The Islamic fascist state of Iran executed (hanged) two gay teens tuesday (July 25). The London activist group Outrage! is calling world attention to the barbaric acts and human rights organizations are condemning them.

Like many muslim countries in the middle east, Iran is ruled by fundamentalist Islamic law which calls for executing homosexuals. Saudi Arabia recently beheaded a couple of gay men and thousands of others have been killed.

These are examples of the cruelty and inhumanity of religious fundamentlism. Islam is not alone. Some Chrisitan and Jewish groups also believe that homosexuals should be killed, based on the Book of Leviticus in the bible which clearly states that "if a man lies with a man he should be put to death.."

Of course, most Jews and Christians no longer believe or advocate what the Bible says about homosexuality, but many do. All Bible-based religions share a hostile attitude toward homosexuality and gays and it is one reason I am no longer a Christian and reject bible-based religions.

The Bible is filled with irrational homophobic and sexist ideas and teachings and has no place in a rational humanistic world.

This is an example of the dangers of the theocracy advocated by the Christian Right. Remember, Jerry Falwell agreed with the 9/11 terrorists that the U.S. was attacked because of "godless secular humanists, feminists and homosexuals."

We must pressure governments and world human rights organizations to condemn Iran and other religious fundamentalist persecution of gays and lesbians.

Visit Doug Ireland's website for pictures and more information:
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html

Well I got a little behind the past week! There's so much going on in political news it is hard to keep up.
First, Karl Rove and probably someone else (Bolton?) in the Bush Administration committed TREASON by outing CIA agent Valerie Plume to undermine her husband Joe Wilson's criticisms of Bush's Lies to justify the Iraq War. The story gets complicated, especially with all the Rove/GOP lies about the crime and the coverup, but the best place to get the facts is www.mediamatters.org

Bush nominated John G. Roberts for the Supreme Court. The imporant thing to know is that he has already argued for overturning Roe v. Wade. It does not look as though Roberts believes in a constitutional right to privacy, the basis of Roe, so not only will Roe V. Wade probably be overturned, Lawrence v. Texas (overturning sodomy laws), is in danger as well. Roberts is getting praise from the right-wing nuts like Jerry Falwell and Operation Rescue. He is a very conservative corporate Lawyer, labor rights and the environment are also in danger. You can thank all your friends who voted for Bush!

Bush called Jerry Falwell for his advice on who to nominate, and Falwell said he had complete faith in Bush becuase of his record at appointing conservative judges... in fact, Bush has already appointed many conservative circuit court judges, which may have a greater impact on constitutional rights than the Supreme Court....

Canada and Spain have now joined Belgium and the Netherlands to legalize gay marriages, giving gays the same legal rights as straight couples. So much for the U.S. being the leader of the "free world."

The Queer Action Coalition's protests against the "ex-gay" cult Love in Action in Memphis has brought national attention to the conflict between the claims of "ex-gays" like LIA's John Smid and gay people who claim that sexual orientation is biologically innate and cannot be changed.

I disgree with both groups. Ex-gay groups like Love in Action and Exodus International are really part of a larger right-wing political movement that is trying to undermine the fundamental argument used today to advocate equal rights for gays and lesbains--that sexual orientation is an immutable characterstic like race and sex, and therefore, government should on that basis include gays and lesbians a protected class in non-discrimination policies. If the anti-gay religious right can show that people can change their sexual identity and behavior, then that would undermine the mainstream liberal argument for gay rights.

The problem is that there is NO scientific proof that sexual orientation is biologically innate and immutable. The studies that seem to get media attention are faulty and based on very small samples (e.g., the Levay study of the brains of some dead gay men, etc.). Studies of twins only show about a 40-50 percent correlation of both siblings being gay (what about the other 50 percent?) Almost all these studies have major flaws. Yet the mainstream gay community continues to use them to counter the anti-gay right. There is no scientific evidence or proof of a "gay gene, " and it is very unlikely that such a gene could exist.

The problem with these biological arguments is that they totally ignore sociological evidence that human sexuality is not biologically immutable. Sexuality is very fluid across cultures, history and even lifespans of many people. Sex theorisrs like Kinsey and Freud argued, correctly I think, that human beings are "polymorphously perverse", and that sexual behavior and identity (Kinsey never used the term "sexual orientation" and rejected the biologically innate argument) are not exclusively "homo" and "hetero."

A recent study by J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University claims that sexual orientation is biologically innate and that bisxual orientation, at least among men, is a myth--that men who identity as bisexual are lying. Based on a very small sample of self-identified bisexual men, most of them were sexually aroused by men, not women. There are lots of questionable things about his research (e.g., what exactly defines "sexual orientation"? Behavior, identity, etc.)

The fundamental problem with Bailey and similar biological studies is that they lend support to the use of eugenics to eliminate homosexuality! Why do people think that if sexual orientation can be proven to be biologically determined society will be more accepting? The Nazis believed it was biological, and they tried to develop use eugenics to eliminate homosexuality and other abnormalities. Bailey himself as written that if it became possible for parents to choose the sexual orientation of their children, that "selecting for heterosexuality seems to be morally acceptable.." What he is promoting is the eugenic elimination of homosexuality! This is where the biological research is headed...

There is a more radical, and truthful, argument to make. It goes back to Freud, Kinsey and the radical gay liberationists. Same-sex desire is just as "natural" as hetero desire and that true sexual liberation must go beyond the liberal tolerance of homosexuality as a biological abnormality of a fixed minority and demand complete acceptance of homo desire and the equality of homo and hetero desire and sexuality. Liberation demands the elimination of the socially constructed "homo-hetero" dichotomy of sexual desire. It means that "gayness" is not limited to a fixed biological minority. It is part of normal human sexuallity.

This radical argument is more complicated than the biology v. choice argument, but it subverts the anti-gay right's basic argument that gays can and should change. If the issue is whether gays can change, then it follows that straight people can change. If straight people can change, if they are not born "straight", then why are heterosexuals given special rights and priviledges?

Most people seem concerned that a social constructionist argument would undermine the argument for gay rights and give ammunition to the anti-gay right. It would undermine the liberal argument based on tolerance only for immutable characteristics ("they can't help it"). But it would offer a more radical argument which would undermine the anti-gay right. People should have a right to CHOOSE to be gay, straight or bisexual. Freedom of conscience, freedom from religious oppression, these are freedom's clearly laid out in the Bill of Rights. This argument is not based on faulty scientific claims, and is not undermined by "ex-gays" who claim they have changed their sexual identity/preference.

There are many studies and books which make the social constructionist argument, but the best place to start is Michel Foucault's HISTORY OF SEXUALITY, which launched the social constructionist movement in queer and femnist studies.

With the resignation of Sandra O'Connor, it is a guarantee that George W. Bush will be appointing AT LEAST two right-wing Supreme Court Justices, moving the Supreme Court even further to the right. O'Connor was the most imporant swing voter on many important issues, including affirmative action and abortion rights.

George W. Bush has promised his Rapture Right supporters that he would appoint their people to the Supreme Court. Karl Rove and The Shrub are in debt to the religious fundamentalists and Catholics who elected him. Now it is payback for them.

Goodbye abortion rigthts, gay rights, affirmative action, workers rights, etc. Kiss it all good bye and you can thank your Uncle Tom Republican friends who voted for George W. Bush!

I grow more angry every day as this country moves further and further to the right. I see all these W bumper stickers, I hear all this so-called "liberal" talk of inclusion and reaching out to gay Republicans and it makes me sick. These people, our so-called friends and co-workers, and family, who voted for this neo-fascist Republican government.. they are to blame for our demise. "Moderate" Republicans are powerless to stop the fascist takeover of the Republican Party--they have even allowed it to happen just so they could win elections. There is no longer a "moderate" Republican party !

Our only hope is to fight back, and take to the streets and protest. The Democratic Party is near death... it is time for mass movements to demand the impeachment of George Bush to save our country from FASCISM. Yes it is called Fascism! Wake Up People!