A Look at Utah’s Nondiscrimination Ordinances

Note:  This is an interesting article from the more liberal point of view.

What is interesting is that the number of complaints of discrimination in the cities that have passed non-discrimination ordinances is very very low if not absent.  This would indicate that discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity is not a large issue in Utah.  City ordinances are sufficient for those who may have a complaint.   

To pass a state-wide law that lays the groundwork for LGBT activists to take advantage of would be unwise.  If, in the future, ordinances need to be modified, this can be done relatively easy in response to local citizens. However, if a state law is enacted, local control is lost.

Judging from what is happening in other states, this is an area that must be carefully monitored and citizens should not allow state laws to give LGBT activists the opportunity to force businesses and schools to open bathrooms to those who have "gender identity" issues.

 ... initially an extremely small number of discrimination complaints have actually been made. Salt Lake City has had three complaints, not all of which were from people within city boundaries, and no complaints were made in 2013. Salt Lake County has had zero complaints from the unincorporated areas of the county, and zero have been made to the Neighborhood Development and Community Improvement department in Logan which deals with the ordinances.  Likewise, Grand County, Ogden, and West Valley City have not had a single discrimination complaint. In some municipal representatives have stated that though they have received one or two complaints, they have not been within their jurisdictions, so there was nothing they could do to help.  

 ... A study from the Williams Institute showed that per capita, sexual orientation discrimination complaints were received at similar rates as sex and race discrimination rates (5 per 10,000). The highest LGB rates of complaint came from seemingly liberal areas, with a rate of 8.8 per 10,000 in DC, 7.3 per 10,000 in California, and 6.4 per 10,000 in Connecticut. Gender identity ordinances were too new to study comprehensively, though preliminary reports have shown that these rates may be considerably higher.

http://utahpoliticalcapitol.com/2014/01/14/a-look-at-utahs-nondiscrimination-ordinances/#

Leaving Lesbianism And Confronting LGBT Activism-- My Story

By Lenora

Note: This personal story is one of many found on http://testpathvoc.weebly.com/all-written-articles.html along with many inspiring and enlightening personal stories.

As someone who has personally struggled with lesbianism, I am very aware of the unhappiness, confusion and misery that it can cause in one's life. There are those who would say that the only way for homosexually oriented people to find any real peace or happiness in life, is to just accept their homosexuality, fully immerse themselves in GayAffirmative Therapy and ultimately "come out." 

My own experience, however, has proven this idea false. I have been undergoing Reparative Therapy* and have found it to be extremely effective in providing me with not only a tremendous amount of relief and healing in my struggle, but also a profound sense of
peace and happiness that I have not experienced before.
The improvements I have experienced have been so great, in fact, that I have become strongly motivated to do all I can to change the opinion of those people who aggressively oppose this type of therapy. 

But where should a layperson start such an endeavor? Where does one go to have their voice and experience heard--and ultimately, to have some influence on how homosexuality is viewed and treated?

Read the entire article at: http://testpathvoc.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/1/0/21107422/073.pdf

Study: gay teens five times more likely to attempt suicide

NEW YORK, April 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Teens who self-identify as homosexual are five times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to attempt suicide, according to a study released last week.

The study, published in the journal Pediatrics online on April 18, was conducted in order to determine whether living in a gay friendly social environment affected the risk of a teen identifying as homosexual committing suicide. It found that teens in “unsupportive” social environments were 20 percent more at risk of attempting suicide than those in “supportive” environments.

“This study documents an association between an objective measure of the social environment and suicide attempts among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth,” concludes the study abstract, adding that the results “have important implications for the development of policies and interventions to reduce sexual orientation–related disparities in suicide attempts.”

But Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council pointed out that the takeaway finding from the study is not that gay teens are marginally less likely to commit suicide in a “supportive” environment, but that overall gay teens are so many times more likely to commit suicide than their non-gay peers – “a difference that far overwhelms any difference caused by the ‘social environment.’”

The study gathered self-report data from nearly 32,000 grade 11 students in Oregon. The findings also revealed that 21.5 percent of the gay teens surveyed reported suicidal tendencies, while only 4.2 percent of straight teens did the same.

The study author, Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University, told Reuters, however, that no studies have been able to pinpoint the root cause of suicidal tendencies in gay teens.

From a psychological point of view, the study appears to leave open many questions: Cornell University psychologist Dr. Ritch Savin-Williams suggested to Reuters that gay teens may report as suicidal based on their own stereotype.

“We have given them the message that they are suicidal,” said Savin-Williams, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Sprigg, however, said that the “logical take-away” of the study might not suit the author’s original intention.

“The most effective way of reducing teen suicide attempts is not to create a ‘positive social environment’ for the affirmation of homosexuality. Instead, it would be to discourage teens from self-identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual,” he said.

See this article online at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-gay-teens-five-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide/

Sexual reorientation therapy not unethical

Nicholas A. Cummings           July 30, 2013     USA TODAY

Southern Poverty Law Center wrongly fighting against patients' right to choose.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has done amazing service for our nation in fighting prejudice. But it has gone astray in its recent New Jersey lawsuit charging JONAH, formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing, a group that offers to help gay people change their orientation, with committing consumer fraud. The sweeping allegation that such treatment must be a fraud because homosexual orientation can't be changed is damaging. The lawsuit is the opening salvo of a wave of activism intended to discredit therapy offered in 70 clinics across 20 states, according to the SPLC.

When I was chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, San Francisco's gay and lesbian population burgeoned. I personally saw more than 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, and my staff saw thousands more. We worked hard to develop approaches to meeting the needs of these patients.

Individual's goals

They generally sought therapy for one of three reasons: to come to grips with their gay identity, to resolve relationship issues or to change their sexual orientation. We would always inform patients in the third group that change was not easily accomplished. With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual.

Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.

I believe that our rate of success with reorientation was relatively high because we were selective in recommending therapeutic change efforts only to those who identified themselves as highly motivated and were clinically assessed as having a high probability of success.

Read the entire article at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethical-column/2601159/

Befriending Those With Same-Sex Attraction: One Celibate Man’s View

by  Richard G. Evans within Culture, Marriage    Witherspoon Institute - Public     April 30th, 2014

My purpose here is to appeal particularly to heterosexual men who might be willing to take up a challenge they may never have imagined before: authentically befriending someone from my background. Truth be told, you probably already are friends with some of us—you just do not realize it. They may not have told you, or you may not have guessed. But they are there, or somewhere nearby. Today, I am asking you to listen to an SSA man who may yearn for your presence in his life more than you know.

Many people have strong opinions on what causes same-sex attraction, and on the legal and moral solutions to its existence. But far fewer of these people seem to have the ability or the desire to reach out to those of us with SSA in friendship or to help integrate us into local communities. We from the SSA world need you.

Read the entire article at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/04/13097/

Can Sexual Preference Change With Age?

Research shows attraction can be fluid when love is involved

by Dr. Pepper Schwartz, AARP,  June 13, 2014 

Sometimes a person's life undergoes such a radical transformation that the change was inconceivable before it occurred. One such gobsmacking event happens when you unexpectedly fall in love with someone who never would have pinged your "relationship radar" before. If a homosexual (or heterosexual) thought has never crossed your mind, for example, it can be doubly astonishing when —wham! — you suddenly find yourself attracted to someone of an entirely new gender.

That may sound unlikely, but as researchers are discovering, a person's sexual orientation is not carved in stone. In her influential book Sexual Fluidity, psychology professor Lisa M. Diamond chronicled her research on 80 nonheterosexual women over a period of 10 years. During that time, Diamond discovered, a significant number of the women had reported changing their sexual orientation. The most frequent cause for the U-turn? The "switchers" had fallen in love with a member of the opposite sex.

These women were not unhappy being lesbians, but love, it seems, really can conquer all — including a person's lifelong sexual orientation up to the moment when she falls hard for someone of a previously ignored gender.

The research on men shows somewhat less flexibility. But Diamond and other researchers have compiled numerous case studies of gay men who spent years feeling (and acting) fully and comfortably homosexual, only then to fall unexpectedly in love with a heterosexual woman.

Recently, I interviewed two people who went through this sexual upheaval late in life themselves. Both said they had never even considered falling in love with someone of the same — or opposite — gender until they reached their 50s or 60s. Only at that relatively late stage in life did they undergo startling 180-degree turns in their sexual orientation. (While the facts of each case are accurate, I've used pseudonyms at the subjects' request.)

Read the entire article at: http://www.aarp.org/home-family/sex-intimacy/info-2014/gay-lesbian-sexual-preference-schwartz.html

Seven Things I Wish My Pastor Knew About My Homosexuality

by  Jean Lloyd
within Marriage

 

December 10th, 2014

May I make two requests? Love me, but remember that you cannot be more merciful than God. It isn’t mercy to affirm same-sex acts as good. Don’t compromise truth; help me to live in harmony with it.

Over thirty years have passed since same-sex attraction rushed up from deep within my twelve-year-old frame. This attraction was unbidden and unwanted, yet simultaneously forceful and compelling.

As a Christian, the conflict between my sexuality and my faith would become the deepest and most intense of my life. Now in my forties, I’ve gone from being closeted to openly lesbian to celibate to heterosexually married. The fact that I need to qualify my marital union as a heterosexual one reveals how much the cultural landscape has changed in that time—just as much as my own personal landscape has, though in very different ways.

During my upbringing, I heard a few fiery sermons on homosexuality. These days, I hear declarations of love instead. They make me shout for joy. Amen! It always should have been so! At the same time, however, many pastors have begun accompanying this love with an eschewal of Biblical sexual morality as oppressive, unreasonable, or unkind. Hence, loving homosexual persons also comes to entail affirming and encouraging them in same-sex sexual relationships and behaviors.

Although I appreciate the desire to act in love, this isn’t the genuine love that people like me need. Love me better than that! Thomas Aquinas scholar Josef Pieper put it this way:

love is not synonymous with undifferentiated approval of everything the beloved person thinks and does in real life. . . . [nor is it] the wish for the beloved to feel good always and in every situation and for him to be spared experiencing pain or grief in all circumstances. “Mere ‘kindness’ which tolerates anything except [the beloved’s] suffering” has nothing to do with real love. . . . No lover can look on easily when he sees the one he loves preferring convenience to the good.

Read the entire article at: .http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/12/14149/

Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree

A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. MBA, MPH*

S. J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW

Journal Of Law & Family Studies

University Of Utah

VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2

I. INTRODUCTION

The notion that all "family forms" are equally as helpful or healthful for children has no basis in science. Indeed, there is no better example than the extensive research on children reared in single-parent families. The most authoritative evidence on children growing up in single-parent families (most often headed by single mothers) concluded that such children are three times more likely to have a child out of wedlock, twice as likely to drop out of high school, 1.4 times more likely to be idle (out of school and out of work) and 2.5 times more likely to be teen mothers. Lest one might suggest that the lower socio-economic level of children alone accounts for such statistics, these conclusions were reached subsequent to adjustments for incomerelated variables such as race, sex, mother's/father's education, number of siblings, and place of residence (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). 


There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father. David Popenoe (1996) summarized the research nicely: "social science research is almost never conclusive, yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single-parent and step-families" (p. 176). Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better; in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents.
This conclusion, supported further by a plethora of research spanning decades, clearly demonstrates gender-linked differences in child-rearing that are protective for children. That is, men and women contribute differently to the healthy development of children. 

Children of parents who are sex-typed are more competent (Baumrind, 1982). Research has repeatedly supported the conclusion that most effective parenting is highly expressive and highly demanding (Baumrind, 1991). Highly expressive, instrumental parenting provides children with a kind of communion characterized by inclusiveness and connectedness, as well as the drive for independence and individuality. These essential contributions to the optimum development of children are virtually impossible for a man or woman alone to combine effectively (Greenberger, 1984). Children learn about male-female relationships through the modeling of their parents. Parental relationships provide children with a model of marriage--the most meaningful relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lifetimes.

Complementarity is readily observable in differing parenting styles of mothers and fathers. No only are fathers' styles highly complementary to the styles of mothers, but research indicates that the fathers' involvement in the lives of children is essential for optimal child-rearing. For example, complementarity is provided by mothers who are flexible, warm and sympathetic, and fathers who are more directive, predictable and consistent. Rossi's research (1987) noted that mothers are better able to read an infant's facial expressions, handle with tactile gentleness, and soothe with the use of voice (p. 113). Fathers tend to emphasize overt play more than caretaking. This play in various forms among the young appears critical for later development. (Yogman, 1982).

A study authored by Marissa Diener, (2002) at the University of Utah, demonstrated that babies (12 months old) who have a close relationship with their fathers seemed more stress resistant than those who did not. Babies who had secure relationships with their fathers used more coping strategies than those who did not. Her conclusion has fascinating implications: "there may be something unique to fathers that provides children with different opportunities to regulate their emotions" (Broughton, 2002 p. Al).

Male and female differences emerge in ways in which infants are held and the differential ways in which mothers and fathers use touch with their children. Mothers more frequently use touch to calm, soothe, or comfort infants. When a mother lifts her child, she brings the child toward her breasts providing warmth, comfort, security and protection. Fathers more often use touch to stimulate or to excite the child. Fathers tend to hold infants at arms length in front of them, make eye contact, toss the infant in the air, or embrace the child in such a way that the child is looking over the father's shoulder. Shapiro notes that each of these "daddy holds" underscores a sense of freedom (1994).
Clarke-Stewart (1980) reported differences in mothers' and fathers' play. Mothers tend to play more at the child's level. Mothers provide an opportunity to direct the play, to be in charge, to proceed at the child's pace. Fathers' play resembles a teacher-student relationship-- apprenticeship of sorts. Fathers' play is more rough-and-tumble. In fact, the lack of this roughand-tumble play emerges disproportionately in the backgrounds of boys who experience gender disorders. Additionally, Clarke-Stewart notes the benefits of this rough-and-tumble play have appeared in child development areas extending from the management of emotions to intellectual and academic achievement. Interestingly enough, fathers' play is related to the development of socially acceptable forms of behaviors and does not positively correlate with violence and aggression, but rather correlates with self-control. Children who "roughhouse" with their fathers quickly learn that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. Children learn how to recognize and manage highly charged emotions in the context of playing with their fathers, and such play provides children with opportunities to recognize and respond appropriately to emotions (Cromwell & Leper, 1994).

There are gender differences in parental approaches to discipline. The disciplinary approaches of fathers tend toward firmness, relying on rules and principles. The approaches of mothers tend toward more responsiveness, involving more bargaining, more adjustment toward the child's mood and context, and is more often based on an intuitive understanding of the child's needs and emotions of the moment. Gilligan (1982) concluded that the differences between paternal and maternal approaches to discipline are rooted in the fundamental differences between men and women in their moral senses. Men stress justice, fairness and duty based on rules, while women stress understanding, sympathy, care and helping based on relationships.

,,,, In spite of the overwhelming evidence citing the importance of mothers and fathers to the
healthy development of children, attempts have been made in professional literature to blur the lines between genders, and to claim that neither mothers nor fathers are necessary for positive child outcomes. Such research reports have become increasingly bold with their activist agendas. Perhaps the boldest of such articles appeared in the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association in 1999. In the article titled "Deconstructing the Essential Father," the authors argue that "neither mothers nor fathers are essential to child development and that responsible fathering can occur within a variety of family structures" (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999, p. 397).

As advocates of homosexual parenting, Silverstein and Auerbach support their "normalcy" or homosexual parenting theory through their observations of animal behavior, They utilized the offspring-raising habits of soft-furred, tree-dwelling South American monkeys to support their view that homosexual parenting leads to positive child outcomes. "Marmosets illustrate how, within a particular bioecological context, optimal child outcomes can be achieved with fathers as primary caregivers and limited involvement by mothers. Human examples of this proposition include single fathers . . . and families headed by gay fathers" (p. 400). I am not sure that animal models are good models for humans. To their credit, however, Silverstein and Auerbach offer the following statements: "We acknowledge that our reading of the scientific literature supports our political agenda. Our goal is to generate public policy initiatives that support men in their fathering role, without discriminating against women and same-sex couples. We are also interested in encouraging public policy that supports the legitimacy of diverse family structures, rather than policy that privileges the two-parent, heterosexual, married family" (p. 399). Further, the authors state, "We realize that some of the research we cite to support our
perspective will turn out to be incorrect" (p. 399). It is noteworthy that the authors did not
consider the best interest of children to be one of their goals. In fact, a careful reading of the
article is reminiscent of activism, but not of science. That such a commentary would appear as the lead article in the premier journal of the American Psychological Association demonstrates that activism has replaced science in this instance.

B. Homosexual Couples and Child-Rearing
Homosexual adoption of children has forced the issue of homosexual couples and child-rearing to center stage. Until recently, advocacy groups have argued that an upbringing in a
homosexual environment not only presents no challenges for children, but actually may be
better than a dual-gendered parenting environment. Such advocacy seems illogical and at odds with the abundance of peer-reviewed research. Nonetheless, the civil rights of homosexual couples, with an activist backdrop of politically correct words like tolerance, diversity and nondiscrimination, seem to dismiss what is in the best interest of the child.
A close scrutiny of many of the studies provided some interesting data, more appropriately
described as problems with the research. Lerner and Nagai (2000), in their excellent review of the research concluded:
The claim has been made that homosexual parents raise children as effectively as married
biological parents. A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies, which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they suffer from severe methodological flaws.

In addition to their methodological flaws, none of the studies deals adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious non-correlation. (p. 1) The critique of the research on homosexual parenting completed by Williams (2000) arrives at essentially the same conclusion. However, Williams goes a step further in his review of the research by Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter (1983), and Golombok and Tasker (1996), which followed children of lesbian and heterosexual parents into adulthood. He noted that the followup study found that children of lesbian parents were significantly more likely to have both considered and actually engaged in homosexual relationships.

This finding did not seem particularly interesting to the researchers. Williams found that other omissions were made by researchers who conducted research in these areas as well. Huggins found a difference in the variability of self-esteem between children of homosexual and heterosexual parents. Huggins did not test for significance, hut Williams reanalyzed the data and found the differences to he significant. Williams noted that Patterson found, and left unreported, similar differences. Likewise, Williams noted that Lewis found social and emotional difficulties in the lives of children of homosexual parents, but such data did not seem to find its way into her conclusions. 

Click Here to read the entire study

The Rise Of The Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents

FROM THE FEDERALIST.com

Eich broke the rules of the game. Suddenly everything appears in another light.

By Mollie Hemingway

 ...  let’s go on an open-minded journey where we seek to understand the views of others without characterizing them as Hitler-like. It’s difficult in these times, but we can do it.

So what is the difference between marriage and other relationships?

OK. We probably already understand relationships have value, right? Assuming we’re not sociopaths, we do. So what is the difference between marriage and other relationships? There’s no question marriage has been treated dramatically differently than other relationships by governments and society. Why? Is it that it features a more vibrant or emotional connection? Or is there some feature that is a difference in kind – that marks it out as something that ought to be socially structured? We usually don’t want government in our other relationships, right? So why is marriage singled out throughout all time and human history as a different type of recognized relationship?

Well, what singled it out was that sex was involved. Sex. Knocking boots. The bump and grind. Dancing in the sheets. Making the beast with two backs. Doing the cha-cha. And so on and so forth. And why does that matter? Well, there’s precisely one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system. It’s the one that involves sex between one man and one woman. It’s with respect to that system that the unit is the mated pair. In that system, it’s not just a relationship that is the union of minds, wills or important friendships. It’s the literal union of bodies. In sexual congress, in intercourse between a man and a woman, you are literally coordinated to a single bodily end.

There’s one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system.

In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense. It’s not something that’s wrong, but should be protected speech. It’s actually something that’s right. It’s right regardless of how many people say otherwise. If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together. Consider the significance of what this means for all of humanity, that we all share this.

Now if one wants to change marriage laws to reflect something else, that’s obviously something that one can aim to do. We’ve seen the rapid, frequently unthinking embrace of that change in recent years, described one year ago in the humanist and libertarian magazine Spiked as “a case study in conformism” that should terrify “anyone who values diversity of thought and tolerance of dissent.”

Are we sure we need to accept that lie? Are we sure we want to?

Perhaps there should have been a bit of a burden of proof on those who wanted to change the institution — something beyond crying “Bigot!” in a crowded theater. Perhaps advocates of the change should have explained at some point, I don’t know, what singles out marriage as unique from other relationships under this new definition. What is marriage? That’s a good question to answer, particularly if you want to radically alter the one limiting factor that is present throughout all history. Once we get an answer for what this new marriage definition is, perhaps our media and other elites could spend some time thinking about the consequences of that change. Does it in any way affect the right of children to be raised by their own mother and father? Have we forgotten why that’s an important norm? Either way, does it change the likelihood that children will be raised by their own mother and father? Does it by definition make that an impossibility for whatever children are raised by same-sex couples? Do we no longer believe that children should be raised by their own mother and father? Did we forget to think about children in this debate, pretending that it’s only about adults? In any case, is this something that doesn’t matter if males and females are interchangeable? Is it really true that there are no significant differences between mothers and fathers? Really? Are we sure we need to accept that lie? Are we sure we want to?

CLICK HERE to read entire article

Why do we wildly over-estimate the proportion of gays and lesbians?

WEDNESDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2014 BY MICHAEL COOK Why do people in the United States (and probably other Western countries, as well) over-estimate the proportion of gays and lesbians in the population? Ever since 1948, when the Kinsey Report suggested 1-in-10, Americans have accepted wildly exaggerated figures. Last year, The Smithsonian, the official web magazine of the famous museum in Washington DC, even suggested that it was 1-in-5! However, a recent government survey in the United Kingdom found that in 2013, 1.6% of UK adults identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual. This is a very small proportion of the population, but it becomes even smaller when the figures are broken up. Only 1.6% of men identified as gay; only 0.8% of women as lesbians; and 0.5% of men and women as bisexual.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/15255#sthash.1F8AR7oE.dpuf