not be for gay rights...

Thank you for not being a homohater.

Darlene I am gay and considered disabled because of my Photophobia and my aspergers syndrome. So I guess I have a double negative. Not only do i receive disrespect because i have to wear goggles and sunglasses all the time, I cant marry my Fiance Ruben and sponsor him for immigration so he can work for the law in the US. Not only that but because I was pursued in basic training I was discharged because I would not separate from my family. My family is Ruben, just like all gays and lesbians in the military those that do not separate all ties to their family and children while they serve will be found like I was and discharged. And you support that? You support the destruction of these families? You support spouses, partners, and their children to not who know mommy and daddy are doing, to not even know if their mother or father have been killed, to not even know your life, your spouse is dead because of DADT? You really support that? You are a sick and sad individuals and I pity you. Have a shitty day.

Well said comrade. However what if someone is both gay and atheist? As a scientist, which we are predominantly atheist, how do you think this one feels, to understand where you are coming from, but also deal with both sides of the discrimination? Now add into that I am considered disabled and refused jobs because of my overly light sensitive eyes and need to wear eye protection.

I understand your frustration. I live it just as much but from two more perspectives. But there is something to consider. What made us atheist? It was our understanding of the underlying causes of congruence and logic that allowed us to see the fairy tales being told as truths and dispel religious indoctrination from our minds. We came to the logical conclusion that religion, the spiritual, and the supernatural are nothing but fantasy that time and tradition has enforced into our minds as unshakable truths. This feeling that "there just must be more after this life;" becomes shattered forever by reality. We made a choice and dispelled fiction from our lives forever.

But... gay people dont have that choice. The choice to change orientations at will is not possible. While there are many atheist, those that are heterosexual can serve in the military without problem, keep connection with their families without worry of being fired, marry whomever they wish of the opposite sex, not worry about being fired from their jobs, be seen as equal and normal, as moral and right. But gays, even religious gays have none of that. They are not even considered citizens of the country they pay taxes in. You mentioned atheist have problems with child custody?... In 30 states gays dont even have rights to their own children. They, LGBT, are seen as depraved, lustful, diseased, sinful, sick, and immoral beast, even in today's society.

So what causes all this? Well you, like me, know all too well what causes this. Religion and faith in fantasy. However, my friend... walk gently on the path of knowledge lest the turmoils of those who committed and still commit evil corrupt you as it has corrupted me. Sometimes being sensitive to those around you can cause the most noblest of paladins to become the most sinister of black knights.

The knowledge I learned and the experiences I have had from social injustice have warped my mind into absolute hatred towards those who are weak minded enough to follow like sheep to the voices of their "spiritual advisers." People like Obama who believe their faith and idea of what they consider reality, takes precedent over the lives and freedoms of others.

With that in mind I want you to think on something. Instead of separating everyone into little groups why not look at the discrimination against all humans as one large collective. If you compare struggles of different groups, sure you will find differences, but you will find more similarities, as well as what is the main cause of the oppression.

Agreed. That's why I wrote, "I fully and unconditionally support equality for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people - AND for atheists, agnostics, and people of all faiths and none."

I don't think it has to be a contest or competition. Compassion is a renewable resource - we don't have to hoard it and only reward to "our" cause.

That's the whole point - it isn't about "gay rights", or "black rights", or "atheist" rights" or "disabled rights" - it's about equal, human rights, period.

Mr. galiel...

Im curious about your statements concerning the lack of spiritual resources available to athiests in the military...My understanding of athieism is that they dont believe in the spiritual.

Other than that, I agree with you that we have a long ways to go before we can honestly say that america doesnt discriminate.

Thomas: I think I can fill in the gaps on this one. I've a friend who is an atheist, who has stated that there are days and times when he needs, as it were, a spiritual uplift. Not to speak of such things as the separation between spirituality and religion, but more the difference between the state of health of the mind, versus the state of health of the brain.

Depression, anxiety, a feeling of inexplicable loss or inescapable insecurity is something that, regardless of your religion or lack of religion; or regardless of your theistic or atheist belief system, is a problem.

Some people handle these matters with such things as Adderall, Paxil, Thorazine; others hit their knees at the local church or temple; still others go bar-brawling [not recommended, mind you now, but I'm certain you've an understanding..] - to cope with these maladjustments to depression. Then, there are others who turn to their pastors, preists, rabbis and other religious leaders.

Still others seal themselves into their own minds, locking all intruders to rational thinking out [yes, that was a lash-out...just had to...]

I'm a Christian, but, from what I can understand, atheists have the same depth and breadth of soul as their religious contemporary counterparts - and many of them don't care to take to the bottle [pill or Jim Beam] as a release to their stresses - and resources for those whose souls are troubled are, indeed, not just limited in the Service, but nearly as limited out here, too.

Just thought I'd throw in my $0.02 here. The primary topic in this forum is the misguided DOMA and DADT - although it seems we're straying from topic here and there.

We can't win a battle if we can't maintain a focus on the singular target - sexual and gender orientation-based discriminatory practices that were misguidedly being placed into law, that should be repealed.

Sorry.  I thought the "Civil Rights Test of Our Generation" was the creation of health care justice, and the end of discrimination against sick people (GLBT included) in America. 

Thank you miss mesko although Im not at all familiar with bar brawling which is a good thing since Im a lousy fighter...

I find it intriguing then that those who are against any belief in the spiritual still needs spiritual help from time to time...Very intriguing.

Ok...So how can we start providing theses services to atheists without violating their secular beliefs ?

It was not my intent to hijack a discussion about LGBT rights, just to remind us all that

a) it is not the last, remaining form of discrimination in the US, and

b) "Gay rights" is a misnomer - it's "Civil rights", for everyone. Everyone deserves equality under the law, and the LGBT community is not asking for a special kind of "Gay rights", just equal rights - which they deserve just as atheists, and every other group that is discriminated against deserves.

Just to answer Thomas briefly - the military Chaplaincy is available as a resource to all soldiers who need psychological support and comfort in the most unnatural and inhuman of environments, modern warfare. But, there are no atheist chaplains. Atheists are forced to either unburden themselves to people whose entire calling is based on the notion that religious faith is necessary to comfort the afflicted - or, they are forced to just "suck it up" and cope on their own.

This, despite the fact that atheists reportedly serve at higher percentages than their proportion of the population.

Inequality of services to military personnel is both unconstitutional and simply unjust.

That is what I referred to. Incidentally, not all atheists are monists, as i am (monists do not believe in dualism, that is that there exists a human soul separate from the physical body). There is nothing about believing in the spiritual realm that requires either belief in a god, or following a religion.

In point of fact, a quarter of Americans do not believe in a god or gods, according the latest American Religious Identification Survey, or ARIS 2008. Among young Americans of military service age, the number is significantly higher.

Statistically, it is likely that at least a quarter of American soldiers do not believe in a god or gods.

Yet the chaplaincy is entirely 100% comprised of those with a strong religious calling.

When a quarter of military chaplains are atheists or agnostics - or, at least, not religious - then we'll have equal rights.

Mr. galiel...

I apreciate your clarification...Now, as for an athiest chaplain, I would check with the universal life church rolls to see if there are any listed for your area.

That church ordained me and many others, not all of which have christian beliefs.

Thomas,

I was referring to the military chaplaincy - a program of the Pentagon, created by Congress, paid for by taxpayer dollars, as a service to men and women in uniform. I was not referring to civilian chaplains.

The Military Chaplains are the oldest branch of the US Military that serves in uniform, since the Revolutionary War. James Madison, primary author of the US Constitution, adamantly opposed the creation of the Military Chaplaincy as a violation of the separation of church and state.

Under US Law, military chaplains must be endorsed by their religion in order to serve. There can be no unaffiliated chaplains.

This is clearly unconstitutional, and yet another example of how this nation discriminates against atheists (again, not to diminish discrimination against the LGBT community, just to clarify the point above).

Sorry mr. galiel...

I cant help you with that since Im just a sillyvillion...

Black and old are not choices, and fat is not a choice for many, but a condition.

Mr. Thompson: I'm the straight,Christian, biological mother that's been posting through here. Gay's not a choice, any more than straight it.

Put it this way: can you, personally, view another man with desire in your heart? You can't "choose" straight - you just are.

Gays have that problem, too.

Gays and the DSM have long been at odds, and it’s only been since 1974 that homosexuality was removed from the manual, but it is noted that it is not a matter of choice, any more than skin color, age, or other factors that our so-called "civilized society" has persecuted people for.

There are times when it shames me that, as a Christian, I am oftentimes lumped in with those who would promote and perpetuate hatred.

Ms. Mesko, In this entire blog I find no hatred directed at any other than "bible thumpers", the brainwashed minions of psychological abuse by the church and anyone who disagrees is labeled a homophope. Where homohater came from I can't imagine. I find only one "have a sh---y day" and that was not posted by a homophobe nor a concerned citizen. Disagreement and unwelcome  opinions are marginalized and attacked, so don't worry so much about who mistakenly lumps you with the wrong people.

Miss mesko...

Who, in this discussion, has lumped you in with homohaters ?

I for one am gratefull that your living proof that you can be a christian without discriminating against those of a different sexual orientation than ours.

None have, here - but I type clearer than I can speak. In the walking world, I would hear slams of "Religious Right Wingnuts", "HypoChristianity", and "You know, those Christians...." - to which I had begun getting awkward; hence, I carry the Bible - with earmarks in it that let people know, "...listen - not only do I agree with your perception - so does the Bible...check it out..."

Somewhere, scrollable in this mess, I know I tacked a "Who Would Jesus Discriminate" site [or something like that], which I retrieved much of my material from.

There have also been Christians who were so steadfast in their homofury that it was demanded of me, "How *Dare* you claim yourself to be a Christian!"

I know what the pastor had said, long time ago, based on what he was told. I also know what I found, reading, searching for something that, in my heart, I couldn't help but wonder about in the casting of stones...but that's another tale to tell.

There's a lot to learn from a simple carpenter, that people in the walking world can't help but complicate.

Even in the Bible, not every tale is cut-and-dried; many things applied differently to its own frame,but still translate and transcend to the current state of things.

Whether a slave or a landowner, a harlot, or a trader, Jesus held his company exclusive to none.

I sincerely doubt the ability of many modern-day Christians the ability to likewise open their homes to such a wide variance from their self-percieved stations in life.

I watch the unvarying and unwavering stance of the religious right and cannot help but remember the things said of the Taliban, and the things said of their Jihad. Yes, I said it.

Even Jesus separated Church and State [and no, I'm not speaking of the upturned tables at the sacrificial tables outside the temple] - "...render unto Cesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s..." [I can't remember the full chapter and verse...] - ethics to government, morals to God; laws to the State, loyalty to God; obedience to man's laws, fealty to God's laws.

That's how I read it, at any rate.

In an earlier post I mentioned that I am a Christian and did graduate work in Biblical Studies. My undergraduate work was in Genetic Engineering.

I think that DADT was a mistake from the beginning. It would be equivalent to someone who has committed any vice - drinking, marital infidelity, porn, etc. They are all listed in Romans chapter 1. In order to be fair, all of these would need to be included and many people would have been ejected from the military.

So, who is better? Gay or straight? Scripture says that neither is (Romans 3:10). 

Do you remember the Passover? When Moses was confronting Pharoah, God said that the first born son of all Egypt would die and the Jews would have to mark their doorways with the blood of a lamb to be spared. The judgement of God would pass over them - even though they were not without wrong doing.

The Apostle Paul taught that Christ, who is often called the Lamb, shed his blood so that the judgement of God would pass over all who believe (Romans 3:22-25).  This is called Grace. It brings about peace and heals broken relationships.

Having said all that so that you know I am not against or sitting in judgement of anyone who is gay - I need to address the science from the standpoint of genetic engineering. 

Much of the public peception is misguided regarding the relationships between genes and behavior. While genetics may play a role in someone's predispositions, it is a long way from determining someone's behavior.  Environmental issues clearly influence behavior. It might not be what you want to hear - but check the research - it is true.

Hey dont forget the passages of Samuel and the story of David and Johnathan. You know the two gay guys god blesses and marries? That one there is a keeper.

Darlene I owe you an apology and I am truly sorry by my attack from your typo. As you can tell my hatred cuts deep and there are many reasons why. I do also hate individuals as well as the institutions that bind their minds and weaken their souls. Such people are nothing more than puppets to puppet masters. A flock of sheep lead by a ignorant and malignant shepherd.

As for being disabled I too as I mentioned fight two wars. One for my right to be free and marry the person I love, and the other fighting for equality among the disabled. We as people with disabilities do have a voice.... however they place their ideas with only the biggest known disabilities. Sometimes blowing ones out of proportions while leaving many, like you, to suffer. I worry however... that people with mental disabilities, will be the next targets for people like James Thompson. Having to take care of a mother with severe bi polar, schizophrenia, and alcoholism has shown me what little people understand about such individuals. There are many fore fronts to which this war on oppression holds. None of us can fight more than one at a time. I made my choice to fight this one first, however if we were to band together, throw away the religion that divides LGBT from other disenfranchized groups of human beings, we could be a force the likes of the oppressers could never imagine.

So we are left at a crossroad. I support your fight, not because I understand you, not because I pity you, not because I have seen, heard, and felt the pain of people like you, but because you are a human beings too, and you deserve better in a country that prides itself on freedom. A country that has become the worst place next to iraq for minorities and women. A country that has become our enemy.

Miss smith...

I have seen plenty of heterosexuals acting slutty and stupid...Usually on a nightly basis since I live near a bar...

What does that have to do with the subject of equality ?

Well put Ms Smith. A simple explanation is often best.

Mr McHugh, with many people it is the perception that needs to be changed. Simply saying, you guys do it too, is not going to help with the perception. I lived in Long Beach and saw things in the Gay Pride Parade one would expect to find on a porno site. Until this type public activity is condemned and controlled by gay activist mainstream America will continue to deny that they deserve equal rights. It has nothing to do with hate but, as Ms. Smith points out, may have a great deal to do with fear. If you respond with more homohate rhetoric you will only prove my point.

Mr. thompson...

My pointing out that heterosexuals sometimes act just as bad if not worse was actually an attempt to point out that the actions of a few members of any group doesnt and shouldnt have any bearing on whether or not that group is deserving of equality with the whole of society.

As for proving any points...Youve done a fine job of proving yourself to be anti-equality with no help needed from either myself or anyone else here.

Well said Mr. Hughes. I am a gay man, and have never been to a gay pride parade, nor do I have anything bad to say about them. It is a hasty generalization, depicting the ignorance of people like Mr. Thomas and Mrs. Smith, that all gay men parade around as if they are in a "circus", or do "porno-like" things in public. One full of homophobic stereotypes.

You make an intresting argument miss mathews but how is that any different from some of the antics engaged in by heterosexuals during mardi gras/spring break ? 

If were gonna judge by the actions/activities of the few versus the many then in my opinion, the one group of people thats least deserving of equality would be the caucasion heterosexuals and of that group, even less deserving than them would be the fundemental christians who would so willingly deny equality to others simply because their "holy" book told them to.

Mr. ditmore...

I think you would be intrested to know that there are actually a few atheist ministers who have been ordained by the universal life church and possibly by the unitarian universalist church as well so perhaps this imbalance will soon be corrected.

Yes we call those people scientist. LOL

Lol...

Well the interesting thing is those views you call dissenting can be seen in two ways. Let it be clear that when you write misinformation about the lives of innocent, productive, tax paying, loving, and nurturing people in society, what you might think is dissenting is actually bigotry simplified, rationalized, and put on with a grin, a giggle, and a wink. However you are free to post and people like Thomas McHugh and myself are here to correct the misinformation with factual, scientific, testable, and repeatable evidence.

Indeed...And I assure you mr. thomas...

Me and mr. marshall enjoy making you homohaters look stupid...

Not that its hard mind you. :)

It is amazing despite all the knowledge, resources, and factual evidence out there about what sexual orientation "is" and what it "isn't;" especially when it comes to homosexuality and bisexuality, such individuals like yourself David, who shutter at the very thought of anal penetration seem to have metastasized from the most interesting of E. Coli laced regions of the human body.

Your arguments are so out of touch with reality that they are not even worth the time to pick apart. However I will say one thing. In your argument you fail to mention lesbians... perhaps because you enjoy fawning over the very aspect of lesbian porn... but that is besides the point.

If sexual immorality has to do with anal penetration between men and lesbians do not normally anally penetrate each other (because they do not have penis, despite what some men think). By your logic David... lesbian sex would be very moral and therefore something recommended by you because of how you word your beliefs on such matters. Since lesbians are homosexual people that means homosexuality is neither moral or immoral because you cant have half and half.

Another thing to think on, although I know such a task must be quite tedious for a person such as yourself... How is it that despite what you think, there are people in religious communities who condone monogamous homosexual relationships? You can't tell me, any other scientist, or religious scholar that your pastor/priest/Rabi, or imam's idea of religion and how to view the lives of others takes precedent over everyone eles's idea of religion, especially in a country that follows and enforces the idea of "freedom of and from" religion.

Mr. bruisdude...

ROTFLMFAO...

Just when I thought homohaters couldnt get more ignorant...You come along and prove me wrong.

Thank you for the laugh at your illogic...

Now sir, theres a couple of gentlemen in white uniforms waiting to give you a ride to a special place...A happy place...Where the sun shines all day and you can bask in the shade of your own insanity.

Bye bye.

To add to what you say Thomas for David

"The nice policemen will be by soon to take you back to your room. Now you be a good little boy and wait till he gets here." - Spiderman

Spiderman rocks...

When looking at the legal ties to the word, "Marriage", and the rights that we legally married heterosexuals have - from tax laws to insurance coverage to hospital visitation and a dozen others - that are denied to those who have chosen a same-gendered life partner: that, in any framework, is discrimination.

Mr Bruisedude: Google "Marriage Laws", or half a dozen other topics - get rid of the whole "ick factor" of an identification you cannot comprehend and look up LGBT issues such as difficulty in getting family insurance, or, in Florida, laws preventing adoption, or, in some states, the inability for the same-gendered life partner to have their family - their partner - see them through their final hours in the hospital.

Being quiet and repentant left millions of lost, frightened people - even kids aged as young as 10- to commit suicide. Mr. Bruisedude: are you proud of your unforgiving stance, even against children?

Being left to rot in a closet has allowed prejudiced teens to tie up and beat to a bloody, dead pulp other teens just for existing with something that is not "lifestyle" - but rather, something they honestly feel they have no control over. Is your disreguard for living, breathing human beings so ingrained within you that you can callously disregard the extremely evident prejudice you have displayed here?

You have heard the gay jokes. You have read and seen the news of kids and adults who are simultaneously frightened for their lives, and you apparently cannot get past your personal prejudice against these living, breathing human beings all around you.

Do you feel proud of your stance, enough to go to look up the factors noted, and stand by what you state there?

It is not just about civil rights. It is about human rights.

Those who are LGBT are not seeking anything that their hetero/straight counterparts have had as a granted, given right - a civil right, for and from a civil people.

I write this as a Christian, straight mother of straight kids, who grew up years ago to know what compassion means, and to know prejudice in any frame or form is despicable, deplorable, and a shameful thing, Mr. Bruisedude.

There is nothing else I can add to what I have written.

Well said miss mesko...

Unfortunatly mr. bruisedude is too braindead to comprehend the truth of your logical arguments.

Mr. bruisedude...

What amazes me is that you homohaters keep trotting out the same old tired worn out lies and misrepresentations no matter how often those of us who have chosen to live our lives by logic and love have disproven them...

You are indeed pathetic but your in good company with an ever shrinking number of other equaly pathetic homohaters who will one day have completely died off due to lack of cognisant reasoning skills...So rejoice...Soon you will be reunited with your evil god of hate and intollerance while those of us who have chosen long ago to no longer serve such a god continue to live long and prosper.

David to harbor compassion you also have to harbor acceptance. Fun piece of reason for you to think on. If a mother... no wait father, women are all but slaves according to old testament and new testament passages and unimportant,  beats his child in accordance to Leviticus law does that mean that father harbors compassion for their child? NO! That ingrate of a father is a lunatic. He is abusing his child and using a religion, or aspects of that religion, as a reference source to condone his mistreatment of that innocent life. Is that acceptance? No!

David what is really interesting and also a sad repeat of history, is that people used the exact same rhetoric and wording you used to deny rights to Native Americans, Women, African Americans, and today, Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, and Transgendered people. The same wording, from "it's a Choice," "these people are immoral," "I do not judge them but they are (enter word, immoral, sick, sinful,etc)," "They have all their rights but they want special rights," and my personal favorite which was said by president Andrew Jackson against my ancestors and now repeated and modified by your religious leader, parroted by you... "What this whole movement is about is acceptance of (enter negative monotone of a disenfranchised minority E.G Negro, Indian, Women, and now Homosexual) as mainstream and normal, and I just don't see that happening in a morally responsible country."

By psychological terms; yeah I know science, the stuff that makes your brain hurt; in order to be compassionate towards a certain thing you have to understand it. While you "think;" although I don't know if such a complex interaction of neurons is even possible with someone at your brain level; that you know what homosexuality is, you clearly do not understand the complexity of sexual orientation, nor do you even understand a single aspect of social injustice.

Beautifully said miss mesko...Beautifully said.

Chris: this is a sidetrack, I'm sure, but it is illustrative of mistranslations of the Bible.

You mention people beating kids, using the Bible as justification. I think the reference you mean is this:

"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." - Proverbs 13:24

Note the era, from which it is written: sheep herding was a respectable job at this point in time.

With this in mind, have you ever struck an animal? Imagine a pack of animals. Not so wise...they gather up, herd out, trample a full field, and scatter to all corners.

Shepherds had a rod, a length of wood fashioned in something of a tall cane, with a curve at the top. When shepherding, the rod was what was used on the backsides and flanks - not to strike, but to guide the errant sheep back in with the flock, to keep any stray sheep from wandering; disciplining them to go with the flow of traffic, as it were.

They would be herded out of their pens, guided to a field to eat, guided then to a running pen. Their wool would be cut, both to cool them off and to fashion the wool into carded clusters to sell to the locals. When their wool was mostly shorn, they would be guided - again by one or two people, each with a rod, to their holding pen.

If you struck out against even one of them in a harsh blow, the sheep would panic [in droves] overrun the shepherds, run amok in the fields, get stolen or injured, or run a risk of loss due to predators. The younger ones generally needed more pressure; the older ones generally knew the routine, and the adolescent sheep generally had to be reminded by standing outright before them, rod held at angle, and walked back to the group.

So, too, when a parent guides a child to survive in the adult world, there is pressure - not force - applied in guiding the child to go with the flow. The younger children sometimes need extra pressure to follow their peers. The adolescents sometimes pushed their boundaries, eager to explore outside the group. It is up to the parents to guide the kids on the safest path to adulthood.

I know this doesn't speak well, but in its time, it was a parable on parenthood and raising children to become responsible in their own right; able to take care of the family and lands once the parents are no longer able to.

That message, above all else, was what was supposed to be conveyed, and, yes, individuality was not encouraged, sad to say...

Maxine, thank you for pointing out that "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is a message of attentive parenting and guidance, not of physical assault of children.

I wish more people realized the same.

There are several dozen matters which bear a deeper understanding, within the Bible. The thing of it is, much of it has to be understood not only in full text and context, but also with an eye for the amount of given knowledge of its time frame.

I had nearly tuned out on and discarded Christianity, following my gut reactions to "Christians", until I paused and honestly read the text, and followed up with just a bit of historical research to back it with.

I can't claim to understand all of it, but I can state there is much to be learned, but only after "unlearning" the worldly ways and then re-learning it in spirit, as it were.

It must be very difficult for your brain to process reality. Usually when that happens we call that schizophrenia. Where you are no longer able to to distinguish reality from fiction. Luckily there is treatment for that disorder. There is none for sexual orientations that do not confine to your narrow cognizance of reality.

Science; I know its such a bad and dirty word to you; has shown that children raised in same sex parents house holds developed equally and sometimes better than by opposite sex parents. As for your argument having children naturally... should we then strip all heterosexual parents who cant reproduce, and either adopted, or had artificial insemination to bear children, of their children? By all means David you are entitled to your wild assertions and false accusations about who can raise children. However, if you do not want children to be raised by anyone that does not conform to your standards, then why are you not adopting the tens of thousands of children raised by such families you deem unworthy?

If you do not believe loving gay parents should be able to raise their children or infertile couples, then either put up and start adopting or shut up and get your nose out of the business of others who do nothing to you outside of making the world a better place for all to live, not people who conform to the standards that you follow.

Mr. bruisedude...

If you would bother to get your head out of your ass long enough and just do a little non-religious research into adoption statistics you would learn...That is, if your capable of learning...That there are plenty of children in all 50 states waiting to be adopted by good loving parents in which case there would be no competition...

I find it of intrest that while heterosexuals and by default, heterosexual couples outnumber homosexuals and same sex couples by roughly 9 to 1...That we still have an abundance of those children that you claim to be so concerned over...

Also...If you would bother to research what accredited scientific/medical organisations have to say on the subject...You would learn that whether kids are adopted by heterosexuals or homosexuals...They would still have a better chance at life than if they were left in orphanages to simply age out. 

"If you cant have children naturaly then you shouldnt be allowed to adopt" ?

Really ?

Intresting...

I believe that would cover quite a few heterosexual couples mr. bruisedude...

Would you like a chance to rethink your idiotic statement ?

Curious: by inverse logic, does that assert that straights could never concieve gay, lesbian, bi, or intersexed children?

Note: I am a biological mother of two,and a Christian, straight, married woman.

You note married couples who cannot concieve children, who are picked over by homosexual couples.

You do not cite instances whatsoever. I cited actual publications, from both reputable websites and scientific studies, as well as from biblical discussion.

Insofar as "Nature" - are you aware that approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences for male partners,10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild exhibit homosexual behavior,mallards have shown , as high as 19% preference of homosexual mating patterns, and several other occurances of differentiated mating patterns have been demonstrated, both domestically and in the wild?

Zoos in Japan and Germany have also documented homosexual male penguin couples.Researchers at Rikkyo University in Tokyo found 20 homosexual pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos in Japan. Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany attempted to encourage reproduction of the endangered species by importing female penguins from Sweden and separating the male couples, but this was unsuccessful. The zoo director stated the relationships were too strong between the homosexual couples.

A children's book cites a real - life couple: a male pair of chinstrap penguins in the Central Park Zoo in New York City were partnered and even successfully hatched a female chick from an egg. A children's book, titled And Tango Makes Three, was written about the real-life Roy and Silo and their chick, Tango.

Another specific tale is of Dashik and Yehuda, at the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo, who , together, coupled and built a nest. The keepers provided the couple with an artificial egg, which the two parents took turns incubating; and 45 days later, the zoo replaced the egg with a baby vulture. The two male vultures raised the chick together.

All babies turned out fine in the animal kingdom. Now, to the human kingdom:

As noted by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,the "Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared to heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children..."

The American Academy of Family Physicians, on gay and lesbian parenting, adopted the following position statement at its October 2002 meeting:

“RESOLVED, That the AAFP establish policy and be supportive of legislation which promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation. ”

Furthermore, here is an excerpt from a statement issued by the  American Academy of Pediatrics:

"... The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual. When two adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition. ..."

I am a Christian, straight, biological mother, and I approve these statements. I have no desire to hide behind an anonymous moniker, nor an imageless avatar.

Homohaters = Idiots.

OK now i know you are just an idiot 12 year old troll. Go back to elementary Jr. and learn you ABCs of RE...Al...I...TY.

Err...except for football Sundays...that belongs to my husband...then, the big TV belongs to him. Otherwise...nope...I'm not big on it. Sorry...

Thanks miss mesko and please also note that though all christians use similar worded bibles...

Only true christians like yourself ignore that verses used by the bible thumpers to do their evil.

My thanks to ALL true christians.

It is sad. Historicaly, societal evolution comes with quite a bit of combat - some discussions more heated than others, some discourses more laced with verbal violence than others.

I wish there were ways to reach across the aisle on hot button issues, but it seems that, once a mind and mindset is fixed, there are emotional ties to the topic; in a conference room, these discussions would likely be accompanied with loud disruptions. As it stands, there is hope in the written word; the internet never forgets. The public reads the commentary. The search engines and various "time machine" vault-type search engines hold the images, text, written words.

People draw what they will, and, eventually, it comes down [in theory] to "we, the people" - the voters, the letter-writers, the thinkers at the table - and the rabble-rousers, the yellow journalists, the carpet-baggers.

Rather than a printing press in a shed, fliers and brochures scattered in small crowds, there is open publication of thoughts, ideas, and, yes, emotions - all culminating, eventually, into breaking through the stone from the soil, reaching towards growth.

It's always been a crude process, this societal evolution. We do what we can.

Why should people be civil to their oppressors? We are not slaves to them, no matter how much they believe they might own us, control us or inhibit us from our equal rights and our humanity.

When you reach out to people with an open hand and they return the favor with a clenched fist, should you turn the other cheek? NO! As soon as you do they then break your jaw, crush your ribs and rupture your spleen as they did to that poor man in Queens New York. They bust into your local hangouts with billy clubs and badges beating, and arresting you and your friends for no legal reason what so ever. They allow your murderers to walk free of all charges or get simple slaps on the wrist. The oppressors allow you to be continually harassed even in the confines of your own home as well as your place of employment and place of education.They propagate false science to counter mainstream "real" science telling young kids that there is a cure for who they are, and that if they do not accept the cure they are sinful, sick, and evil. The oppressors go to foreign countries preaching about how evil being the person you are is, until that third world country makes laws that enforce prison and even execution for being the person you are.

Yes let us be civil to those who cause us nothing but pain, strife and oppression and slaughter. Where is the Change you ask? It is the words of people like Thomas McHugh, Maxine Mesko, Dave Hershey, Edwin Bonilla, Michel Jones, L.S. Hope, Lee Dorsey, myself and many others who correct the misinformation, who fight the lies, who show the reality of the situation and the reality of who we are as people. We bring hope to those that wander this sight looking for a place of comfort, a source of un-bias news that centers around who they are. We bring to them the comfort that being who they are, LGBT, is not wrong, it is not a sickness, it is not a sin, it is not immoral, and they as LGBT can live lives equal and greater to their heterosexual counterparts. If you allow one side to spew only lies and hate, while expecting the other side to remain quiet and respectful how do you think your idea of change will happen. Do you think time is an answer to our problems, because of you do let me end here with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.

"It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation."

Chris,

Why do you assume I was only speaking to one side? Do you think this shouting match changes anything?
Do you think you'll change the mind of any of the bigots who post here?
It seems to me everyone is talking past one another, fixed in their positions. I don't see how that will produce change, which is what this site is supposed to be about.

I'm not suggesting I know the answer, but I am pretty sure this isn't it.

This isn't change, this is just more of the same.

Maxine, I'm a great believer in the power of the Internet. But, it actually makes it easier to see others as not human beings, and to say things that are harder to say face to face. Meeting in person humanizes people, and offers opportunities to bridge gaps.

I was hopeful that forums like this would be a productive alternative to the current Balkanization, where a million separate communities of like-minded people churn internally, never encountering a different point of view.

But, I'm not sure the way this forum is currently set up helps to facilitate constructive dialog. It just seems to attract the most passionate people holding the most polarized, fixed views, with little interest in actually hearing anything that doesn't agree with their bias.

I wish I knew what the answer was. I've been working to develop more constructive online forums for decades now, ones that would allow people with genuinely different opinions to come together online and echange ideas and learn to respect and coexist with one another. I can't pretend to have found a good solution yet.

Maxine, I'm a great believer in the power of the Internet. But, it actually makes it easier to see others as not human beings, and to say things that are harder to say face to face. Meeting in person humanizes people, and offers opportunities to bridge gaps.

I was hopeful that forums like this would be a productive alternative to the current Balkanization, where a million separate communities of like-minded people churn internally, never encountering a different point of view.

But, I'm not sure the way this forum is currently set up helps to facilitate constructive dialog. It just seems to attract the most passionate people holding the most polarized, fixed views, with little interest in actually hearing anything that doesn't agree with their bias.

I wish I knew what the answer was. I've been working to develop more constructive online forums for decades now, ones that would allow people with genuinely different opinions to come together online and echange ideas and learn to respect and coexist with one another. I can't pretend to have found a good solution yet.

Mr. galiel...

True change starts with people talking...And arguing what they both know and believe about something.

Miss mesko has the right of it when she said that everything we post will be archived for others to read...And if in the course of all these discussions, arguments and whatnot...Just one person's life is changed for the better...If just one L.G.B.T. kid or even an adult for that matter reads all that weve written and realises that she/he aint alone or unwanted then by damn...Ive done my part. 

What would you have us do mr. galiel since you seem to think were wasting our time here on these blog articles ?

Mr. galiel...

Mr. marshall also has the right of it when he said that we who believe in equality and in doing whats right must never stop being the first line of defense against those who would do evil in the name of their god...The price for remaining silent and doing nothing is completely unacceptable to me.

David, unfortunately with our enemies, to have constructive dialog you have to agree with their positions and statements which are extremely negative, hateful, and destructive, before they will even listen. I, nor anyone else should have to agree with such radical anti-reality, hate mongering, rhetoric just to get a point across. At the first sign of disobedience to their word, they disregards you as a source of reference and see you only as opponent to their idea of reality or a person in needing to be "saved."

And no David I do not think I or anyone can change the mind of bigots without having to resort to their level of mental abuse they inflict onto themselves and especially young children. What I pointed out is that people I mentioned are more about correcting the false stereotypes, lies, and propaganda that these individuals post so that some LGBT people, especially kids dont feel depressed and condemned on yet another place on the internet or the world. While we cant change the minds of the bigots it is possible to bring their kids out of that world of hate by answering their questions and correcting the lies, because in the end science always wins these wars.

I have tried to reach out to anti-gay religious people for years. Using my story of the abuses I have suffered from their beliefs, my ex-gay story, I have found that, although they consider themselves to be compassionate they lack all compassion when it does not center around their ideas of reality. Instead of tears from people who are anti-gay who read my story or listened to my speeches I got nothing but rebuttals about what I did or did not do that I should have tried in order to save myself from my "homosexual abomination." The compassion they hold is that I can "fix myself" some day and be saved.

Am I bias, yes I am. I am bias towards reality, and towards scientific discoveries. In the words of Dr. Rev Mel white. "God gave us science, its about time we start to listen to it." We hear the anti-gay side everyday. It permeates our culture to such a point that it has become normal to use anti-gay language and stereotypes to insult people with. I nor anyone else should have to put up with that.

David it seems that you might see there is two sides to every coin, when you said to Maxime about "actually hearing anything that doesn't agree with their bias." Now I said "it seems," I could be wrong about my assumption with you,  however in psychology and sociology, or just in science in general, we know that THERE IS NO COIN. That two sided coin arguments are a mental fabrication of human beings ability to rationalize the irrational and impossibly complex.

That is where we scientist receive the most flack. Although we stay neutral on many instances, the problems caused by the radical religious when it comes to the lives of innocent human beings are often addressed by us. However our lack of belief in religion and or that there is something about it that is important, causes people to think and believe we do not care about the view points and beliefs of those who have created the other side. There is truth to this because scientist don't care about belief as much as action. To many of us we see beliefs, which are opinions, as ideas, not factual evidence; therefore it is disregarded when it comes to scientific conjecture.

For the record David, when it comes to homosexual, bisexual or transexual orientation there is no side of a coin. Homosexuality, bisexuality, and transexuality has existed in nature for as far as we have kept records on animal species. There is not one animal that we has studied that did not have members of that species that exhibit these characteristics. It is a really simple concept to understand. Homosexuality, bisexual and transexuality exist without any negative effects on nature or the species, HBT animals are equal to heterosexual animals in all aspects.

Therefore this dehumanization and denigration of LGBT people is, for a lack of a better term, wrong and needs to stop now. By allowing a non scientific side to present lies and try to pass off this false information as science and reality causes immense harm to innocent people, their lives, and their families. The reason why many scientist and science minded individuals will not listen to the other sides arguments is because we understand that there is no other side because the coin that is used in this metaphor, does not exist.

While we cant change the minds of people who are bigoted, we can correct their falsehoods on reality in hopes that their offspring will pick up on the social cues that their parents are out of touch with reality. In order to change ones opinion on things, that person has to be willing to understand and change. With such individuals that I engage with there is no hope to change their minds. I just make sure I leave no fallacy unturned and discredited.

Well said mr. marshall.

Surely, but slowly. It takes active voices, not just online, but in the walking world; not just angry/indignant, but calm, studied, logical - with notable and quotable facts. Scattered through here are links that you can copy, cite, and, "wo/man on the street", report and comment to your local leaders. I've written to Crist, Brown-Waite, Nelson, and Martinez, as well as to our President Barack Obama and VP Biden. Reading is one thing: educating others in a non-threatening way is something entirely different; much of what others re/act to is fear - fear of the unknown. Pulling the venom of fear from any/every given issue is the surest way to raise awareness in all fields, from LGBT issues to issues regarding child abuse, to voting presinct redistribution to insurance/putting public option back on the table, etc.

Another thing to note: simultaneously, per manhours and per capita [although not in regards to pay rate as yet], women currently dominate the work force; this potentally lead$ our leaders to reconsider the female vote.

Just thought I should throw in my $0.02...

Surely, but slowly. It takes active voices, not just online, but in the walking world; not just angry/indignant, but calm, studied, logical - with notable and quotable facts. Scattered through here are links that you can copy, cite, and, "wo/man on the street", report and comment to your local leaders. I've written to Crist, Brown-Waite, Nelson, and Martinez, as well as to our President Barack Obama and VP Biden. Reading is one thing: educating others in a non-threatening way is something entirely different; much of what others re/act to is fear - fear of the unknown. Pulling the venom of fear from any/every given issue is the surest way to raise awareness in all fields, from LGBT issues to issues regarding child abuse, to voting presinct redistribution to insurance/putting public option back on the table, etc.

Another thing to note: simultaneously, per manhours and per capita [although not in regards to pay rate as yet], women currently dominate the work force; this potentally lead$ our leaders to reconsider the female vote.

Just thought I should throw in my $0.02...

I signed, but with quite a number of talking points.

Actually, a matter of equality for those who are handicapped is illustrated by a papaplegiac friend of mine who has worked on - and achieved - wheelchair access to most public and private buildings, job access to those who are otherwise competent to perform job duties, education on a case-by-case basis in the classrooms.

In the 1970's, special-needs kids were lumped into one classroom; the 11 YO kid with cerebral palsy and a 120 IQ was placed next to the 8 YO kid with non-verbal autism and a backbrace, and he was next to the average kid who was blind and had an amputated left foot.

Those were three of twenty-eight kids my mom was a teacher's aide to. Each had the exact same page on their desks, filled with single-digit mathematics to perform [grade-1].

Education has gradually improved for my high-functioning, moderately autistic son, now mainstreamed and with a 3.0 GPA.

Opportunities have gradually improved for my paraplegiac friend who, from her wheelchair, was a nail tech while attending college to become a cytotechnician. She married another paraplegiac, whom she met at the wheelchair races.

The focus in this room, and in this forum, is much the same for GLBT types - recognition without shame, right to property, right to insurance, right to marry and raise successful families, right to education without bullying, right to insure domestic partners, visit domestic partners in hospital and have power of attorney over their partners' domestic affairs in cases of emergency.

The focus in this particular forum is LGBT. I'm a Christian, heterosexually married, biological mother, simple woman. It is true that LGBT is an institutionalized [read: legal in word and action] form of discrimination. I personally don't know of other laws currently written specifically to discriminate against a living, breathing human being.

It's still completely legal to discriminate against citizens under the age of 18 in this country as being somehow undeserving of their Constitutional birthright to "equal protection" from assault also.  

In fact, CAPTA and all 50 states' child laws still allow room for "corporal punishment."  

3 children die EVERY DAY in the U.S. from abuse, most of them babies and toddlers (78 percent are under age 3 and 44 percent are under 1 year of age -- BABIES.  "Blunt force trauma" is a common cause of death among these children).

This human rights movement deserves just as much attention as the human rights movement to end discrimination based on sexual orientation does.

It's still completely legal to discriminate against citizens under the age of 18 in this country as being somehow undeserving of their Constitutional birthright to "equal protection" from assault also.  

In fact, CAPTA and all 50 states' child laws still allow room for "corporal punishment."  

3 children die EVERY DAY in the U.S. from abuse, most of them babies and toddlers (78 percent are under age 3 and 44 percent are under 1 year of age -- BABIES.  "Blunt force trauma" is a common cause of death among these children).

This human rights movement deserves just as much attention as the human rights movement to end discrimination based on sexual orientation does.

This article is about LEGAL-equality, not quality of life equality.  I'm sorry that you seem to feel that we need to become the lowest common denominator as a society to achieve true equality.  Maybe this isn't what you're saying, but that's what it sounds like. 

True equality is not necessarily trying to become a homogeneous group;  I do not want the world to become gay, I just want equal standing as a citizen, with the same rights and opportunities.  Hitler wanted an "equal", homogeneous society too, and we see how well that worked out.

It's about more than respect;  you cannot legally require respect.  You can, however, legally give freedoms and equal rights.

Umm...  my response was to Mr Steele...  not the babies, BTW.