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...

 

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?

This is an article from Huffington Post about Mike Huckabee comparing gay marriage to drug use and calling same-sex adoption experimentation. He says that by approving of same-sex marriage, we are just accommodating every behavioral pattern and would lead to support of incest and drug use. 

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?

This is a link to an article discussing protesters of the health care bill shouting derogatory remarks at U.S. Rep. John Lewis (who is African-American) and openly-gay Rep. Barney Frank. I think this is yet another example that racism/prejudice is still very prevalent and people will stoop to extremely low levels when they disagree with something. It reminds me of the book I read for class (Nigger by Randall Kennedy) and all the cases where people use the word in the heat of disagreement.

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.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://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=487661&gt1=28102

ATLANTA (AP) -- A Georgia man who posted a video of himself on the Internet holding a sign that said "Elton John must die" has been arrested for making terroristic threats.

"What Elton John has done is desecrated the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, blasphemed the Lord Jesus Christ," Horsley said in the video.

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.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

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

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/22/sports/AP-OLY-FIG-Weir-Broadcasters-Comments.html?_r=1

The Quebec Gay and Lesbian Council has demanded a public apology from French-language broadcaster RDS after one commentator said Weir hurts figure skating's image and another said Weir should be made to take a gender test. The remarks were ''outrageous'' and ''homophobic,'' CQGL said in a statement on its Web site.

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?