Recently in Sexual Orientation Category

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36648454/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

There has been recent lawsuits against a christian club on the campus of Hastings in San Francisco.  A homosexual student wanted to join the Christian club, but wasn't allowed membership due to their sexual orientation. 

"A federal judge threw out the Christian group's lawsuit claiming its First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise had been violated, a decision that was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a two-sentence opinion in 2004."

There have been heated debates on if this should be allowed or not between the people in power.  There have been previous rulings on interracial dating beliefs.  There has been past troubles with the Christian Legal Society and them having members join, who didn't, at least what they thought, have the same beliefs as their own. 

Their are many arguments in the article for both sides.  I think that if someone is a Christiam they should be able to join the group, especially if they are a college funded group, people who go to that college should join.  In not having members of the college join, who do believe in the Christian faith, they are creating discrimination on the campus, and it is letting students discriminate against one another based on either race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hospital.gay.visitation/index.html?hpt=T2

"In the absence of gay people being able to legally marry in most jurisdictions, this is a step to rectify a gross inequity," said David Smith, an executive at the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group. "Because without gay marriage, much more inequities exist. It should be applauded."

It is always nice to find something like this in the midst of all the civil unrest that the news presents. This is a definitely major step in equal rights in the U.S., and while we still have a distance to go yet, in the meantime, thank you Mr. President!

 

I came across the following article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36449471/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts about a man named Albert Snyder. His 20 year old son was killed in Iraq four years ago and now he is in a legal battle against the Westboro Baptist Church. Church members picketed his son's funeral with signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "You're Going to Hell". The church, which is mostly comprised of the Phelps family, has targeted several soldier funerals and claim that "military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality." This is completely perposterous to most people, but the question becomes: When do we draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech? It is illegal for someone to yell "Fire!" in a public place, but it is perfectly legal to express such hatred towards others because of their sexuality, race, ethnicity, and the like. I have a serious problem with this. Next week the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether or not the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the first ammendment. What do you guys think? Where do we draw the line in terms of freedom of speech?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/constance-mcmillen-fake-p_n_525856.html

 

above is a link to an article talking about a girl who was not allowed to take her girlfriend to prom. The prom was canceled when they found out she wanted to do this, but she fought for it to stay and the prom happened anyway. Her and only a few people showed up to the prom. Apparently, the rest of the school attended a "secret" prom which she was not invited to.
What do people think about this? School is already a place where people feel insecure about themselves, but this sort of thing is only adding to the feeling of being out-of-place. Should this have been totally ignored, or was this really an issue?

She said that she had a great time at prom, but how is her transition back into school going to be?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_somethings_queer_with_census__gays.html

You may have already heard about this, but this is an article about a movement for the U.S. Census to include responses for single gay individuals. This year's census had an option for homosexual married couples, but that was it. Does it surprise you that the U.S. Census, one of the most organized and expensive survey organizations, doesn't include something so socially salient on their survey? Shouldn't this be something that was identified as missing before the census was even close to being sent out?

In addition to this, the article talks about transgendered individuals being identified on the census. This year transgender individuals were told to check "male" or "female" according to which sex they most identified. They argue that a separate box should be included for this question. This is something that has, from my knowledge, hasn't been included on any other survey's I've come across. Do you agree with adding this box to the "Sex" question on the census? Is this something that would then need to be included on other official surveys or demographic forms?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MRWqlf_8M8

 

This video comes from a supposed organization/church. Along with this video there are many other videos from the same guy preaching hate against gays. A lot of controversy has risen from the videos, because it is questionable if this is a joke or real. It is hard to say for sure, because the videos contain "humor" like referring to things such as back door or get on your knees, but then there is a full website dedicated to his "organization".

Do you think this is real, or not? I encourage people to look at his website that they show at the beginning of the video. If you think it is real, what are the implications? such as religion and how he is trying to "change" gays to straight. If you think it is fake, how is it that this type of thing is funny? what are the implications of this side?

 http://www.northern-iowan.org/ku-klux-klan-1.2188683
The Northern Iowan put this Article on the front page; the Thursday before spring break.  If there is truly an idea or an image that UNI is trying to preserve in saying Diversity Matters or UNI.  It starts with us as students speaking out against bigotry, racist ideology, discrimination, or being stereotyped.   I truly understand the 1st Amendment Right of "Freedom of Press/ Speech", but at what cost is that freedom really freedom. If it shows a bias towards homosexual or minorities, is it not an infringement on the rights of a people. We may not be seen what the administration is doing but the fact that they are standing and saying that these actions will not tolerated here on campus is a start, but this massage needs to be sent to all department heads, and down the line but mostly in the news paper where they feel that it is necessary to put this out to the public.

Now that it was put out on the front page, shows that there is an active KKK organization here in Cedar Falls/Waterloo but across the state of Iowa in ten different cities.  Now the subject and idea is actually out their instead of trying to deny it as they did in the past, it is up to the people to see where they want to go from here.  Here on campus for the first time in history a verity of different organizations our coming together never to fight and stand for a just cause.  We our tired of being underrepresented or feel that at times administration, is more worried about the mighty dollar rather than its students; and now we all have a voice as student who our standing against oppression.     

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/57389/bias-incidents-at-u.c.-campuses-raising-alarm-of-bigotry/

I thought this was a fitting article after reading Billig. Do you think the incidents on some of California's campuses could be attributed to pockets of hate or something else (the article mentions media attention and adolescence as a couple)?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/gaywatch---virginia-edition

This is a clip from the daily show from the 9th.  It is about a new executive order given by the governor of Virginia and the state attorney about what groups will be considered protected by the state.  LGBT individuals have been left out of this order and a message has been sent to the universities telling them they should not consider this group as being protected.   Same sex partners are also no longer allowed to extend their state benefits to their partners.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124491340

"

Martin Gill and his partner are seeking to adopt two brothers, ages 5 and 9. The boys have lived with the two men for five years as foster children. For most of that time, the Miami couple has been in court fighting for something Florida forbids gay couples: the right to adopt children."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-catholics-gay-parents,0,7661246.story

 

This is an article about a preschooler who was not allowed to re-enroll in a Catholic school because of the sexual orientation of his parents. It is hard to believe that something like this happened in such a socially liberal town like Boulder, CO. What do you think of the school's "reasoning" for not allowing this student to come back? There is probably a certain degree of hypocrisy going on here.....if the school were to find out that one of its students or faculty was gay, would they react the same way?

I found this article that talks about how homosexuals that live in states that ban same-sex marriage have an increased risk for developing mental disorders. I don't find this surprising because it's basically telling a person they are wrong for doing something that seems completely natural to them. It also infringes on their personal rights and is essentially telling them that it is unlawful to be with the person they love.

Does this surprise you at all? Do you think that studies like this will aid in passing same-sex marriage laws or will people continue to ignore the evidence? How would you feel if the gov't told you cou couldn't be married for some reason you felt you had no control over?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life/health-fitness/health/Policies-up-risk-of-psychiatric-disorder-in-gays-lesbians/articleshow/5640204.cms

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/top-stories/city-condemns-attack-on-gays-1.2171520

"It began as a night of preseason revelry for a softball team looking to start the season off on the right foot, but UT senior Emmanuel Winston and Matt Morgan, members of the openly GLBT-friendly team, were alledgedly beaten by four unknown men because of their sexual orientation on Saturday morning outside of City Hall."

In Guyana, the former British colony located in South America, it is illegal to wear transgender clothing in public. Guyana's laws also prohibit homosexuality, considering it a crime. Homosexuals and transgender men have been the object of discrimination in that country, because of their status as an "illegal" group.   

After being arrested for cross-dressing, a group of transgender men have asked the Supreme Court to overturn these laws in their country. International human rights groups are supporting this initiative, but they must face the opposition from the powerful religious groups and the lack of interest of the government.

They chose February 20th to file their request before the Supreme Court, because that date corresponded with the second annual World Day of Social Justice, a UN initiative that seeks to contribute with the promotion of equal rights and justice for all.

For the the complete news article, click here: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/02/22/world/international-uk-guyana-transgender.html

For a news article including a international public opinion forum (supporting or against the initiative), click here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2009/03/090313_crossdressing.shtml

Below is a link to a map that shows states that allow gay marriage and states that allow first cousins to marry. I think you'll be surprised at which one has the bigger number.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/22269

Did this map surprise you? What do you think this says about the right for gays to marry? What does it say about the religious argument that gays shouldn't marry? Thou shalt not lay with another man, but cousin Maggie is totally cool.

From This American Life on NPR. The story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) declared that homosexuality was not a disease simply by changing the 81-word definition of sexual deviance in its own reference manual. It was a change that attracted a lot of attention at the time, but the story of what led up to that change is one that we hear today, from reporter Alix Spiegel. Part one of Alix's story details the activities of a closeted group of gay psychiatrists within the APA who met in secret and called themselves the GAYPA...and another, even more secret group of gay psychiatrists among the political echelons of the APA. Alix's own grandfather was among these psychiatrists, and the president-elect of the APA at the time of the change. (24 minutes)

It's about an hour long, but if you get the chance, everyone should listen to this program!

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=204

This short clip is from an episode of South Park where the boys are redefining the word 'fag' to refer to Harley riders. Like a lot of stuff on South Park, it can be offensive if you don't see the humor in it, but this clip does bring up a couple good points related to the class. For one, it addresses changes in the meaning of words. For example, bastard used to be really offensive but now that having children before marriage is more common, people use it more in casual conversation and not a lot of people take offense to it. This is just a clip, but if you watch the whole episode, the homosexual members of South Park get behind the definition change to say that it no longer refers to them. So what happens when a group is no longer offended? Does the word lose its power? Can we as a society take the power out of words or should we continue to suppress those that emotionally charged? Does suppression itself increase the word's power?

Pope Benedict XVI has expressed his opinion against the proposed anti-discrimination laws in the U.K., which seek to prevent discrimination against job applicants based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. These new laws would also apply to religious organizations that employ lay people, which could mean legal actions against the Catholic Church for denying employment to homosexuals or transsexuals.   

One news article quotes Pope Benedict: "The effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal [of equality] has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

His remarks have caused discontent among secular groups, who are already planning protests during the Pope's visit to the U.K. next September. The president of the U.K. National Secular Society said: "The taxpayer is going to be faced with a bill for £20m for the visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination."

The news articles can be found here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/world/main6166603.shtml 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/02/equality-laws-unjust-pope-uk

So yesterday I get home and trading spouses is on.  This particular episode has one lesbian couple and one couple from Oregon.  The wife from Oregon basically freaks out when she finds out that she is going to be staying with a lesbian and talks about how it is a birth defect ect.  Then she finds out that the family has a house keeper that is an immigrant from Mexico, she goes on a tirade about how Mexicans are taking over the country and are doing nothing but committing crimes once they get in.  She is like this the entire week, including in public, it was extremely uncomfortable to even watch.  When a person acts out that much when they are being filmed for tv how are they in every day life?  Have you ever been in a situation where you were so uncomfortable that you wanted to leave?

I will try again later to find a clip from the show, I couldn't find one this morning.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/125747/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-feb-3-2010#s-p1-sr-i0

Feb. 3 Daily Show with John Stewart talked about the proposal from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the military. John Oliver came on and gave a little satirical twist to the issue. Is the issue of Don't Ask Don't Tell really the right way to go from a Psychological perspective or would it be better to repeal it? Would revealing sexual preference ruin unit cohesion, or do you think it would create mistrust between soldiers?
      I posted the whole episode, but it is the on the first segment. The second segment of the show actually is good as well. Sam Bee deals with gender equality.

I found this article on Psychology Today about possible origins of homosexual prejudice. It reminded me of Terror Management Theory and how some people seek a solidified worldview to deal with existential angst. Therefore, they may be more essentialist and rely on rigid categorical processes. Do you think people higher in terror management are more likely to be prejudiced against homosexuals? Do you agree with the article that people who have rigid views of gender roles or see sexuality as a choice will be more prejudiced?

http://kdictionaries.com/kdn/kdn14/kdn1402-etymolog-fag.pdf

http://www.albatrus.org/english/lien_of_oz/homosexuality/homosexuality_is_gay.htm

 

The first link above gives a description and background on the origin of the word "fag" describing it's first definition as a "bundle of firewood". The term did not chance into a description for homosexuals until the 1920's.
The second link describes the term gay and it's path to becoming a descriptive word for homosexuales. Like fag, it started out as a completely different term as it is now, and has not had the longest history for it's current usage.

Language has evolved and taken long strides throughout history, morphing as the times change. Language continues to be a powerful force for defining groups and specific people's. It is interesting to see where language comes from and where it originates.
With these types of things in mind I am still curious as to who decided to use these words originially to describe homosexuals.....and who carried them on with repeated usage. Can a person really make up a word and run with it to turn it into a phenomenon? I children's book from when I was little tried to use this concept by describing a pen as a "frindle" to see if people would start using the word..

Do you think this was from one person who decided to change the word's meaning, or a group of people?

Track the legal proceedings regarding gay marriage in California.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/