For two years, I have studied "so-called" pro family "research" regarding the gay community and have found a disturbing pattern of deception.
In August 2007, my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters was published, detailing all of my findings.
The purpose of this blog is to give updates of my work and to show some of my findings.
From the United Kingdom comes a situation regarding gay adoption which I am sure the religious right in this country will try to exploit for its own purposes:
Dr Sheila Matthews, who has been a medical adviser to the Council’s adoption panel for five years, said she believed it would be “inappropriate” to place children in a household with same sex parents.
“Using my professional judgement and having done a lot of reading around the subject, I am satisfied that there are research findings which support my position that a same sex partnership is not the best family setting to bring up children,” she said. . . . "This conflicts with my professional, religious and personal integrity.”
Dr Matthews was told in April by the Council’s Head of Services for Children, Young People and Families, Martin Pratt, that she could no longer be on the panel and that another medical adviser would be found to replace her.
She has sought advice from the Christian Legal Centre. Its director Andrea Minichiello Williams said her case was another example of “how a well respected professional who holds conscientious views on sexual practice, informed by Christian faith, is being asked to choose between her faith and her job."
. . . “And devout Christians are suffering the consequences,” she said. “This is not the mark of a free and civilised society where freedom of speech and religion is carefully guarded.”
This isn't anything new. In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston in Massachusetts announced that the agency would end its adoption work rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.
So this case may give the religious right more proof that the "gay agenda forces people to choose between their jobs and beliefs."
Therefore, if the lgbt community takes on the religious right in this situation without flipping the script a bit, we are walking into their trap.
You see, adoption is not about the lgbt community nor about the beliefs of those who would place these children. Ultimately, adoption is about giving children good homes.
Now I don't know what Dr. Matthews has been reading (I think I have a good idea, unfortunately), but the vast amount of research out there says no child suffers adverse affects from being placed in a same-sex household.
Regardless of how she spins it, Dr. Matthews is placing her personal beliefs above the needs of the child.
If someone on any adoption board does this, then he or she needs to be removed, point blank.
Also, how far does this "my personal beliefs won't allow it," nonsense go? Will the "personal beliefs" card be allowed when it comes placing children in households of different ethnic origins.
You see how complicated this thing gets when people on these boards start deviating from their actual mission - that mission being to find a child a good home.
Removing Dr. Matthews was the right thing to do. In the cases of adoptions, the needs of the children should always come first. Everything else, especially the personal religious beliefs (however deeply held) of those choosing the homes, is incidental.
On the edge: Religious militancy in the Queen City - For years, Charlotte Pride has been besieged with very vocal anti-gay protesters. This year may be a bit more troubling than most as Matt Comer shows in this special report.
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm . . . Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.” - Paul Cameron, Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999
Not many people in the lgbt community or the world know who Paul Cameron is.
But we all should.
Paul Cameron is the grandfather of all anti-gay junk science.
When the religious right compares us to pedophiles, when they claim that we have a short life span, when they talk about how "how homosexuality has dangerous physical and medical consequences," it's his discredited "data" that they are inferring.
Paul Cameron is probably singlehandedly responsible for every lie, every distortion, every bastardization of science that has plagued the lgbt community since the onset of the AIDS crisis.
His bad research techniques and tactics has led him to be dismissed from major scientific groups, as well as censured by conservatives and liberals alike.
Unfortunately these techniques and tactics also gave the religious right a "scientific component" to attack the lgbt community. If there was no Paul Cameron, there would be no Peter LaBarbera, no Matt Barber, no Linda Harvey, etc., etc.
The following clips are of Paul Cameron in Poland this year, where he was barred from speaking at a university after his dubious history was made known.
I think you can see the ugly homophobia that has tainted his research from the beginning, especially with his fascination with anal sex in the gay community (of course he omits how heterosexuals also participate in this activity), and his claim that he has been the victim of a conspiracy of "ad hominem" attacks.
The "real fun" starts at 2:45 in this clip when he begins talking about how gays have a supposedly high rate of molesting children.
Now in second this clip, he goes into full detail about anal sex, making sure to imply that it is solely "gay behavior." He also talks about how the attacks against him have been unfair because all he is doing is presenting data that the gay community also presents. He also tells a huge bold-faced lie (as if his entire presentation isn't a lie) when he says that gays aren't showing any evidence that his work is inaccurate.
Of course Cameron omits several things. There is a reason why he has to go to foreign countries to present his "studies." He is a laughing stock in the United States. While religious right groups fully exploit the so-called results behind his studies, they are careful not to call him by name. There is a reason for that.
Let's take a quick look at his history:
"Right now, here in Lincoln, there is a 4-year-old boy who has had his genitals almost severed from his body at Gateway in the rest room with a homosexual act… It’s really awkward. I could see where Gateway would want to suppress this. I could see where the parents would want to suppress it. It could be just a rumor. But enough things have happened recently so that such a thing doesn’t have to be invented.” - Paul Cameron told this story to a group in 1982 in Lincoln, NB in an attempt to kill a human rightsordinance. The police discovered the story to be false but the ordinance was defeated.
And let's not forget the condemnations rained down on him by the medical community:
“(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” - Dr. A. Nicholas Groth in 1984 after discovering that Cameron distorted his work.
"Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - American Psychological Association, 1983
The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - Nebraska Psychological Association, 1984
Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" - American Sociological Association, 1985
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. - Canadian Psychological Association, 1996
And while we are at it, let's not forget those on the right who dismiss Cameron's work:
"Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron's study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years." - former Ronald Regan Cabinet member William Bennett criticizing Cameron's "gay lifespan study." - New Republic (1998, February 23, page 4)
Paul Cameron has been censured and attacked not because his "research" is controversial, but because it is wrong. He ranks right up there with folks who think that the Earth is flat. His organization, the Family Research Institute, has been declared an official hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
And not because it embraces the belief that homosexuality is a sin. According to Mark Potok, the director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Cameron's group has that designation because Cameron consciously lies about the lgbt community.
The sad fact that Cameron has credibility anywhere (not matter where it is) is testament to people's need to believe that their beliefs are somehow superior to others' beliefs.
This unfortunate need to feel superior has plagued mankind from the beginning of time. And, as in the beginning of time, there will always be people like Paul Cameron to exploit it.
And despite all that has been said about Cameron's lies, this link shows that he still has a degree of credibility with some people, including Peter LaBarbera, Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research Council.
One of our favorite anti-gay spokespeople, Peter LaBarbera, responded today to a letter sent to him by a young man accusing him of hate. This is the young man's letter:
Yes Peter, AFTAH and all other hate groups in America have complete freedom to publish, preach, and teach all the hate they choose to publish, preach, and teach. The Constitution holds for all. What hates [sic] groups such as AFTAH can not do is discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender expression, sex, race, or religion in public accomodations, employment, and other areas of public life. It is really rather simple: in public act civilized, in private hate anyone you wish as hatefully as you wish. I note you never publish nor reply to my rational and truthful letters. Odd, that is.
Naturally Peter pushes a long answer that evades the question. He brings up the usual ridiculous talking points and phrases such as about "intolerant gays," "how dare you attack me when I only trying to uphold Judeo-Christian values," and my favorite, "there are no ex-blacks, but thousands of ex-gays."
Then LaBarbera has the temerity to say this:
Let me leave you with this plea: repent of your sins and follow God. He will wipe your slate clean. Jesus Christ loves sinners, but He does “hate” sin, and died in our place so that we could spend eternity with God, and not face the judgment we surely deserve as sinners who constantly fall short of His righteous and holy standard. I will ask AFTAH readers to pray for you.
Coming from Peter, that has to be the oddest thing I have ever read. I simply had to write him the following:
Dear Peter,
I read your letter to Richard and I find it so hypocrtical on so many levels.
But the main level is how can you tell Richard to repent of HIS sins when you have sinned so many times when you tell lies on gays and lesbians. Just because you don't bring up what you have done doesn't mean God does not see it. To demonize an entire community (and knowingly relying on distorted or bad studies) is tantamount to lying. That makes you a liar. And it also makes you a sinner. The fact that you refuse to address your own sins while judging someone else on their supposed sins makes you a hypocrite.
Face it. You have no moral authority to talk about anyone's sins when you don't address your own.
In other words, before Peter starts praying about someone else's supposed sins, he needs to pray about his own.
What if two women in a relationship agreed that one would be artificially inseminated with a child.
What if the woman who did not carry the child signed co-parenting and co-guardianship agreements near the time the baby was born.
What if after the baby was born, the two women had a fight which ended up in a court case where the one who did not carry the child wanted the other to abide by the agreements?
A 3rd District judge, citing a 2008 Utah law, upheld Dickson's "fundamental" right, as the biological parent, to refuse visitation.
"I never want him to think I gave him up voluntarily. I never abandoned him," Edvalson wrote on her blog. "I loved him, and I love him still."
The case highlights the predicament of same-sex parents in Utah, a state where gay and lesbian couples cannot marry, adopt children or even expect their own contracts for shared parenting and guardianship to stand in court.
Dickson, who has termed herself bisexual, has moved on and married a man. Evaldson is trying to pick up the pieces.
You want to know the ugly irony of the entire thing?:
As her lawyer, Dickson hired Frank Mylar. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:
Mylar, a former Utah attorney general candidate, belongs to a conservative alliance of "Christian attorneys," the Alliance Defense Fund, and regularly fights against the extension of rights for gay and lesbian couples. He did just that in pushing changes to the 2008 law that severely limited Edvalson's ability to press for visitation in court.
That's the same law which led to Evaldson losing the case.
Just something to remember the next time we slash each other to death in the blogs and in our individual little groups. While we are directing venom towards ourselves, the other side is creating intricate interlocking tunnels to quantify their bullshit.
Tonight, one of our favorite anti-gay spokespeople, Peter LaBarbera, and his group Americans for Truth will have a dinner lecture featuring Arthur Goldberg, Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality).
In "celebration" of that dinner lecture, I think it's appropriate to bring some truth to a JONAH piece LaBarbera has on his webpage, Gay ‘Marriage’: Bad Science, Bad Politics:
The group JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) is another one of those annoying ex-gay groups.
This one however is centered on the Jewish community. But that is the only difference is has from the other ex-gay groups.
The similarities as seen in the piece Gay ‘Marriage’: Bad Science, Bad Politics is how they incorporate religious right distortions in their claims about homosexuality.
Rather than break it down for you (you can read the piece if you want), I decided to show you the letter I emailed to Arthur Goldberg and Michelle Cretella, the authors of the piece:
Dear Arthur Goldberg and Michelle Cretella,
I read your piece, Gay marriage: Bad science, bad politics. I want to make you aware of the fact that it contained a huge amount of errors. Allow me to go through them one by one:
1. You said:
Dr. Robert Spitzer, changed his own lifetime view. He published a study in 2003 confirming that many dissatisfied homosexuals are able to make substantial long-term changes in orientation.
However, in a 2006 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Spitzer said that he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his study may have been either lying to him or themselves. - Ex-Gays Seek a Say in Schools, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2006
2. You said:
Drs. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, both openly homosexual, studied 156 male couples who had lived together for 20 years or more. To their dismay, they found that the longest period of sexual monogamy for those couples was five years; the average was under two years.
You omitted the fact that McWhirter and Mattison in their book (published in 1984) said their research could not be used to generalize about the entire gay community :
“We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location, and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community.”
3. You said:
"During the 1990s many gay-affirming countries legalized same-sex marriage. The instability of homosexual relationships, however, remained unchanged. For example, a 2003 Dutch study found the average male homosexual partnership lasted only 1.5 years "
While you did not indicate where you got this information from, I suspect you took it from a study conducted by one Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service.
If this is true, then again you are inaccurate. You see, Dr. Xiridou received her information from the Amsterdam Cohort Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and AIDS Among Homosexual Men. To gain this information, researchers studied 1,800 gay men between the years of 1984- 2001.
Same sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001, thus making the information irrelevant to your points about gay marriage. - Overview of the Amsterdam cohort studies among homosexual men and drug users, www.amsterdamcohortstudies.org/menu/acsoverview.htm
4. You said:
Inherent health risks of the gay lifestyle present another issue. Life expectancy for men who have sex with men, according to a 1997 International Journal of Epidemiology study is eight to 20 years less than that of heterosexual men.
You omitted the fact that in 2001, the six authors of that study went on record complaining about how their work was being distorted by folks like yourself - Gay Life Expectancy Revisited, International Journal of Epidemiology, http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
Basically what I am trying to say is that your work is shoddy. Might I suggest that in the future, you do the actual work and not plagiarize from religoius right studies. They tend to be very phony.
By the way, I emailed this to Goldberg and company. Naturally I have yet to receive a response.
I've been having a very interesting email exchange with Peter LaBarbera regarding his stigmatization of the lgbt community.
For LaBarbera, every lie he tells is justifiable because of his belief that gay men have "health risks" greater than that of heterosexuals. In fact, it's something he likes to highlight every chance he gets:
“Barack Obama’s homosexual agenda is beginning to take shape – but he has no election mandate to impose GLSEN’s radical vision of celebrating homosexuality, bisexuality and gender confusion (transsexuality) in U.S. schools,” LaBarbera said. “Anti-religious bigots should not be setting policy for schools — and promoting dangerous sex and gender identities to youth is the antithesis of ‘safety.’ (Men who have sex with other men (MSM) suffer from much higher rates of sexual diseases – including anal cancer, HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea — than non-MSMs.)
LaBarbera also argues that many liberal school districts teach false facts about AIDS. He says they imply that everyone is at equal risk for contracting the disease -- even though in 2005 71 percent of U.S. male AIDS cases involved homosexuals. He contends that many American young people are not being informed about other health risks associated with homosexuality either -- such as increased infections of the Hepatitis B or C virus and the herpes virus. "We have all this evidence out there that homosexual behavior is dangerous," the activist point out, "and yet our politically correct elites are promoting gay identity" to teens and children.
And he is not the only one to assert this "gays are dangerous because of their behavior" claim:
If there was ever a clarion call for our entire society to say with one united voice that homosexual behavior is a danger to health and should be discouraged at all costs, this is it. We've found one voice as a society with regard to drug use and drunk driving; it's time we find it with regard to homosexual behavior. - Bryan Fischer
In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking. - Matt Barber
The "homosexuality is a health risk" factoid is a popular talking point in religious right circles. It stems from manipulating legitimate medical information regarding disease and the lgbt community. Rather than go into detail about just how this information is manipulated, I'm going to take another route.
I found this video on youtube. I dare anyone to tell me the difference between it and the nonsense about the supposed "health risks of homosexuality" factoid pushed by the religious right:
I want to focus on a slightly new direction with this entry.
Professional wrestling is no different than almost everything else on television - highly scripted.
And like so many other programs it has become a complicated mix complete with anti-heroes with questionable values whom you are supposed to hate but find yourself cheering for.
But once upon a time, professional wrestling was simple with heroes who embraced the notion of fair play battling it out with cheaters, foreign invaders, and assorted oddball.
And no oddball was stranger than the "Exotic" Adrian Street. Street portrayed an effiminate wrestler would prance to the ring with his valet (and real life wife) Miss Linda in tow arrayed in glitter, leather, and make-up with his hair in pigtails.
While no one would come out and say the words "gay" or "homosexual," the epithets hurled at him by the crowd and the snide comments by announcers left no doubt that this was the image he pushed out there.
But there was something else about the Adrian Street wrestling character that made him a fascinating paradigm.
He was portrayed to be as tough as hell. Members of the audience who laughed at his mannerisms found themselves screaming in rage with how he demolished opponents, outsmarted fan favorites, or engaged in ugly beatdowns.
So I guess the question is can Adrian Street's RuPaul-cum-Arnold Swarzeneggar style be considered as an unusual spin on the negative ways lgbts were portrayed in the media or was he just the standard stereotype of the "psychotic queer?"
Check out his videos and judge for yourself. And yes that is him singing:
Congressman John Lewis Speaks OUT! - Congressman John Lewis, a veteran of the African-American civil rights movement lays it down like it should be done.
Follow Up on Brett Vanasdlen - Remember Peter LaBarbera saying that he will keep us with this story? Here is the reason why he didn't.
Demand Honesty - Sometimes You’ll Get It - Box Turtle Bulletin is on a hot streak this week. The webpage gets the Illinois Family Institute to change a fallacious statement.
Though the amendment garnered three votes more than necessary to reach cloture, the fate of the hate crimes measure is now partially linked to $1.75 billion in funding for F-22 fighter jets that is also included in the DOD legislation.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates both oppose the F-22 program and a White House spokesperson said the president will not sign a DOD bill that continues to fund the program.
"The President has long supported the hate crimes bill and gave his personal commitment to Judy Shepard that we will enact an inclusive bill,” said Shin Inouye, referring to Shepard’s Oval Office visit with the president earlier this year. “Unfortunately, the President will have to veto the Defense Authorization bill if it includes wasteful spending for additional F-22s. The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments is that the current program is sufficient to meet operational requirements. A Presidential veto would not indicate any change in President Obama’s commitment to seeing the hate crimes bill enacted."
Senators Carl Levin and John McCain have offered a bi-partisan amendment to remove the F-22 funding that is scheduled for a vote Monday, but insiders say the count is unclear.
If the amendment fails and President Obama vetoes the bill, it will be sent back to the Senate for a rewrite. A Democratic Senate aide said Senator Reid was optimistic, nonetheless, that hate crimes would ultimately make the final version of DOD authorization.
I'm not pouring any champagne until THAT bill is on President Obama's desk signed, sealed, and delivered. Until then, there is still work to do.
Also, I found something very interesting on youtube that demonstrates just how ridiculous it is to have this diversionary argument between the black and gay communities.
While the two groups fight for position, we are missing out on a good historical perspective:
This nonsense about "Is Black The New Gay," just reached another plateau of bullcrap today.
L.Z. Granderson, an award winning columnist and a gay man of color has written a piece that, while I agree with in some parts, is indicative of the division mentality that I find so mind-boggling:
Black is still black.
And if any group should know this, it's the gay community.
Bars such as The Prop House, or Bulldogs in Atlanta, Georgia, exist because a large number of gay blacks -- particularly those who date other blacks, and live in the black community -- do not feel a part of the larger gay movement. There are Gay Pride celebrations, and then there are Black Gay Prides.
There's a popular bar in the heart of the nation's capital that might as well rename itself Antebellum, because all of the white patrons tend to stay upstairs and the black patrons are on the first floor. Last year at the annual Human Rights Campaign national fundraiser in Washington, D.C. -- an event that lasted more than three hours -- the only black person to make it on stage was the entertainment.
When Proposition 8 passed in California, white gays were quick to blame the black community despite blacks making up less than 10 percent of total voters and whites being close to 60 percent. At protest rallies that followed, some gay blacks reported they were even hit with racial epithets by angry white participants. Not to split hairs, but for most blacks, the n-word trumps the f-word.
So while the white mouthpiece of the gay community shakes an angry finger at intolerance and bigotry in their blogs and on television, blacks and other minorities see the dirty laundry. They see the hypocrisy of publicly rallying in the name of unity but then privately living in segregated pockets. And then there is the history.
He does have a point about how the visibility of lgbts of color is minimized in gay community at large and the madness of some lgbts after the Proposition 8 vote.
But in all honesty, he splits hairs in an ugly fashion with that comment about the "n-word" and "f-word." I mean it's like saying if a gay black man is attacked by both a racist and a homophobe carrying baseball bats, he is going to run away from the racist quicker than he would from the homophobe. And that point about the "hypocrisy of publicly rallying in the name of unity but then privately living in segregated pockets" is also a good one to make.
But the hypocrisy of talking about unity but ignoring a segment of your population because of religious beliefs and ridiculous ideas of masculinity and femininity is an equally good point.
For me, the part that stuck out in Mr. Granderson's piece in a bad way is the following:
The 40th anniversary of Stonewall dominated Gay Pride celebrations around the country, and while that is certainly a significant moment that should be recognized, 40 years is nothing compared with the 400 blood-soaked years black people have been through in this country. There are stories some blacks lived through, stories others were told by their parents and stories that never had a chance to be told.
He would have a point except for one thing; as I understand it, some of those gays at Stonewall were black. That's yet another thing about lgbts of color you don't hear about during Black History Month.
The fact that he didn't mention the inclusion of black gays in Stonewall but rather contrasted it to black history (wouldn't Stonewall be considered a part, albeit a small part, of black history) emphasizes the basic emptiness of his piece.
Why is it so hard for folks to say that gay rights are African-American rights because lgbts of color are touched by both communities? Why is it so hard for folks to say that there are times in which the black and gay struggles intersect?
That is why I am so damned weary of this argument about "is gay the new black" or "can gay rights movement compare itself to the civil rights movement."
For one thing, the argument is so self-defeating.
You generally don't end up with an intelligent discussion. What you end up with are folks who compare abuses like they are marks of honors. Getting your head busted open for being black or gay is not a trophy and should never be seen as such.
So blacks say that gays can't compare their struggle to the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s because they didn't face slavery and segregation. Big deal. If you wanted to be stupid about it, some can say blacks can't compare themselves to Jews. Remember this country kept blacks as slaves, but the Nazis tried to exterminate Jewish people.
I say we are losing touch. In the long run, the forms that oppression take is not as important as the harm it can do.
Or, if you want to be direct about it, did Mamie Till and Judy Shepard cry different tears when they learned about the death of their children?
Is the hurt of a black girl who has been told that she is ugly because she does fit the European standard of beauty any different than that of a young white lesbian who has been bullied in her school because of her orientation?
Is my worth as a black man more important than my worth as a gay man?
Are we so damned wrapped up in talking about how we have been oppressed that we forget that all oppression must be stopped?
It's sad that Mr. Granderson did not ask these critical questions.
Stop drinking. Get help for traumas. Heck, stop having gay sex. But stop linking these disconnected elements! - This piece illustrates why I have little respect for the supposed "ex-gays." They all seem to either have the same story or confuse bad behaviors with being lgbt. Having promiscuous sex or engaging in drug and alcohol abuse is not a hallmark of being an lgbt anymore than it is of being a heterosexual. If some of these supposed ex-gays took some responsibility and owned their bad behavior, they wouldn't have time to blame us for it.
Bush's Justice Dept. blacklisted LGBT groups - I continue to be impressed with the Washington Blade's digging on stories. Keep it up cause I've got a few for ya! Call a brother!
I received the following email from People for the American Way. Keep the calls coming. And just in case you get discouraged, remember that I have both Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint as my senators and I am still making a call:
Later today, the Senate is expected to vote on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) -- as the Leahy/Collins/Kennedy/Snowe amendment to the defense authorization bill. Our coalition partners have set up a call-in number for activists to call their senators toll-free to make sure they are hearing Americans' support for this bill.
Please call YOUR senators right now, toll-free at 866-659-9641 and make sure they hear your support at this critical time. Tell them: Vote YES on the Leahy/Collins/Kennedy/Snowe amendment!
A columnist by the name of Wendi C. Thomas wrote an absolutely stunning piece on how the black church treats lgbts of color.
There are so many things about it that I like. But the main thing is how she exposes a fact that is well-known in African-American circles:
The hypocrisy is that the black church has always been home to gay men and women. Yet while largely ignoring sexuality in all its other forms, the church often delivers messages of shame to gay people, who endure it while they sit in the pews and sing in the choirs.
The secrecy demands that in a traditional black church, gay people must hide. The rumors of prominent black Christians who are gay are rampant, but only one -- singer Donnie McClurkin -- acknowledges having had sex with men.
"It's not so much that the black church doesn't want gay men, they don't want openly gay men," said Devon Berry, who is black and gay.
"They don't want you in there being proud of who you are."
Thomas is right. Lgbts of color attend non-affirming black churches. And it's not as if all of us are deep in the closet. Some of our mannerisms have made us the butt of whispering campaigns by proper church ladies and gentlemen; the same folks who would give us holy hell if we came out and openly declared ourselves so as to relieve their doubts and answer their questions.
That part of Thomas's piece touches on something that is not really focused on when it comes to lgbts in the black community in general. African-Americans know that lgbts of color exist. Many heterosexual blacks consider themselves as good friends of lgbts of color. And they claim to have no problem with us . . . as long as we know our place.
Heterosexual African-Americans can criticize lgbts. Pastors in their pulpits can raise holy hell about lgbts. But if we lgbts of color wanted to start a discussion about our lives, then look out! It has the same effect of a bomb going off.
It reminds me of a statement from an acquaintence of mine: "If you are going to be gay, then be gay. Just don't get in my face about it."
Well I'm not going to tell you my rebuttal to her (it was so good that I smoked two cigarettes after speaking my peace), but unfortunately her comments are indicative of how lgbts of color are seen.
If you are an open lgbt of color, you are not supposed to be a leader in the black community.
You are not supposed to demand that organizations such as the NAACP and the Urban League look to you as a legitimate segment of the black community.
You are not supposed to be able to talk about your partner/boyfriend when speaking to some of your black friends.
Generally you are not supposed to do or say anything that demands that you be treated like a human being and have your orientation acknowledged or respected in the black community.
Here is what you are supposed to do:
You are supposed to say nothing when you hear whispering about your sexual orientation. To openly say that you are gay ruins "good gossip."
You are supposed to be weak-livered and sexually promiscuous because as an lgbt, you have no concept of morality. Now if you were straight and sexually promiscuous, you would be given an exemption because "it's in your nature to cheat."
You are supposed to laugh or say nothing when you see images of lgbts disrespected on black-oriented networks and television shows.
Basically you are to watch yourself get disrespected and minimize and say nothing because to acknowledge your humanity is really hurting the African-American community.
Does this remind you of the inferiority that white racists placed on black people?
I know some folks may give me hell for what I wrote but I don't care. I am proud of my heritage as a BLACK man and a GAY man.
But damn, my fellow African-Americans can be a real drag.
The rest of Wendi Thomas's piece is here. It should be required reading for many in the black community.
No funny quips tonight. Only prayers that the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act passes.
As I understand it, our opposition has put out a video featuring Harry Jackson and a few others (including my senator, Jim DeMint) telling lies about the bill.
Let's not forget who this is about:
Contact your Senator at 202-224-3121. Go here for more details.
What you can do to pass hate crimes legislation - Between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, a toll free number (866-659-9641) will be open for you and your constituents, friends, family members and collegues to call your senators and urge them to support the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Learn more about the act by downloading CenterLink Hate Crimes Factsheet - Senate 2009-07.
Video: Shameless desperation - And speaking of which, the religious right continues to lie about hate crimes legislation.
Bishop Harry Jackson and pals write open letter to Obama: 'same-sex marriage is not a civil right'- Harry Jackson, I am a black man and I say who in the hell appointed you to dictate what is or isn't a "civil right?" Jackson is indicative of black leaders willing to trade sacrifice the well-being of their brothers and sisters (because lgbts of color exist believe it or not) for face time and status.
Pro-Gay Miami Judge Demoted- Watch how quickly the religious right attempt to link Judge Lederman's "demotion" to her decision about gay adoption in Florida.
I don't know of anyone who has referred to me as an "expert" on homosexuality. I have never referred to myself on this, simply because I am not. But I would describe myself as an expert on the issue of same-sex marriage. I have published a book and had many of my articles on the subject republished in numerous mainstream volumes.
I don't mind being critiqued, but at least get it right.
Stanton was responding to one of the points I outlined as a religious right distortion:
Phony Experts - Creating their own "experts" on the lgbt community. One such "expert" is Linda Harvey of Mission America. According to her bio, she is a former ad executive who became a born again Christian. Another phony expert is Glenn T. Stanton of Focus on the Family. He is considered an "expert" on the subject of homosexuality but has a master’s degree in interdisciplinary humanities with an emphasis in philosophy, history and religion.
This is my answer to his comment:
Mr. Stanton, if you want to play the game of "exact wording," then you do have a point.
But Focus on the Family has positioned you as an expert in the subject of homosexuality. Your bio on the Focus on the Family webpage even says "He debates and lectures extensively on the issues of gender, sexuality, marriage and parenting at universities and churches around the country."
In that awful mess of a paper, you not only cite the discredited work of Paul Cameron (via a third party) but you also cite an antiquated medical term "gay bowel syndrome."
I would hope that you did not use the same sloppy research in your critiques of same sex marriage.
It's nice to see Stanton admit his lack of expertise on the subject of homosexuality. Now if only others like him would do the same.
In less than three years, this blog has reached over 100,000 hits. Not bad for a part time blog, huh? Seriously though, I would like to thank all of my readers and supporters for their patronage, support, and links.
As you all know, this is a part-time blog that stemmed from my 2007 book Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: Exposing the Lies of the Anti-Gay Industry. As such, I'm not able to come down fast and hard with up-to-minute news or details like other blogs. And I am not necessarily as well-known, but I like to think that I serve a function in refuting religious right lies.
With that in mind, I want to reiterate six distortion techniques of the religious right as well as list the top 17 lies they tell about the lgbt community. I have talked in detail about all of these in the past. And I will continue to do so. If you have any questions, please do not hesiate to ask:
Top six religious right distortion techniques used to defame the lgbt community
1. Using nonrepresentative or out-of-date studies to make generalizations, or distorting legitimate studies to give misleading conclusions
Example 1 - Religious right talking point: According to the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sexual partners. Therefore gays have no concept of mongamy and certainly can't be trusted to raise children.
Truth - Homosexualities was a book written in 1978 that only looked a certain portion of the lgbt population (gay men in the city of San Francisco). It also did not look at same-sex households. In addition, the authors of Homosexualities (Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg) said that their book should not be used to generalize about all gays in general.
Example 2 - Religious right talking point: Same sex marriage and gay adoption are bad ideas because research shows that the best places to raise children are in homes with a mother and a father.
The truth - The research only looked at heterosexual two-parent households as opposed to single parent heterosexual households. Same-sex households were never included.
2. Repetition - Despite the fact that several physicians and researchers complain about the distortion of their work, corrections are usually not made. In fact, you can still find the work of the six Canadian researchers, Judith Stacey, Joanne Hall, Patrick Letellier, as well as many others being distorted on various religious right webpages.
3. Conspiracy Theory - Claiming that gays and lesbians are consistently plotting to "erode traditional values"
Example - “The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior. It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball, where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior—in a decade-long time frame." - Craig Osten, Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda, Focus on the Family, July 25, 2003
4. Dire Consequences - Claiming that a pro-gay law or ordinance will lead to negative consequences without proof that the consequences will take place.
Example 1 - “Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.” - Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America, 2007
Example 2 - “H.R. 254 elevates one group of Americans above others, creating a special class of victims. All things being equal, it means that if a 5-foot-2-inch grandmother is violently attacked on the street, she is less worthy of justice than the 6-foot-4-inch homosexual man who is attacked by the same assailant.” - Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America, 2007
5. Phony Experts - Creating their own "experts" on the lgbt community. One such "expert" is Linda Harvey of Mission America. According to her bio, she is a former ad executive who became a born again Christian. Another phony expert is Glenn T. Stanton of Focus on the Family. He is considered an "expert" on the subject of homosexuality but has a master’s degree in interdisciplinary humanities with an emphasis in philosophy, history and religion.
6. Dehumanizing Semantics - Consistently using language (i.e. demonstrative verbs and adjectives) in their talking points, sound bites, and press releases to make gays and lesbians seem like impersonal, threatening outsiders
Example 1 - “But unfortunately, the evangelist observes, many Christians have been bullied into submission on the aggressive homosexual agenda in public schools.”—Evangelist Proposes to Combat Homosexual Agenda in Public Education, Agape Press, May 11, 2005
Example 2 - “Elsewhere in the battle against the homosexual agenda, the Broward County School Board in Florida has voted to allow a pro- homosexual group to indoctrinate its teachers on tolerance.”— Children Adopted by Homosexuals Suffer, Family Advocate Says, Agape Press, April 25, 2002
Example 3 - “The ACLU continues to use a law license to bully school districts and harass parents in order to brainwash their kids abut the ‘normalcy’ of homosexuality.”—Jan LaRue, ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training, Concerned Women for America press release, July 14, 2005
Top lies told about the lgbt community - See how many of these you recognize
1. Homosexuality is a lifestyle more harmful than cigarette smoking.
2. Gay men have a short life span.
3. The gay and lesbian community have a high rate of domestic violence.
4. Unhealthy behaviors (i.e. substance abuse, promiscuous sexual behavior) is indicative of the gay or lesbian orientation.
5. Gay men molest children at a high rate.
6. Gays and lesbians want to silence Christians.
7. Gays and lesbians recruit people, particularly children, to their "lifestyle."
8. Gays and lesbians are following a six-point plan to take over America.
9. Any judge who rules in favor of the gay and lesbian community in a case is an "activist judge."
10. Anal sex is "homosexual behavior."
11. Robert Spitzer’s study confirms that gays and lesbians can change their orientation.
12. Gays and lesbians want to force acceptance.
13. Gay bowel syndrome is a legitimate medical term.
14. A man who molests a boy or a woman who molests a girl is automatically homosexual.
15. A convenience sample or out-of-date study can be used to generalize about an entire community.
16. The average gay man has many sexual partners.
17. Laws created to protect transgenders from discrimination will make it easier for sexual predators to come into womens' bathrooms and locker rooms.
All of these notions are lies. And I have enjoyed refuting them. I look forward to continuing to refute them in the future. Hopefully I will continue to have your support.
Leahy to Introduce Hate-Crimes Amendment - Batten down the hatches cause the religious right is going to freak over this. Is going to? Hell they are already up in arms. Keep your fingers crossed though. It could pass!
I have finally flipped, gone insane, reached my last straw, am now at the point of no return.
In short, I am pissed off to the highest levels of pissivity.
And it's all Terrell Carter's fault.
Terrell Carter is an actor who has appeared in several of Tyler Perry's Madea plays. And he has been outed by an angry ex-boyfriend.
With all of the other stuff going on in the world, one would ask why does this thing bother me so much?
Because it is the last straw that has caused my mind to snap.
In the predominantly white gay community, Terrell Carter really doesn't represent anything. If Carter was white, someone like Perez Hilton would be all over this situation.
But in the black community, it means more whispering, more clandestine talking behind closed doors, and more hypocrisy.
I've had my fill of heterosexual black folks who will complain about the supposed gay lifestyle being pushed in their faces while at the same time engaging in gossip about "friends" whom they know are lgbt.
Come to think of it, I've had my fill of it all. I'm tired.
I'm tired of the stupid explanations that some heterosexual black folks have for ignoring the needs of their own family members who happen to be lgbt. This idea that gays and blacks are two separate entities is a lie. Everyone in the black community has a "cousin Pookie." Hell, I'm cousin Pookie and I still got seven other "cousin Pookies." You think we don't have relationships and families that need protecting? The world don't revolve around you and your "baby mama" or "baby daddy."
I'm tired of people like bottom feeding anti-gay pastor Harry Jackson getting valuable to face time on television and in columns to rail against gay folks while lgbts of color don't get any attention.
That is unless they decide to become a puppet in the gays vs. blacks nonsense that sprung up after the Proposition 8 vote like a certain lesbian columnist (Jasmyne Cannick - whose writings I adored and agreed with to a point until the strings pulling her arms became unbearably visible).
I'm tired of the black gospel music community. That's right, I said it and I'm not taking it back. Let's be honest about the black gospel music community. It's the African-American version of San Francisco with much more clothing and less openness.
If you want to know where the majority of lgbts of color populate, check the black gospel music community. And to the African-Americans who are reading this, don't act shocked. You know this as well as me.
And I am tired of the black church, period. I'm tired of seeing the black church, once the bastion of the oppressed, become changed by money and status. I'm tired of seeing the black church rail against lgbts via the same Bible that was used to oppress it not that long ago.
And most of all, I'm tired of ministers who will wear $300 suits, diamond rings, have their hair magnificently coiffed and stand in front of megachurches of 25,000 equally expensive dressed members and whine about "how the world hates them because they are servants of Christ." Meanwhile lgbt children are being kicked out of their homes on a daily basis into the cold streets to fend for themselves by their supposed sanctified mothers and fathers.
It certainly confuses me about the definition of hate.
And I have a question. Am I the only lgbt of color who feels this way? Sometimes I feel like I am. Am I the only one who gets angry at the intentional ignorance regarding how lgbts of color have shaped America? The intentional omission of us in all aspects of the black community by our black leaders? The pushing aside of our needs as members of the black community?
But hey, it doesn't matter. Let's talk about those Terrell Carter pictures for a while.
Alvin McEwen is 38-year-old single African-American gay man who resides in Columbia, SC.
He is a graduate of A.C. Flora High School and Winthrop University.
McEwen is a 1988 attendee of the SC Governor's School for the Arts and the author of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: Exposing the Lies of the Anti-Gay Industry.
He is also a board member of the SC Pride Movement and SC Black Pride as well as a co-founder of Palmetto Umoja.
McEwen's blog, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, is internationally known and has been referred to on many sites including Americablog.com, Goodasyou.org, People for the American Way, PageOneQ.com, CNN.com and The Washington Post. In addition, he is also a contributor to Pam's House Blend.
In June 2009, McEwen became the first gay man of color to address lgbt issues on the editorial pages of The State, South Carolina's largest newspaper.
He is the 2007 recipient of the Harriet Daniels Hancock Volunteer of the Year Award from the SC Pride Movement and the 2009 recipient of the Audre Lorde/James Baldwin Civil Rights Activist Award from SC Black Pride.
