Model Release Form For Minors (Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

EDIT, 23 July, 2017; I originally wrote this assuming the questioner was female, but they responded with a comment that they were a male seeking to get into the gay porn scene. I re-read my answer, made some minor pronoun edits, but then realised it all applies regardless of gender.There is one, big, HOWEVER: the market for new male porn stars is very small and difficult to enter if you’re not willing to appear in gay porn.First, consider the risks. There are several risks appearing in porn. These include;Sexual health risks. Only work with performers whose STI test results are “in date” (last three weeks is reasonable), whose STI test results you actually see, and show “negative” for all tests.Educate yourself about STI tests, and the risks of using them (they are not 100%). You’ll be pressured not to use condoms, and if you only allow sex with condoms, you will only get perhaps 10% of the work you would get otherwise (porn’s a fantasy, and not many people fantasise about sex with a condom!).Future career plans risks. Assume you will be “found out” (in my experience, there’s a ~2.5% chance, but that has many dependencies). If you want to be a teacher, lawyer, work in politics, or similarly conservative industries, assume you will be found out (and that being found out would cause you to lose your job, and possibly be unemployable in that industry). Other jobs, it depends on the boss and company.Personal relationships risks. Some folks are down on porn performers. Maybe that will be your (current, or future) Significant Other, parents, siblings, friends. You’re an adult, so you’re allowed to make your own decisions, but maybe you want to consider the effect on people you love.Maybe your dad “would never” look at porn online (…), but a concerned family friend might show him your work. How would you feel about that?Being “taken advantage of”. A producer might say one thing, but then demand another on-set. Before agreeing to shoot with a producer, ask to see some scenes they have shot that will be similar to the scene you’re being booked for. Get far away from anyone who refuses to show this. Ask probing questions (some suggestions below). Make sure you’re comfortable with that scene type before committing.Always remember: they need you more than you need them (there are many producers, but only one of you)! Ask for referrals and recommendations (on Quora, Tweet at performers you admire, discussion forums).Never agree to do something you’re not comfortable with, even if it feels difficult to say “no” on-set. Easy to fix though: ask many questions before the scene, so your and the producer’s expectations are matched.You will likely be pressured (or at least, offered) to do more revealing / “extreme” acts (during one scene, or over the course of several scenes). This progression is typical in the industry, many models start “softer” and end up “harder”. It’s fine if you want to do this, and it’s also fine if you choose not to. Your earning potential will likely be less if you choose not to, and producers will say that to you, in an effort to get you to change your mind.Stay strong! Your body, your rules.A Contract that’s exclusive. If you meet a Producer’s demographic very well (attractive, good body, comfortable with many sexual acts, friendly; will be common traits), a Producer may ask you to sign an exclusive Contract (meaning you can only work with them, and no one else - that’s valuable to a Producer, as there’s only one place customers can go to see you). That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but what if they only offer you work twice a year? What if you don’t like working with them any more?Ask a separate Quora question about this, and I’ll answer it, with considerations you should have.A Release form that gives too much away. Ask to review the Release form that you’ll be asked to sign. If they refuse, disengage: they are dangerous. That being said, a refusal would be unlikely. They will likely email a PDF.If anything is unclear on the Release, don’t only ask the Producer (they have a vested interest in spinning their answer to their own advantage) - ask a lawyer. A 1–2 hour consult with a lawyer will inform you of what to look out for in Releases from any Producer (this being said, most Releases are standard and agreeable and I do not count this as a large risk).In a typical Release you will allow the Producer and their business partners to use the material they make of you in any way they see fit, until the end of time.No backsies. Once you appear in a scene, that Producer is extremely unlikely to remove the scene from their site. Some producers do have a path for Content Removal (we do), but they are never happy about it, and may hold you to some sort of “ransom” (to recover the money they put in to making the scene, plus prospective lost sales, which is reasonable in my opinion).It’s essential you are comfortable with this being out there forever.Accept that test shots might get released. Producers will always want images of you before they decide to work with you. As you did not sign a Release form (granting rights to the producer to use these “test” images commercially), producers should not release these images to the public, but it may happen.I have a very strict stance on this: if they do not have a Privacy Policy that describes what happens to material you send them as part of this screening process (and indicate the images are not distributed), I strongly recommend not working with that Producer.You should always ask for their Privacy Policy if it’s not already available to you, and read it carefully (it should be in plain English; here’s ours). If you have to ask, you may get a link that’s designed for customers (not models), and so is irrelevant to you. Let them know: if they do not take you seriously, do not work with them.Images you provide to producers should be a mix of candids (you going about your life, like you prolly have on Facebook / Insta), and some nudes. It’s fine to make the nudes with your phone in the bathroom, but good light and standing neutrally is helpful. Having a friend or using a timer shooting outside on a cloudy day or in the shade is best.An Agent may not be the best way. Agents find you work, and deal with the Producer on your behalf. As a Producer, I do not find agents helpful to the process of finding models, and taking 20–30% of each modelling fee is a lot you’re missing out on! You’ll be one of many models they are shopping around, and they may not have your best interests at heart.Instead, I recommend finding porn sites you like the look of, that you could see yourself appearing on, and applying there directly. Every site will have a “Model for us” link down the bottom of the page (ours goes here). Some sites do not actually employ models directly, instead they buy ready-made shoots from contract producers. They may just refer you to a contract producer, if your images show you as being a good fit for the site. I know that some sites simply ignore model applicants (which is weird and rude, I reckon) so if you do not hear back in a few days, you’ll have to try elsewhere.If you do choose to go with an Agent, read about them online, prepare a list of pointed questions, and meet with several Agents. Some open-ended questions you may want to ask include:I’m new. How does this work?What will you do for me, that other agents will not?When I ask around about you;What will models say about you?What will other agents say about you?What will producers say about you?What is your fee? Is it negotiable?What do I get for that fee?Do I have to pay anything up front? (stay clear if you do have to - it’s a scam for sure)What are some tips for me, to choose the best jobs for me to work on?How many shoots a month can I realistically expect?How many months will that continue for?What increases / decreases my chances of getting more work?Why should I not be in porn - what are the risks?How can I change agents if it does not work out?What’s the process if I have a problem with a producer? How is it documented?How will you represent me to Producers?How do you select Producers for me to work with?How do you ensure my sexual and physical safety?How can I work with multiple agents?What if I get my period…The day before a shoot booking?During a shoot?I am worried about being pressured to do things I don’t want to do. How does that work?What if, when I get to a shoot in the morning, I get a bad vibe from the Producer?When will I get paid, after doing a scene?How will I get paid?In what situation would I not get paid?Why should I choose an agent, and not “go it alone”?Remember, the Agent wants you more than you need them! Own it.In this meeting, the agent will likely ask what sex acts you’re comfortable with. They may use slang or acronyms. Ask for images of what they are saying - play dumb (even if you think you know what they mean), always ask for images / videos. This is not the time to nod-and-smile your way through an interview!The agent may ask for a copy of your ID at the start of the meeting - they need to protect themselves against accusations of working with underage models. You should show them your ID (if you do not, they may refuse to speak with you further, this is a real risk for them). They may also ask to take a copy of your ID. At this stage, you should reject that - you’re still meeting other agents, and have not made a decision yet.If you like an Agent’s answers, ask to speak to some other models they represent. Do not compromise on this - stay clear of them if they refuse! Take whatever the model you call says with a grain of salt - might just be the Agent’s girlfriend / boyfriend! When you talk to them, relay some of the answers they Agent gave you, and ask how their experience differs.It’s likely any agent you visit and enquire about work, will want to make nude images of you at the meeting. It’s normal for that to happen when you visit, but there’s absolutely no need to do this, unless you’re comfortable with the agent (and really, you should speak to some of the models they manage before making a decision). If they pressure you to do the test shots, leave. There are many other agents out there, and the relationship should be respectful and supportive.The test shots will like be you, nude, standing against a wall. Women may be asked to hold open your labia (though I never understand why this is relevant!), men may be asked to have an erection. If, while taking the test shots, the agent touches you sexually, or asks for sexual favours (“give me a blowjob, and you’ll go to the top of my list!”), decline clearly, end the session, go to a different agent.Work, and not get paid. Some Producers have a “I’ll pay you when I sell the scene” policy. Do not ever (like, ever) accept that. You’ve done the work, selling the scene is their problem! This is less of a risk when an Agent is involved.Asking questions of Producers up front (and some googling) should make this clear, and a huge majority of Producers will not try this on, but some will, especially “backyarders”.It’s not appropriate to ask for your money up front (you have not done the scene yet, and for all they know, you might take the money and run!), but directly after the scene is appropriate, unless something else has been agreed beforehand.So, in the days before a scene is shot with a Producer, ask about payment: how much, for what (exactly), when, how. This ensures that expectations are matched. If they give vague answers, leave. It’s not worth the risk: there are many producers who want to work with you, who will be clear about payment.Hope this all helps, you’re welcome to ask followups in the comments!Oh, and if you’re female, we’d love to meet you - www.femalephotofun.com, or a member of a male-female couple - www.fucklikeyourebeingfilmed.com. :)

1 Introduction One of my three major obsessions for four and a half decades is Hegemonic Power Transfer Theory, about how a declining economic power like the USA accommodates itself to a rising economic power like China. (See Power transition theory - Wikipedia)That mathematical science is based upon the consideration and the statistical analysis of the data relating to behaviour of major economic powers over the last two centuries and was principally progressed by Abraham Fimo Kenneth Organski (1923–98) and Jacek Kugler (1923-now, and seebut there are now many other major contributors. Most people I have met (who are sometimes very highly educated) are not well informed about that subject so I have written a primer about it which you can read at George Tait Edwards's answer to Does the USA have a good reason to destroy the military base of China in South China Sea now? Would the US find it too late 5 or 10 years later?1.1 US Hegemony Has Been Ended By American Political Actions And Not By The Rise of China or by Foreign Economic ActivityOne bias in the above question above is the implicit idea that China is somehow responsible for the economic decline of the USA. The principal cause of US relative economic decline is US Government policy particularly since the 1980s and not the actions of China or foreign governments.After 1980 President Ronald Reagan’s deliberate policy to relocate abroad what he regarded as “old, smokestack industries” such as the US companies’ manufacture of the basic inputs of steel and aluminium and also the export of US light motor vehicle industries (along with the export of the feeder SME industries which provided the sub-components to enable the construction of these cars) accelerated US economic decline. These policies created a massive rustbelt in the US States below the Great Lakes and much higher unemployment in the USA. See George Tait Edwards's answer to What are some of the ingredients that make the United States stand out in the world? And with regard to Reagan’s policy of relocating US industries abroad, see para 5.2.4 of George Tait Edwards's answer to Why is China’s economy growing significantly faster than the U.S. economy? And for some details of “the Reagan Plan” see the NYT article REAGAN'S HIDDEN 'INDUSTRIAL POLICY' which reports“The Reagan plan to shrink America's basic industries has been enormously successful. Since 1981, when the value of the dollar began climbing to unprecedented levels as the budget deficit ballooned, some 2 million jobs have been lost in old-line manufacturing businesses. Steel, autos and others have been forced to reduce domestic capacity, set up operations abroad (or enter into joint ventures with foreign producers) and diversify into specialized niches.”And these are only the direct employment losses. The USA had an economic multiplier effect of about four or five during the 1980s becausethe shutdown of steel, aluminium and auto manufacturing industries caused the decline and the destruction of the service industries which had served these companies and their employeesthe “feeder firms” which had produced the sub-components of the auto industries were also moved abroadthe response of local authorities (LA) to their loss of revenue was a reduction in their local employment and LA provision andthe employment which still exists in the rustbelt is more often a lower-quality, sometimes no-fixed-contract jobs, with the R&D for the manufacturing plus the related defence industry subcomponents manufacture also moving abroad.The USA largely Republican Governments since 1980 do not recognise these multiplier effects many of which continue to contribute to the US spiral of relative economic decline today. For example, Gordon Ramsay has recently massively improved the food quality of a Detroit Restaurant and in a normal economic background that establishment would flourish. But the working people of Detroit can no longer afford to eat out as often as they once did, so that restaurant has gone bankrupt.Almost identical effects can be observed in the United Kingdom where an official Conservative policy of industrial shutdown and partisan victimisation of the poor has produced the growth of Austerity-enforced starvation and the explosive growth of food banks along with the shutdown of local restaurants and public houses.These consequences of industrial declines have no positive aspects. Of course the loss of domestic production in both the USA and UK creates the opportunity for foreign supply of domestic demand, and the surge in imports of goods no longer produced locally causes a large balance of payments problem in both countries, but it was the lack of an effective industrial policy and the malign neglect of the side effects of that [in the absence of government remedial action} which is the root cause of both UK and US industrial decline.2 My Re-interpretation of the QuestionLarge well populated rising nations become potential hegemonic powers because of their high economic growth. The USA became a hegemonic power in 1945 because FDR understood the process of economic growth. See my 12 June 2013 article FDR’s American Economic Miracle 1938-44, or the First Economic Bomb - The USA from 1938 to 1944 (Part 1)2.1 The Rise Of Any Large Nation to Potential Hegemonic Economic Power Is Not Limited By or Related to the Western Concept of “Legitimacy”Whether countries can become the leading hegemonic power has nothing to do with the Western idea of “legitimacy” but everything to do with the leadership of that country understanding and practising the economic understandings which lead to relatively high economic growth. In particular, the partial or full practice of the five major aspects of Shimomuran-Wernerian Macroeconomics (SWM) has historically produced high-growth economic miracles while Washington Consensus Macroeconomics (WCM) has continually resulted in low growth and relative economic decline.2.1.1 The concept of legitimacy of national actions is a Western-produced Eurocentric and mainly Anglo-centric idea which has been historically used to justify the “legitimacy” of the actions of the Western “Great powers” particularly the many military adventures of the UK and the USA. The central idea in international law is a value system which regards the position of the West as “developed” and the position of other nations as “undeveloped” and “Less Developed Countries” (LDCs) so it includes an embedded Eurocentric value system, which seems to and does devalue the cultural worth and downrates the achievements of other countries.2.1.2 Also inherent in the Western legal system is the primacy of the personal or corporate individual above the the interests of all others, so that issues are set to be prejudicially settled in Western law in favour of these individuals or corporations. In Western Law a basic assumption appears to be that all group and national interests such as the continuation of a life-supporting environment, a safe society based on individuals not carrying small arms, and group or social gains are less important than the massive personal gains made by billionaires. The misinterpretation in American Law of the US constitutional right for a “free people” to bear arms is a collective national right, and does not say that individuals can, but this is the constant US Media misinterpretation of that constitutional Amendment. That individualistic legal bias in favour of corporations is a big factor in how American politicians behave and which their private media supports.2.1.3 In my view it is a justified exaggeration to say that the bias in US Law in favour of the personal and corporate individual is a major factor which is responsible for the enormous political and social mess the United States of America has now arrived at. The elevation of immediate corporate interests or the short-term interests of US billionaires above long-term environmental, personal, group or national outcomes is an unhelpful bias in US Law. It is easy for large corporations to ruin the environment in the USA and elsewhere without risking any significant timely legal challenge to their profit-achieving activities. The profit-seeking behaviour of the US healthcare system is seen by US Republicans as more justified than the establishment of a slightly more adequate healthcare system such as Obamacare. [See George Tait Edwards's answer to Why is the USA’s health spending so high at 17% of GDP compared to the UK’s spending of 11% yet still doesn’t offer universal care?]The continuation of the mistaken policy of individuals bearing small and murderous munitions results in the USA having the highest suicide rate in the world, because the major use of these freely available weapons is to commit suicide (see When will people realize that guns don't kill people; people kill people?) but the social cost in the frequent incidents of the mass murder of some school children and their teachers cannot be justified by a mistaken reference to personal freedom. The LA times has today produced a report saying that https://www.quora.com/link/More-than-15%-of-childhood-deaths-in-America-are-due-to-guns-study-says/redirect but you can’t read that report except in the USA.The US Republican political preference for tax cuts for the benefit of the rich with Austerity for the workers and the political preference for big finance over the activities of local SME-supporting banks has produced a low 5% invention-to-innovation rate in the USA, ruining America’s potential future. And the lack of US industrial policy has produced the collapse of what was once [in 1945] the greatest industrial economy in the world, as US Republicans folded their arms and took no action as the once-great industrial companies of America after 1980 relocated elsewhere with Government encouragement and support, perhaps creating greater profits for their American owners but destroying the US worker employment and local prosperity these companies had previously provided. These are all observations and do not depend on any economic theory.What academic support exists for such a view? It is not something that American academics usually contemplate, trapped as they are within a WCM mindset, because that’s the only economics education taught in the West. See George Tait Edwards's answer to What's Wrong With Washington Consensus Macroeconomics?2.1.4 The US-promoted ‘international? Law of the Sea”Many US individuals have expressed the view that the “International Law the Sea” allows the militarily powerful US Navy to cruise where it pleases, because that “Law” is seen as eternal and universally supported. Yet that Law was created less than three quarters of a century ago, in 1945, in order to enable trade through international waters and sea channels which lie within close proximity to, and within the coastal sea territory of, nation states. The Law was meant to enable peaceful international trading by merchant shipping, not to facilitate military threat by its misinterpretation by the US to locate much of the mighty US Pacific Fleet around Chinese shores.That American activity could lead to a major conflict between the USA and China. I hope it does not. See China Cannot Be Trumped – George Tait Edwards – Medium and Trump is probably not foolish enough to destroy the world.2.2 Florian Matsumoto’s Critical Review of Onuma’s Attempt to Comment From A Transcultural ViewpointAn excellent detailed criticism, dissection and discussion of Onuma’s recent attempt to to define a “new” international Law can be accessed at Florian Couveinhes Matsumoto’s pdf paper The_End_of_the_History_of_Liberalism_and.the last “Transcivilisational” Man? Onuma’s Attempt to Define a “New” International Law.Which is located at The End of the History of Liberalism and the last “transcivilizational” Man? Onuma’s Attempt to Define a “new” international Law” », to be published, Asian Journal of International Law, 2018It should be noted that Florian Couveinhes Matsumoto is Assistant Professor at the École normale supérieure (Paris, Ulm), Université de recherche Paris Sciences et Lettres, member of the Centre de Théorie et d’Analyse du Droit (UMR CNRS 7074) and associate researcher at the Institut de Hautes Études Internationales (Université Paris II).That paper reaches detailed discussion heights not attained in this Answer. The author’s detailed knowledge of international law exceeds mine by many magnitudes. I accept from the outset that my attempt to summarise part of that informationally precise paper is doomed to failure, as was the attempt of Onumo to adopt a transcultural perspective, but his attempt reveals interesting depths and hints at possible transcultural conclusions.I wish to try to summarise why I think this paper is seminal and state some of its aspects and conclusions to illustrate its importance. There is nothing I can find in English (and this paper was originally in French) which illustrates the great difficulty of successfully adopting a transcultural perspective for the hopeful purpose of achieving a valid legal commentary and arriving at transcultural conclusions. My summary is inevitably inadequate and incomplete. The only fair way to treat this original and ground-breaking paper to quote all of it, but the copyright laws prevent that. The interested reader is invited to study the entire paper with probably undoubted benefits to the reader’s understanding.There are four sections in this 8-page paper as follows. These are:I Dealing (again) with the western perspective on international lawInternational Law is actually Western Law and is inevitably embedded within the cultural and personal perspectives of any commenting author. As Florain Matsumoto concludes in part I:“However, Onuma’ s book also undoubtedly displays the considerable difficulty inherent in such an attempt, or more accurately the impossibility of adopting a non-Western perspective without assuming a revolutionary point of view, a point of view that most Western lawyers describe as philosophical, political, or ideological, and, in a sense, as an erroneous or entirely subjective perspective. Indeed, although the trans-civilizational perspective on international law claimed by Onuma seems to imply a revolutionary stance, his book seems more reformist in nature and only a few criticisms appear to be truly transcivilizational. At least two of these need to be highlighted.”II Two “truly” transcivilizational criticismsFlorain Matsumoto continues:“As one might expect, the most visible transcivilizational criticism relates to the (usually Western-oriented) history of international law. In the sections of the book dedicated to this theme (pp.55 et seq. and 149 et seq.), the author accepts the classical view that today international law is a product of European and then Western modernity (pp. 16, 31, 55 et seq.), but rejects the idea that there was indeed international law “in the geographical sense of the term” before the Berlin Act (1885) and the Shimonoseki Treaty between China and Japan (1895) (p.81). Similarly, he is of the opinion that this law was not “globally valid in the formal sense ” before “most nations representing humankind” became “subjects of international law”, namely before people in decolonized countries freely recognized such a law in the 1960s (pp.57, 63) In the same way again, a truly global law of the sea only arose after World War II (p.320)”Matsumoto comments that both the cultures of China and Islam had influence in determining some aspects of the Western legal system but the cultures of other Asian nations, Africa, and pre-conquest North and South American cultures did not. And Matsumoto observes:“Unlike the criticism of the traditional presentation of the history of international Law, the second truly transcivilizational criticism does not relate to a particular area. In a way, it may be argued that it is the main thesis of the book. According to this thesis (if it may be summarized subjectively), contemporary Western lawyers as well as Western governments place an undue emphasis on the role of international judges (and secondarily NGOs and transnational corporations) as international Law makers, whereas non-Western lawyers and governments place their hopes in the capacities of nation States to rule their countries and regulate their relationships with strangers. More specifically, “the ideas, notions or concepts that people use as cognitive and interpretative frameworks of international law have basically been constructed by male international lawyers of powerful Western nations” (pp. 52-53) and “Western nations [...] have always been characterised by a legalistic culture” (p. 39).The use of Western models for transcultural Law is rejected because“litigation is a pathology, not a physiology of law” (pp. 8, 26, 457) and because “[l]aw without court is normal in many societies in human history” (p. 550). Consequently, “the study of international law in the twentieth century seems to have been excessively judicial-centric for gaining a comprehensive picture of international law” (pp. 116, 252, 258, 408, etc.). For instance, “the ICJ is not an important organ in interstate conflict settlement” (pp. 27, 117, 559-560, 579, 662) and more broadly, most international judges do not resolve most inter- State disputes (pp. 557, 571, 662).”Much of Western Law appears to based more on win-or-lose suppositions rather than the often more appropriate mediated settlement of conflict, and many “commonly perceived features of law [righteousness, consistency, universal applicability, rigidity and formality] work [at times] negatively against conflict resolution” (pp. 585 et sq.).”Because mediated war avoidance could be a major function of a well-ordered international legal system, the usefulness the existing Western legal systems seems less than adequate.III The reiteration of problematic narratives deriving from the western perspectiveMatsumoto points out that although Onuma is seeking a “trancivilisational perspective” and lists his credentials (briefly, as an Asian International Lawyer practising in Asia but mentally constructed by modern European civilisation) he cannot help using the Western classifications of states as more or less culturally developed according to Western measures. As Matsumoto observes“If we do not first deconstruct the myth of a world that follows a unique path of progress (towards Christianity, Western-style Law, the market economy, capitalism, human rights, etc.), and more specifically a progress that is exhaustively predeterminable by a small group of self-proclaimed superior people, it is impossible to obtain a critical distance from Western-centrism.”IV Potential solutions suggested by Matsumoto’s Review of this Onuma bookThese are for a new system of International Law with mankind’s place in the environment as central within that system with considerable implications for the future of mankind. This is the best legal argument for the positive restructuring of law on an environmental basis I have ever read.2.2 There Is No Read-Across From Economic or Military Supremacy To Legal Primacy or LegitimacyThe greater scientific, economic, and military development of the West has often been wrongly read across, or assumed, to create a situation of greater moral or legal primacy. The UK and USA do not have a history which involves any gentle, culturally sympathetic, or altruistic treatment of foreign or colonised people. Racism is still at the heart of the UK Conservative ruling party, and Theresa May, the now-Prime Minister, has suffered squirming embarrassment at a Commonwealth Conference because she was instrumental while in the Home Office of creating the Windrush Scandal, in which documents proving the British residential legitimacy and citizenship of Caribbean immigrants were destroyed, justifying a “Send-Them-Home” policy over which she presided and which often relocated Black British (who had lived in Britain for decades) to the Caribbean.The USA - despite Lincoln’s 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which was intended to free the Black slaves- has continued to practice the legal and informal diminishment of the rights of its native Indian and black and its more recent immigrant populations. The addendum to the 13th Amendment - that slavery is abolished “except for felons” - appears to have created a semi-legitimised Black-slave-creating-culture in some of the Southern states of the USA. Of course the Southern cotton farms needed cheap labour to continue to exist, and the police in the cotton-producing states promptly provided that cheap labour by arresting fit young Black men for minor offences and the Federal Prison system leased their re-created slave labour to the cotton farms. And once imprisoned, Blacks appear to be often mistreated in Federal prisons to ensure their continued incarceration. One statistic tells it all: of blacks arrested, 50% are never released but die in prison.And those who are released run up against a system almost design to deny the restoration of their voting rights. Released black prisoners have to appeal individually to the State Governor and travel to and get a hearing for the restitution of these voting rights and for partisan political reasons these rights may not be restored. Jeb Bush enabled the 2000 election of his brother George W by refusing voter rights restoration in Florida. SeeAll this in the country which the US Media continually describe as “the land of the free.” And see the 2008 now out-of-date but revealing Global Research reportThe Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery? - Global Research2.3 Gandhi’s Key CommentWhen Gandhi was asked“What do you think of Western Civilisation?” he famously replied“I think it would be a good idea.”2.4 It Is Not What China Lacks But What China Possesses That Is VitalThe last part of the question makes more sense if it is reversed, to read “What does China Have that the USA lacks?”This Answer is an inevitably brief summary of a great deal of research (much of it not mine) and a lot of relevant information.There is no necessary “legitimacy” in the rise of powers and major nations have tended to act in their own interests with no regard for “international law”. The League of Nations and the UN have both been failures when confronted by major nations adopting warlike policies. As Mussolini observed, “The League of Nations is all very well when sparrows shout, but is of no use at all when eagles fall out.”What China possesses isa different form of democracy based upon universal elections of local government officials and a meritocratic, well-educated central Governmenta different objective in its pursuit of economic development (rule for the prosperity of all or most the people and not rule for the increasing benefit of the already rich)a much less racist society (historically based upon the assimilation of different peoples and cultures within the Han Chinese people and their culture)a much deeper understanding of the high-growth, low inflation, no-cost investment credit economics/Shimomuran-Wernerian Macroeconomicsa tolerance of other cultures derived from the constant contact with other religions and cultures over centuriesthe central Sun Tzu/“Art of War” idea that conflicts are best settled without warsa large Initiative (the B&RI/OBOR Project) which rests upon the voluntary bilateral engagement of nations (that is, two at a time) and the currency swaps and further negotiations which present an alternative jointly agreed system of making economic progress and removing all aspects of the American third party involvement in the economic progress. This project removes any reference to the American legal system with its third party win-lose approach to the settlement of disputes, allowing conflicts to be settled perhaps more successfully by bilateral negotiation, removes the Bank of International Settlement and US currency from involvement in the initiative, reducing the US power to involve itself or affect these projects, by removing US currency from the project, and even perhaps US knowledge about the extent of the project. [For the data about the declining use of the US dollar as a reserve currency, see George Tait Edwards's answer to With the current state of world affairs, does it look like the US will pay off its debts or will the US lose is standing as economic leader (self proclaimed), and lose the power of the dollar in as the standard universal dollar?] These projects present possible alternatives to the involvement of any part of US Law or reserve-currency dollars in making bilateral real economic progress. Perhaps that is why the post-Spenglerian Western Media continually run down this initiative.3 How Economic Growth Arises I cannot fully cover this topic in this Answer, but very briefly, there are five major sources of economic growthFirst, the SMEs which in all countries are the source of most of the employment and nearly all (about 95%) of the fresh invention and innovation in that country and the major source of further future growthSecond, national prosperity is enabled by a well-developed and well funded industrial factory system upon which the living standards of the workers dependThird, economic growth is increased by a realistic economic understanding which is practised by the government of the country andFourth, the foundation of company success at every scale - in the the small, medium and large enterprises in a country - is only made possible by a system of supporting banks at all sizes within a country, which banks exist to obey Werner’s Third Law that“Thousands of small banks provide thousands or tens of thousands of small loans to small businesses, medium sized banks provide thousands of medium sized loans loans to medium sized businesses and large banks provide many large loans to large businesses.”We can regard these banks as local (like Germany’s SME-supporting Sparkassen banks) or secondary banks (like regional or local authority banks like the Lundesbanks) or primary national banks usually only located in the capital and which also provide loans to national or nationalised industries. The comments that follow are illustrations of the above four key principles but the evidence is so voluminous that it cannot be fully replicated here.Fifth, a Government-funded system to provide a social security net and for the health, education and safety of citizens along with an effective infrastructure is a large and major component of economic development and growth. The best illustration of this aspect of economic growth may be the Nordic countries, where sometimes Government employment is so large that it is the major component in the economy and hence the major reason for high economic development. Another aspect of this issue in modern times is the B&RI/OBOR project where Chinese initiative along with local government funding is upgrading road, rail, pipeline and energy production systems at a speed and on a scale not previously possible.There are numerous examples of each of these five principles and only a brief reference to the major use of each principle is mentioned below with the exception of China, which is applying each principle but sometimes not with full effect.3.1 Funding SMEs is the source of the SME inventions transferred to the factory floor and which pave the way to a greater economic future.The nation which has continually funded its SMEs from local Sparkassen banks is Germany, which has through its local public banking system founded SMEs and funded their development on a scale not present elsewhere. Because SMEs are so numerous these organisations in all nations provide not only the major sources of employment and national output but also the inventions and, where funding exists, the transfer-to-the-factory floor innovations which drive the economy forward.Many large transport-vehicle companies often only provide the body shell of the product and are actually the integration plants for tens of thousands of sub-assemblies which go into making the final product.As Werner von Braun observed about the Apollo rocket“There it goes, over 100,000 moving parts, every one built by the lowest bidder, and it all works.”Modern motor vehicles typically contain about 25,000 sub-assemblies while a Boeing 747 is built from over 5 million parts, mainly fixtures.When major manufacturing industries are closed down in the UK, the number of employees lost which is often quoted by the UK Government are the final numbers of caretakers prior to closure and not the maximum numbers of workers employed in the factory at the height of its production. The many larger tens of thousands of jobs lost in the subsidiary-parts producing and the servicing of the once-flourishing company are not usually mentioned, although these are usually by far the major effect.3.2 The Industrial Manufacturing Economy is the major source of Worker Employment and Dispersed Prosperity in All NationsThe manufacturing industries are the major employers of workers when economic miracles occur. The historical data illustrates that up to 45% of workers are gainfully employed in the manufacturing sector during the greatest dominance of these industries. In WCM economies, their manufacturing industries tends to remain in the range from about 30% to 40% of GDP. [If we look at the Tokyo Zone countries where WCM has been adopted and given up, Japan had a 30.1% share of its economic output originated by industry in 2017, while South Korea has 39.3% from that source and Taiwan has 36%. The still-practicing SWM of China has 40.1%. By contrast, the WCM-practising economies of the USA has 19.1% and the pre-Brexit UK has 20.2%.]3.3 An Understanding of No-Cost Investment Credit Creation at the Central Bank has been and is the Indispensable Key to High Economic Growth Throughout The Last Millennia in nearly all high-growth colonies and nations3.3.1 Wang Anshi’s Chinese Economic Miracle And Its Decline Under The MongolsThe Chinese Prime Minister Wang Anshi was the first investment credit economist whose actions created the world’s first industrial economy and welfare state. This is far too large a subject to be adequately dealt with here.See my limited contributions to that immense subject atHow did Wang Anshi contribute to the economic world?and also see regarding the Rise of the Tokyo Zone economies my blog atShimomuran Economics and the Rise of Japan and ChinaAs well as the first half of my article/Answer about the significance of Wang Anshi at George Tait Edwards's answer to What are major Chinese innovations?4 Financially Restrictive Economic Policies by Political “Conservatives” have Produced The End Of Hegemonic Empires during the Last Thousand YearsIt would take too long to provide the extensive references and data supporting this conclusion, but the interested reader is invite to look up and investigateThe Song Empire and its Decline Under The Conservatives After the defeat of the Mongols, no-cost investment credit creation was once again used by the Chinese governments to stimulate and achieve the then-highest level of economic development in the world. The peak period of the dynastic Ming Empire was the great heights achieved by the Yongle Emperor (who ruled from 1402–1424). That Yongle Emperor was a despotic liberal whose cruelty was as notable as his outstanding economic achievements. The Chinese Conservatives through their restrictive financial policies ended Chinese economic ascendancy in the 15th century.The Scottish Industrial Revolution 1700-1800 and its Decline Under The ConservativesThe pre-independence growth of the three Tobacco Slave states (comprised of Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina) was based upon the denominated-in-pounds-of-tobacco promissory notes (or IOUs) of the Tobacco Lords who created vast amounts of circulating credit based upon the stability of tobacco prices (a “specie-backed” alternative currency) and the conversion of these IOUs to goods at the 125 Trading Posts ( or Tobacco Lord Shops) in these three colonies. This is one of the four papers of my PhD research at the University of Southampton so I will say no more about it than I already have.The first century of Scottish Industrial revolution (1900–1800) was based upon the founding of SME-supporting banks in Scotland (from the first Murdoch bank in Scotland in 1730 to the Tobacco-lord establishment of the Ship Bank and the Arms Bank in Glasgow in 1749 and many others) and 88 of the embryo Scottish SMEs were established with Tobacco and Sugar Lord investments derived from the profits of the American and West Indies slave trade plantations. See The Scottish Industrial Revolution, or The Scottish First Industrial Miracle 1700–1800FDR’s Economic Miracle 1938–44 and US Economic Decline After 1980 Under The Republicans - see para 1.1 aboveThe Japanese Economic Miracle and its Decline After It Adopted WCM in 1991 - see How Japan Zoomed From War Devastation into Prosperity 1945–52 and Professor Richard Werner’s book Princes of the Yen5 Conclusions5.1 The Anglo-Centric Legal System is a product of the UK and US Hegemonies and is too culturally embedded in these nations to achieve an international endorsement by all nations. It is culture-specific in its foundation in and references to the West and is not a transcultural legal system and its formation was not based upon all of the major cultures of mankind. It is not effective at solving international disputes.5.2 It is very unlikely that the current international legal system will survive the demise of the UK and US hegemonies because that structure is a product of their culture. A F K Organski and J Kugler, two of the leading lights of the Hegemonic Power Transfer Theory (see the Introduction above) have pointed out that when a hegemonic power transfer occurs, the arrangements that prevailed in the previous era are likely to be changed because although it is possible for these previous patterns to suit the rising hegemonic power, that is unlikely.5.3 The rising nation of China is already creating bilateral currency arrangements with most participants in the B&RI/OBOR programme. That bipartite system seems to be more readily amenable to conflict resolution than any more remote tripartite Western judicial system.5.4 In its own interests and in the best interests of the world, China needs to develop and lead a system for reversing Global Warming. Whether that needs to done within a Chinese-proposed and internationally-agreed alternative legal system is a moot point, but it does seem that a transnational and transcultural legal system might need to be developed to deal more effectively with the acceleration of national growth and the resolution of international conflicts than the Western-based UN and its underfunded institutions (IMF, World Bank, OECD etc) have done.5.5 The most interesting section of the Matsumoto Review of Onuma’s book review is its Section IV Potential solutions. The major issue is the creation of an international legal system which leads to a balanced environment with mankind within it.

MYTH # 1Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTDepicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children." A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.THE FACTSAccording to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.MYTH # 2Same-sex parents harm children.THE ARGUMENTMost hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.THE FACTSNo legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.MYTH # 3People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.THE ARGUMENTMany anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will."A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.THE FACTSNo scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College, noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”MYTH # 4LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.THE FACTSThis falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.MYTH # 5Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.THE ARGUMENTThis claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims. "While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.THE FACTSThe Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-line refutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."MYTH # 6Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.THE FACTSThe claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) — "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.MYTH # 7Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.THE FACTSGays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.MYTH # 8Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice," even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.THE FACTSAll major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather, social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.MYTH # 9No one is born gay.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.THE FACTSModern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.MYTH # 10Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.THE ARGUMENTIf people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, "You don't have to be gay!" Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."THE FACTS"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own study in 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”1. “We need to protect marriage.”The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their HomophobiaWhile we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”Clearly not a Biology graduate.21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.People actually use this argument.23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”Person B: “That sounds nice.”Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?