Salukifan, no, most of my ministry has been outside prison, apart from the last three years or so which have been as a full-time prison chaplain (and that's about to change too). Although I'm guided by my faith in judging the appropriateness (or otherwise) of a particular form of sexual expression, I'm not by any means "closed" to the gay and lesbian community, and have worked with them quite extensively in both personal counseling and in groups - not to "convert" them, but to discuss issues, bring a different perspective, and help those in need. I also spent quite a while as a volunteer in a gay AIDS hospice in South Africa, helping those dying from this disease.
That's wonderful. It sounds like you really have made an important decision to work with those most in need of spiritual guidance...
So, the 25% to 30% figure that I mentioned is based on the groups and individuals with which I've had contact, both in South Africa and in the USA. I accept that this may not be typical of the lesbian "scene" as a whole, hence my question. Do you have a more accurate figure than mine? I'd be interested to hear it.
I spent quite a bit of time researching this. Finally, I found a journal article that stated that no reliable peer-reviewed studies have been done on whether lesbians are more likely to have been the victims of trauma at the hands of men. So, I'm sorry Preacherman, I can't give you anything beyond anecdotal evidence there...
I did find lots of research however on violence against women as a general population. Here's an example of some of the stats:
Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.3
Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.4
Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.5
Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives.33 These statistics are from the following site if you'd like to see the references:
Family Violence Prevention FundBased on these statistics, it sounds like the rate of trauma that you found among the lesbians you ministered to is comparable to the rate of women in general, i.e. not necessarily a statistically significant difference.
I'm glad to have these exchanges with you Preacherman. You've shown yourself a thoughtful and compassionate man. We disagree on the morality of homosexual relationships but agree on that the separation of church and state is important as well. As far as the use of the term "homophobia" goes, I seldom use it anyway but I can see your argument that using such a term can cause people to bristle and limit free and fair debate.
2] Anyone with a modicum of responsibility in psychology or sociology will admit that religious instruction and world-views are a valid normative influence. They are a source of education. To say otherwise violates the very principle of "tolerance" that is being demanded.
Oh my! I hope that isn't a subtle slap at my credentials as a sociologist! Sociologists aren't in the business of ruling normative influences as "valid" or "invalid". We just study the way that our society is socially constructed and if we occasionally, as private citizens, try to influence the social structure, it does not invalidate our graduate degrees or make our calls for tolerance insincere.
Overall, I think that the original discussion on the use of the word "homophobic" basically centers around the idea that opponents of homosexuality can't have a reasoned objection to homosexuality. It's a topic people feel strongly about. Personally, I tend to think of people who oppose gun rights as well-meaning but misinformed and I've seen plenty of them labelled "hoplophobic" on this website. I guess that assumes that there is no reasonable objection IF you've really studied the facts.
I tend to think the same way about gay rights. I'm not really totally convinced that all of the opposition is really based on sound reasoning.
A lot of the opposition that I've seen tends to be based on religious beliefs. Let me make it clear that I think that it is perfectly acceptable to use your religion to inform your beliefs and understandings. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong because of your religion, I respect your ability to make that call. I just become uneasy when religious beliefs are used to determine civil laws. I agree with Preacherman in that separation of church and state is a good thing because of the pluralistic society that we live in.
My rabbi won' t perform wedding ceremonies between Jews and non-Jews but I would not seek to pass a law that said that Jews and non-Jews cannot marry. Likewise, I understand that Catholics cannot be remarried after divorce in the church (unless an annulment is issued) but there is no federal law forbidding such marriages. Arguably, each of the above scenarios could be seen as destructive to the family (intermarriage, divorce) but the government issues marriage licenses without concerning itself with these things because we don't live in a theocracy.
Other arguments tend to be based on "public health" concerns. People might site statistics that show that STDs are prevalent in gay men or that gay men have more sexual partners than straight men and that there is a public health interest in discouraging homosexuality. I'm never really sure what to make of this. First of all, they very seldom can come up with "public health" reasons why lesbianism is a health threat but the don't exactly advocate for lesbian rights but reject gay male rights on that basis. Most people who take this tack also say that GLBT people are only maybe 1/2% to 2% of the population so I'm not really sure what huge health impact that this 1/4% to 1% of the population is supposed to have on the world's population. You'd really be a lot better off limiting the rights of smokers or drinkers to get married if government disapproval stopped people from performing certain behaviors.
Finally, there is the "society as we know it will collapse because gay rights will destroy the family" argument. Well, I'm assuming that you're not arguing that government civil unions are going to make homosexuality so
incredibly appealing that formerly heterosexual men and women are going to stop marrying each other and start marrying same-sex partners.
I'm guessing that you think that the whole institution will be cheapened and men and women won't want to stay married or get married in the first place. Well, I hate to tell you this, but
I have very little control over what heterosexuals choose to do and so I'd rather not be penalized for what you
think other people will do if I can get a civil union or marriage from the government. Does that make sense?
4] I have spent 15 years searching every bit of medical documentation I can get my hands on and I have yet to see a supported, peer-reviewed study that indicates homosexuality is both congenital and unchangeable.
Nobody knows what causes left-handedness either. My grandma was born left-handed but was forced to use her right hand since left-handedness was seen as abnormal. I don't think knowing what "causes" something has anything to do with whether the minority (left handers or GLBT folks) are allowed to live as they feel most comfortable.
For inheritance, this is an issue with estates over $1M only. Less than $1M and there is no inheritance tax.
Okay, I see where you are confused here. I am talking about
state inheritance taxes. The
state of Indiana will be the ones who can take our house if my partner can't come up with the taxes...
