Homosexuality and Judaism

Homosexuality in the Jewish Scriptures

The Torah is the primary source for Jewish views on homosexuality. It states that: "[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a to'eva" (Leviticus 18:22).

The term to'eva is usually translated as "abomination". However, because the word is used twice in regards to homosexuality, its second use has been understood by the Talmud to be a contraction of the words to'eh hu va, meaning "He is deviating from what is natural." (literally "He is wandering with it [from the natural way of the world]" since the Hebrew word to'e means "He is wandering", va "with it")

According to the rabbis, the prohibition is a part of the Noachide Laws, and thus applies to Gentiles as well as Jews. In both, very little is said about female homosexuality (known as mesoleloth). {1}
Homosexuality and Orthodox Judaism

Sexual intercourse between two men is forbidden by the Torah, as stated above, and is a capital offense. The Torah prohibition of Lo tikrevu legalot ervah ("You shall not come close to another person for the purpose of committing a sexual crime") forbids all other sexual acts which can lead to intercourse, and prescribes the punishment of lashes.

However, under Judaism, it is very difficult to get a conviction that would lead to this prescribed punishment (and, in any case, modern instances of this are not judged). The severity of the punishment indicates the seriousness with which the act is seen.

Homosexual acts between women (lesbianism) were forbidden by the rabbis on the basis of "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow [any] of their customs." (Leviticus 18:3). The oral law (Sifra there, 8:8) explains that what is meant is sexual customs and that one of those was the marriage of women to each other, as well as a man to a woman and her daughter. The Talmud follows this view, forbidding lesbianism. Like all Rabbinical prohibitions, violation can incur lashes. Female homosexuality is regarded as less serious than male homosexuality.

The Orthodox Jewish position generally holds that homosexual attraction is not inherently sinful, though it is regarded as unnatural. However, someone who has had homosexual intercourse is seen to have allowed their "unnatural attractions" to get the better of them, and it is thus believed that they would be held accountable by God for their actions. If he does teshuva (repentance), i.e. he ceases his forbidden actions, regrets what he has done, apologizes to God, and makes a binding resolution never to repeat those actions, he is seen to be forgiven by God (in a similar manner to the other capital crimes, except murder).
Modern Orthodox Jewish View

In recent years a very small number of (mainly Modern Orthodox) rabbis and laypeople have begun re-evaluating homosexuality as a phenomenon, and the Orthodox community's response to homosexual Jews. Until recently it has been assumed that all homosexuals chose to engage in homosexual actions in order to spite God (le-hach'is), to be perverse, or due to mental illness. Familiarity with sociological and biological studies, as well as personal contact with Jewish homosexuals, has brought some Orthodox leaders to different viewpoints. This probably started as early as the 1970s. This view is described in the original entry on Homosexuality penned by Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits in the original release of the Encyclopedia Judaica (Keter Publishing). Jakobovits writes:

Jewish law [...] rejects the view that homosexuality is to be regarded merely as a disease or as morally neutral.... Jewish law holds that no hedonistic ethic, even if called "love", can justify the morality of homosexuality any more than it can legitimize adultery or incest, however genuinely such acts may be performed out of love and by mutual consent.

In the 1975 yearbook of the Encyclopedia, Rabbi Norman Lamm (of Yeshiva University, New York and a leader in Modern Orthodox Judaism), wrote something quite different. He was more familiar with the scientific and psychological research of the day (early 1970s) on homosexuality. As such, he invoked the principle of Jewish law termed ones, denoting an "accident" or event beyond one's control. In this way, homosexuality could be redefined as an act of perversion or heresy, and it would be wrong to persecute or judge homosexuals for their actions. The views represented in his 1975 article elaborated his views in earlier articles, mainly in the January/February edition of Jewish Life, 1968. Rabbi Lamm's views have, over the years, gained some foothold in Modern Orthodox Judaism, while being largely rejected by Haredi Orthodoxy. The Haredi community sees these recent reevaluations as manipulation of Jewish law for political purposes, and has not shown any signs of accepting homosexuality.

Other viewpoints are:

* "Compassion, sympathy, empathy, understanding - these are essential elements of Judaism. They are what homosexual Jews who care about Judaism need from us today." Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth ( United Kingdom)
* Chaim Rapoport has written Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View, he is Rabbi of London’s Ilford United Synagogue and a member of the cabinet of the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom.
* Edah, a modern Orthodox advocacy group, has decided to hold public meetings on this topic for the Orthodox Jewish community.

Homosexuality and Conservative/Masorti Judaism

In the Conservative Jewish community, the scholars on the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) make decisions concerning Jewish law. In 1992 the CJLS accepted four teshuvot (responsa) on homosexuality; these were used as backing sources for a unified consensus position. The consensus position is that given the current scientific, psychological and biological information on the origin and nature of homosexuality, homosexual relationships can not be judged to be in accord with Halakha (Jewish law). Some of the responsa note that future information on this subject may be sufficient to utilize lenient views and potential legal novellae; therefore the law committee holds the right to re-evaluate this area at a future date.

The "CJLS Consensus Statement of Policy Regarding Homosexual Jews in the Conservative Movement" approved March 25, 1992, reads as follows:

(A) We will not perform commitment ceremonies for gays and lesbians.

(B) We will not knowingly admit avowed homosexuals to our rabbinical and cantorial schools, or the Rabbinical Assembly or Cantors' Assembly. At the same time, we will not instigate witch-hunts against those who are already members or students.

(C) Whether homosexuals may function as teachers or youth leaders in our congregations and schools will be left to the Rabbi authorized to make halakhic decisions for a given institution in the Conservative movement. Presumably, in this as in all other matters, the rabbi will make such decisions taking into account the sensitivities of the people of his or her congregation or school. The rabbi's own reading of Jewish law on these issues, informed by the responsa written for the CJLS to date, will also be a determinative factor in these decisions.

(D) Similarly, the rabbi of each Conservative institution, in consultation with its lay leaders, will be entrusted to formulate policies regarding the eligibility of homosexuals for honors within worship and lay leadership positions.

(E) In any case, in accordance with the Rabbinical Assembly and United Synagogue Resolutions we are hereby affirming gays and lesbians are welcome in our congregations, youth groups, camps and schools.

However, a significant minority of Conservative Jews, including a growing number of its rabbis, believe that one may change the Jewish position on homosexuality within the halakhic process. Advocates of this view include Rabbis Elliot N. Dorff, Harold M. Schulweis, Jacob Neusner, Bradley Shavit Artson, Ayelet Cohen, J. Rolando Matalon, Marcelo R. Bronstein, Simchah Roth, Leonard Gordon and Joel Alter.

The Rabbinical Assembly has issued a position paper stating that the Divine image is reflected by every human being, of any sexual orientation, and admits that there is good reason to be concerned about the fact that gay and lesbian Jews have experienced not only the constant threats of physical violence and homophobic rejection, but also the pains of anti-Semitism. They note that homosexuals are members of all Jewish congregations, and that the AIDS crisis has exacerbated the anxiety and suffering of homosexual Jews. In conclusion, the Rabbinical Assembly states:

We, the Rabbinical Assembly, while affirming our tradition's prescription for heterosexuality,

1) Support full civil equality for gays and lesbians in our national life, and

2) Deplore the violence against gays and lesbians in our society, and

3) Reiterate that, as are all Jews, gay men and lesbians are welcome as members in our congregations, and

4) Call upon our synagogues and the arms of our movement to increase our awareness, understanding and concern for our fellow Jews who are gay and lesbian.

Although the official position of the Conservative movement is that homosexual relations are a violation of Jewish law, the movement generally views this violation as no less or more serious that other violations of Jewish law that most of its members may violate, such as spending money on Shabbat (the Sabbath) or eating non-kosher food. As such, there is no logical reason to view homosexuality as any different from the behavior of any other Jew that isn't fully observant of Jewish law and tradition. As such, the Rabbinical Assembly's Commission on Human Sexuality recommends discussed ways to mainstream homosexual Jews into congregations in the movement's pastoral letter on all aspects of human sexuality: "This Is My Beloved, This Is My Friend: A Rabbinic Letter on Intimate Relations". The Rabbinical Assembly recommends that:

1. Synagogue groups might meet with gay and lesbian Jews to put a face to this issue and to learn how the synagogue can be more welcoming. The goal would be to warm synagogue members to the fact that Jewish gays, lesbians and their families are not an outside group but are part of our own community and should be treated as such.

2. In those instances where synagogues have programs for special constituencies within the congregation, such programs might be created for gay and lesbian Jews and their families as well. So, for example, information about support groups such as Parents and Friends of Lesbians and gays (PFLAG) can be disseminated through the synagogue media, and the synagogue might host such a group. Gays and lesbians, though, should generally be integrated into the ongoing activities of the congregation.

3. Synagogue and school educators might include, as part of the curriculum, a section on sexuality, and within this, some material on homosexuality....In such courses it should be made clear that sexual activity, while an important part of everyone's life, is not the whole of it. One consequence of this is that Jewish homosexuals, like Jewish heterosexuals, should not be seen narrowly as people who engage in certain kinds of sexual practices, but rather as people and Jews, with the full range of interactions that people and Jews have with each other.

4. Conservative synagogues, individually, regionally and nationally, might organize social action programs to advance the civil protections of gays and lesbians.

It is believed that some Conservative synagogues in the San Francisco area (and perhaps elsewhere) have began performing same-sex marriages. In 2003 the CJLS decided to revisit the issue; no new definitive ruling has yet been forthcoming. [1] The CJLS did issue a statement on April 11, 2005 recognizing these divisions:

1. At the heart of the Torah is the concept of holiness (kedushah) expressed in its command, "Youshall be holy, for I the Lord am holy." Flowing from this declaration are policies regulating the spiritual, ritual, social and sexual lives of Jews. Kiddushin, the sanctification of love in heterosexual marriage, is a centerpiece of Jewish life.

2. For a variety of reasons, the Jewish ideal of heterosexual marriage is unrealistic for many Jews. We emphatically recognize the human dignity (k’vod habriot) of all such individuals, and invite them to participate within our religious communities.

3. Recalling the Torah’s command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord," we rededicate our movement to making its congregations and educational institutions inclusive and welcoming of all Jews regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.

4. The parameters of sexual conduct for gay and lesbian Jews, their eligibility for admission to rabbinical and cantorial school, and commitment ceremonies remain the subject of a lively debate within the ongoing deliberations of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. [1]

Homosexuality and Reform Judaism

The Reform Judaism movement, the largest branch of Judaism in North America, has rejected the traditional view in all areas relating to this issue. As such, they do not prohibit ordination of gays and lesbians as rabbis and cantors. They view Levitical laws as sometimes seen to be referring to prostitution, making it a stand against Jews adopting the idolatrous fertility cults and practices of the neighbouring Canaanite nations rather than a blanket condemnation of same-sex intercourse or homosexuality. Reform authorities consider that, in light of what is seen as current scientific evidence about the nature of homosexuality as a biological sexual orientation, a new interpretation of the law is required.

In the late 1980s the primary seminary of the Reform movement, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, changed its admission requirements to allow gays to join the student body. In 1990 Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) officially endorsed a report of their committee on homosexuality and rabbis. They concluded that "all rabbis, regardless of sexual orientation, be accorded the opportunity to fulfill the sacred vocation that they have chosen" and that "all Jews are religiously equal regardless of their sexual orientation."

In 1996 CCAR passed a resolution of civil marriage. However, this same resolution made a distinction between civil marriages and religious marriages; this resolution thus stated:

However we may understand homosexuality, whether as an illness, as a genetically based dysfunction or as a sexual preference and lifestyle - we cannot accommodate the relationship of two homosexuals as a "marriage" within the context of Judaism, for none of the elements of qiddushin (sanctification) normally associated with marriage can be invoked for this relationship. [2]

The Central Conference of American Rabbis support the right of gay and lesbian couples to share fully and equally in the rights of civil marriage, and

That the CCAR oppose governmental efforts to ban gay and lesbian marriage.

That this is a matter of civil law, and is separate from the question of rabbinic officiation at such marriages.

In 1998, an ad hoc CCAR committee on Human Sexuality issued its majority report (11 to 1, 1 abstention) which stated that the holiness within a Jewish marriage "may be present in committed same gender relationships between two Jews and that these relationships can serve as the foundation of stable Jewish families, thus adding strength to the Jewish community." The report called for CCAR to support rabbis in officiating at gay marriages. Also in 1998, the Responsa Committee of the CCAR issued a lengthy teshuvah (rabbinical opinion) that offered detailed argumentation in support of both sides of the question whether a rabbi may officiate at a commitment ceremony for a same-gender couple.

In March 2000 CCAR issued a new resolution stating that "We do hereby resolve that, that the relationship of a Jewish, same gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual, and further resolved, that we recognize the diversity of opinions within our ranks on this issue. We support the decision of those who choose to officiate at rituals of union for same-gender couples, and we support the decision of those who do not."
Homosexuality and Reconstructionist Judaism

The Reconstructionist movement has rejected the traditional view in all areas relating to this issue; they view all restrictions on homosexuality as null and void. As such, they ordain homosexual Jews as rabbis and cantors. The Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA) permits Jewish homosexual marriages and homosexual intermarriages.
____________________________________________________________________
This article is based on text from "Homosexuality and Judaism" at Wikipedia.org, and as such is available under the GFDL license.

References

1. "Homosexuality," Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Religions
2. Homosexuality (Word doc) - Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards
3. Reform's Position on Homosexuality - Soc.Culture.Jewish Newsgroup FAQ

Further Reading

• Religion & Ethics Newsweekly: Trembling Before G-d (May 21, 2004)

Points In Defense of Gay Marriage

Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. Gay couples are denied significant rights when they are not allowed to marry, and this results in injustices. The arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage do not merit the legal support of the state, since the state's job is not to promote popular morality or opinion, but the rights of its citizens.

Through Thick and Thin: Immigration and
Uploaded by Breakthrough

• Rights denied to committed gay couples:

The General Accounting Office of the Federal Government in 1997, in a 75 page brief prepared for the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee enumerated some 1,049 laws giving rights to married heterosexual couples (http://www.marriageequality.com/facts/index.htm). These rights are denied to gay couples. In an Editorial from March of 2000, the New Jersey Law Journal gives some examples of rights denied to committed same-sex couples(1). “Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges… workers' compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans…the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse…” and many others. These instances of discrimination based on the preference for legally married couples effect many people negatively when they least expect it. Unmarried heterosexual couples, however, have the option of being legally married. Same-sex couples have no such recourse.

• The Legal Precedent and the Constitutional Case:

The closest parallel in our legal history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950’s (Interracial Marriages in America). These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks. Hannah Arendt, a journalist and intellectual of the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, as quoted by Andrew Sullivan in “Why civil union isn't marriage,” (2) argued against the miscegenation laws, saying, “The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' ... and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.” Sullivan, senior editor at the New Republic, goes on to say, “Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people — to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband? Not a close call.” This being said, can we deny that the right to marriage - to whomever one might choose - is constitutionally guaranteed?

Keeping gay marriage illegal also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. According to the American Civil Liberties Union in 1996, (3) “The law [against same-sex marriage] discriminates on the basis of sex because it makes one's ability to marry depend on one's gender.” The ACLU goes on to say, “Classifications which discriminate on the basis of gender must be substantially related to some important government purpose…tradition by itself is not an important government purpose. If it were, sex discrimination would be quite permissible; discrimination against women has a pedigree in tradition at least as long and time honored as that of discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage.”

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is preservation of tradition cited as a power or intention of our government. There is no constitutional basis for denying gay couples marriage, and every constitutional reason why our government should actively pursue legalizing gay marriage in order to give gay men and lesbians their rights as equal citizens of the United States and to ensure their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness that every American is guaranteed. Our government's purpose is to defend the rights of the people, and in this instance our government has undoubtedly failed in its duties.
At one time it was considered perverted and unnatural for black and white people to want to marry each other. Despite protests from the prejudiced, the Supreme Court defended the rights of the people. Now who would say that a black and a white should not be allowed to marry? It would be considered the height of bad taste and racial prejudice. I am confident that after gay marriage is legalized, it will soon be considered just as prejudiced to say that they should not have that right as it is today to say that different races should not marry.

Some responses to anti-gay marriage arguments:

• One of the first claims that seems to come up when gay marriage is discussed is that homosexual relations/relationships are not biologically natural. Same-sex couples cannot naturally produce children through their union.

"Consider this. If there is a necessary link between marriage and procreation, strange consequences would follow. A state could and, to be consistent, should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile or impotent. If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives. The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood. If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason." (4)

• Another popular argument is that allowing gays to marry will further degrade the already struggling institution of marriage.

“As conservatives tirelessly and rightly point out, marriage is society’s most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation. When not so long ago it was illegal in parts of America for blacks to marry whites, no one could claim that this was a trivial disenfranchisement… To outweigh such a serious claim it is not enough to say that gay marriage might lead to bad things. Bad things happened as a result of legalizing contraception, but that did not make it the wrong thing to do. Besides, it seems doubtful that extending marriage to say, another 3 or 5 percent of the population would have anything like the effects that no-fault divorce has had, to say nothing of contraception. By now, the “traditional” understanding of marriage has been sullied in all kinds of ways. It is hard to think of a bigger affront to tradition for instance, than allowing married women to own property independently of their husbands or allowing them to charge their husbands with rape. Surely it is unfair to say that marriage may be reformed for the sake of anyone and everyone except homosexuals, who must respect the dictates of tradition.”(5)

• Appeals to the tradition of marriage are illogical.

The appeal to tradition in denial of gay marriage rights has many inconsistencies. E.J. Graff, author of What is Marriage For? in 1996 points out many of them. He says “Very little about marriage is historically consistent enough to be 'traditional.' That it involves two people? Then forget the patriarch Jacob, whose two wives and two concubines produced the heads of the twelve tribes. That it involves a religious blessing? Not early Christian marriages, before marriage was a sacrament. That it is recognized by law? Forget centuries of European prole “marriages” conducted outside the law, in which no property was involved. That it’s about love, not money? So much for centuries of negotiation about medieval estates, bride-price, morning gift and dowry (not to mention bride-burnings in today’s India).” (6) Every appeal to tradition in preservation of the present marriage laws falls into the same pit of illogically. Marriage has been different in each society throughout the ages and throughout the history of the United States.

• Even some conservatives advocate the inclusion of gays in the marriage institution.

Mark Strasser, Professor of Law at Capital University in 1999, along with many self-proclaimed conservative advocates of gay marriage, argues that allowing gays to marry would increase stability in gay relationships and discourage promiscuity in the gay population. He says, “State interests in the recognition and promotion of marriage include the promotion of stability, the limitation of the disorganized breakdown of relations, and the provision of a home for the production and rearing of children.” (7) You can't accuse gays of being promiscuous, if you won't allow them access to an institution that, amoung other things, works to limit promiscuity in society.

• Many people, trying to be tolerant, say that gays should have an institution for defining their partnerships legally, but they don't want gays to be included in what they see as the heterosexual-only institution of marriage. They want gay marriage to be called something else, just to define it as different. Here's the problem with the 'civil union' approach:

In Vermont a court recently legalized not marriage for gays, but a “civil union” which affords same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of married couples, but without calling it “marriage.” While I applaud Vermont’s court system for this step in the right direction, a new institution for gay couples is not the answer. It simply affirms their second-class status in American society. In the Supreme Court case Brown vs. The Board of Education, the policy of “separate but equal” with regard to race was struck down as being unconstitutional, because separate can never be equal. Creating a separate institution for gay couples is just as unequal and unconstitutional as creating separate institutions for blacks and whites.

• Some claim that gay people are not being discriminated against in any way. The argument often sounds like this: Gay people are allowed to marry--they're allowed to marry people of the opposite gender.

In response to this argument I refer you again to the words of Andrew Sullivan (2): “Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people — to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband?" In America we are granted, as an unalienable right, the right to pursue our happiness. If we tell gay people that the only people they can marry are those they aren't attracted to or can't love romantically, then we are violating this right.

• One of the better, less bigotted arguments against gay marriage is that the advantages that go along with legal marriage are not a right, but a reward given by our government for behavior it approves of.

Our government was set up from the very beginning, as an institution whose goal was the preservation of the rights of its citizens. Nowhere in either the constitution or the declaration of independence is there outlined a governmental responsibility or power to reward behaviors the government or the masses like. Our government’s job is to protect the rights of all of us, including those of us that are gay, not to uphold the irrational prejudices of the masses, as it is doing in this case. It is the government’s responsibility not to uphold in this case the prejudiced will of the people, no matter how much of a majority they constitute (and it's growing smaller every day folks) but to defend the rights of its people. Period.

• The concept of gays, even committed gay couples, raising children seems to be anathema to many people.

There has never been any evidence that children of gay couples (either biological or adopted) are harmed by their environment. In many cases these children seem to be more well adjusted than their "normally" raised counterparts. From T. Richard Sullivan, PhD affiliated with the School of Social Work, University of British Columbia, and Albert Baques, social worker with the B.C. Ministry for Children and Families, 1999 we learn that “The assumption that a gay and lesbian orientation is anathema to child rearing reflects homophobia and the idealization of a particular family structure that is assumed to be morally superior…[In fact though, research shows that]no differences in well-being and normative functioning have been found between children reared by heterosexuals and those raised by lesbian or gay parents. 'The fear that children raised by homosexuals will grow up to be lesbian or gay suggests that it would be awful if that were the case. In order to prove that they are worthy parents, lesbians and gay men have had to prove that they are not likely to raise children who will grow up to be like them' (Benkov). This despite the fact that studies of over 300 offspring of gay or lesbian parents in twelve different samples have indicated no evidence of significant disturbances in the development of sexual identity.” (8)

In addition, common evidence that children of gay couples are healthy and normal is that they grow up to lead heterosexual lifestyles. What if you told a Christian couple that it was bad if their children grew up to be Christians? I doubt that would go over very well. But this is what gay couples are told every day. The only way their children can be normal, can prove that their parents haven't harmed them, is if they grow up to lead a heterosexual lifestyle. Granted, many gay couples would never wish their struggles against prejudice on their children, but telling them that if their children grow up to be like them they are horrible parents--I call that a subtle form of psychological torture.

The other problem with assuming that heterosexual households are the superior environment for raising children is this: "[Gay couples and their children] present family units many in our society believe to be outside the mainstream of American family life. The reality, however, is that most children today do not live in so-called "traditional"…families with a stay-at-home mother and a father who works from 9:00 to 5:00. According to Bureau of Census statistics, twenty-five percent of children today are born out-of-wedlock to single women, mostly young, minority, and impoverished; half of all marriages end in divorce; and married couples with children now make up only twenty-six percent of United States households. It is unrealistic to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a time long past." (9)

Again, there is a conservative argument in favor of allowing gay couples to not only raise their own children without interferance, but to adopt children. Mark Strasser, Professor of Law at Capital University in 1999 argues: “same-sex couples are having and raising children, even if those children are not produced though their union. Indeed, some states recognize both members of same-sex couples as the legal parents of the same child, precisely because this will promote the best interests of that child. Thus, some commentators’ claims notwithstanding, the state’s interest in assuring that children will have a healthy, supportive environment in which to thrive militates in favor of the recognition of same-sex marriage rather than against it.” (7)

I hope that the arguments I've provided here aid your efforts to bring understanding to the people around you. The only way to achieve equality for these members of our society is to fight to create change. In many cases, opinions are changed one person at a time. Now you are armed against your next encounter with the prejudiced and closed-minded. Below I provide several links for those of you who want to investigate this issue further. There's more evidence out there in support of this cause, and I wish I could have included a more comprehensive list.

(1) New Jersey Law Journal Editorial, 3/6/00. [Lexis-Nexis, downloaded 3/14/01]
(2) Andrew Sullivan, senior editor at The New Republic, 5/8/00. ["Why ‘civil union’ isn't marriage." http://www.indegayforum.org/articles/sullivan4.html downloaded 2/14/01]
(3) American Civil Liberties Union, 1996. [Gay Marriage, Greenhaven Press, California 1998, p14-15]
(4) William Eskridge, Jr, author of The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, 1996. [The Free Press, New York p. 96]
(5) Jonathan Rauch, author of Demosclerosis : The Silent Killer of American Government May 1996. [“For Better or For Worse?” in Same-Sex Marriage: A Reader, Pro and Con ed. by Andrew Sullivan, Vintage Books, New York, 1997]
(6) E.J. Graff, author of What is Marriage For?, 1996. [The Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage, Praeger Publishers, Connecticut 1999 p175]
(7) Mark Strasser, Professor of Law at Capital University, 1999. [The Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage, Praeger Publishers, Connecticut 1999 p175]
(8) T. Richard Sullivan and Albert Baques, 1999. [“Familism and the Adoption Option for Gay and Lesbian Parents” in Queer Families, Common Agendas, Haworth Press, NY p80-82]
(9) Columbia Law Review, April 1999. [Social Norms and Judicial Decisionmaking: Examining the Role of Naratives in Same-Sex Adoption Cases. Lexis-Nexis 3/27/01]

For further information check : http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/index.html

Bears 101

Psalm of David 23

"The Lord is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside quiet waters.
He restores my soul;
He guides me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You have anointed my head with oil;
My cup overflows.
Surely goodness and loving kindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever."

A Love Hundreds of Years Old: Tale of Relationship Between Two Reincarnated Souls Explores Metaphysical Themes

DAYTON, Ohio, -- "LESSONS" (published by AuthorHouse), by Synthia R. Jackson, helps readers realize that we are all studying in the classroom of real life every day, and that education does not stop once you have made it out of school. Writing metaphysical overtones into the story of two men, Michael Mendoza and David Winthrop, Jackson explores the continuous cycle of learning and the reasons for life itself -- love and forgiveness.

Mendoza, a homosexual psychologist, meets Winthrop, a successful, bisexual stock broker, at a garage sale on the Winthrop estate, forming a bond of friendship that turns into genuine love. Their relationship is rocky, and seeking answers to questions about his relationships, spirituality and sexuality, Mendoza contacts spirit channeler Joshua Medina, Master Zin.

Through Master Zin we learn that Mendoza and Winthrop's story began long before they met at the estate. In another life long ago Mendoza was the Countess Teresina de Guzman, a member of the Spanish nobility, and Winthrop was Edmund Hunt, the Second Earl of Sheffield, England. The Countess and Hunt, forced into marriage in the hopes of securing a line between the two noble houses, had a relationship mirroring that of current-day Mendoza and Winthrop. Now, after hundreds of years apart, the two have been reincarnated together to learn the lesson that forgiveness and love are the greatest gifts of all.

Jackson presents a story that is wide in scope, featuring scenes of love, betrayal and war, while exploring the myths and doctrines that make up the foundations of belief.

Readers who delight in thinking outside the box will enjoy the wisdom and new-age thought offered in Jackson's work. The author asserts that we are all children of the same God, no matter which religion we choose to practice, and that we are unconditionally loved by a higher power even in our worst moments. Regardless of your beliefs, "LESSONS" provides spiritual insight and food for thought in an engaging story of the love between two souls reconnected after hundreds of years apart.

Synthia R. Jackson is an ordained minister affiliated with The Universal Temple of Truth Foundation. She currently lives in Dayton, Ohio.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For further reference :
http://www.gaybookblog.net/2009/02/love-hundreds-of-years-old-tale-of.html

The Prayer of Saint Francis of Asissi

"Lord, make me a channel of Thy peace;

That where there is hatred, I may bring love;

That where there is wrong, I may bring The spirit of forgiveness;

That where there is discord, I may bring harmony;

That where there is error, I may bring truth;

That where there is doubt, I may bring faith;

That where there is despair, I may bring hope;

That where there are shadows, I may bring light;

That where there is sadness, I may bring joy.

Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort than to be comforted;

To understand, than to be understood;

To love, than to be loved.

For it is by self-forgetting that one finds.

It is by forgiving that one is forgiven.

It is by dying that one awakens to eternal life"

GAY EDUCATION

Gay Education
Uploaded by mrsdalloway7189

TOLERANCE

Get involved, says gay dinosaur

Gay rights activist Cleve Jones spoke at UC Berkeley on Thursday, urging the younger generation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to continue the fight for equality that Jones’ friend Harvey Milk began more than 30 years ago.

“In 1972, when I came to San Francisco, if someone had told me that I would be fighting for the right to get married or join the Army in 2009, I think I would have started dating women,” he said jokingly.

Jones, the founder of the AIDS quilt, the world’s largest community arts project that now contains more than 40,000 panels dedicated to people who have died from the disease, and the co-founder of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, was equally comedic and serious during a 90-minute talk and question-and-answer session for several hundred students and community members, reports the Oakland Tribune.

“I think it’s very important that there be more connections between the generations, so here I am from the gay Jurassic (to share some insights),” he said, at the start of his talk.

‘Jones said he met Milk at Castro and 18th streets shortly after hitchhiking in 1972 from Arizona to San Francisco to join the gay rights revolution. Jones, who was a teenager at the time, said he didn’t immediately like Milk, who was in his 40s at the time. But as he watched him speak to people at bus stops and in Bingo parlors, he said he quickly learned that the politically campaigning Milk had “the ability to connect to ordinary people” and spur change.

Jones took a job as a student intern in Milk’s office while studying political science at San Francisco State University, and the two worked together on gay rights and other issues. In 1977, Milk became the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. “He had courage and he spoke the truth,” Jones told the hundreds of people who packed Heller Lounge at UC Berkeley Thursday afternoon.

In November 1978, less than a year after he was elected to office, Milk and Mayor George Moscone were gunned down by Dan White, a fellow supervisor who had resigned and wanted his job back. White was convicted of manslaughter and spent five years in prison. He killed himself in 1985, two years after his release.

The killing of Milk changed Jones’ life, and he has gone on to become a well-known and respected gay activist, said Leslie Ewing, the executive director of the Pacific Center, which co-sponsored the talk with the Gender Equity Resource Center and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.’

Posted in Gay culture, Gay organisations, History, People, Politics, Society, USA, protest | Tagged gay history, gay politics, San Francisco, Harvey Milk, Cleve Jones, Aids Quilt | No Comments »

British Muslims who Object to Homosexuality Could Be Classed as Extremists

By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • February 17, 2009

New plans to widen the definition of who is an extremist in the eyes of the British government could include Muslims who object to homosexuality.

A revised counter-terrorism strategy is to be published next month.

The Guardian reports that a range of beliefs held by many Muslims could be classed as extreme under the new definition, among them the promotion of Sharia law, which punishes homosexuality with the death penalty, advocating a pan-Islamic state or supporting jihad.

The new strategy "would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values," the paper reports.

"Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces."

An in-depth survey in 2007 into the attitudes of Muslims living in London revealed that less than 5% thought homosexual acts are "acceptable," compared with more than 65% of the general population.

The previous year Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, was investigated by police over comments he made on BBC radio.

He called homosexuality, "a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society, it is not acceptable.

"Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and, I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area."

In September Channel 4 screened Dispatches documentary Undercover Mosque: The Return.

It features a female reporter attending prayer meetings at an important British mosque which claims to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths.

She secretly filmed sermons given to the women-only congregation in which female preachers recited extremist and intolerant beliefs.

One preacher called for adulterers, homosexuals, women who act like men and Muslim converts to other faiths to be killed, saying: "Kill him, kill him. You have to kill him, you understand. This is Islam.""

The original January 2007 Undercover Mosque documentary showed preacher Abu Usamah at Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham calling for gay people to be executed.

"If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?" he told followers.

A scene also showed a preacher calling for people to "take that homosexual and throw him off a mountain."

http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com/

http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/british-muslims-who-object-to-homosexuality-could-be-classed-as-extremists/

Pegah Emambakhsh Has Finally Been Granted Permanent Asylum in the United Kingdom

Pegah, the Iranian lesbian, has finally been granted permanent asylum in the United Kingdom.

By EveryOne Group

EveryOne Group and Friends of Pegah: “A historical victory for refugees’ rights, but now we have to block the illegitimate deportation of people persecuted because of their sexual leaning, race or ethnic group”.

EveryOne Group, Assist and the Friends of Pegah Campaign association have finally received some long-awaited news where the rights of refugees are concerned: Mrs Pegah Emambakhsh, who took refuge in Sheffield (England) in 2005 after fleeing from Iran to escape stoning due to her homosexuality, has finally been granted refugee status in the United Kingdom. “This is extremely important news”, comment the activists of EveryOne, “because when we took on the responsibility of initiating the “flowers campaign” Pegah’s fate seemed decided. In the summer of 2007 the campaign for Pegah’s life promoted by EveryOne saw the participation of thousands of people, who sent flowers and letters of support from all over the world to the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre, where Pegah was awaiting her transfer to the airport from where she was to fly back to Teheran, and the executioner.

“Twice we were able to stop the flight to death, while the movement to save Pegah’s life grew day by day. The campaigners were joined by GLBT associations, the Radical Party, European political parties and intellectuals - but most of all by a multitude of citizens from all five continents who appealed to the United Kingdom to save Pegah, and to Iran to interrupt its persecution of homosexuals, dissidents and minorities”. Pegah’s case, and that of Mehdi Kazemi (another case taken up by EveryOne), was at the base of a resolution by the European Parliament which led to a significant change in the UK’s asylum laws.

“The flowers campaign for Pegah’s life and later campaigns which allowed us to block some deportations,” say the activists, “were made possible thanks to the receptiveness of the British institutions, who always pay great attention to the cases put to them by human rights groups. In each case the British Embassy in Rome acted as mediator with the British Government and facilitated the successful outcome of cases where the requests for asylum had been turned down by the immigration office. Pegah’s case has not only changed the destinies of homosexual refugees, it has also helped people who have fled from countries where horrific humanitarian tragedies are underway, like Annociate Ningaparitse and Alvin Gahimbaze from Burundi. Our group was not only able to block their deportation, it was also able to show the British Government the dramatic humanitarian situation in Burundi, which led to the consequent extension of humanitarian protection rights”.

And now the British Government has officially granted Pegah permanent asylum on British soil: a ruling that marks an important step forward in the field of refugees’ rights.

“We share this success with EveryOne, the associations, the politicians and the Friends of Pegah who have made this fantastic result possible,” comments Leslie Boulton, the president of the Friend of Pegah Campaign association, with enthusiasm and emotion. “It is a really wonderful event and a reward for the hard work we carried out, side by side, to prevent Pegah being deported back to Iran”.

EveryOne Group is at present in contact with the British Embassy in Rome, with the British Border Agency and with the government authorities appealing for humanitarian protection for G.B., a young homosexual who fled to the UK from Iraq where, since 2001, homosexuality has been punished by execution. G.B. is being helped in the United Kingdom by the Iraqi LGBT association. “The reason given by the Immigration Office for turning down his appeal is paradoxical,” say Roberto Malini, Matteo Pegoraro and Dario Picciau, leaders of EveryOne. The authorities, in fact, have explained their decision by stating that a homosexual person can avoid becoming the victim of Iraq’s discriminatory laws and the death sentence simply by “being discreet about his or her sexual conduct’”.

“Even if we ignore the fact that people should be free to manifest their lifestyle as they see fit without having to fear repressive actions due to the discriminatory laws in force in their own country, the decision of the British Government (if carried out) would still put the Iraqi’s boy’s life in danger as he is already known to be a homosexual by the Iraqi authorities. And is it right to expose a homosexual refugee to the death penalty if his sexual preferences happened to be discovered?”

In the next few days EveryOne will be sending the UK Government a dossier testifying to the conditions of discrimination and persecution that homosexuals are subjected to in Iraq.

Gruppo EveryOne

Tel: (+ 39) 334-8429527 (+ 39) 331-3585406

www.everyonegroup.com :: info@everyonegroup.com

WOULD YOU ???

Understanding Male Sexual Problems

What Are Male Sexual Problems?

Sexual behavior and response requires the complicated intertwining of environmental, physical (both anatomical and hormonal), and psychological factors. Problems with sexual functioning are common, affecting more than half of all couples at some time. Though sexual dysfunction rarely threatens physical health, it can take a heavy psychological toll, bringing on depression, anxiety, and debilitating feelings of inadequacy. Many sexual problems are really symptoms of other more serious heath disorders.

Determining which factors are affecting your ability to enjoy your sexuality can be very difficult and will require great patience from you, your partner, and your healthcare provider. Problems may be difficult to resolve without expert help, especially because misinformation and embarrassment are leading causes of sexual dysfunction.

If your sexual problem only occurs under a particular set of circumstances, or only with certain sexual partners, then your condition is considered to be "situational" rather than "generalized" (occurring regardless of the circumstances or partner).

The major categories of sexual dysfunction in men include:

• Erectile dysfunction (sometimes called impotence): the inability to have or maintain an erection sufficient for sexual functioning.
• Premature ejaculation : an inability to delay orgasm and ejaculation, such that it occurs very early in the course of sexual contact, leaving the other partner dissatisfied.
• Male orgasmic disorder: an inability to reach orgasm (climax) with a partner; or the inability to achieve orgasm without lengthy sexual contact; or the inability to have an orgasm during intercourse. In some cases, orgasm can be achieved only through masturbation or oral sex.
• Inhibited or hypoactive sexual desire: a disinterest in sexual contact or complete lack of sexual desire.
• Retrograde ejaculation, in which the semen, rather than emerging from the end of the penis, moves backward into the bladder during orgasm.
• Priapism, a prolonged erection unaccompanied by sexual desire; this rare condition is potentially dangerous and requires immediate medical attention.

Many of these sexual conditions will occur occasionally, during the course of a man's sexual life. In fact, some researchers only consider a diagnosis of sexual dysfunction if the problem occurs in 25% of all attempted sexual encounters.

What Causes Them?

Because the sexual response is so complex, involving multiple factors, there are many causes of sexual dysfunction. Sometimes simple lack of information is to blame. An erection involves the nervous and vascular systems (the network of arteries and veins) and appropriate levels of hormones, so problems with any of these systems can interfere with sexual functioning. Common problems include the following:

• Hypogonadism, in which the testicles do not produce enough testosterone
• Thyroid disorders (both hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism)
• Adrenal lesions (Cushing's syndrome)
• Noncancerous pituitary growths that increase levels of a hormone called prolactin
• Diseases that affect the nervous system, including strokes, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, long-standing diabetes, and Parkinson's disease
• Damage following pelvic surgery (such as prostate, colon or bladder surgery)
• Conditions that affect the penis directly, such as Peyronie's disease (penile curvature) or injury to the penis itself or to the arteries, veins, or nerves that supply the penis
• Any serious and debilitating diseases that result in intense fatigue, including emphysema, chronic bronchitis, heart disease, cirrhosis, cancer, and kidney failure

Premature ejaculation (PE) is usually not due to physical causes, although the problem is sometimes linked to a neurological disorder, prostate infections, or urethritis. Possible psychological causes include:

• Anxiety
• Guilt feelings about sex
• Ambivalence toward women
• Learned behavior pattern of rapid ejaculation seen with frequent masturbation or infrequent sexual activity

Erection problems can be caused by:

• Blockages in the blood flow to the penis
• Atherosclerosis in arteries leading to the penis
• Damage to arteries or nerves after radiation treatment
• Leaky veins
• Low levels of the male hormone testosterone or other hormonal disturbances
• Conditions or behaviors that increase the risk of vascular disease, such as smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol or the medications to treat these and other disorders

Painful intercourse usually has physical causes such as these:

• An infection of the prostate, urethra, or testes, which can be initiated by sexually transmitted diseases, such as chlamydia and genital herpes
• An allergic reaction to spermicide or condoms
• Peyronie's disease, fibrous plaques on the upper side of the penis that often produce a painful bend during erection
• Arthritis of the lower back

Lack of sexual desire may be due to any of these factors:

• Physical illness
• Hormonal abnormality (usually low testosterone levels),
• Medications that affect libido
• Psychological causes, including depression or interpersonal problems, which a therapist may help identify

Retrograde ejaculation may occur in men from these causes:

• Prostate or urethral surgery
• Medication that keeps the bladder open
• Diabetes -- a disease that can injure the nerves that normally close the bladder during ejaculation

Can Medication Cause Sexual Problems?

Many medications have been implicated in sexual dysfunction, causing inhibited sexual desire and/or erectile dysfunction, such as:

• Drugs to treat high blood pressure
• Diuretics (including thiazides and spironolactone)
• Histamine blockers
• The antifungal agent ketoconazole
• Antidepressant medications
• Common over-the-counter preparations (particularly antihistamines and decongestants)
• Antipsychotic medications
• Sedatives
• Medications used to treat anxiety
• Drugs of abuse, including alcohol, methadone and heroin, and tobacco

Psychological Factors in Sexual Problems

Psychological factors play an important role. You may find it difficult to enjoy a sexual relationship if:

• You are under a lot of stress
• Your relationship is troubled
• You have a history of traumatic sexual encounters (rape or incest)
• You were raised in a family with strict sexual taboos
• You're afraid of getting your partner pregnant or of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease
• You have negative feelings (including guilt, anger, fear, low self-esteem, and anxiety)
• You are depressed
• You are severely fatigued

Environmental Factors in Sexual Problems

Environmental factors may interfere with sexual functioning. You may find it difficult to enjoy sex if there is no safe, private place to relax and allow yourself to become sexual, or if fatigue due to an overly busy work and personal life robs you of the energy to participate sexually. Parents may find it difficult to find the time to be sexually intimate, given the demands/presence of their children. Knowledge about AIDS, the difficulties of striving for "safer sex," and the psychological effects of discrimination are just a few of the factors that can give rise to anxieties for gay men.

HAPPY VALENTINE EVERYONE :-D

Andrea bocelli besame mucho
Uploaded by tblogosphere

Kisses unleash chemicals that ease stress levels

CHICAGO – "Chemistry look what you've done to me," Donna Summer crooned in Science of Love, and so, it seems, she was right. Just in time for Valentine's Day, a panel of scientists examined the mystery of what happens when hearts throb and lips lock. Kissing, it turns out, unleashes chemicals that ease stress hormones in both sexes and encourage bonding in men, though not so much in women.

Chemicals in the saliva may be a way to assess a mate, Wendy Hill, dean of the faculty and a professor of neuroscience at Lafayette College, told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Friday.

In an experiment, Hill explained, pairs of heterosexual college students who kissed for 15 minutes while listening to music experienced significant changes in their levels of the chemicals oxytocin, which affects pair bonding, and cortisol, which is associated with stress. Their blood and saliva levels of the chemicals were compared before and after the kiss.

Both men and women had a decline in cortisol after smooching, an indication their stress levels declined.

For men, oxytocin levels increased, indicating more interest in bonding, while oxytocin levels went down in women. "This was a surprise," Hill said.

In a test group that merely held hands, chemical changes were similar, but much less pronounced, she said.

The experiment was conducted in a student health center, Hill noted. She plans a repeat "in a more romantic setting."

Hill spoke at the session on the Science of Kissing, along with Helen Fisher of Rutgers University and Donald Lateiner of Ohio Wesleyan University.

Fisher noted that more than 90 percent of human societies practice kissing, which she believes has three components — the sex drive, romantic love and attachment.

The sex drive pushes individuals to assess a variety of partners, then romantic love causes them to focus on an individual, she said. Attachment then allows them to tolerate this person long enough to raise a child.

Men tend to think of kissing as a prelude to copulation, Fisher said. She noted that men prefer "sloppy" kisses, in which chemicals including testosterone can be passed on to the women in saliva. Testosterone increases the sex drive in both males and females.

"When you kiss an enormous part of your brain becomes active," she added. Romantic love can last a long time, "if you kiss the right person."

Lateiner, a classical scholar, observed that kissing appears infrequently in Greek and Roman art, but was widely practiced, despite the spread of skin disease at that time by facial kissing. And there was a potential for social faux pas by kissing the wrong person at the wrong time.

Overall, the science of kissing — philematology — is under-researcherd, Hill concluded.

BRIAN & RONNY STORY

Brian_Ronny_Digital_Story
Uploaded by rsdaddy

Sexually Transmitted Disease

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are illnesses transmitted by sexual contact. STDs comprise a large and diverse set of disease entities which include viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and arthropods. Many of these diseases can cause great harm before symptoms are detected.

List of STDs and their Signs and Symptoms

This list is not complete, and many of these disease agents can be transmitted by non-sexual means. Because there are so many different infections, symptoms can vary greatly. Your doctor can give you a great deal of information and should be consulted early to prevent permanent health problems.

Viruses

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

In the early stages, HIV can cause fevers, rashes, joint pains, and other non-specific symptoms. These usually occur within weeks after exposure. If untreated, HIV infection usually leads to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) within eight to ten years. The symptoms of AIDS can be anything, but common presentations include weight loss, night sweats, unusual skin lesions, and diarrhea.

Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV 1 and 2)

HSV can appear on either the lips or the genitalia. It usually presents as a painful, bumpy rash, sometimes with fever.

Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)

HPV often presents as anogenital warts, or as an abnormality on a pap smear. These lesions can be precancerous.

Hepatitis B and C Viruses (HBV, HCV)

These are often asymptomatic, but over time can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer. If any symptoms are present, the illness can look like any hepatitis, that is, jaundice, change in urine or stool color, abdominal swelling, and fatigue.

Bacteria

Neisseria gonorrhoeae (gonorrhea, "the clap")

In males, this presents as a foul penile discharge. Women may have a vaginal discharge, or no symptoms at all.

Chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia)

This presents similarly to gonorrhea, but is often asymptomatic, and is commonly without the patient knowing they are ill. There are three different sub-types of the bacteria Chlamydia trachomatis that cause lymphogranuloma venereum .^[2] Lymphogranuloma venereum is one of the maladies associated with gay bowel syndrome.^[3]

Treponema pallidum (syphillis)

This organism causes syphilis, a multisystem disease.

Protozoa

Trichamonas vaginalis ("trich")

In females, this usually presents as a foul vaginal discharge, but males are usually asymptomatic. Even though males are asymptomatic, partners of infected females must be treated.

Arthropods

Pubic lice ("crabs")

This presents as itching in the groin, and often small parasites are easily visible.

Scabies

This often presents as itching, with rash being more prominent between the fingers and toes.

Prevention

The only completely effective means of preventing the transmission of STDs is abstinence from sex until marriage and fidelity thereafter.

Other Methods of contraception are less effective protection against STDs (including HIV), but can be completely ineffective against some STDs (such as pubic lice). When improperly used, or if damaged, they are completely ineffective.

Vaccines are not widely available for STDs. An HPV vaccine has recently been released for protection against certain, but not all, strains of HPV, though the long term efficacy of this controversial vaccine is disputed.

People who have been sexually active before marriage can transmit their sexual diseases to their partner after marriage, therefore failure to use proper protection with an unfaithful spouse can still lead to infection. Additionally many STDs can be transmitted to unborn children through the pregnant mother.

Treatment

Some STDs are curable; many are not. For further information, please consult a physician.

References

1. ↑ http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/tables/table1.htm
2. ↑ http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000634.htm
3. ↑ http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000634.htm