NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label sexual orientation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual orientation. Show all posts

13 November 2014

Are you reflected in the new Congress? How does Congress compare to the country overall? 6NOV14

 map of united states
HERE is an interactive map (not the one above) from +The Guardian , check it out and see just how many people in the 114th Congress (to be sworn in in January 2014). Click the choices at the top and when you are done the map will show you which members of the new congress are like you.....


Are you reflected in the new Congress?
Despite the record number of women and the first black senator elected in the south since Reconstruction, the new US Congress will still be largely male and largely white. A person's gender, race, sexual orientation, or age doesn't necessarily mean they represent the views of a whole demographic, but lack of diversity could result in certain concerns not being heard – or not heard loudly enough. Click the categories below to find yourself in the new Congress. This graphic will be updated as more seats are called.CLICK here to try the map
*Notes: (1) Our dataset did not include cross-categorization of ethnicity and race. All race categories ("white", "black", etc.) should be interpreted as non-hispanic. (2) The "under 45" category is meant to be inclusive, but – fun fact – the US Constitution bars those under the age of 25 from serving in the House of Representatives and you need to be 30 to serve in the Senate.
Source: AP; United States Senate; House Press Gallery; US Census, 2010; American Community Survey, 2012; NALEO; MAP and the Victory Fund. Additional research by Amanda Michel and Sarah Galo/The Guardian
This interactive was updated on 6 November 2014 to correct information related to the graduate degrees of members of Congress, which had been underreported by the Associated Press.

09 November 2013

No one should be fired for who they are WE NEED TO MAKE ENDA THE LAW OF THE LAND 9NOV13

IF a person can do their job and get along with their coworkers there is no reason their sexual orientation should be a issue. Only ignorance, prejudice and hate, none of which a Christian nation should be known for, will keep ENDA from becoming law.
This week, the U.S. Senate voted to consider the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. This legislation has a very clear purpose: to make sure that no one can be fired for who they are or who they love.
Right now, only 17 states prohibit employment discrimination against LGBT workers. That leaves millions of Americans who go to work every day fearing that they could lose their job because of who they are.
As the President said earlier this week, that's not acceptable.
A majority of Americans assume there is a prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. There's not, and that's exactly why this is so important -- and why we need your help to get the word out. Yesterday, Press Secretary Jay Carney explained what ENDA does, and why it's so important in the fight for equality.
Watch the video -- and pass it on so that other people know what a big deal this is.
At a time when Washington is spending so much of its time bickering over partisan issues, Congress has an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans by passing this commonsense -- and overdue -- law.
It's not just civil rights advocates who support ENDA. Business leaders know that prohibiting employment discrimination is good for business. Inclusive workplaces attract the best and brightest employees, and improve their bottom line.
ENDA is set for a final vote in the Senate, and then the House needs to pass it. Americans need to know where members of Congress stand, and what is at stake.
We need your help -- please watch this video, and forward it on so that all Americans learn how important this is, too.
Thanks,
Valerie
Valerie Jarrett
Senior Advisor
The White House
@VJ44

22 February 2013

House Republicans Strip Protections From LGBT Victims In New Violence Against Women Act 22FEB13

rep eric "kapo" cantor r VA is one nasty SOB. With this action on the VAWA he shows he deserves the nickname kapo, he would have handed his family over to the gestapo to save his own skin. That is what he is doing with the VAWA. He is handing the women of the LGBT community and Native American communities over to the right-wing social engineers, the extremeist, many of  whom claim to be guided by their religious beliefs, to do with them as they will because they are different and aren't the kind of women their god intended them to be and so don't deserve protection from violence. From ThinkProgress......

The Violence Against Women Act expired at the end of 2012 after House Republicans refused to accept the Senate bill’s protections for LGBT, Native American, and undocumented victims. Though the Senate passed another bipartisan VAWA reauthorization over a week ago, House Republicans may derail passage once again. On Friday, House GOP leaders released their own VAWA bill, stripping protections for LGBT individuals and adding a loophole for Native American victims.
Where the Senate bill granted access to federal grants for LGBT victims, the House bill is silent, removing all mention of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” As a result of this omission, LGBT-inclusive crisis centers could be shut out from essential grant programs:
The House GOP bill entirely leaves out provisions aimed at helping LGBT victims of domestic violence. Specifically, the bill removes “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the list of underserved populations who face barriers to accessing victim services, thereby disqualifying LGBT victims from a related grant program. The bill also eliminates a requirement in the Senate bill that programs that receive funding under VAWA provide services regardless of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The House bill also gives states some wiggle room by shifting greater authority to state government to decide which victimized groups are “underserved” and therefore deserve funding.
The Senate bill’s protections for Native American victims were also protested as“unconstitutional” and received vocal opposition from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). Though the House bill does grant tribal courts the authority to prosecute non-native perpetrators of domestic abuse, these abusers can only receive a maximum sentence of 1 year. The bill states, “A participating tribe may exercise this special domestic violence jurisdiction over only domestic or dating violence offenses punishable by up to one year committed in Indian country against a tribal member or non-tribal member Indian who resides in Indian country.” The House also adds a provision allowing the accused to take their case to federal court if they feel their rights are being violated. Currently, Native American victims with non-native partners are caught in a limbo where tribal courts cannot touch perpetrators but federal law enforcement does not have jurisdiction.
Since its inception in 1994, VAWA has been instrumental in driving down the number of partner homicides and establishing community programs to help women in abusive situations.
UPDATE
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), a chief advocate for VAWA in the Senate, blasted the House bill as a “non-starter” and called for moderate Republicans to take action: “It’s not a compromise, it’s an unfortunate effort to exclude specific groups of women from receiving basic protections under the law… The protections included in the Senate for new communities of women are not bargaining chips that can be played with in order to appease the far right in their party. These are badly needed new tools to give women an escape from a life stunted by abuse…It’s time for moderate Republicans in the House to step up and finally force their leadership to stop ignoring the calls of women across the country.”

14 July 2011

Tim Pawlenty says scientists are “in dispute” over whether being gay is a choice 13JUL11

tim pawlenty is wrong to use semantics to pander to social conservatives just to further his political ambitions. What is wrong with speaking the truth? From PolitiFact......

Says scientists are "in dispute" over whether being gay is a choice.

Tim Pawlenty on Sunday, July 10th, 2011 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Tim Pawlenty says scientists are “in dispute” over whether being gay is a choice

During a July 10, 2011, appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty about the origins of homosexuality. Here’s their exchange:

Gregory: "Let me ask you about social policy. You've notably said that you're a big fan of Lady Gaga and even the song Born This Way. There's a lot of debate about a gay marriage pledge in Iowa. And related to that, I wonder, do you agree with some of those who are behind that, that being gay is a choice?"

Pawlenty: "Well, I have two teenage daughters who listen to Lady Gaga, so I'm subjected to it. And it has some good qualities to it. But as to, as to gay marriage, I'm in support of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman. I have not supported the issues of allowing gay couples to have the same benefits … as traditional couples. And so this is an issue in Iowa and across the whole country. But I've stood in favor of traditional marriage and traditional relationships in that regard.

Gregory: "Is being gay a choice?"

Pawlenty: "Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, the scientists work on that and try to figure out if it's behavioral..."

Gregory: "Right."

Pawlenty: "...or if it's partly genetic."

Gregory:"What do you think?"

Pawlenty: "Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard."

Gregory: "So you, you think it's not a choice."

Pawlenty: "Well, there is no...."

Gregory: "That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you're ‘born that way.’"

Pawlenty: "There's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic. We don't know that. So we don't know to what extent, you know, it's behavioral, and that's something that's been debated by scientists for a long time. But as I understand the science, there's no current conclusion that it's genetic."

We decided to rate two of Pawlenty’s statements separately. In another item, we’ll look at his claim that "there's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic." In this item, we’ll look at the first part of the exchange. We're not fact checking whether being gay is a choice, but whether scientists are "in dispute" over whether it is or is not.

We’ll start out by noting an important difference -- the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

Scientists don’t doubt that it’s possible for someone who’s gay to choose, through sheer willpower, to ignore their impulses and abstain from homosexual activity. Both gay and straight people have been going celibate by choice since time immemorial. But scientists add that for such people, sexual impulses don’t go away.

So, scientists argue, even if sexual behavior is a choice, sexual orientation -- the state of being gay, and the impulses one feels -- is not a choice.

"We only choose to act, and our actions are influenced by desires," said Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychologist who specializes in the origins of homosexuality. "So I think that in an ordinary understanding of ‘choice,’ sexual orientation -- i.e., increased sexual desire for one type of person -- is not chosen, but sexual behavior is."

Both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association -- the two leading organizations for their professions -- reject the idea that the driving factor in determining one’s sexual orientation is personal choice.

A spokeswoman for the American Psychiatric Association -- which has about 36,000 members out of roughly 48,000 psychiatrists nationwide --  didn’t recall any significant internal dissension in recent years over the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice. Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association, which has 150,000 members, also considers it a "settled question" that homosexuality isn’t a choice, said Clinton W. Anderson, the associate executive director of the American Psychological Association and the director of its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender concerns office.

Interestingly, we found less division than we’d expected between gay-rights advocates and social conservatives.

Michael Cole-Schwartz -- a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay advocacy group -- said that "there is significant agreement that one does not choose one’s sexual orientation."

Meanwhile, Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council -- a leading think tank for social conservatives -- agreed with the distinction between orientation and behavior. He suggested that fuzzy definitions of "sexual orientation" explain why the two camps sometimes talk past each other.

"Part of the problem is that the term ‘sexual orientation’ is somewhat ambiguous," Sprigg said. He suggests that it is sometimes used to cover three separate elements -- attractions, behaviors and self-identification.

"What I generally say is that I don‘t believe that same-sex attractions are a choice, but behaviors and self-identification are," he said. "If Pawlenty had wanted to be more subtle, he could have asked Gregory what he meant" by being gay.

In fact, Sprigg articulated his somewhat nuanced view on the Family Research Council website in 2010, in a document titled "The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality." In it, he reviewed some of the studies on this topic and concluded that "if it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now—no one is ‘born gay.’" Yet he went on to write that "homosexual attractions are clearly not a ‘choice’ in the vast majority of cases."

In an interview, Sprigg said he didn’t see the two statements as contradictory.

"When I say it’s clear that no one is born gay, I don’t think any of those three factors" -- attractions, behaviors and self-identification -- "are fixed and determined at birth. Just because it’s not a choice doesn’t mean it’s present at birth. It could be the result of developmental factors in childhood. Sometime between the time you’re born and the time you begin to experience sexual attraction, things can happen that can affect your development."

He even pointed to an American Psychological Association statement that "although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation – heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality -- is determined by any particular factor or factors."

The scientists we spoke to freely acknowledged that much is unknown about what determines sexual orientation. (More on that in our accompanying item.) But what scientists do know pretty much rules out the idea that homosexuality is simply a choice.

At this point, we need to note an important caveat: What we’ve been discussing here applies primarily to gay men. There is actually no solid scientific consensus about the causes of female homosexuality, because the research on that question has been much less extensive.

We struggled with the question of how we should factor in what one might call the lesbian exception to the scientific consensus on homosexuality. Neither Pawlenty nor Gregory specifically referred to either gay men or gay women in their comments. Ultimately, we concluded that the science of what causes women to be gay was too unformed to draw any solid conclusions, so we set it aside as a factor in our ratings.

So where does this leave us?

Pawlenty said that scientists are "in dispute" about whether being gay is a choice or not. We think most people would interpret that to mean sexual orientation -- that is, attractions and impulses -- rather than sexual behavior. And on that question, it seems that the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Human Rights Campaign and even the Family Research Council are in agreement. So we rate Pawlenty’s statement False.
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, July 13th, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.
Subjects: Gays and Lesbians, Science
Sources:
Tim Pawlenty, interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, July 10, 2011

J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne and Nicholas G. Martin, "Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, March 2000

Susan J. Bradley, Gillian D. Oliver, Avinoam B. Chernick, and Kenneth J. Zucker, "Experiment of Nurture: Ablatio Penis at 2 Months, Sex Reassignment at 7 Months, and a Psychosexual Follow-up in Young Adulthood," Pediatrics, July 1998

William G. Reiner and John P. Gearhart, "Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth," New England Journal of Medicine, January 22, 2004

American Psychological Association, amicus brief for gay marriage, Sept. 26, 2007

Family Research Council, "The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality," 2010

Chandler Burr, "Homosexuality and Biology" (The Atlantic), March 1993

E-mail interview with Michael Bailey, Northwestern University psychologist, July 12, 2011

Interview with Clinton W. Anderson, associate executive director of the American Psychological Association, July 12, 2011

Interview with Jack Drescher, distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, July 12, 2011

E-mail interview with Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, July 12, 2011

Interview with Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, July 12, 2011
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Martha Hamilton