- Reminder: Did you complete your Diet Journal today? Get it done!
- Did you do any physical activity? If not, make a point of it by tomorrow! Own a bike? Ride it to lunch, work, park, lake!
- It is our hope that our male fitness photos shall inspire you!
Consider joining:Today's Health - Wellness / Exercise / Reflections:Study Shows LGB Teens, Particularly Girls, Punished More for Same Behavior as Straight TeensBy Daniel J. DeNoon / WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Laura J. Martin, MDDec. 6, 2010 -- Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) teens and young adults -- particularly females -- are more often punished by school and criminal authorities than are straight youths, a new study suggests.The increased punishment can't be explained by more rule-breaking or law-breaking behavior, find Yale researchers Kathryn Himmelstein and Hanna Bruckner.
"LGB kids are being punished more often than heterosexual kids by police, courts, and school officials -- and that is not because they are misbehaving more," Himmelstein tells WebMD. "We controlled for what kids were doing to elicit punishment, and we found that LGB youth were excessively punished."
Himmelstein and Bruckner analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of teens in grades 7 through 12 in 1994 to 1995. More than 15,000 participants were interviewed again in 2001-2002, when they were 18 to 26 years old.
The youths were asked whether they were ever expelled from school, stopped by police, arrested before or after turning 18, or convicted in juvenile or adult court. They answered a battery of questions about their own rule- and law-breaking behavior.
They also were asked whether they were attracted to members of the same sex, whether they had a same-sex relationship, and whether they identified themselves as anything other than 100% heterosexual (in which case they were counted as LGB).
The result: Overall, non-heterosexual teens were between 25% and 300% more likely than their heterosexual peers to have experienced punishment.
"The differences are most striking for non-heterosexual girls, who are about two to three times more likely to be punished," Himmelstein says. "We don't have a clear idea of why, but the juvenile justice system has historically played a role in policing girls' sexuality."
"This study adds to our understanding of the increased risks to their health and well-being that LGB youths face," Tumaini Coker, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Los Angeles, tells WebMD. Coker has studied the special health challenges of LGB teens. She was not involved in the Himmelstein study.
LGB health researcher Caitlin Ryan, PhD, LCSW, director of the Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University, notes that the Himmelstein study mixes together youths who are questioning their sexuality with those who are fully LGB-identified.
"Probably what is happening in this study is they pick up young people who are experienced as different from others, and that may be because of their gender nonconforming behaviors," Ryan tells WebMD. "One way a person responds to that is by acting out. This may bring that child to the attention of authorities."
Harassment by schoolmates and being singled out for punishment by school authorities can have powerful harmful effects on LGB youths' future health, Coker notes. But in a series of new studies, Ryan finds that the biggest health issues for LGB teens lie inside their families.
For nearly a decade, Ryan's Family Acceptance Project has been conducting extensive interviews with the entire families of ethnically diverse LGB youth and their families. They identified more than 100 ways in which families express acceptance or rejection of an LGB family member.
Regardless of how it is expressed, family acceptance and rejection each have powerful effects on an LGB youth's health.
"In our [2009] paper we looked at specific rejecting behaviors and got dramatic findings," Ryan says. "With high family rejection the teens were more than eight times more likely to try suicide, six times more likely to be depressed, and more than three times more likely to use illegal drugs or to put themselves at risk of HIV infection."
But rejection isn't a family's only reaction to an LGB teen. In a new study, Ryan and colleagues find that family acceptance during the teen years protects LGB youth against suicide, depression, and substance abuse and gives youths' significantly higher levels of self-esteem, social support, and general health.
Perhaps the best news is that supportive families don't always start out that way. Even families initially hostile to homosexuality due to religious beliefs or prejudice can become supportive of their LGB loved ones.
"The moral is that families can grow and change and can support LGB youth and can integrate this with their faith," Ryan says. "We work with families of all traditions. Underneath all these attitudes toward nonconforming sexual identity, they love their children and want them to have a good life. Our aim is not to make them do anything against their beliefs, but to do things for their family to protect their child's health."
In consultation with the families they studied, the Family Acceptance Project has developed educational brochures, videos, and other materials for other families. These materials are freely available at the familyproject.sfsu.edu web site.
The Himmelstein study appears in the January 2011 issue of Pediatrics. The Ryan study appears in the November issue of the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing.
- Members of Peckers Pics should join our President Barack Obama group . (Health Care, Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, Repeal DOMA & Don't Ask Don't Tell
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ObamaBiden2008/join - Bearhug Submission - Roommates (Wrestling fiction)(Your Yahoo Profile must have Age, Gender, Location before you apply for membership!). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BearhugSubmission_/join
Take Action:
- Boycott advertisers of Glenn Beck on Fox News as well as all of FOX NEWS! Glenn has lied about Health-care, called our President a racist, and is anti-gay rights.
- We demand immediate end of DADT. It is out-right discrimination.
- Boycott Bill O'Reilly and FOX News and their advertisers. Bill discussed a French commerical by McDonalds that was meant to show that McDonalds is Gay Friendly. Bill said what is next? Is McDonalds going to get be Al-Qaida friendly as well? Further, Bill said that McDonalds would never show a gay friendly commercial in the USA. Imagine, Bill is comparing Gays to Al-Qaida!
- Boycott Arizona the home of senile - Sen. John McCain: because of their Hateful anti-Immigration Law that encourages racial profiling and increases hatred towards minorities. A remedy: Demand Republicans to support Immigration Reform. Further, Their Senator McCain voted against ending DADT and blocked Immigration reform! We shall hold the voters of Arizona responsible!
- NEW: Boycott Target and Best Buy for donating money towards anti-gay political candidates/organizations.
- NEW: Boycott Gold's Gym for donating loads of money to anti-gay candidates.
This group is called "Peckers Pics." The English - slang definition of "pecker" is to pluck at the truth. Therefore, we peck at items such as Gay Men's Health, Male Fitness, Gay (LGBT) Politics & Issues. In this section you may peck at each photo in order to decide the winner of the "war of the fittest!" Whereas, who is the model that may inspire you to exercise and "get fit?" Warning: This may stoke you!
Remember your participation in discussion of health and news articles in this message is greatly appreciated!
Manila, Philippines - Gay Pride; Dec 4, 2010Two gay men in costumes during the 2010 LGBT Pride March to push forequal rights and protection against discrimination. Coinciding with WorldAIDS day, the event also seeks to raise awareness about the continuingglobal pandemic caused by the spread of Human Immunodefiency Virusor HIV.
Pheonix Gay Pride; April 17, 2010
December 6, 2010 / Los Angeles TimesIn a spirited discussion that spanned over two hours before adjourning, backers and opponents of California's ban on gay marriage argued Monday over whether Prop. 8 violated the Constitution and whether gay-marriage foes had legal standing to make their case.
The hearing before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco came after a federal judge ruled Prop. 8 -- the 2008 ballot measure that effectively banned same-sex marriage -- was unconstitutional.
The judges dug into the issue of whether the Constitution permits the state to make distinctions between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages.
Charles Cooper, a lawyer who argued in favor of Prop. 8, said marriage exists for society to recognize relationships between men and women that can lead to children.
"When a relationship between a man and a woman becomes a sexual one, society has a vital interest," Cooper said.
Judge Stephen Reinhart, one of a three-member panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the case, appeared unconvinced.
"That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce," he said, dryly. "But how does it relate to having two males or two females marry each other and have children as they have in California? I don't understand how that argument says we ought to prohibit that?"
Judge N. Randy Smith raised another issue: Under California law, same-sex couples have all the rights of marriage except the word "marriage." Given that, he asked, how does Proposition 8 protect marriage?
Answered Cooper: "You are left with a word, but a word that is essentially the institution."
The other major question was whether the anti-gay-marriage side had legal standing to appeal. If not, then Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling would stand.
The judges grilled anti-Prop. 8 attorney David Boies on the question of who has standing to appeal Walker's lower-court decision tossing the law.
Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown (now the governor-elect) declined to appeal Walker's decision.
That prompted the judges to question who did have the right to appeal, an important point, they noted, given that a majority of California's electorate voted in 2008 for Prop. 8.
"My problem is, in fact, the governor's and the attorney general's actions have essentially nullified the considerable efforts that were made on behalf of the initiative," said Smith, the most conservative judge on the panel.
He and other judges noted that neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown had the power to veto the proposition when voters approved it. But by declining to appeal the legal judgment, were they not effectively vetoing it?
Reinhardt raised the possibility of asking the California Supreme Court to answer this question of state law. (A federal court of appeals can do this by "certifying" the question to the California Supreme Court.)
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment