Thursday, September 23, 2010

Pedophilia whitewash at Wikipedia

As some of you know, I regularly edit wikipedia articles. Just for fun. Occasionally, I get dragged into articles far outside my own field. In the recent weeks, while being incapacitated with a replaced hip, I ended up in the discussions related to pedophilia. The Wikipedia article about pedophilia is pretty much a wet dream for lawyers. It is so unilaterally focused on the medical operationalization used by the DSM IV of the term, which by definition will leave out many cases that I would consider pedophile's. For example, if a person has many sexual explicit fantasies about how he has sex with a 11 year old, but those fantasies do not cause him either distress of interpersonal difficulty, guess what, he is not a pedophile.

But it gets better. If you have to believe the people of the Clarke Institute, he would not have been a pedophile even when it had caused him distress, because the child is too old. James Cantor, an active wikipedia editor who not always knows the limits of self-promotion as in this edit where he links to an interview with himself related to the topic, regularly comments on the talk page of the article. In and by itself, that is a good thing. Wikipedia needs expert editors. The reason you want expert editors is that they often know the field much better than the lay editors that are the bulk of the workforce at wikipedia. When you have such an expert editor, you see it in the width of the sources they use, the nuances they can express, and the skill with which they put in words the controversies, differences of opinion, and unresolved issues in the field. So, when someone added a so-so source, James proposes to replace it with....... You guessed it, an article of himself. A primary source as well. if that had been the ONLY article available, o well, than I understand, but when there are multiple second and tertiary sources available, this is not acceptable.

This provides us with some idea why this article is so biased towards the medical operationalization of the term as used in the DSM IV, and not towards the more general usage of the term which generally is defined as something like:
"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object" Merrian Webster online

"a person, especially a man, who is sexually interested in children", Cambridge Dictionary online

or how many more examples can be given.

To illustrate how US biased the article is, lets look at the World Health Organizations definition in the ICD10:
"A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age", ICD 10 F65.4

Lets see, if we use this definition, our pedophile friend example in the beginning would be properly diagnosed as a pedophile, even when his interest was in somewhat older children. As it should be.

The pedophilia article at wikipedia makes a classic error. It goes completely overboard by focusing on the medical operationalization of the term at the cost of common sense and general definitions that are far more generally used. A good article would start with the general term, and then work towards the more specialized definitions. Wikipedia does it the other way round. When you start reading the wikipedia article, you might think that most people we normally would label a pedophile are just not that. And that is wrong. Medical operationalizations are necessary for research, but they should not eclipse the more general used term and basically free many pedophiles of the label they despise and would like to get rid of. Thanks to wikipedia, an ever increasing primary source of information, they are no longer pedophiles. Good job!

Disclaimer: I tried to change some things for the better, but one editor specific, and several more in general pretty much block any improvement of the article that is not in line with the medical operationalization of the term.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Moving on.....

I am amazed. Six days ago, I splintered the head of my left hip by falling of a horse. Due to the severity of the fracture, the doc advised to not even try to fix it, and replace the hip joint immediately. After the surgery, he told me that if he had tried to fix it, I probably in two months time would be back for a replacement anyway. Carolyn saw my X-rays when they were made, and she could even see it was just over with the joint.

This makes me wonder, what the heck did people do in my situation before hip-replacement?

In the meanwhile, I am enjoying the modern wonders of the medical technology that will make it possible for me to basically do the same things again as before the fracture. Like horseback riding. Or climbing.

The day-by-day drill is getting better. Which means, doing the exercises of the physical therapist, drinking enough, taking my blood-thinner shot in time, and give it enough rest so it heals quickly enough.

The day after the surgery, I was already taken out of the bed by the physical therapist to walk a few paces and sit in a somewhat reclining chair. I was very dizzy and sitting up made me nauseous. Nausea turned out to be my biggest issue the next day, because it prevented me from actually doing my walking exercises. After cutting the narcotics, and going on only Tylenol, this problem was solved, but it was not enough because my muscles would cramp up a bit. First a muscle relaxant was added, and now I am on Vicodin, a somewhat stronger painkiller than Tylenol (Paracetamol), but substantially weaker than the Hydromorphone they had me previous on.

Wednesday, 4 days after the surgery, I was discharged from the hospital because I had mastered all the things I needed to know before I could go home. Most people who's hip is replaced go home later, but keep in mind that that most hip replacements are in elder people who break a hip after a low energy fall in combination with osteoporosis. I am the minority, in which high energy trauma results in such a replacement. And I am in excellent physical condition as well as reasonably strong. So, being ahead is somewhat expected.

Now I am planning when to go back to work (part-time!), when I can drive a car again, etc. Longer term recovery includes getting back on the horse's back (I might have to learn to get up at the other side) and eventually, hopefully, rock climbing.....

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Snap said the bone......

Yesterday morning, I broke my leg at the hip joined. It happened around 11:00 (am). and by 416:00 (4 pm), I was wheeled into surgery for a hit replacement. The hip joined was demolished and the changes of healing were close to zero, so they recommended to replace the hip joint. My legs are now strapped down in a specific position, to keep the artificial joint in place. Not pleasant, but heck, if that means I heal faster or better, I take it.

Yesterday morning, after I had my morning work done (collecting virgins, committing mass murder), I went out to Havana to ride Pate, the favorite horse. After first playing with him a bit using new exciting Natural Horsemanship techniques, I tagged him up. After lunging his a bot, I got on him and while I was adjusting the stirrups, he wandered over to a shady spot with low hanging branches. To late, I noticed we had gotten into them and I tried to turn him around because the low hanging branches was really dense. When I turned him around, I had to bent forward substantially to avoid to many branches. That was not an issue, but what I could not avoid was that Pate got the branches in a nasty way in his face and he responded to that my jumping somewhat away. Or something like that, because I do not recall exactly. Next thing I know is that I am flying of the horse and I land exactly on my left hip joint.

There is immediately a LOT of pain. I manage to role myself on my side in the first aid position but there is no way I could put any weight in that leg. I managed to get Pate close to me so I can take his bridle off. After about ten minutes, The people who live there came home and found me. They were so kind to bring me to patients first where they X-rayed me, Well, the verdict was clear, no more moving and they got an ambulance to move to the first aid of the local hospital.

At the hospital, they made a few more x-rays, and the verdict was rather clear. The neck of the femur leading to the hip joint had snapped of, and if I am correct, the ball of the joint was split. The doc didn't fuss about it, when he said: "This will never heal. The only option is a hip-replacement." With a hip replacement, I had two options, femur part only or both sides. The first option often result in increased arthritis on the cup of the joint, which basically means that you have to fix that part in a year or ten. Benefit, you heal faster. The latter option is more permanent and you are not getting into arthritis issues, but the time to heal is longer. As I do not feel like having major pain and surgery in 10 years time, I opted to take the longer healing time and have the whole thing fixed.

Saturday, at 16:00 (4 pm), I was wheeled into the operation room and by 20:00 (8 pm), I was the proud owner of a artificial hip joint. Now, I am resting comfortably and the recovery has started. In about three months time, I will be able to ride again, but for the coming months, I just have to take my time so I heal good.

Suzi check Pate the next morning and he had a bunch of scratches over his face, but he was otherwise fine.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

You bitch, we did it for the children

"We stayed together for the children". How many people have heard that phrase. Especially, how many children have heard that phrase, wondering why in earth their parents wouldn't get a fucking divorce at the next blow-up between the so-called 'adults'.

if you decide to stay together for a reason, act accordingly. if you stay together 'for the children', act as mature adults and stop fighting. Really, the last thing that children want is fighting parents who stay together because it would be better for the children. really, it isn't better, it is worse. It is an easy cop-out of taking responsibility for their own action. if you are REALLY doing it for the children, what would you think is best for those critters? Another escalated fight about who has to do the grocery shoppings?

It is easy to claim that you do something for a reason. It is far harder to deal responsibly with the consequences of those decisions. But the bottom line, if you cannot live with the consequences, don't invent a bullshit argument like I am doing it for the children. really, the last ones you make happy with those fights, or complaints, or whatever negative comes from it, is the kids.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Cognitive dissonance: Oppose gay-marriage because children of unmarried couples fare less than from married couples....

One of the main arguments against gay marriage that we hear over and over again is that it is bad for the children raised by same-sex couples. Well, opposing same-sex marriage is not going to change that those children are raised by same-sex couples, whether their parents are married or not.

When pressed why it is bad for the children, the argument often is comparatively, namely that children living in unmarried families, like single mothers, unmarried co-habiting parents, step-parents, etc fare less good than children from happy married couples.

Every time I hear this argument, I am stunned by the inane stupidity of the argument. This argument is the prime argument to promote same-sex marriage. Because if their parents would be allowed to marry, the children should be better of? Not?

Well, if you press them on the details, what you find out is that they try to link two arguments. One is the one I just described, the second is that a child needs a father and a mother, and the link they want to make is that same-sex couples can never offer a mother and a father, and thus need to be compared to the unmarried and single parents trying to raise kids.

Unfortunately, the second argument has already been shot down by social science research, which shows that children raised by functional same-sex couples are equally or even better off than children of married heterosexual couples.

if we combine these, allowing same-sex parents to marry is actually going to help their children. Maybe that is where they are afraid for..... Maybe they are afraid to look incompetent because the kids of the gays are actually doing better......

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Will the same-sex marriages haters risk a ruling that will affect the whole nation?

Today, the ruling on the prop 8 trial will be announced. The same-sex marriage haters have already filed a motion for a stay of the decision pending appeal if the case is going to be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Based on the specifics of the motion wording, you can bet it is a win for US!

So, appeal. The current ruling ONLY affects California, and leaves the rest of the country out of the loop. A loss at the appeal court would widen this to a loss for a whole range of states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. and of course, if they appeal it to the US supreme court, it would affect the whole nation.

So, if they want to slow down how many states (have to) recognize same-sex marriages, they would be far better of to not appeal and give away California. Why? There case was a disaster. At the appeals court, they cannot bring new arguments. So, the case will be decided pretty much based on what is now on the record. And that record is, well, shitty at least. Maybe better to qualify it as non-existing.

So, what would be the alternative? Let it stand. Throw California under the train and move on. Because this means that if another gay couple in one of the other states of the union finally wants to be treated as a full citizen, they have to start their own case. With their own lawyer, their own witnesses etc. And this gives the haters one MAJOR opportunity. Time to prepare themselves better. To have real experts. And maybe they will be lucky to find a judge who is more activist and willing to impose his own conservative dogma on the case.

Of course, some day, some case will reach the US supreme court. It can be sooner if they appeal now, or maybe later if they take the loss of one state and try to build a more solid case in the next court battle. The later would be a better strategy, because it they get more favorable evidence into the records, they actually will have a higher change of winning when they finally reach the US supreme court.

But rest assured, they won't be this smart. If their performance at the trial is a indicator, they are so convinced they are right that they are willing to risk it all, just to be right! You almost would think they are actually in favor of same-sex marriage.

And because of that, we have to thank them for helping our cause. So, please, file an appeal and help us to finally ride this country of a grave injustice!

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

JONAH: Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing

JONAH, the lasted shield for con artist Arthur Abba Goldberg has changed its name from Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexciality to Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing. read this good:

"New alternative to Healing"

What? If I am sick, I just want to heal. Not some alternative idea that being sick is a growing moment or something equivalently bizarre than that. But apparently, that is what they want to offer. So, lets explore first why they are actually correct, and second, what those alternatives could be.

They are correct!

Of course they are correct, homosexuality cannot be changed by therapy, the long list of ex-ex-gay people, the rampant number of suicides among those that tried the ex-gay path, and the incredible low success rate or gay-aversion therapy underline that healing from the gay is impossible. Thank God oops, Yahweh, for that. And I am sop glad that JONAH is now falling in line with what most reputable psychologists already know, you cannot prey oops, pray away the gay.

The alternatives!

So, what are those alternatives to healing? Do not look further than Alan Downing, one of the senior therapists of JONAH. In stead of offering healing, he uses his clients to fulfill his unmet needs for manly flesh. Yes, sexual harassment is indeed an alternative to healing. Or what about the "Cuddle Room"

Lets stop the charade. JONAH is just a cover for unlimited homosexual experience in a way that you can proclaim to the world that you actually try to prey on oops, prey away the gay!

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Vilsack must resign

Whow, is the administration so afraid for right-wing extremists that they now do their career lynchings for them? Looks like it. The short story. A notorious blogger, Andrew Breitbart, posts a doctored tape so he can attack the NAACP and the administration. The tape is doctored to make it look like that a mid-level, hard-working, African-American department of agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, is racist. Reverse racism that is. That she did not help white farmers as much as she would help black farmers. Administration and NAACP overreact. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack calls her on the way home, doesn't want to listen to her, pressures her to resign immediately. Real tape surfaces, becomes obvious that the tape is doctored, administration sees they f***ed up, they apologize, give her her job back, probably with promotion. Problem solved?

NO

I think this is outrageous. Once we toss out due process, in case like this, we have started to do the career lynchings for the right-wing racists who have only one agenda, and that is to topple this administration. I think that the resignation of all officials involved, to start with Tom Vilsack, is needed. Really, can we trust the rule of the law when we have officials who trow those rules overboard the minute a mid-level employee is accused of being racist?

Monday, July 12, 2010

Gay segregation in the Army?


I thought the segregation had ended, but it looks like the Pentagon just wants it back, but now for openly gay personnel. Well, it would make things really interesting if they did. Because, until you have outed yourself,you can just spy on the dick size of the hetro machos, but oh my god, when you are caught, you are limited to just fantasizing about it when you are along in the special shower for yourself..... Well, it is better than losing your job, but wasn't the purpose to protect the fragile heterosexuals from the predatory gay men?

Sunday, June 20, 2010

To the Straight Guy at the Party Last Night

This post is continuously flagged at craigslist as inappropriate, restored and flagged again. So I duplicate it here.



A mutual friend of ours threw a big party for her 30th birthday, tons of people were there and it was a lot of fun. Somewhere along the line you and I ended up on the balcony for some fresh air at the same time. We started chatting; we talked about sports, books, tv – discovered we both are about to start our masters degrees and spent some time debating the pro’s and con’s of the educational system. We talked about hanging out sometime, and you wanted to meet my girlfriend.

I understand how upsetting it was for you when I blinked mildly in surprise and said I was here with my husband. I know it was a shock to your system, if your face had turned any paler I might have called 911. You made a good recovery though - that hurried mutter of “I’m not like that” was very polite and you only knocked over two drinks and one vase in your hurry to rush to anywhere other than near me. I can’t blame you – I forgot how delicate you straight boys are. So I wanted to give you a few helpful hints about where you went wrong last night.

1) As a general rule we don’t walk around with big signs around our neck proclaiming our sexuality. No scarlet letters, no scent of hellfire and brimstone… sorry about that.

2) We do not generally assume that everyone within 5 feet of us must also be homosexual – it was nice of you to immediately reassure me that you are hetero, but it was really unnecessary.

3) Homosexuality is not infectious. While I am sure you meant no disrespect with your hasty departure; in the future you can rest assured that taking a few extra seconds in your mad dash for safety will not result in you being turned gay. It will however keep you from destroying expensive vases and knocking over senior citizens.

4) This next one may come as a surprise; but you are not, in fact, irresistible. The fact that you have a dick does not instantly turn me into a bundle of uncontrolled lust. Contrary to popular opinion, being in the same room with a straight man does not cause a gay man to instantly lose all common sense and basic common courtesy. Though I am not so sure about the reverse.

5) Homosexuals in general get a little irked when people treat us like some sort of leper. Rushing to another mutual friend of ours and advising him of my sexuality, so he could be “forewarned” was really uncalled for.

6) Upon being told (by said mutual friend) to stop being an idiot and that you were not my type anyway… it generally confuses the issue when you then proceed to become upset that I DON’T find you attractive. Three seconds ago you were running through a crowd of people with your hands cupped protectively over your junk as if I might attack you at any moment with a blowjob. See hint number 4.

7) We homosexuals have an odd sense of humor – I can’t help that. Something about watching you freak out as if all the demons of hell were after you just struck me as vastly amusing.

8) While being pissed at me for dissolving into uncontrollable laughter might be understandable… gathering a couple guys together to “teach the fag a lesson” is not.

9) You might also want to drink a little less and be a little more careful about the guys you approach for your little proto-hate-mob.

10) Assuming the two tall muscle-bound bruisers must be uber-hetero and just as appalled by my presence as you was your first mistake. It was an understandable one though. How were you to know that pflag tshirt the first guy was wearing wasn’t a sports team? Also the rainbow ring the second guy was wearing could have meant anything I am sure.

11) In retrospect I suppose that upon hearing your not very subtle hate-talk and seeing who you were heading for; I could have said something instead of just laughing harder. I apologize for that. I should have just introduced you to my husband instead of letting you walk up to him and ask him if he wanted to help you teach “that fag over there” a lesson. I hope that broken nose heals up cleanly.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Marriage: An $80,000,000 word

The proposition 8 campaign in California costed more than $80,000,000.00. The goal, limiting the use of the word marriage in legal context in the state of California. It wasn't about rights, because in California, the supreme court has ruled that gays should have exactly the same rights. Something they reiterated after Prop 8 passed and it was challenged in court. It is also not limiting the use of the word in religious context. Everybody can get married at a LGBT-friendly church. Just let it sink in. Just let it sink in that this campaign was about whether same-sex couples may use the word marriage in a legal context. Nothing else.

Just think about what could have been done with $80,000,000.00? I know what I would do. What would you do?

Friday, May 28, 2010

Why smart kids fail

Why do smart kids fail? This paradox is often poorly understood, because at face value, someone who is smart should have the best changes to succeed. At face value yes. Taken out of context. Taken out of the environment the child grows up in.

Here is the rub, the smart kid has to grow up in a world that is ruled by mediocrity. At best. Often, the lowest common denominator rules. Take classes. Classes are geared to wards the large blop in the middle. The large blop of kids that are doing fine, but not exceptional. And in that class is a kid that is much smarter. What happens to such a kid?

He or she gets bored. Bored to death. Most things are so easy that s/he often has not even to work for it. I remember that I systematically did not make my chemistry homework. Why? Well, the teacher would ask several students to each write the answer of a assignment at the blackboard in front of the class room. Well, if I was one of the 'lucky' ones, I just would take the book, read the assignment while walking to the front and write down the answer, correct of course. Luckily for me, I was not that good with every subject, and I definitely needed to study hard on others which saved me later in life.

Why did it save me? Well, if everything comes really easy, there is one skill you never learn. And that is to put effort in things. Putting effort in things to achieve things is something you have to learn. And if you are really smart, it will take a long time till you encounter something that will require you to put effort in. And till that day comes, life is easy.

But that day comes, sooner or later. For me it came soon, as my dyslexia forced me to put tremendous effort in learning languages. But when it does not come early, or not in sufficient strength, you are doomed.

Once it arrives, many very smart kids can mask the issue with their intelligence. People around them do not notice that they are struggling, because they use all kind of smart tricks to outsmart the world around them. And they can keep doing that for a long time.

Unfortunately, most of these kids eventually encounter something that cannot be done easily or masked. And that is crushing time. Because they are so used to get everything so easy, it easily becomes an ego crushing experience. Used to be able to do things so easy, a failure is not an option. Well, at least they have never learned to deal with failure, because they just haven't experienced those. And if everything else goes well, why not just walk away from it. Ignore it. There are so many things that do go well, it is not really a problem. Most of the time.

But the first failure, and the inability to deal with it set the tone for future encounters. Instead of learning how to put effort in things, they feel crushed and avoid dealing with it. And the first times, it works. And the second time it works. Etcetera. Till? Till the day they encounter something they cannot ignore. That is the day the get stuck. Now knowing how to put effort in things, they are caught like a deer in the headlights. They have no idea how to handle it.

From here is goes rapidly downhill. Things need to be done, but the inability to do them just result in a repeated failure to do what needs to be done. And the smart kid that once soared through life on his or her intelligence crumbles. Each time s/he fails one time more, each time s/he fails, s/he looses a small part of her/himself, of her/his confidence, ofher/his self esteem.

By now, the smart kid has become an insecure, self doubting kid wondering every day why s/he cannot do things easy. And s/he starts avoiding those things s/he doubts s/he can do. This is when the world around her/him starts labelling the kid as lazy, uninterested, dumb. etc. Yes, dumb, because our smart kid is avoiding everything, fearful of failing one again. And so the cycle continues.

It is far more difficult to raise a smart kid than an average kid. In order to succeed, the smart kid needs to learn that not everything comes just like that. And how do you do that? Some schools have special programs for smart kids. Not all programs are good, but with the right approach, these programs can help gifted children. Those are the lucky once, because they learn that they sometimes need to put effort in things. The bigger question is how to help the unlucky once, those that are failing over and over again because they basically haven't learned to deal with disappointments. I do not know that answer yet, but I do know that it will take a lot of effort to teach those kids how to put effort in things.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Judge orders Rekers rectification: He is bisexual

George Rekers wants to go after the various media outlets that reported that he was gay. Well, I think he actually will have a good change that he is awarded a rectification. Unfortunately, I also think it might be worse than not fighting it. Because I think the court-ordered rectification will be something along the line of:
Rectification: Our reporting of the George Rekers case and the male escort was erroneous. Dr. George Rekers is not homosexual, he is bisexual.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Luggage: the latest synonym for the male sexual organ.....

Am I the only one who is wondering what exactly is meant when George Rekers is saying he rented a male prostitute to carry his 'luggage'? Dirty mind immediately remembered a old cartoon I saw years ago of a man coming to the doctors office. "Doctor, I have a problem" Doctor: "Well, let me see it." At which the man opens his coat and a huge dick falls out....


Unfortunately, I cannot find the cartoon back on the internets......

Monday, May 3, 2010

Legal bigamy: The American Way

Yesterday, it dawned to me. You can get legally married to two people in the United States because of DOMA. The scenario is simple:
  1. You marry someone of the same sex in one of the states that does recognize them.
  2. You move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, so you are officially unmarried.
  3. Because you are officially not married, you can marry someone of the opposite sex.
  4. Move back to the state that recognizes the same-sex marriage.
It is just waiting till three people try this and see if they can get away with it. I guarantee you, it will be a major news item.....

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Satire: Rapist Family Therapy

Recently, I thought of a funny skit-like situation. For your enjoyment.

(Courtroom)
Judge: Ma'am, could you please tell the court what happened that faithful evening in the park.

Victim: Thank you Judge. I was walking through the park in the evening with Charlie, my Chihuahua, when this creep came out of the scrub and forced me into the bushes and forced me to have (gulp) .... to have..... to ... (weeping uncontrollably)

Judge: Sex?

Victim nods.

Judge: Ok Sir, what is your story?

Rapist: Well Sir, you know, I was waiting in the bushes for some hot chicks to come by. It is amazing how willingly they want to have sex with me once they have joined me ion the bushes. It is a nice private spot, and the women just love it. Miss (nudges to the victim) there was dressed like she really wanted to have sex in the park.

Judge: Ok, I see. Sounds like you two should talk with a counsellor together to figure out what you two want. I see you back as soon as you have reached agreement on what is mutually acceptable.

Victim: What? No way?

Judge: Ma'am, should I hold you in contempt of court? Would a week of jail help to make you go?

Victim (cowering) O, no your honour? I am sorry.

Rapist: Thank you judge!

(Counsellors office)
Counsellor: Sir, this woman claims you sexually abused her?

Rapist: No, it wasn't rape, she was scarcely dressed, so she wanted sex. That is not sexual abuse?

Victim: What? I did not want to have sex. My goodness, I never have sex with men, they disgust me.

Rapist: See, she is in denial. She just needs some good sex and she will like it all righthy...

(Victim starts crying)

Counsellor: Ok, I get the picture. Do you think we can find a middle ground between the two extreme points of view. What about oral sex, but not penetration with the penis? With that, you both win in part, and that is just the best way.... Don't you agree?

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Ex-gay panel discussion in Tallahassee


This evening, I attended a panel discussion titled:
All God's Children: LGBTQ Members of Faith & the Ex-Gay Movement
jointly organized by the Pride (the on campus student version) and Seminole Christian Life, a very conservative christian student body. I have taped the whole conversation, and I am currently making a backup to my webserver so that the file cannot get lost. I will upload the video in sections to YouTube in the coming days. Uploaded to YouTube here Before the panel started, two of the ex-gay members asked me to refrain from making the video, because they were afraid that the message would be distorted by selectively cherry picking pieces of the video. So, I told them that if I would upload the video to YouTube, I would upload it integrally. I personally think the complete video is much more powerful, so that is not an issue. Internally, I was actually quite appalled by it, knowing that the ex-gay movement has a reputation of distorting the information of others.

What follows is my personal impression.

First of all, I think it was incredibly stupid of Pride to provide a platform to these people in the first place. As expected, they deliberately distorted what we know about homosexuality based on scientific research. Two of them claimed that there is no genetic component to homosexuality, which is bullshit. I know exactly what gene (frutty oops, the political correct version is fruitless) needs to be manipulated to make a male fly court other male flies, or a female fly to court other females. But heck, what can you do once they have made the blunder? Well, document. So, I went to the meeting, with my laptop and web-cam, and recorded the whole discussion.

Ok, the panel consisted of five members. Three representatives were representing the ex-gay movement, Frank Carrasco & Christine Sneeringer, from Exodus and ex-felon and con-artist Arthur Goldberg, from JONAH. The other side was represented by two local clergy, Rev. Mark Byrd of the Gentle Shepherd MCC and Cantor Tanya Greenblatt of Temple Israel.

The evening started with personal introductions by the panel members, and I will provide a short impression of those introductions:

Frank Carrasco
Frank appeared to me as genuine about himself, realizing that he still has feelings for men, but he has chosen Jesus over his own feelings. I think that he in due time will find peace with Jesus and being gay, and that he will follow the many former ex-gay's that have left the ex-gay movement before him.

Christine Sneeringer
Christine is a different story. Based on her story, I am sure that a major reason she found love in the arms of a woman was her abuse past. That happens, and it sucks. I am glad that she has found herself and has realized that she has attractions to men. However, she didn't say whether she still has or not has feelings for woman, but I would not be surprised if she did. She at least still makes blips on the gaydar of at least some of the females in the audience.

Arthur Abba Goldberg
Arthur is an Orthodox Jew, convicted fellon, dis-barred attorney with a criminal record for financial crimes. Spend 18 months in jail. He is still a con-artist based on what I saw of him this evening. Glib and skilled, lies between his teeth. He gave me the creeps, similar to psychopaths I have met.

Rev. Mark Byrd
Mark told us about his journey from being raised in a church that considers the Southern Baptists as too liberal (sic) to finding peace in being gay and Christian. ADDED in response to the first comment: Tried basically the ex-gay path (he was married, has a daughter), was miserable, to the point of being suicidal, till his wife finally told him to be true to his feelings and amicably divorced so he could find peace. You could see his eyes shout fire when the ex-gay people claimed to do no harm.

Cantor Tanya Greenblatt
Tanya is a member of the Reform Judaism branch, heterosexual, married and very open towards gay people. She explained a lot about the context in which the Torah was written, and tackled head on the cherry picking of Bible/Torah verses to proof ones point.

And now about the content of the discussion. I think there were a few good things and the expected and obvious bad things.

A major discussion point was about respect. Especially the ex-gay members stressed this point, and within qualified limits, I agree. I think that if someone chooses Jesus over his or her sexual orientation, that is that persons personal choice, and whether or not we believe it is healthy or not, something we should respect. But as I say, this is within qualified limits. The limit is honesty. Telling your personal story is one thing, distorting the facts is another. For example, Christine claimed that there is no genetic component to homosexuality. Really? No, wilfully distorting important facts results in less respect. If you want respect, you better become honest and stop distorting the facts. And no Christine, NARTH is not a reliable source for that kind of information.

But there is another point that I would like to bring up. And that is the question of change? Basically, can people change their sexual orientation? My answer is neither yes or no, because I think that in rare cases, some people can change their sexual orientation. And those numbers are far less than what the ex-gay movement want you to believe. Also, I suspect that most of those cases are either bisexuals who have a somewhat stronger attraction to individuals of the same sex, or people who have for example experienced trauma or something related. However, most of the people that claim to have been heterosexualized are pretending.

I have far more respect for those in the ex-gay movement who actually honestly say they still have feelings for the members of the same sex, but make an active choice between God and their sexual orientation. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is their own choice.

And that brings me to the next item that I want to address here tonight. Recruiting. This was brought up, and all ex-gay members said they did not recruit. However, nothing was said about youngsters that are singed up for their programs by their parents. O wait, the parents sign the release, so they are not recruited.

And that brings me to the last item to be discussed. Harm. They claimed they did no harm. Whow. The APA disagrees. The survivors disagree.

UPDATE in the morning
Ok, I am going to bed. Tomorrow more.

And let me finish my last thoughts. If you are really interested to do no harm, you only can achieve that when you are honest, and means that you represent the research accurately. When you claim that you can change, but that the research indicates that it is a very rare thing, you give people false hope of a solution that is not there. If you REALLY want to help people without harming them, you say that. You say, we can help you, not with changing your sexual orientation, but with finding a way to deal with your generally unchangeable sexual orientation that is compatible with your believe. For more information about professional standards of helping people, see here.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Sophophora: A Laboratory Handbook

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press has announced the next edition of their best-selling fuitfly handbook:


Friday, April 9, 2010

Sophophora melanogaster: Next steps

After some nights of sleep, I have come to the conclusion that moving forward with splitting the genus is the only sensible thing to do. The longer we wait with renaming Drosophila melanogaster, the more complex the situation is going to be. The graphic representations of the paraphyletic genus Drosophila that are circulating around the internet are only a dressed down version, in that they ignore a substantial part of the paraphyly (aka, it looks not as bad as it actually is):

Well, here is the full story:

Once we get Sophophora melanogaster out of the way, there is not a real hold-up for further taxonomic revisions, and the field won't be longer hold hostage by the Sophophora melanogaster problem but individual researchers can actually do their revisions.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Drosophila politics: Sophophora melanogaster

The commission has ruled, Drosophila funebris remains the type species of the genus Drosophila, opening the way a renaming of Drosophila melanogaster to Sophophora melanogaster. To understand better how we got here, I will provide some background information on the history of the genus, the history of the case, the decision and how to move forward.

The history of the genus Drosophila

The genus Drosophila was established in 1823 by Fallén, who included 12 species. Drosophila melanogaster was described in 1830 by Meigen, who placed it in the genus Drosophila. Then, in 1939, Sturtevant subdivides the genus in several subgenera, including the subgenus Sophophora, home of Drosophila melanogaster. In 1990, Grimaldi removed several subgenera from the genus Drosophila, and elevates them to the level of genus, including the subgenera Scaptodrosophila, Hirtodrosophila while several other subgenera are moved to the Hawaiian 'Drosophila' genus, Idiomyia. The latter name has only been accepted sparely, most researchers place them in the subgenus Drosophila. Over time, the genus Drosophila has been the receptacle for many species of fruit flies, especially those lacking obvious characteristics that warrant a separate genus, resulting in a genus that consists of more than 1000 species (or 1500 if the Hawaiian 'Drosophila' are included).

The history of the case

Several years ago, I was in need of a good phylogeny of the genus Drosophila for a comparative analysis. I have images of more than 21.000 fly wings spanning more than 100 species across the family Drosophilidae. However, if you want to know how those wings evolved, you have to consider that closely related species will be more similar because they share more of their evolutionary history with each other compared to more distantly related species. Six years ago, everybody was waiting for Patrick O'Grady to finally publish his comprehensive molecular phylogeny. A few years earlier, in 2002, O'Grady, together with Rob DeSalle had received a US$ 367.221 grant to study the phylogenetic relationships within the family Drosophilidae by sequencing and analysing up to 60 genes for more than 100 different species. We are still waiting, well, not for long any more as we now have our own molecular phylogeny in press with Genetics Research.

After waiting a few years on the Drosophila phylogeny, something had to happen, en I pulled together all the existing literature covering small parts of the phylogenetic tree of the genus Drosophila, and pieced them together first by hand, and later using a formal method, called the supertree analysis. That tree was published in 2008. What the analysis showed was that the genus Drosophila as currently defined is paraphyletic. Several genera, including Hirtodrosophila, Scaptomyza, Zaprionus, Mycodrosophila and several more are positioned within the genus Drosophila.

Among taxonomists, a continuing discussion is whether paraphyletic taxa are desirable/accaptable or not. However, there is one crucial aspect to consider. Homogeneity. Consider the following scenario. Take a group of species that are closely related. All species, except those in one small branch look very similar to each other. The exception is that small clade that is very different from the remaining species. In such a case, grouping the two genera in a single genus to make a monophyletic genus does not make sense. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Drosophila. The genus is very heterogeneous, and the various clades are often more alike to the included genera than to the more distantly related relatives in the genus. So, Drosophila is not a good candidate to keep as a paraphyletic genus, an option preferred by some researchers such as Patrick O'Grady.

So, what are the alternatives?

One alternative is to sink all included genera into the genus Drosophila, which would result in a very large (2250+ species) genus, that is rather heterogeneous, and it would result in more than 100 secondary homonyms (that is, two species with the same name of which the species described last needs to get a new name).

The other is to split the genus along the major clades, and elevate each of the clades to the rank of genus. That is an easy solution, and done frequently in taxonomy. Unfortunately, there is only one small problem. And that is that Drosophila melanogaster would be renamed to Sophophora melanogaster.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yes. You read that right.

This is a situation where nomenclature, the science of how to name species and higher taxa, clashes with reality. Why? Because Drosophila melanogaster is not just your average run-of-the-mill species. Drosophila melanogaster is one of the most studied model-organisms in the world, with more than 50.000 published articles; references in almost each and every biology textbook on many many different topics; it is used in high school biology classes to teach kids the fundamentals of genetics; it is used in medical research, in neurobiology, in ecological, studies, in genetics, etc. So, renaming such a species is not feasible.

When you come to that conclusion, there is only one way to go, and that is to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, effectively a small group of well-respected taxonomists who decide when overruling their own rules is better for taxonomic stability. So, we submitted an application to the commission for consideration, in which we asked them to change the type species for the genus Drosophila to Drosophila melanogaster, so that the name Drosophila melanogaster would be carved in stone. For now and for ever.

The Decision

A few days ago, the commission published their decision. In the three years between the publication of the application and the decision by the ICZN, many comments by outsiders have been published. Some of them were in favour, some against. In the end, the commission ruled 4 against 23 to reject the application. I won't go into the arguments of the individual commissioners, but they can be grouped in several broad arguments:
  1. We do not know enough.
  2. People can learn a new name.
  3. Let's not create precedent.
  4. A paraphyletic genus is not a problem.
  5. Conserving the name would require more species to be renamed.
  6. The other model species
Lets see.

1. We do not know enough.

Really? Sorry if I sound underwhelmed. There are over 20 published phylogenies covering a wide range of species, and at least a 30 more that focus on smaller groups. We summarized everything in a nice article in 2008, and there is only one conclusion that follows from that article, and that is that the genus is paraphyletic, and that most clades are well defined. A comprehensive molecular study pointing at exactly the same thing is in press. Okay, they did not have access to the latter, but the latter only confirms what we already knew from the previous publication.

2. People can learn a new name.

True. But will they accept the new name? Because if the scientists won't accept the new name, they won't learn it, and it won't trickle down to the general public. During the proceedings, various examples have been put forward on acceptance of new names. One example was hilarious, because it was presented as a perfect example on how new names were accepted. Stegomyia aegypti used to be called Aedes aegypti, until a few years ago, the genus was revised and the name changed. Unfortunately, contrary to the claim as a successful name change, it was not accepted by the community at large, to the point that several journals, including Journal of Medical Entomology, Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, Journal of Vector Ecology, Medical and Veterinary Entomology, Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases, and PROMED, publicly denounced the new name. Another example was the renaming of the zebrafish, Danio rerio, which was easily accepted. True, but as a colleague who works on the species explained, that name change did take place before the zebrafish became a popular model system, so hardly anything was affected by it. The situation with Drosophila melanogaster is rather different as I explained above.

3. Let's not create precedent.

First of all, the commission by design does not have to take into consideration what happened in previous cases. Each case is decided on its merits, without regard of previous rulings. But even if they did consider precedents? Would that be a problem? Unlikely because there are not that many widely used model systems, and most of them are phylogentically positioned in places that a name change is really unlikely. Unsurprisingly, no examples of other potential cases have been presented.

4. A paraphyletic genus is not a problem.

Okay, I discussed that one above already, no need for repetition.

5. Conserving the name would require more species to be renamed.

I am not sure how they came to this conclusion as we explained in the original application. When the genus is split, it will be split according to the four major clades. So, the names of the species in two of the clades will change regardless. Of the two remaining clades, the clade with Drosophila melanogaster is the largest, effectively preserving the name of the largest possible number of species.

6. The other model species

Some voiced concern about renaming the other Drosophila model species like Drosophila virilis and Drosophila grimshawii. Well, by rejecting the application, none of the species will retain the name Drosophila because none of the species is in the clade with the type species.

How to move forward

So, what is next? Good question. Several options remain:

  1. Do nothing.
  2. Accept phylocode for the genus and forget about having a nice rank-based classification.
  3. Split the genus and renames Drosophila melanogaster to Sophophora melanogaster and test the argument that it won't matter and that people will accept the new name.
  4. Elevate the clade one by one to the level of genus, slowly but surely dismantling the genus until only two relative small unrelated clades remain, one with funebris, and one with melanogaster.
At this stage, I have not made a decision what my next step will be. See my next post here.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Are Ex-Gays not Heterosexuals?

Lets pretend for a second that it is actually possible to change your sexual orientation. Not that you really can, so do not try this at home, because it most likely will result in loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality, and anxiety.

So, help me out. An ex-gay is someone who has seen Jebus and has become suddenly straight?

Right? Straight as in heterosexual? Right? Yup. And ex-gay is a normal heterosexual.

Not really. You see, PFOX, an organisation for parents and friends of Ex-Gays (so they can put more pressure on their kids and friends who have already succumbed to their narrow morality), want to have Ex-Gay being recognized as a separate sexual orientation.

Really? Yup. Really!

Lets think this through. An ex-gay is not a heterosexual. Well Duh. Of course not, they are homosexuals acting as if they are heterosexuals, most likely fantasizing about that cute gay man they saw several days ago when they has the obligatory sex for procreation.

No wonder that they need special protection.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The Power of the GAYS!

In Mississippi, how backward do you want to go, a school board rather cancelled the prom for EVERYBODY than to allow a same sex couple to attend. Whoow,how far do you want to go with your hatred. I hope the federal judge will issue a preliminary ruling soon so that the school can stick their homophobia up their own ass (sodomy is nowadays legal in Mississippi after Lawrence v. Texas).

Maybe we as a community can show how it is done, and that we organize a prom for the kids there, all inclusive for everybody. That would be the best response possible.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

He heterosexuals, we feel you pain.

Yesterday, the Catholic Charities in Washington DC removed the health benefits for new employees in order to be able to deny same-sex couples from having the same. Basically, they extended the anti-gay bigotry to their heterosexual employees just so they could stay within their religious doctrine. That is their good right, but it tells me one thing. Those heterosexuals now feel what we are feeling all along, religion LIMITS your rights. I want to say to them, welcome to the club of lesser than people.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Security breach in US military

Rick Santorum (Repukeian) thinks that the US military commanders have been indoctrinated to support the repeal of the discriminatory "Don's ask, don't tell" policy.

Take a minute to let that sink in.






I repeat what he is saying:






US military officers indoctrinated

Really. I think if that is true, that the US defence is incredible vulnerable. Why, because it means that any foreign nation or terrorist group can indoctrinate these people. And some of them have far better indoctrination techniques available than the average gay with an agenda.

Reality is, they are not indoctrinated, but actually people who see that the policy is discriminatory and want it removed. They are the people who have to worry about losing Arabic translators because of the policy. They see it is hurting the US defence to kick people out because of their sexual orientation.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

The right decision

Many are denunciating the Archdiocese of Washington for dropping their foster care program. Although I understand their reasoning, I think it is perfectly within their right to do so. If a faith-based organisation cannot abide to the worldly laws of the country, they should not get any money of those worldly authorities to do good work that is authorized by the worldly authorities.

So, I think this is the perfect outcome. They transferred their program to another organisation who does not have the same religious limitation, so no foster kids have been hurt by the principled decision.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The twisted logic of the personhood initiatives

The personhood movement wants to redefine what is a person. They want to define it as from the moment of fertilisation till death. Yes, you read it right.

This person:



has the same rights as you and me.

Really.

Yes!

So, lets look at this. A woman gets accidentally pregnant because the condom breaks. The resulted fertilized egg is a person with the same rights as the woman. Same right, but clearly incapable to take care of itself. Humm, what do we do when parents cannot take care of their child? They can give it up for adoption. If the kid is lucky. So, if I get pregnant unwillingly, can I give my fertilized egg up for adoption?

Probably not. No, most likely, the mother will be forced to function as an incubator for the parasitic person inside of her that she does not want. However, that might raise some very interesting issues. One issue that needs to be raised is which person is in charge of the body of the woman? The woman? Or the parasitic person insight of her that she did not choose to be there? And if the judges declare that the woman looses her rights to the other person, does that mean that other people can parasitize a random other person as well, in a similar matter?

Oh, but most importantly, would it reduce the number of abortions? No, study after study already has shown that the only aspects of the abortion that changes is whether it is a legal or an illegal one, and the risk to the woman. Because if a woman does not want to be pregnant, she wil get rid of it, one way or the other.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Upping the stakes

The right wing anti-gay groups are upping their stakes. They now want to get homosexuality being recriminalized. And that makes sense. For a long time, they would just yell the most outrageous claims, and they were able to get away with it because nobody had done research on it. Now that more and more studies show that their claims are just bogus, they have to change tunes. And so they move away from masking their moral crusade by bold false claims that are easier and easier refuted to a moral crusade itself.

I think that is a good thing, because it will clear the air. I encourage those people to say that they think homosexuality should be criminalized. It makes it much easier to spot the bigots, and it will drive away the sensible conservatives who actually have enough of a brain to think for themselves.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Marriage and Gay Reality Check

Someone can only control you if you let them to. If we gays and lesbians hide away, that is what they want. They do not want to see us, and that is why they try to deny us access to as much as possible. But if we look at it, does it really change reality?

So, a reality check about gay and lesbians:
  1. We exist. Whether we can marry or not, we exist and your children will hear about us. Weather you like it or not. because we exist. Unless you patrol EVERYTHING your children hear, read and see. Yeah, that is right, you home-school them, transport them in a blinded car to and from church and the parents of friends have to go through a solid vetting process so that the tender souls of your first born is not affected by knowing about those evil homosexuals.
  2. We have sex. Does anybody really think you can prevent people from having sex. We have sex, and even when the sodomy laws where in place, sodomy occurred. And better, lesbians could just fuck each other anyway, and they do not commit sodomy in the first place. And yes, we know that you really would like to have that threesome with us, but sorry, you first have to chop of your dick before I even start contemplating whether I have you in my bed.
  3. We have relationships. Duh. Ever tried to tell your kid they cannot see their boyfriend because you don't like him? Did it work? Really, you checked when she was at school, hanging out with friends etc? Yes, you did? Whow, I am sure you think you are a good parent. I think you are a despot.
  4. We live together. Duh again.
  5. We have children. Really, it is not that difficult to score some sperm somewhere, and in the worst case scenario, I think I could manage to get laid by a guy in a different city. Okay, I need a drink or 5 (2make me tipsy, 3rather drunk, 4 I about pass out, and 5, he can have fun) but heck, father unknown (I was to drunk) and me happy. And the child, s/he will have two of the most awesome mommies in the world. Unlike those from fighting, abusing, divorced, alcoholic, addicted and/or absent heterosexual parents. They should be happy if they have one parent to take care of them.
  6. We marry. Well, maybe not legally in the state we are living in, but we marry anyway. Legally in either another state or country, and religiously in any church that doesn't follow your particular brand of hateful interpretation.
So, what happens when you are successful in forcing a gay or lesbian to play heterosexual? Get this:
  1. We exist. That we live a lie in a heterosexual prison called a 'loving' marriage does not change the fact we exist.
  2. We have sex. Only when we really have to, and using some tricks so that we do not want to kill ourselves immediately after you are done. We might try to make a list of groceries we have to get later at walmart, or think about the cute blond chick at work that accidentally rubbed my hand and made us wet between the legs when we were waiting for her to be done with the copier, or think about the muscled construction worker at the corner of the street how he takes you from behind on a role of electric wire, etc. etc. etc. You get the gist, we won't be there with you, we will be there where we feel better than with having sex with you. But heck, I guess you won't care as long as you can fuck someone without having to pay for it.
  3. We have relationships. Really, why do people cheat within a relationship? Guess? Because they do not get what they need? Well, that is one of the reasons. Think. Think harder, think harder what happens when someone is gay and forced to enjoy heterosexual torture? You get it. Just think about all those conservative 'heterosexual' men who were caught with a guy..... Just think what they were doing with those gays.... huh guys.
  4. We live together. You got us there. Darn.
  5. We have children. Of course, the heterosexual marching orders include that you have a child. Or two. Or three. And with a bit of luck, we only need one time sex for each child. But the best of all, we get to spread our GAY GENES! Thank you for helping us to pass on those gay genes! I know, you think that it is a choice, and as long as that you think that, we get to spread our genes. So, please, you think it is choice, and we spread the genes. Sounds like a good deal to me! At least, if we have to endure hetero sex, it is at least not for nothing.
  6. We marry. And we are sooo happy. NOT. But thank to those men and women who have been carefully brainwashed with the idea that homosexuality can be cured if they are willing to marry one and help them overcome their abomination, we marry. And I know, you do not care if those selfless heterosexual souls get hurt sooner or later when their partner whon is really gay and not heterosexual cannot longer stand the heterosexual prison marriage and leaves her for a homosexual partner. Really, if you after 20 years of a love free, sex-free, passion-free marriage think he does not have passion, love etc, just wait till he does not have to deny himself any more. And please, no complaints please, you did it for God and Country. He will reward you in heaven. Isn't that wonderful.
Have a nice day!

Friday, January 22, 2010

Reclaiming Marriage

I think it is time that the same-sex couples of the US reclaim the word Marriage. When I read about the actual objections to same-sex marriage by religious people, it is because they consider the word marriage sacred and that it should be reserved for one man and one woman in accordance with their religious beliefs. This by itself is a huge problem for the sometimes non-existing separation between church and state, but I digress.

If marriage is so important for non-legal purposes, namely for religions, queers can reclaim the term similarly. Therefore, there is no limitation to use the word marriage in a religious context. The right-wing bigots can legislate away that that the government can use the word for the legal context because they want the exclusive right to use it as a religious word for opposite-sex marriages, but beyond that, they cannot prevent anything. So, we should start using it as much as possible, and let the world know that WE are MARRIED!

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Deserved loss in Massachusetts

Really, the democrats do not deserve to have 60 seats in the senate. If you cannot work together, you deserve to loose.

Change was coming. Yeah right. I still think Obama was the best choice, but it is obvious that change was not coming. And change is not coming because the democrats do not want it. As someone wrote, Washington is from the lobbyists, for the lobbyists, by the lobbyists. It should have been obvious what was going to happen as soon as the campaign promise on the revolving door for lobbyists was broken.

Anyway, with the repukeians filibustering pretty much everything just to show who is boss, and the democrats giving in to that with compromise after compromise, it would be just plain better to elect a retard to start with.

It is now time to wave goodbye to Universal Health Care. Like a mirage in the desert that fades when you get closer.......

The good thing is that in the next months till the midterm election, we can sit back knowing nothing substantial will happen in Washington, our rights will be eroding more and more, and the democrats will roll over and become the lapdogs of the repukeians once again.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Gay revolution

I have been following the federal court case against the Californian Proposition 8 that define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The more I hear about it, the more it get clear to me that it is not just prop8 that is at trial, it is homosexuality itself that is at trial.

"Protecting California Children"! Which California children? Those well adjusted kids with gay parents against their own parents? Who will have their mummies or daddies anyway, regardless whether their parents are married? Really, those kids are only negatively affected by it. But heck, those kids do not count. Because they are losers anyway because they have gay parent. No, it is not to protect those children, it is to prevent children from being exposed to alternatives of their parents heterosexual marriage. Because "Oh My God", TRADITIONAL marriage is under fire. (I will go into the canard of the so-called "traditional marriage" another time)

But really, ultimately, they do not want their kids to know that we exist. Because this is not the only way homosexuality has to be removed from sight. For example, they do not want homosexuality be mentioned in sex-ed. Homosexuality is a choice, and you can fix them (like a dog). etc etc Effectively, they want us out of sight, so that they can bread their next generation of bigotry and prejudice.

I think it is time that the gays stop hiding. The more they try to push us out of sight by denying us fundamental rights, the more visible we should become. Really, once they get that providing us with our fundamental rights is the best way to minimize their exposure to us, they will be at the front lines lobbying for it. So, we have to become more visible, and this means adopting the tactics of the anti-abortion and anti-gay crowd who are so in your face about their message. I really think it would not be a bad idea to go with groups of gays and demonstrate in front of especially fundamentalist schools during pick-up of the kids, same with fundamentalist churches, etc. Expose them to our existence. In short, No More Mister Nice Gay.