The Bizarre, Mentally Ill World of the Haters at Family Research Council

A majority of American Catholics may be accepting modernity, modern knowledge on sexual orientation, and same sex marriage, but among conservative Christians Christofascists who give credence to the pronouncements of hate merchants at Family Research Council, a designated hate group, the batshitery just keeps on increasing.   Take FRC president Tony Perkins - he has KKK connections and I think he is a self-loathing closeted gay man given his hysteria on homosexuality - who is shrieking that gay marriage will lead to the collapse of America.   One has to wonder when FRC's followers will pull their heads out of the sand and realize that they are being fleeced for money by Perkins and his cohorts.  The New Civil Rights Movement looks at Perkins' insanity:

It must be hell being Tony Perkins.  Imagine if everywhere you turned you saw a conspiracy designed to end the world, people plotting the extinction of mankind, people trying to end civilization, reduce religion to rubble, spin the universe into a world filled with godless heathens whose only goal is the destruction of Christianity and mankind itself.

On Friday on his “Washington Watch” radio show, Perkins — the head of the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council — revealed what he believes is happening in the world today, and how events will play out.

Picture this.
Same-sex marriage advocates will advance marriage equality.
Homosexuality will be taught as something that is normal to school children.
Sex ed classes will teach kids how to have sex with people of the same gender.
School children will think being gay is cool and will want to try it out. (Perhaps like smoking, or joining the baseball team.)
Then, they will all, or mostly all, choose to be gay — since the stigma has been expunged.
Because so many children will turn gay, the birth rate will dramatically fall, the United States of America will be unable to keep up with the rest of the world, losing us our economic superpower status.

Here's a partial transcript of the lunacy:

Perkins: No, because what happens when you change and you say heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage, then you change the curriculum in your schools and you have kids, as a natural part of growing up and developing, they’re curious and they don’t know, and we’re exposing them to even more sexuality and overt sexual messages and we’re telling them, ‘hey experiment.’ And that is what leads, in many cases, to children going down a particular path, is early childhood sexual exposure, sometimes it’s traumatic. And by normalizing that and mainstreaming that, what you will do is you will have more children going down that path and that’s why they want to get this message into our schools.

Caller: I understand your argument but is there any data to support that?

Perkins: What do you mean any data to support it?

Caller: You are saying if you expose children to homosexuality you will have more homosexuals.

Perkins: Well if you sexualize a culture — I can tell you the data is very clear on what’s happened in the last 30 to 40 years where we have inundated young people, children, with sexual messages and they become sexually active. So when you take and mix into that homosexuality and other forms of sexuality into that, yes they are going to move down that path, they are going to engage in what you tell them about. That is why it’s problematic, that is why parents are upset about what is happening in Hawaii and other states that are teaching their kids how to engage in homosexual behavior, or heterosexual for that matter. I don’t want my kids that are 11, 12 and 13 years-old taught how to put on a condom or taught about how to engage in sexual behavior with someone who has HIV in a safe fashion. That is not what the schools should be about. They should be about teaching our kids to read, to write, to engage in science. How do we ever expect to compete globally when we’re fixated on teaching our kids about sex?

There is, of course, no data to back up Perkins' hysteria.  Perkins' root problem - beside be mentally ill in my view - is that he refuse to accept that sexual orientation is inborn.  No amount of exposure to gays is going to make heterosexuals turn gay.  Just as no amount of "ex-gay" therapy is going to make gays straight.  Accept modern knowledge on sexual orientation and the whole problem goes away.

Straights Struggle When Asked "When Did They Choose to be Straight?"

The Christofascist - and the Catholic Church through its bogus "Courage" program - routinely describe being gay as a "lifestyle choice" as if LGBT people at some point make a conscious decision to be attracted physically and romantically attracted to those of the same gender.   If this were true, then obviously at some point heterosexuals must make a conscious decision to be "straight."  Yet when a number of straights were asked to cite when they made the choice to be straight, they could not answer they question.  They never made a "choice" at all - it simply is what they were.  Of course, the same holds true for gays.  We never decided to be homosexual.  We simple are what we are.  If there is any choice involved at all, it is one of when we decide to cease trying to be what we can never be.  Huffington Post looks at the individuals who were asked in 2008 "when did you decide to be straight":

The "man-on-street" interview is rarely an insightful exercise in news gathering, but sometimes it can be a revealing window into American culture -- like in the video above, where residents of a small Colorado town are asked, "When did you choose to be straight?"

The video features advertising executive and amateur photographer Travis Nuckolls and Buzzfeed Labs' Chris Baker asking a bunch of straight people about homosexuality. Many of those interviewed say they think being gay "depends on upbringing" and "has a lot to do with development." But when the question gets flipped and the subjects are asked when they decided to be straight, they struggle to find an answer. 

"That's a good call," says one man, laughing nervously. "I didn't choose to be." 

Not all those interviewed say they think being gay is a choice, however. In perhaps the most profound comment in the video, one woman sums up her views about "choosing" to be gay: "If [gay people] were gonna choose a lifestyle, that's not one they would have chosen. It's too difficult."

 

How Robert Spitzer’s Apology Can Impact The Proposition 8 Case and DOMA Litigation

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As a long time opponent of the disingenuous "ex-gay" myth (after having tried to "pray away the gay" for 37 years with no success other than making myself and other miserable), I am thrilled that Robert Spitzer has recanted his 2001 finding that perhaps a small number (1 to 2%) of gays who participated in reparative therapy might be able to "change."  I am thrilled with the recantation not only because it undermines the last shred of legitimacy that "ex-gay" proponents had to hang their snake oil on.  More importantly, if there is absolutely no legitimate expert evidence that sexual orientation is changeable, the legal implications for anti-discrimination laws are huge.  Likewise, if gays cannot be straight, other than religious based bigotry, there really is no reason to ban same sex marriage.  Think Progress looks at this possible legal impact in the context of Proposition 8.  Here are highlights:

In 2001, Robert Spitzer — a prominent psychiatrist who led the charge to declassify homosexuality as a mental condition — released a controversial study showing that some gay people could change their sexual orientations and become straight. Spitzer’s findings bolstered the ex-gay movement and helped advocates find acceptance in the heart of conservative anti-gay politics. But earlier this month, the 80-year-old scientist dealt a devastating blow to his loudest proponents. In an interview with The American Prospect, Spitzer retracted his own ex-gay study, noting that “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.”

Rachel Maddow examined the consequences of Spitzer’s denunciation of his own reparative therapy study on the Proposition 8 case, which relied on its conclusions to argue that gay people are not entitled to marry someone of the same gender because sexual orientation is a mutable characteristic. NYU constitutional professor Kenji Yoshino explained the significance:

YOSHINO: I think it`s a big deal. So, first of all, the reason immutability is important is because under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, there’s a standard called heightened scrutiny. And there are certain classifications like race, national origin, sex, nonmarital parentage, lineage (ph) that get that scrutiny. The $64,000 question of this case is whether or not sexual orientation is going to be added to that list. And one of the criteria that`s been looked at to determine whether or not a group gets heightened scrutiny is immutability, as you mentioned. So, the fact that Spitzer retracting this and the fact that the testimony in the Prop 8 trial was overwhelming for the fact that sexual orientation is very hard to change could figure into that analysis.

Yoshino also suggested that Spitzer’s apology could impact Defense of Marriage (DOMA) litigation, which relies on a similar gays-can-change claim.

1987 Ron Paul Book: AIDS Is the Result of A Victim's "Lifestyle"

Among the would be GOP presidential nominees, it continues to seem to be a contest as to who can most thoroughly trash gay Americans as candidates move to further prostitute themselves to the Christianist/Tea Party base of the Republican Party or as new information about their views hits the mainstream media from past writings and affiliations. Among those looking increasingly nasty is Ron Paul who in 1987 stated a line that must warm the hearts of Christianists everywhere: AIDS is the consequence of the victim's "lifestyle." Apparently Paul thinks sexual orientation is a choice - I wonder at what age he chose to be heterosexual - and is chanting the refuted Christianist line that medical and mental heath experts say is false. Does Paul still believe this trash? It's a question he needs to be forced to answer. Candidly, anytime I hear someone reference that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" I write them off as an ignorant bigot.Think Progress has coverage on Paul's thoughts on gays and AIDS. Here are some highlights:

In recent days, Ron Paul has tried to distance himself from damaging newsletters from the late 1980s and 1990s by attributing racist and anti-gay statements to ghost writers and disavowing the most incendiary sentiments. “It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all…I think it was terrible,” Paul said of the letters, which blamed AIDS on the gay community and likened black people to criminals. “It was tragic, and I had some responsibility for it, because the name went out in my letter. But I was not an editor. I (was) like a publisher.”

But despite his denials, CNN’s Peter Hamby reports that Paul included many of the controversial ideas in his 1987 book, “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years.” That work — published under Paul’s name — attributed AIDS to the gay “lifestyle” and suggested that victims of sexual harassment should simply quit their jobs:

In one section of the book, Paul criticized people suffering from AIDS or other contagious diseases for demanding health insurance coverage. “The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim – frequently a victim of his own lifestyle – but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care,” Paul wrote. [...]

“Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity,” Paul wrote. “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”

Yes, he also blames victims of sexual harassment on the job for their own victimization. In his view, they should have sought other employment. It's sick, but then today's GOP is a pretty sick phenomenon.

Why is the So-Called Christian Press Imposing a Blackout on New Sexual Orientation Research?

As noted in the prior post, Lisa Miller, a kidnapper under federal arrest warrant, claims to be an "ex-gay" even though all of the legitimate medical and mental health associations are of the position that sexual orientation cannot be changed. Despite many new research studies that collectively support this premise and demonstrate the falsity of the "ex-gay" myth, the so-called Christian press - not to mention virulently anti-gay hate groups - seems to conveniently act as if this research and the newer studies don't exist. The reasons are pretty obvious: this research underscores that many pastors, Christian publishers and the anti-gay hate groups are lying to their flocks/subscribers. They care more about denigrating LGBT individuals and pocketing money made by misrepresentation than they do about telling the objective truth. As I note frequently, virtually no one is more dishonest that the "godly Christian" crowd. It seems that in their minds, the truth is whatever is convenient to their anti-gay agenda and will put money in their pockets. They make the money lenders described in the Gospels look like highly ethical and upstanding folks. Warren Throckmorton (pictured above) looks at this phenomenon and the amazement from some among the sheeple who are finding out that they've been deliberately misled. Here are some highlights:

Of late, I have given several talks to a variety of evangelical groups on the current research on sexual orientation. Along the way, I have been contacted by evangelicals who ask about the current status of sexual orientation research. After the conversations and speeches, many questions come up. One question I hear after almost all of these conversations is: Why haven’t we seen anything about these studies?

Many of the questioners read evangelical publications and consume evangelical media. However, they don’t know anything about the brain research of Ivanka Savic in Sweden (2005, 2008) or Adam Safron and colleagues at Northwestern University (since 2005).

They know there is no gay gene but they don’t know about the significant brain, perceptual and cognitive differences reported within the past five years by various researchers around the world.

Many evangelicals believe homosexuality is due to abuse. . . . . they are unaware of the 2010 study by Wilson and Widom’s study which found no relationship between abuse and having a gay partner for men or women (men were more likely to have had at least gay experience in their adult lives but not a recent partner). They are unaware of the 2010 work of Wells in New Zealand that found 81.6% of gays reported no sexual abuse in their lives.

Many evangelicals I speak to think that change of orientation is pretty common and the evidence is being suppressed by the gay-friendly media. . . . When I explain to them what change means in the context of the study, they are surprised. Then I point out the study, also by Mark Yarhouse, that found no change in orientation for men and women in mixed orientation marriages, they wonder why that study was not reported in the media. I wonder the same thing.

I could be wrong but I don’t think any of the studies to which I have referred here have been reported in the Christian press. The Jones and Yarhouse study was reported widely, but the Yarhouse study showing no change among sexual minorities in mixed orientation couples – which is more recent – was not reported anywhere.

Many evangelicals get their information from NARTH through groups like Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. Others get information from Christian media. However, these studies are not reported in these places.

I suspect the culture war is to blame. It cannot be because sexual orientation is not news. The issue comes up in the Presidential campaigns and other news all the time. However, evangelicals are quite unprepared to discuss this very current topic with the most recent and best scholarship.

In my view, Christian media and organizations have a responsibility to provide this information to their readers and consumers. Given the backlog of unreported studies, there is plenty of material for their reporting.

If I were Warren, I would not hold my breath waiting for this information to be reported. Candidly, the anti-gay organizations have no desire in reporting the truth. They will lie, distort information, and continue a news blackout on anything that gets in the way of their agenda. Truth and accuracy in reporting are mutually exclusive from the Christian press.

A Catfight Between Peter LaBarbera and Warren Throckmorton

Over the years I've had e-mail correspondence and debates with both Peter LaBarbera and Warren Throckmorton. In my opinion, LaBarbera is a pathological liar who is bizarrely obsessed with male homosexuality. He engages in his so-called "undercover research" by attending raunchy gay leather events (which has earned him the moniker "Porno Pete") and disingenuously claims to not be aware of the debunking of the "experts" such as Paul Cameron even though they were discredited as much as a quarter of a century ago (I have an e-mail where he professes such ignorance). Nowadays, LaBarbera remains as anti-gay obsessed and dishonest as ever. In contrast, Throckmorton (pictured at right) - who unlike LaBarbera actually holds relevant training and a degree in the mental health realm - has evolved and changed his views on the changeability of sexual orientation as medical and mental health knowledge on sexual orientation has progressed. This evolution and acceptance of objective truth and fact amounts to heresy in LaBarbera's bizarre anti-gay world. Throckmorton responds to LaBarbera's attacks on his blog. Here are some highlights:

Yesterday, the information arm of the American Family Association, OneNewsNow published an article about my views on change of sexual orientation. The information on the matter came from Peter LaBarbera who said: “But in the last few years, he’s basically become a pro-gay advocate who discredits the idea of change for most homosexuals,” LaBarbera explains. . . . . So effectively, Warren Throckmorton has become a very useful advocate for the homosexual side because he can claim to be an evangelical and yet he’s undermining scriptural truth.” . . . . Christians know people can leave the lifestyle, and that through Christ, many thousands have. So he says Throckmorton’s message — that change is near impossible — is contrary to Christian thinking.

As I understand this argument, I am wrong to claim to be an evangelical because I believe that categorical change in sexual attractions, especially for men, is rare. In addition such a belief is in itself “pro-homosexual advocacy.” . . . . Here we have a test of orthodoxy – something that must be believed in order to be considered a Christian. . . . in the new orthodoxy of some in the Christian right, one must believe certain things about gays in order to be consider a Christian.

LaBarbera conflates behavior and inclination. He says I don’t think people can “leave the lifestyle” because I think categorical change of sexual attractions is rare and complex. While his description of behavior change is crude and stereotypical, I disagree with his assessment of me. I do believe that people change their behavior. They do so for a variety of reasons but in the context of this controversy, some do in order to seek conformity to their religious beliefs.

However, gay and bisexual people who change their behavior infrequently lose their same-sex attractions, no matter how earnestly they pray. . . . . My critics can keep on criticizing but they have not been able to address the evidence which does not cut in their favor.

If I need to apologize for something, it is that I misled evangelicals for several years on the matter of sexual orientation. I did not intend to do so. When I made the documentary I Do Exist, I really believed the stories told. I know the people making the video did as well.

I now think the culture war is a significant stumbling block for the church. . . . Who knows, maybe I will shift my views in different ways in the future. However, I hope it will be in response to evidence, not in order to fit into a man made definition of orthodoxy. In the mean time, I invite critics to simply deal with the evidence.

Kudos to Warren for accepting the facts and evidence as opposed to embracing lies and ignorance. Surprisingly, MARK YARHOUSE of Regent University comes to Throckmorton's defense in a comment on Warren's post:

I share your concern about conflating behavior change with change of orientation and then treating a commitment to change of orientation as a test for orthodoxy. . . . . it would seem that heightened expectations for categorical change increases the risk for disappointment, resentment, and shame for those who do not experience as many gains as they had hoped.

It is noteworthy that both Throckmorton and Yarhouse are moderating their past views that gays could "change." I suspect that in part it's due to advances in knowledge about sexual orientation. And also because they realize that if they persist in support for reparative therapy their licenses as clinicians could one day be on the line.

Yet Another Faux Christian Martyr - Jennifer Keeton

It looks like there may be another Carrie Prejean out to use false allegations of anti-Christian prejudice to boost her celebrity. This time the self-made martyrdom is taking place at Augusta State University in Georgia. One Jennifer Keeton, a graduate student in the school of counseling, is claiming that she was persecuted and threatened with expulsion if she did not sacrifice her religious beliefs and complete a remediation plan that includes diversity sensitivity workshops. Ms. Keeton has been most vocal in braying her view that homosexuality is "immoral and a lifestyle choice." Frankly, if those are Keeton's views, she needs to be expelled from a program that would giver her a graduate degree and unloose her on an unsuspecting public. EVERY legitimate medical and mental health association holds that homosexuality is NOT a choice, is not changeable and the APA has condemned ex-gay therapy as unethical. If Ms. Keeton wants to be a licensed professional in this field, she needs to embrace scientific knowledge or find a different area of endeavor where she will not be likely harming patients. Personally, I am way over supposed professionals wrapping themselves in ignorant religious based bigotry and then playing the martyr. Here are highlights from the Atlanta Constitution:
*
A graduate student has filed a lawsuit accusing Augusta State University officials of violating her constitutional rights by ordering her to change her views opposing homosexuality.
*
Jennifer Keeton, a graduate student in the school of counseling, says in her court filing that the school threatened to expel her if she didn't complete a remediation plan that includes diversity sensitivity workshops. Keeton had said in and out class that, according to her Christian beliefs, homosexuality is immoral and a lifestyle choice, according to her suit.
*
Keeton is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian attorneys. The suit accuses Augusta State officials of violating Keeton's First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.
*
Keeton, who is pursuing a master's degree in the education college's counseling program, was told her beliefs are incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession, her attorneys said in a news release. The lawsuit argues those beliefs would not affect Keeton's ability to counsel gays and lesbians.
*
The defense fund has filed similar lawsuits against Missouri State University and Eastern Michigan University.
*
There is no explanation as to why Keeton is in graduate school when a good Christian woman should be barefoot and pregnant and not working outside the home if her alleged religious beliefs were applied to their logical conclusion. Oh, and no word yet on whether Keeton has fake boobs or has made sex videos like Prejean.

Religion is an "Immutable Characteristic," Sexual Orientation is Not

The caption of this post sets out the position of the homophobes of the Christianist and professional Christian crowd. It goes without saying that those who believe that false story line are either liars and/or idiots. There is nothing immutable about religion - people change denominations and faiths every day of the week. I myself have gone from Roman Catholic to Episcopalian to ultimately Lutheran. Nowadays, many are leaving organized religion entirely. In contrast, the legitimate medical and mental health experts agree that sexual orientation is not something changeable. Thus, when the Christianists seek to bar legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation since they claim it is not an immutable characteristic, they make a powerful case for removing anti-discrimination protections based on religion since it clearly is not an immutable trait. Here are some highlights on this issue from Right Wing Watch:

*

For months now, I've been trying to understand the reasoning behind the Republican and right-wing opposition to adding hate crimes protections for sexual orientation, noting that while they regularly complain that certain groups of people shouldn't be getting "special rights" or receiving extra protection, they are perfectly content to allow the existing hate crimes protections for religion to remain on the books.

*
As it turns out, the reason I couldn't understand their reasoning is that it is apparently rooted in a belief that sexual orientation is a choice, while religion is not: Last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner objected to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws and make it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation. . . . In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."

*

Boehner's position, then, appears to be grounded in the notion that immutable characteristics should be protected under hate crimes laws. And while religion is an immutable characteristic, his office suggests, sexual orientation is not.

*

Personally, I suggest that Mr. Boehner needs to get his head out of his ass and think before he bloviates and makes statements that are factually untrue. Members of the GOP like to whine about "slippery slopes," yet fail to realize that they are going down one that could be very treacherous for religious extremists.

Gay Men Navigate in a Similar Way to Women

Yet another research study has indicated that something more than mere "choice" as claimed by the Christianists is going on with gays. This UK study once again shows that there are basic inherent differences between gays and straights and in my view further underscores the fact that sexual orientation has some genetic or physiological basis. Here are highlights from 365gay.com's coverage (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/01/010308drive.htm):

(London) Gay men navigate in a similar way to women, according to a new study from researchers at Queen Mary, University of London.

In a new study published this week in the journal Hippocampus, Dr Qazi Rahman, from Queen Mary’s School of Biological and Chemical Sciences used virtual reality scenarios to investigate if spatial learning and memory in humans can be linked to sexual orientation.Differences in spatial learning and memory - our ability to record and recall information about our environment - are common between men and women. It has been shown that men consistently outperform women on tasks requiring navigation and discovering hidden objects; whereas women are more successful at tests which require them to remember where those objects lie in a particular space.This is the first study to investigate if those differences are also true for gay, lesbian and straight individuals.

Dr Rahman explains: “Not only did straight men get started on the MWM test more quickly than gay men and the two female groups, they also maintained that advantage throughout the test. This might mean that sexual orientation affects the speed at which you acquire spatial information, but not necessarily your eventual memory for that spatial information.

Turning Homosexuality On and Off

Recent study results with fruit flies and the ability to modify sexual orientation will no doubt have some Christianists salivating at the possibility of (1) using this information to attempt to further beat down gay rights and/or (2) demand that gays seek out a cure if one were ever discovered. This piece in the New York Times (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/turning-homosexuality-on-and-off/index.html) looks at the new research and also at the issue of should sexual orientation be changed. Personally, I say it should not - for whatever reason, God made gays for a purpose even if we humans cannot figure it out. Moreover, but for the hate and abuse disseminated by the Christianists (and their Muslim and Hindu counterparts), growing up and living life gay would be a non-issue. Rather than change people, perhaps the better course is to change the hate based and homophobic religions? Otherwise, next they may be wanting blacks and other non-whites to change the skin pigmentation if an easy and inexpensive method were developed. Read the Christianist organizations' web sites: they are NOT friends of racial minorities or gays. Here are some highlights:

What if you could take a drug that would quickly alter your sexual orientation from straight to gay, or vice versa? To their surprise, neurobiologists have discovered that homosexuality can be turned on or off in fruit flies. They’d known that sexual orientation can be genetically programmed, but they didn’t realize it could also be altered by giving a drug that changes the way the flies’ sensory circuits react to pheromones.

Within hours of the treatment, previously heterosexual male fruit flies would be courting other males, and treatment could also cause flies who had been engaging in homosexual behavior to become exclusively heterosexual, the neurobiologists report in Nature Neuroscience. You can read a summary of it here from the University of Illinois at Chicago, the home of one of the researchers, David Featherstone.

I asked Dr. Featherstone if it might be possible one day to quickly alter humans’ sexual orientation. Here’s his answer: Although I am not sure my research is a big step in this direction, I think that ultimately the answer will be: Yes. After all the goal of neuroscience is a complete understanding of brain function. Understanding in science is typically demonstrated by the ability to control a process.

The question of whether or not homosexuality should be turned on and off is not a scientific question. It is an ethical/societal dilemma. I am glad my work is stimulating the discussion earlier rather than later. History is replete with poorly thought out attempts to ‘cure’ societal/behavioral ‘illnesses’ that turned out, with proper perspective, to not be ‘illnesses’ at all.

Would some social conservatives (like Leon Kass), who normally object to biologists “playing god” and pharmacologists altering “human nature,” change their minds and urge the use of biotechnology to promote heterosexuality? Would some social liberals try to restrict the use of this biotechnology? Would parents, gay or straight, want to regulate their children’s sexual orientation — and should they or their children be allowed to do so?