Militaries are insidious delivery systems that primarily benefit the wealthy The operative word is insidious, meaning intended to entrap or beguile, stealthily treacherous or deceitful, and actually operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect. Those who believe that the primary purpose for the Military Industrial Complex is for our national security and to perpetuate “Freedom and Liberation” are living under a great delusion created by decades of sophisticated government propaganda and outright lies. The primary purpose of military spending is to move taxpayer dollars into the hands of major corporations, make politicians look as if they are creating employment in their home districts, and ultimately to create trillions of dollars in debt to enrich world bankers. If one were to closely examine the detailed history behind every major invasion or war conflict, one will find a money trail that usually benefits the powerful and wealthy at the expense of working class lives. We very rarely hear of the lives of the children of the top 1% being lost or damaged in these horrendous conflicts. Many politicians who lead us into and continue wars, such as Clinton, Obama, “W” Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Pearle, and Zelikow have never openly served in the military or any conflicts.
The world banking patriarch, Mayer Amstel Rothschild was quoted as saying, "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." This not only speaks strongly of national economics, but global economics as well. The true value of conflict is to create debt in order to control a nation. Economists estimate that the total cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars will ultimately be in the range of $3 to $5 trillion dollars. If we conservatively say that $3 trillion is debt at 4% interest over a minimum of a ten year term, then the total cost of that debt will be $4.8 trillion compounded, including $1.8 trillion of interest. If the beginning debt goes to $5 trillion then the compounded debt could easily mushroom to $8 trillion with interest.
More than half of our federal budget goes directly and indirectly into military costs. Those hawkish proponents of military spending have no problem with socialistic sponsored military spending. On the other hand these selfish hawks will be the first ones to cry too much socialism if a lot less money is spent on education, extended unemployment insurance, healthcare, art and culture programs, or aid to poor dependent children. Reagan was one of the first right wing politicians who increased military spending dramatically, was a large deficit spender, but accused every poor black women on welfare of driving a Cadillac, and living high off the hog on government welfare.
The Pentagon spends over $1 billion per year on sophisticated advertising, public relations campaigns and targeted propaganda campaigns to enlist new recruits, brain wash the minds of the masses, and to manipulate and embed the mass media press with half truths and deceptions. It pains me to see young women and men being drawn into a fantasized military life that may bring them death, trauma, and devastating injuries. What happened to truth in advertising? The recruiters should also flash on the movie screens flag draped caskets, pictures of injured GI’s in VA hospitals with missing limbs, spinal cord injuries, and emotional PTSD disorders.
Henry Kissinger poignantly and brazenly stated, "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy". We so easily and insensitively send our young masses off to war, many times without regard to the history of devastation that will result. It is so ironic that John McCain, who has been a military man and incarcerated for years by his captors could today be so indifferent to legislation that would have given injured and returning veterans better benefits. Vietnam was a very unpopular war toward the end, but our returning vets, many who were drafted without choice and those who volunteered, assuming that they were fighting for a noble cause, were treated so
indifferently by this country upon their return. It is very unfair to treat our war veterans who put their lives on the line, believing that they are doing their patriotic duty for our country with disdain, indifference, and a lack of proper care and support due to the interests of the Military Industrial Complex who so strongly influence our national policies. Just as many of the masses in this country who are cunningly mislead by deceptive advertising so are many recruits who volunteer for military service.
Clever linguistic terms such as “Collateral Damage”, “Dedicated Patriot”, “Brave Hero”, “He gave his life for his country”, and other deceptive mind bending terms are used to rationalize and cover up the horrors of war. Our press rarely shows us graphic pictures of innocent civilians who have been killed, burned , and mangled by our heartless military machine. In WWI only 10% of the casualties were civilian. In WWII civilian casualties jumped to 50%. In Vietnam the casualty figure was 70%, and that does not take into account the illegal Nixon/McNamara bombing raids that killed in excess of 2 million innocent civilians. The civilian casualties in the present Middle East wars are 90%. Unless we have lost a loved one in this present immoral and illegal Middle East conflict we sit at home very secure and comfortable in a war that is all about economic gain from oil, opium, gas, and precious minerals. All of the 14 US military bases in Iraq are to secure the oil reserves for BP, Shell, Exxon, and Chevron. Our military is the tax payer paid security guard service for international corporate interests and international bankers.
The Pentagon with a history of waste and corruption, has also been an incestuous revolving door for military contractors, lobbyists, military personnel and civilian consultants who all work together to see how they can enrich their “Crony Capitalist” friends and themselves. One day prior to “9/11”, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was openly seen on national television stating that the Pentagon accountants could not account for $2.3 trillion dollars in expenditures.
On the other hand, even though the Pentagon is a primary delivery system for waste, corruption, death, and destruction, some positive outcomes have accrued to society. For example the VA mortgage program has enabled millions of military employees to purchase home at favorable lending rates. Many doctors, lawyer, scientists, engineers, teachers, and other professionals were able to have their college educations either paid for or financed by the GI bill. Millions of jobs have been created in the private sector economy. Major medical and technological breakthroughs were possible from the outcome of treating battle field injuries and from military research. Many young people who lacked direction, discipline and focus were given the tools of self reliance, self discipline, accountability, and new job skills from their military experience. Many victims of national disasters such as in Haiti and the site of “Katrina” have been aided by support from military personnel. People who use their leadership skills in executive levels of private industry credit the military for helping to hone their management experience.
I ask the question could the above positive outcomes have been accomplished without the use of the military delivery system that for the most part is very wasteful and destructive? Due to cigarette smoking, many jobs were created, and breakthroughs in the treatment of lung disease may have been accelerated. Due to millions of industrial and automobile accidents, new advanced techniques for trauma treatment have been discovered. Are systems that create death and devastating injuries a positive rationalization for the use of these systems?
When are we going to achieve an awareness as a mass populace that alleged enemies such as Muslims and Communists are sometimes actually created, many times exaggerated, and False Flag events such as the “Gulf of Tonkin”, are contrived and carried out by governments for the sole
purpose to galvanize the majority into supporting wars that only primarily benefit the wealthy and powerful.?
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Discrimination is Affirmative Action in favor of White Males
When readers see the title of today’s article they will probably respond, “Right On”, or “Rifkin has really gone off the deep end today”. The central purpose of today’s iteration is to showcase how our country has been built on minority diversity, and why diversity has been beneficial to our country. I also will contrast why some groups have fared much better than others. Unless we are White heterosexual male Protestant Christians from Anglo Saxon backgrounds, we are all members of minority groups. “Minority” is a loose subjective term that is relative to a segment of history, geography, a cultural reference, or a convenient method for the majority to define and oppress the minority.
Unless we have walked in the shoes of the oppressed, how can we have a deep and broad emotional empathy for and an intellectual comprehension of what that oppressed person or group has endured? It is very easy for those of us who have not been discriminated against based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity to scapegoat, label, demonize, or not look at our own individual shortcomings and cavalierly say, “Why don’t they just get on with their lives and forget the past”. The pain and suffering of an oppressed group may become a sub-conscious and conscious imprint on the emotional and cultural DNA of an individual. Women are the consummate example of a historical sub-class. When women were literally treated as personal property of a man, could not vote, had no property rights, reproductive rights, limited entry to formal education and professions, many women through societal conditioning actually believed that their gender was inferior.
Some out of touch people assert, “Well Jews, Asians, other ethnic minorities who came to this country were able to progress and become affluent, why can’t Afro-Americans do the same”? The answer is that Jews and Asians were not brought here as slaves, had their family units split up, or literally deprived of educational and employment opportunities. As slaves, for 245 years, looking at a book or attempting to educate oneself was punishable by death or severe beatings. In addition, Jews and Asians built close, or what some people derogatorily refer to as “Clannish” family or community units that supported and reinforced hard work, education, and mercantilism.
I believe there is no plausible, or absolute argument for the total inclusion or abolition of affirmative action in a society that has been based on some degree of oppression, or that needs to survive and prosper, based on a relative degree of excellence. It is very easy for governments to pass laws that attempt to right the wrongs of previous societal norms, but until people can culturally and emotionally embrace tolerance and acceptance, we will not have harmony in society.
My position is that the problem of discrimination is not something that needs to be corrected by the oppressed, but rather the oppressor. A case in point is the military position on DADT that was repealed by congress and signed by the president. Why should a qualified group of fully functional and skilled gay group of personnel be removed as a positive asset to the military mission? It is totally incumbent on the military as an employer to either attempt to educate those troops who are ignorant and embrace mythical attitudes about gay troops, or to eliminate those troops who refuse to embrace a degree of reasonable tolerance and acceptance. President Truman integrated the military over 60 years ago, met with resistance, but today most military personnel have no real issues with the racial integration of the military, and respect their black counterparts. Colin Powell is a shining example of a man of color who was universally accepted for his ability and has risen to the highest level of authority
and respect in the military. “Powell” credits part of his opportunity to have succeeded to affirmative action.
Our country has had an ongoing problem with some working class and even some upper class white males who have felt emotionally and economically threatened by various minorities. Members of the Klu Klux Klan and “Skin Heads” are primarily represented by working class white males who are traditionally programmed in their thinking, of limited education, feel economically threatened have been mono cultural, and who possess low self esteem and poor self confidence. These fearful ignorant men, many times have resorted to violence and brutality in a fearful attempt to assert their inferior feelings of masculinity and threatened economic status.
My definition of Affirmative Action is giving favored status to an oppressed group in order that they have some degree of benefit to reach parity in society. The question is to what degree do we want to use Affirmative Action programs as a method of balancing the past wrongs of society? If a white male and a black women are competing for the same job, have equal abilities and performance, and the percentage of minorities is under represented, then I would say that society would benefit from the priority being given to the minority candidate. On the other hand, for example I have heard personal stories of people in law enforcement and fire fighting who told me that they were passed up for hiring or promotions do to a bias from Affirmative Action. The next question is where is tipping point for the benefits to society by being inclusive and lifting people up, or hurting society by eliminating those in the majority who may have been more qualified.
I have a problem with those of minority status who use their uniqueness as a method of covering up for their lack of job performance or professional ability. I have a relative, who I know to be very tolerant and liberal minded, but he had a difficult time dismissing a women with disabilities, employed by the government who was clearly not performing her job. This women threatened discrimination lawsuits and was continually shuffled from one government department to another so that the potential of litigation could be avoided. Society does not benefit when mediocrity and inferior job performance is tolerated.
We are moving rapidly into a Global Economy and a New World Order. In order to stay technologically and educationally competitive, it is important that our country give all of its people’s equal access to all opportunities. Those countries that hold back members of their societies because of minority status will have foreclosed out those members who would possibly make a great contribution to the advancement of their societies and institutions. The rural US South is an example of a region of this country that did not progress relative to the rest of the country because of its draconian religious, racial, cultural, and educational attitudes.
For example orthodox Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religious groups that place women and homosexuals on an inferior plane with heterosexual men will fall behind in their ability to compete in a Global Economy. Extreme religious groups also impede scientific research, funding, and collaboration. Women have been the largest group of minorities, whose talents have been denied to society. For many years women were denied entry into the building trades, law, medicine, engineering, science, business management, and other fields where insecure men felt threatened.
In conclusion it is paramount for a society that wishes to remain competitive, to give every member of that society entrée to all educational and vocational opportunities. It is important for us to support those individuals without condemnation, who have intolerant attitudes, in order that they be educated
and released from the shrouds of fear and ignorance that causes them to bring a cancerous attitude to a functioning society.
Unless we have walked in the shoes of the oppressed, how can we have a deep and broad emotional empathy for and an intellectual comprehension of what that oppressed person or group has endured? It is very easy for those of us who have not been discriminated against based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity to scapegoat, label, demonize, or not look at our own individual shortcomings and cavalierly say, “Why don’t they just get on with their lives and forget the past”. The pain and suffering of an oppressed group may become a sub-conscious and conscious imprint on the emotional and cultural DNA of an individual. Women are the consummate example of a historical sub-class. When women were literally treated as personal property of a man, could not vote, had no property rights, reproductive rights, limited entry to formal education and professions, many women through societal conditioning actually believed that their gender was inferior.
Some out of touch people assert, “Well Jews, Asians, other ethnic minorities who came to this country were able to progress and become affluent, why can’t Afro-Americans do the same”? The answer is that Jews and Asians were not brought here as slaves, had their family units split up, or literally deprived of educational and employment opportunities. As slaves, for 245 years, looking at a book or attempting to educate oneself was punishable by death or severe beatings. In addition, Jews and Asians built close, or what some people derogatorily refer to as “Clannish” family or community units that supported and reinforced hard work, education, and mercantilism.
I believe there is no plausible, or absolute argument for the total inclusion or abolition of affirmative action in a society that has been based on some degree of oppression, or that needs to survive and prosper, based on a relative degree of excellence. It is very easy for governments to pass laws that attempt to right the wrongs of previous societal norms, but until people can culturally and emotionally embrace tolerance and acceptance, we will not have harmony in society.
My position is that the problem of discrimination is not something that needs to be corrected by the oppressed, but rather the oppressor. A case in point is the military position on DADT that was repealed by congress and signed by the president. Why should a qualified group of fully functional and skilled gay group of personnel be removed as a positive asset to the military mission? It is totally incumbent on the military as an employer to either attempt to educate those troops who are ignorant and embrace mythical attitudes about gay troops, or to eliminate those troops who refuse to embrace a degree of reasonable tolerance and acceptance. President Truman integrated the military over 60 years ago, met with resistance, but today most military personnel have no real issues with the racial integration of the military, and respect their black counterparts. Colin Powell is a shining example of a man of color who was universally accepted for his ability and has risen to the highest level of authority
and respect in the military. “Powell” credits part of his opportunity to have succeeded to affirmative action.
Our country has had an ongoing problem with some working class and even some upper class white males who have felt emotionally and economically threatened by various minorities. Members of the Klu Klux Klan and “Skin Heads” are primarily represented by working class white males who are traditionally programmed in their thinking, of limited education, feel economically threatened have been mono cultural, and who possess low self esteem and poor self confidence. These fearful ignorant men, many times have resorted to violence and brutality in a fearful attempt to assert their inferior feelings of masculinity and threatened economic status.
My definition of Affirmative Action is giving favored status to an oppressed group in order that they have some degree of benefit to reach parity in society. The question is to what degree do we want to use Affirmative Action programs as a method of balancing the past wrongs of society? If a white male and a black women are competing for the same job, have equal abilities and performance, and the percentage of minorities is under represented, then I would say that society would benefit from the priority being given to the minority candidate. On the other hand, for example I have heard personal stories of people in law enforcement and fire fighting who told me that they were passed up for hiring or promotions do to a bias from Affirmative Action. The next question is where is tipping point for the benefits to society by being inclusive and lifting people up, or hurting society by eliminating those in the majority who may have been more qualified.
I have a problem with those of minority status who use their uniqueness as a method of covering up for their lack of job performance or professional ability. I have a relative, who I know to be very tolerant and liberal minded, but he had a difficult time dismissing a women with disabilities, employed by the government who was clearly not performing her job. This women threatened discrimination lawsuits and was continually shuffled from one government department to another so that the potential of litigation could be avoided. Society does not benefit when mediocrity and inferior job performance is tolerated.
We are moving rapidly into a Global Economy and a New World Order. In order to stay technologically and educationally competitive, it is important that our country give all of its people’s equal access to all opportunities. Those countries that hold back members of their societies because of minority status will have foreclosed out those members who would possibly make a great contribution to the advancement of their societies and institutions. The rural US South is an example of a region of this country that did not progress relative to the rest of the country because of its draconian religious, racial, cultural, and educational attitudes.
For example orthodox Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religious groups that place women and homosexuals on an inferior plane with heterosexual men will fall behind in their ability to compete in a Global Economy. Extreme religious groups also impede scientific research, funding, and collaboration. Women have been the largest group of minorities, whose talents have been denied to society. For many years women were denied entry into the building trades, law, medicine, engineering, science, business management, and other fields where insecure men felt threatened.
In conclusion it is paramount for a society that wishes to remain competitive, to give every member of that society entrée to all educational and vocational opportunities. It is important for us to support those individuals without condemnation, who have intolerant attitudes, in order that they be educated
and released from the shrouds of fear and ignorance that causes them to bring a cancerous attitude to a functioning society.
Myths about homosexuality debunked
Today I am going to abstract an article authored by Schlatter and Steinback of the Southern Poverty Law Center, entitled, “10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked”. The SPLC founded by attorney Morris Dees, 40 years ago in Montgomery, Alabama has been a privately funded legal advocacy service for oppressed minorities. A link to the full treatise of this gay rights issue is: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths.
Gay rights issues seem to be the last bastion of human rights struggles in our country’s history. What is there about same sex marriage that puts some folks into a fearful tailspin? Our resistance to granting rights to minorities stems from economics, family cultural myths, religious bigotry, and outright ignorance. Why does the United States usually become the last major power or developed nation to embrace equal human rights?
History has clearly shown that when we oppress any group based on sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality, or gender identification that not only does the minority group suffer, but our society in general loses out on the benefits of the minorities talents, skills, and contributions.
My general point is not just about focusing on the oppression of gay individuals, but why our fears, misinformation, and prejudices continue to transfer from one minority group to the other. Decades ago it was women, Jews, Blacks, Catholics, and Asians, these days the whipping persons are gays, Hispanics, and Muslims.
1: Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality, and for winning elections and referenda.
FACTS - According to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men. 2: Same-sex parents harm children. Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children
FACTS - No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples. The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009. 3: People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents. Many anti-gay rights proponents claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some
psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation.
FACTS - No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues that “no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.” The fact sheet goes on to say that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.
4: Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals. Anti-gay organizations want to promote heterosexuality as the healthier “choice.” Furthermore, the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of homosexuals are often offered as reasons why gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or foster children. FACTS - This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled, “The Lifespan of Homosexuals.” Using obituaries collected from gay newspapers, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men.
5: Homosexuals controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust. This claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Lively and Abrams. These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars as proof that homosexuals are violent and sick.
FACTS - The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler’s inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. In 1942, the Nazis instituted the death penalty for homosexuals.
6: Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia. Anti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality
FACTS - The claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who “oppose the homosexual lifestyle” is false. The Constitution provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who suggested that homosexuals should be killed would be protected.
7: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly would damage the armed forces. Anti-gay groups are adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces. If gays can serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that would suggest that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way. THE FACTS Homosexuals now serve in the U.S. armed forces, though under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy instituted in 1993, they cannot serve openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians serve openly in the armed forces of 25 countries, including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia.
8: Homosexuals are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol. Anti-gay groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable “choice” — even if religious arguments are set aside.
FACTS - All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use. 9: No one is born a homosexual. Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of “special” civil rights protections to homosexuals similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities
FACTS - Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.”
10: Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality. If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality.
FACTS - “Reparative” or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric, and professional counseling organizations.
Imagine a world where we strive to work on the improvement of our own self esteem and education, instead of transferring our insecure feelings and fearful hatred to minority groups.
Gay rights issues seem to be the last bastion of human rights struggles in our country’s history. What is there about same sex marriage that puts some folks into a fearful tailspin? Our resistance to granting rights to minorities stems from economics, family cultural myths, religious bigotry, and outright ignorance. Why does the United States usually become the last major power or developed nation to embrace equal human rights?
History has clearly shown that when we oppress any group based on sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality, or gender identification that not only does the minority group suffer, but our society in general loses out on the benefits of the minorities talents, skills, and contributions.
My general point is not just about focusing on the oppression of gay individuals, but why our fears, misinformation, and prejudices continue to transfer from one minority group to the other. Decades ago it was women, Jews, Blacks, Catholics, and Asians, these days the whipping persons are gays, Hispanics, and Muslims.
1: Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality, and for winning elections and referenda.
FACTS - According to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men. 2: Same-sex parents harm children. Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children
FACTS - No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples. The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009. 3: People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents. Many anti-gay rights proponents claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some
psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation.
FACTS - No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues that “no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.” The fact sheet goes on to say that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.
4: Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals. Anti-gay organizations want to promote heterosexuality as the healthier “choice.” Furthermore, the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of homosexuals are often offered as reasons why gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or foster children. FACTS - This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled, “The Lifespan of Homosexuals.” Using obituaries collected from gay newspapers, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men.
5: Homosexuals controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust. This claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Lively and Abrams. These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars as proof that homosexuals are violent and sick.
FACTS - The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler’s inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. In 1942, the Nazis instituted the death penalty for homosexuals.
6: Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia. Anti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality
FACTS - The claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who “oppose the homosexual lifestyle” is false. The Constitution provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who suggested that homosexuals should be killed would be protected.
7: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly would damage the armed forces. Anti-gay groups are adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces. If gays can serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that would suggest that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way. THE FACTS Homosexuals now serve in the U.S. armed forces, though under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy instituted in 1993, they cannot serve openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians serve openly in the armed forces of 25 countries, including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia.
8: Homosexuals are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol. Anti-gay groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable “choice” — even if religious arguments are set aside.
FACTS - All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use. 9: No one is born a homosexual. Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of “special” civil rights protections to homosexuals similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities
FACTS - Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.”
10: Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality. If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality.
FACTS - “Reparative” or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric, and professional counseling organizations.
Imagine a world where we strive to work on the improvement of our own self esteem and education, instead of transferring our insecure feelings and fearful hatred to minority groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)