The Role of Genes in Sexual Orientation

Cory Booker's Best Response to Gay Rumors EVER!!!

Catholic Bishop Calls Homophobia "Mental Illness"

Sexual Orientation on Medical Records

From Queerty:

When you go to the doctor, you want him or her to know everything about you that might affect your health. That’s why a new study says that medical records should include the patient’s sexual orientation. Without that information, the study says, medical groups will not be able to recognize disparities in care based on sexual orientation and take the necessary steps to correct them.

The authors of the study, published in the journal LGBT Health, note that data shows that lesbians are less likely to get screened for cervical cancer and that there is a higher incidence of mental health issues related to stress among LGBT patients. But without routine collection of data about sexual orientation, addressing those issues and identifying others will remain a problem.

“Given the outward invisibility of LGBT people and their history of invisibility in the health-care system, it is critical for clinicians to address and screen for health conditions disproportionately affecting LGBT people and have frank discussions with patients about sexual identity and behavior and gender identity,” the authors write. “However, most clinicians don’t ask questions about these topics; many are uncomfortable discussing sex with patients. Gathering data on sexual and gender identity in EHR [electronic health records] will improve our understanding of LGBT disparities and help improve clinicians’ conversations with patients about LGBT issues.”

Under Cuccinelli, Virginia Won't Be For Lovers

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Study: Sexual Orientation Isn't A Parenting Detriment

From the Williams Institute: 

Key findings include:

• Child age at placement— or the duration of time in the pre-adoptive context— did not emerge as a significant predictor of child adjustment (likely because all children in the sample were placed under 18 months).

• Parents’ level of preparation for the adoption was related to both externalizing and internalizing symptoms, such that parents who were less prepared reported more symptoms in their children.

• Parents’ depressive symptoms were also related to externalizing and internalizing symptoms in adopted children, such that more depressed parents reported more symptoms in their children. Depressive symptoms may compromise parents’ emotional availability and ability to parent effectively, which can contribute to child adjustment problems.

• Parents who reported more relationship conflict during the early transition phase reported that their children had more internalizing behaviors 2 years later.

• Family type (i.e., parent sexual orientation) was unrelated to children’s adjustment.

I'm guessing that this study is far more reliable than the Regnerus study (although that's an incredibly low bar). You can read the full report HERE.

Gays Are Just Confused Straight People

It seems like a week does not go by when Pat Robertson does not say something categorically ignorant, and often, that means delving into homophobia.

First, I can guarantee Mister Robertson that I am not confused. Not even a little bit. As to that confusion having to do with abuse as a child, there is no scientific, empirical evidence to back that up. While I am sure some children that end up being gay have been abused (it is a statistical inevitability), so have some children that end up being straight. Why did some those abused kids end up being gay and some straight? Because sexual orientation has nothing to do with abuse. I was not abused, I still ended up gay. Mister Robertson's claim has been debunked by medical professionals time and time again.

Second, did he seriously just say "We're not anti-gay or anything?" Really, he said that. He must be going senile because within the last week, he said that instead of a "Like" button, Facebook should have a "Vomit" button that he can use when he sees pictures of same-sex couple kissing. No, nothing about that sounds homophobic...right?

Third, Mister Robertson refers to gay people watching his show. The thing is that while there are certainly gay people watching his show, I would bet that a majority of them, like myself, are watching merely to hear the latest stupid, wrong, inconsiderate, or ignorant thing that he has said. Lord knows it happens often enough for us to see his show regularly. I highly doubt that many look to him for guidance given how poor is advice all-too-often is. In actuality, Mister Robertson should be aware that the vast majority of gay people watching his show are either just shaking their heads, or they are outright laughing at him. If he knew that, perhaps he would be less pleased about us watching him.

With every word he utters, Pat Robertson is distancing himself further and further away from mainstream America, including those who are people of faith. Time and good sense are sweeping people with mentalities like his into the annals of history where they belong.

The GOP Surveys Young People

Heterosexual Awareness Month

NFL Recruiters Rebuked For Questioning Sexual Orientation

From Outsports:

ProFootballTalk’s Mike Florio reported last week that teams wanted to ask Manti Te’o if he is gay. University of Colorado tight end Nick Kasa reported after the combine that he was asked about his sexual orientation by at least one NFL team.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told Outsports the league is looking into it and will take action:

“Like all employers, our teams are expected to follow applicable federal, state and local employment laws. It is league policy to neither consider nor inquire about sexual orientation in the hiring process. In addition, there are specific protections in our collective bargaining agreement with the players that prohibit discrimination against any player, including on the basis of sexual orientation. We will look into the report on the questioning of Nick Kasa at the Scouting Combine. Any team or employee that inquires about impermissible subjects or makes an employment decision based on such factors is subject to league discipline.”

Sprigg: Gays Have the Same Rights As Everyone...

Before I go on with the main substance of this post, I should mention that a person's sexual orientation is defined by to whom one is attracted, not be sexual behaviour. So when someone identifies there sexual orientation as homosexual or bisexual and face discrimination as a result of this, the discrimination is not, in fact, based on their sexual behaviour, the discrimination is based on their ASSUMED sexual behaviour. Perhaps this seems to some as splitting hairs, but it points out that many of the social conservatives that make the behaviour argument do not truly understand how all of this stuff works, which calls in to question their ability to comment on any of these issues. With that said, I will reiterate the fact that it is still not the job of the government (local, state, or federal) to restrict "homosexual behaviour," which is why the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision came down the way that it did ten years ago. Conversely, Peter Sprigg is on record as saying that "homosexual behaviour" is just cause for incarceration.

Now, back to LGBT people supposedly having the same rights as everyone else. Clearly by him making the claim that gay people have all the same civil rights as everyone else, he is flat out factually incorrect. Straight people generally do not have to worry about being fired/not hired/not promoted because they are heterosexual. Gay people are only protected from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in about half of the states, transgendered people are protected even less than that. Straight people do not have to worry about adoption restrictions based on their sexual orientation. Gay people do not have that same protection in most states, including here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And of course, there is marriage equality. Straight people can marry the person they love and have all of the legal rights that go therewith. Gay people...not so much, given that over 30 states have statutory or constitutional restrictions of a homophobic nature whereas only nine states plus the District of Columbia have marriage equality legally endorsed, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which restricts the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages) notwithstanding.

Mr. Sprigg made it very evident that one of two scenarios is true with him:  either he does not see the very real discrimination happening here in America, or - and I deem this to be the more likely scenario - he does see it...and celebrates it. What does this say about the character of him and those of like mind?