Sally Kern’s Anti-Gay Op-Ed

[JackBeck]

Oklahoma lawmaker Sally Kern simply can’t quit her anti-gay ways. After coming out last week against gay discrimination, Kern took pen to paper and published an op-ed in which she again rails against the so-called “gay agenda:”

Anyone who thinks there is no homosexual agenda need only look here in Oklahoma to the newly formed Equal Rights Project created to help elect candidates by bridging the gay/straight community. The Equal Rights Project states “We felt we were uniquely qualified to help those running in the South and the Bible Belt. Running in these communities is much different than in California and New York. Our idea was to train, educate and support all candidates who support equal rights for all.”

Homosexuals are already citizens who have equal rights. They want “special rights” for the acceptance of their deviant lifestyle. I’m thankful that Oklahoma is different than California and New York. I pray it stays that way.

Kern’s letter also cites right wing “research” indicating that gays aren’t “born that way:”

Homosexuals insist they are born gay, yet a study by Dr. Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead on various cultures states: “If homosexuality were influenced by genes, it would appear in every culture, but in 29 of 79 cultures surveyed in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent.”

The gay rights movement, of course, didn’t get off the ground until 1969. There’s no doubt in our mind that most 50s-era homos wouldn’t readily come out for fear of social alienation. But we wouldn’t expect Kern to understand such internal turmoil. Nor can we comprehend why Kern and her ilk believe people would willingly join a group that has faced and continues to face such widespread discrimination. We would have to be certifiably insane.

Kern’s vile politics doesn’t stop with the gays. Homo-journo Michael Heaton attended Kern’s University of Central Oklahoma appearance last night and reports that she refers to non-Christians as “infidels” and that Christianity stands as the only path to salvation. It seems to us that despite Kern’s claims that we gays are worse than terrorists, it’s she who hold more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than any homo we know.

http://www.queerty.com/sally-kerns-anti-gay-op-ed-20080330/

This woman is the gift that keeps on giving. Kind of like herpes.

[marmar]

1. She's a real POS....

"but in 29 of 79 cultures surveyed in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent.”

Really Sally? I'm sure there were absolutely no gay people in those cultures, right? ..... What a jackass! Either she's really stupid, really crazy or just an absolute asshole. Or maybe all of the above.

[JackBeck]

6. All of the above.

With a heavy emphasis on "just an absolute asshole".

[Juche]

2. Look on the bright side

Everytime someone like Kern or King opens their mouth, a ton of independents, moderates and everyone else who isn't part of the extremist 15% turns away from the GOP. These remarks make the other 85% of us realize how extreme the religious right is.

Its like during the civil rights movement, when people would use firehoses against unarmed demonstrators, which just made many in the public support the demonstrators even more. I think its called the Gandhi effect.

As long as Kern doesn't have the ability to force her views on the public, it'll probably do more good than bad for the GLBT movement in my view. If this is the kind of person who is on the side of opposing gay rights, alot of people will turn away from that mindset. Kern is one of 101 representatives on the Oklahoma House, I don't know what kind of damage she can do but I am assuming it is minor.

Of course, if that were true that extremists turned the public against the conservative religious right then Jessy Helms and Trent Lott would've had the same effect in the 90s. So maybe I'm wrong, never underestimate the apathy of the average american voter.

But this fact is also relavant to terrorism as another example. The NIE wrote a report on terrorism finding that the greatest vulnerability of the jihadist movement is the public finally waking up to what they really wanted to do.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

"The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution—an ultra-conservative interpretation of sharia-based governance spanning the Muslim world—is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade."

Perhaps the religious right is having the same effect here at home. They aren't as violent, but when people finally start waking up to how criminal, extreme, oppressive and out of touch they are peopel will turn away.

[JackBeck]

7. Great post!

And welcome to DU!

:pals:

A documentary you might be interested in: The Power of Nightmares

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

[tanyev]

3. A survey done in 1952? Yessir, that's some relevant, up-to-date information.

Most gays weren't able to admit it to themselves in 1952, much less to some stranger asking a bunch of nosy questions.

[Mz Pip]

9. She must have had to

search long and hard for that bit of antiquated "research."

And gays who could admit it sure weren't going to admit it to their family and friends, either.

[mitchtv]

4. I'm thankful that CA and NY are not like OK , too

Too bad our collective taxes support "taker" states. Give it back to the Indians

[JackBeck]

17. Some of us are just East coast and West coast latte liberals.

And have those ill-informed blinders on that forbid us from making the proper decisions.

[mitchtv]

18. New Yorker here

living in Calif for the last 40 years, Guess I'm irretrievable

[Baby Snooks]

5. But she's right...

There really is this gay agenda to destroy civilization. No one is safe. Particularly the poor Republican men who venture into airport bathroom stalls without realizing the danger that lurks within. :sarcasm:

Is is possible that Anita Bryant has a sister we never knew about?

[margotb822]

8. Before the equal rights movement, gay men

were either bachelors or priests (sorry, had to say it). Women were forced to marry by social convention.

To anyone that thinks people aren't born gay, ask them when they made the decision to become straight. It's not as if we reach a point and have to make a decision. Our sexual desires come to us naturally. And there are plenty of RW leaders that are hypocritical enough to prove that even if one chooses a straight lifestyle, they're true nature will eventually take over.

[chixydix]

10. You're pretty much on target except for the 'bachelors or priest' option...

I've discovered at least 3 of my contemporaries (high school in the 1950s) who couldn't admit being gay until long after being married to women and having children. One of them wasn't a big surprise to me...the other 2 absolutely were!
There are probably others (out of a HS class of about 800) that I'll never know about.

[margotb822]

11. That was a bit jokingly

My mom's uncle was a lifelong bachelor, and she always had the suspicion that he was gay. But, he took it to the grave with him. My college roommate's husband's father came out of the closet after being married for more than 20 years, so I do know that many people try to "fight it," and to me, that is more proof that people are born gay or straight. If it was a choice, why would one try to hide it or fight it.

I'm also surprised at the number of people that come out after high school. Our valedictorian did (which, in hindsight, isn't surprising), and then she dropped out of college, which was surprising.

[goddess40]

12. I had three great aunties that never married

two of the sisters lived together and one lived with another teacher to "share" living expenses. Some family members still deny that it was anything more than that.

[Toucano]

23. I'll only quibble with one part

Women were forced to marry by social convention? Ever heard of an "old maid" or a "spinster aunt"?

[goddess40]

13. Are any of these countries like say Iran?

We know how they take care of their homosexuality issues.

What would this be called - to kill someone because of their heritage is ethnic cleansing - is their a word? Other then murder.

[Skittles]

14. um....Ms. Kern?

in 1952, blacks were rare at lunch counters too :o

[Toasterlad]

15. I'd Wish Her Dead, But Then I'd Get Yelled At Even More. Here's to Your Health, Sally!

:toast: *

*arsenic.

[hulklogan]

16. I wonder if Sally's breath smells like a fart.

She talks enough crap.

[Winterblues]

19. Exactly what "special rights" do gays want?

The right to marry the person they love. Is that "special"? The right to equal housing laws. Is that "special"? What "special rights" is she referring to? I see this quite often. "Special rights" and I am curious as to what they think they are referring to...IMO she is the one that wants "special rights", the right to discriminate against someone because she doesn't like their sexual leanings..

[JackBeck]

25. It's a talking point that lacks any substance.

Wanna make a conservative's head explode? Show them how there already exists laws that protect them, while excluding the LGBT community.

[bluedawg12]

20. Linking incidence of something to genetics is false.

First of all, this study, which is pretty hard to locate as raw data on the net is over 50 years old.

Second, we don't know what cultures were surveyed and how. Nor do we know the prohibtion against homosexuality in those cultures and the willingness of the subjects to discuss this topic.

Third, there are newer studies on twins, more closely linked to genetics than a survey of cultures:

http://www.dowling.edu/faculty/Perring/wheelan.htm
>>Over 60% of identical twins, if one is homosexual, the other is too. Non-identical twins, 22% are gay.

Several genetic studies have been done that appears to genetically link homosexuality. Pillard and Bailey did a study on twins and homosexuals. They compared the percentage of male siblings who were both gay with the amount of genetic material they shared in order to find evidence for a genetic link of homosexuality. Among twin pairs where one twin was gay, they found that 52% of the identical twins were both gay, 22% of the fraternal twins were both gay, 9% of the non-twin brothers were both gay, and 11% of the adopted, or genetically unrelated brothers were both gay. They concluded that because the identical twins have a higher percentage rate than other siblings, the idea that sexual orientation is genetically influenced is consistent. Some experts questioned Bailey and Pillars findings. They both agreed they had difficulty finding a random and unbiased sample of homosexual population. They also were not able to categorize bisexuality as being either homosexual or heterosexual, and did not allow for it to be its own trait. Because of this, experts felt this study could not determine homosexuality as genetic.

Another study done by Simon LeVay focused on the size of INAH3 nucleus of the hypothalamus. He wanted to test whether the areas INAH-2 and INAH3 in the nucleus were different in size not by sex, but by sexual orientation. By proving a difference in size, he could establish that the brains of gay men were similar to that of women's brains. He only found that INAH-2 exhibited difference in sexual orientation. It was two times larger in heterosexual men as homosexual men, and he concluded it was different because of sexual orientation, not because of a difference in sex.

Dean Hamer, a molecular geneticist also did a study which tried to identify genetic markers which could influence a person's sexual orientation. Hamer recruited male siblings who were both gay and created a family tree chart tracing the incidence of homosexuality among family members. He identified the X chromosome as the site for the genes that code for homosexuality. He analyzed the DNA of each pair of brothers and also analyzed the DNA of mothers, when it was available. Hamer thought that if the mother's DNA showed two sets of markets, one on each chromosome, and each of their homosexual sons shared the same kind of marker, than the sibling pair was deemed concordant-by-descent, which would allow Hamer to declare a genetic link to homosexuality. The biggest critique of this was that Hamer never actually found the homosexual gene.

In conclusion, a large amount of evidence is leading us to the genetic link towards homosexuality, but not entirely a conclusive one.<<

fourth, ask the money question: how many books did this couple write, and selling, and how often are they speakers at certain places of *cough* worship- a double dip- a speakers fee and a book tour?

[Toucano]

21. 1952?

Please. Like genetics haven't advanced a day in 56 years.

Not only are you correct about the oppressive climate that made honest answers impossible, her whole premise is wrong.

If it were influenced by genes, it would appear in every culture. Just like blond hair and blue eyes appear in every culture. And sickle cell anemia.

One of America's great thinkers, for sure.

[bluedawg12]

24. Oklahoma repug too lazy to quote current science. LOL. n/t

[bluedawg12]

22. Here's some more double talk from a "cure 'em' group.

becauese current studies refute that homosexuality is not genetically based- these cure them web sites have to twist and spine the facts to make it look like a cultural choice, rather than a human essential characteristic.


Well- at least they give us more articles and references.

>>"April 4, 2007 - Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."<<

OK- so what then?

>>The heritability estimates for personality traits were varied: General Cognitive Ability (50%), Extroversion (54%), Agreeableness (42%), Conscientiousness (49%), Neuroticism (48%), Openness (57%), Aggression (38%) and Traditionalism (54%).

Kirk et al. (2000) in their research using a community-based cohort of Australian twins reported a heritability estimate of 30% for homosexuality. Whitehead (1999, 2006) in his extensive review of the research cites 30% as the estimate of heritability for homosexuality as well, though he views the estimate as a maximum.<<

So there is heritability?

>>Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."

Dr. Collins noted that environment, particularly childhood experiences as well as the role of free will choices affect all of us in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate, not provide support to idealogues.<<

OK- so there are studies showing a genetic basis for sexual orientation, but this "group" NARTH- switch and baits and begins talking about free will.

Yes, heterosexuals and homosexuals have free will, but, one does not will ones-self into one sexual orientation or another.

>>Perhaps the best example of this media misrepresentation was the two studies conducted by J. Michael Bailey. In Bailey's first study, he reported a concordance rate of 52%. In a second study, Bailey reported a concordance of 20-37.5%, depending on how loosely you define homosexuality. The first study received a great deal of press. The second study received almost no media attention.

Bailey himself acknowledged probable selection bias in his first study---he recruited in venues where "participants considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate." The second study, using the Australian Twin Registry with its anonymous response format, made such bias unlikely.<<

So, even in a random sample of twins, 20-37.5% concordance rate! Way above random chance and way above a statistical probability that a set of twins had a "behavior" that would be considered smoething they would simply select due to say: cultural influence.

From one of those cure the gays web site Won't even link - unless someone really wants to see the narth nerd.

[riverdeep]

26. Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observed that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

Note that this is not just in domesticated species which some people claim is an unnatural situation, but 'in the wild'. The implications should be obvious. It occurs in our animal kingdom 'naturally', as well. Either that or the homosexual mafia has been real busy corrupting sea gulls and matterhorns and bonobos and dophins and, etc.