Awesome Idea Matt
I would think resources
1) things like
http://www.pcmk.org/blue_book.pdf
and books like
http://www.amazon.com/Separate-Creation-Biological-Origins-Orientation/dp/0788166972
and
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Testament-Extensive-Christians-ebook/dp/B006LO1Y68/ref=sr_1_10_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367284079&sr=1-10&keywords=dr+A+Nyland
and other affirming books and churches and organisations (PFLAG, MCC, F2B of course)
2) lists of good movies and Docos
One of the things that helped me was to realise ise theres a whole culture out there
Movies like Saved (of course) but others that just help with general affirmation
You should meet my son
Mambo Italiano
Make the Yuletide Gay
A touch of Pink
Adam and Steve
Where the Bears are
Theres a PILE of them although there probably is a question of where to draw the line some – like 9 dead gay guys – are very funny but may shock some people….
3) stuff to make people think and question ..
I love this bit from a Seperate creation which makes the point – there are two very similar human genetic traits… one of which is non controversially genetic and the other the are laws and debates about ….
One black box has been the object of decades of empirical observation, and researchers have amassed a fairly complete external description of it in the scientific literature, what is sometimes called a “trait profile.” This is the first stage of biological research. (What generates this black box, what makes it what it is are the questions biologists are just beginning to pursue.) We have measured the external dimensions of this black box, and on that external level we know it well. This is what we know.
1. Biologists refer to the trait as a stable dimorphism, expressed behaviorally.
2. It exists in the form of two basic internal, invisible orientations. Over 90 percent of the population accounts for the majority orientation and under 10 percent (one reliable study puts the figure at 7.89 percent) for the minority orientation, although there is still debate about the exact percentages.
3. Only a very small number of people are truly equally oriented both ways.
4. Evidence from art history suggests the incidence of the two different orientations has been constant for five millennia. 5. A person’s orientation cannot be identified simply by looking at him or her; those with the minority orientation are just as diverse in appearance, race, religion, and all other characteristics as those with the majority orientation.
6. Since the trait itself is internal and invisible, the only way to identify a person’s orientation is to observe the person’s behavior or reflexes that express it. However:
7. The trait itself is not a “behavior.” It is the neurological orientation expressed, at times, behaviorally. A person with the minority orientation can engage, usually due to coercion or social pressure, in behavior that seems to express the majority orientation—several decades ago, those with the minority orientation frequently were forced to behave as if they had the majority orientation—but internally the orientation remains the same. As social pressures have lifted, the minority orientation has become more commonly and openly expressed in society.
8. Neither orientation is a disease or mental illness. Neither is pathological.
9. Neither orientation is chosen.
10. Signs of one’s orientation are detectable very early in children—often, researchers have established, by age two or three—and one’s orientation probably is defined, at the latest, by age two, and quite possibly before birth. These first intriguing observations began to catch the attention of researchers. The trait looked biological in origin. They began to press ahead systematically with their inspection, fleshing out the answer to the first question biologists always ask of a trait: “What is it?” This question must be answered before a scientist can pursue the second, quite different question: “Where does it come from?” The data that began flowing back indicated that the trait might well have a genetic source. 11. Adoption studies show that the orientation of adopted children is unrelated to the orientation of their adoptive parents, demonstrating that the trait is not environmentally rooted.
12. Twin studies show that pairs of identical (monozygotic) twins, who have identical genes, have a higher-than-average chance often adopted sharing the same orientation compared to pairs of randomly selected individuals; the average (or “background”) rate of the trait in any given population is just under 8 percent, while the twin rate is just over 12 percent, over 50 percent higher. But the most startling and intriguing clues came from studies that began to reveal the faint outlines of the genetic plans that underlie the trait.
13. The incidence of the minority orientation is strikingly higher in the male population—about 27 percent higher—than it is in the female population, a bit of data hinting to the biologist how the gene or genes responsible might be operating. 14. Like the trait eye color, familial studies show no direct parent-offspring correlation for the two orientations of the trait, but the minority orientation clearly “runs in families,” handed down from parent to child in a loose but genetically characteristic pattern.
15. This pattern shows a “maternal effect,” a classic telltale sign of a genetically loaded trait. The minority orientation, as expressed in men appears to be passed down through the mother.
The trait profiled above, of course, is handedness, a stable, behavioral bimodal polymorphism with the majority orientation, right-handedness
Burr, Chandler (2011-04-30). A Separate Creation (Kindle Location 182). Transworld. Kindle Edition.
|
