Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Concerned Women for America's slanted poll makes me crazy

According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Concerned Women for American sent a survey to its members asking their opinions on the so-called "impact of the radical homosexual agenda in public schools."

You have to see these questions. They are unbelievable. Allow me to add some degree of editorialization (is that even a word) after each question:

1. Do you support teaching children in grades as early as kindergarten that cross-dressing is acceptable?

No. Children should learn to cross-dress before entering kindergarten.

2. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of teaching would have on young children? .

It would teach them how to properly accessorize.

3. Do you believe school children as young as 13 should be exposed to explicit, detailed discussions and instructions on homosexual practices (including sodomy) as are being conducted by homosexual teachers and activists right now?

That's not even necessary. Just make watching High School Musical mandatory. You'll get the same results.

4. What kind of impact do you believe this kind of instruction would have on young children?

They are sure to pay attention in class. Get them to take notes.

5. Do you believe the increase of homosexual experimentation among teens is related to presentation of pro-"gay" instruction in the classroom?

By homosexual experimentation, I'm guessing CWA means lip synching a Christina Aguilera song.

6. Is it possible for the radical homosexual agenda to succeed in achieving its overriding goal of changing the moral character of our young people and the moral landscape of our nation through our schools?

I'm guessing they mean as opposed to the "normal homosexual agenda." And I don't know what that is because national headquarters has yet to send me the manual. I think it's a racial thing.

7. What impact would this have on our nation and the next generation leading it?

No one will be wearing white after Labor Day.

8. Do you agree that instruction in some classrooms is a blatant push to unashamedly promote and encourage the homosexual lifestyle and ultimately force "gay marriage" on the American public?

That's right - we want everyone in a gay marriage. I am personally overseeing the committee to put Jack Black, Abraham Benrubi, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and Mike White in a polygamous marriage with myself. Call me boys - you either come to my house peacefully or else.

9. Do you feel instilling positive views of homosexuality in schools will result in America accepting same-sex "marriages"?

I sincerely hope so. Mother is hoping that I snag either a doctor or a lawyer.

10. Do you agree that homosexual "marriage" is as valid as traditional marriage, as is being taught in some school districts?

Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding.

11. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe this kind of classroom instruction will have in the future?

Who cares. As long as no one laughs at me for wearing white at MY wedding. (Yes I repeated it!)

12. Do you support laws requiring schools to obtain parents' permission before their child is exposed to information of a homosexual nature?

Where the hell were you people when I had to read the Razor's Edge by gay author Somerset Maugham? Or when I was forced to watch that Strawberry Shortcake cartoon in grade school? That Peculiar Purple Pie Man of Porcupine Peak was a little TOO peculiar.

13. What impact on traditional marriage do you believe homosexual teaching would have in the future?

Not knowing who has to pay for the wedding.

14. Are you will to take a moral stand against pro-homosexual classroom curriculum by taking grassroots action against the organizations who promote it?

I would rather take an immoral stand. It's much more fun but you gotta make sure you destroy all of the pictures.

15. Will you help Concerned Women for America as we stand strong for Biblical principles and against the radical homosexual agenda in our schools?

Sure. Bend over. I hope you like fillet of sole.

I'm sorry if I am taking this too lightly. It's not even frustrating anymore when I read stuff like this. Not only is the poll slanted, but it's chock full of biases, code words (i.e. "pro-gay instruction"), and presents the lgbt community in the worst possible light.

To the CWA, we aren't people with feelings and emotions who care about family and country. To them, we are an entity out of some bad science fiction movie constantly plotting to seduce childen and take over America while having lots of wild sex in our leisure time (and trust me when I say that last point is a blatant lie).

I won't even tell you how the CWA members who responded to the poll answered the questions. I will let you guess.

However, according to Right Wing Watch, CWA said that a small percentage of its members responded at all.

I guess that means even right-wing conservative Christians get embarrassed now and then.
The Traditional Values Coalition - THAT is a hate group

I love it when those who oppose us help our cause with their insane rhetoric.

And when it comes to insane rhetoric, very few can beat the California group the Traditional Values Coalition and its founder Lou Sheldon.

Sheldon loves denigrating lgbts and we love him for it because he blows the "we only oppose the homosexual agenda because we love them" bullshit right out of the window. Witness his behavior at a conference in 2006:

Still, none of the panelists delivered as bombastic a screed as the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the hard-line anti-gay group Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon demanded laws that treat homosexuality as "a social disorder." Decrying the term "homosexual" as the brainchild of a 20th-century German psychologist obviously sympathetic to gays, Sheldon implored the conferees to return to the 18th century's superior diction. "The word used in America [then] was 'perverted'," he noted. When Sheldon was asked by an audience member what to call homosexuals, he shot out of his chair and shouted, "Call them what they are -- sodomites!"

Well today, Sheldon and company are all upset over the possibility that the policy on gays in the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) may be overturned via a bill by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.

According to TVC:

The legislation will add “sexual orientation” to the law. It is defined in H.R. 1283 as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.” This will open up the possibility that every sexual orientation could be legalized in the military! This will include cross-dressing and transsexualism.

Personally if this is true (and it isn't), it's not a bad thing. Have any of you ever seen a drag queen pageant? Talk about your vicious fighters.

TVC also says:

The legalization of sodomy in the military will also reduce the numbers of men and women who will enlist in the service. A Military Times poll of active-duty personnel revealed that 58% of them oppose repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A 2008 poll found that if the law is repealed, 10% of the respondents would not reenlist and 14% said they would consider ending their careers.

Of course the organization conveniently forgets to mention that the objectivity of that poll was challenged.

According to a legitimate poll conducted last year:

Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

Then comes the most hilarious line of the piece:

How will the military handle sodomy in battlefield situations?

Oh yeah. Bombs and guns firing all around. Bodies getting blown to pieces. The stench of death in the air and if gays were involved, all we would be worried about is having sex.

What did TVC do? Rent a copy of that movie Saving Private Ryan's Ass?

The claim is stupid. But it's not the dumbest claim in the piece. That award belongs to this:

The passage of H.R. 1283 is a recipe for disaster in the military – and our national security will be jeopardized by permitting homosexuals, drag queens and others with bizarre sex habits to serve openly in the Armed Forces.

First of all, gays have already been in not only the American military but militaries throughout history. And we kicked some serious ass. From Alexander the Great to Augustus Caesar to Richard I of the England to Fredrick Von Steuben, we gays have done pretty well for ourselves in military situations.

And that line about drag queens is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve attacking. But personally, I still say an army of drag queens can't hurt.

All Bush would have had to do was to tell them that a crown was in one of those caves in Baghdad.

And they would have found Osama Bin Laden, Amelia Earhart, Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa, etc., etc.

Okay that was a bad joke, but I think you get the point.

Sometimes we get angry when people like Sheldon and TVC denigrate us. But this is one of those times when you have to ask yourself why get angry at your enemy when he freely cuts his own throat.
Should Americans for Truth be considered as a hate group?

First an observation - it's been days since One News Now has featured a slanted article on the lgbt community.

The magic is gone from our relationship!

Seriously though, yesterday on Pam's House Blend (where I also post blog entries), someone made an interesting comment about my Illinois Family Institute/Southern Poverty Law Center post:

When I lived in Illinois, it was Peter LaBarbera who headed IFI. I don't know what happened, but somehow, he was either told to leave or did it on his own. They then put David Smith in charge of the organization.

Laurie Higgins now writes the anti-Gay articles for the group. She and Smith have done a fine job of making the organization a hate group and they have truly and diligently earned that label.

Yet they now decry it. Well, if the shoe fits, wear it!

What miffs me most, however, is that LaBarbera, and his organization "Americans For Truth About Homosexuality" (AFTAH) has not been labeled a hate group.

It certainly has gone above and beyond what IFI has written in misleading statements of "facts." Yet SPLC has yet to label AFTAH as a hate group.

What gives?

Then another comment said the following:

LaBarbera left the IFI right after his abysmal failure at getting an anti-gay marriage referendum on the ballot in November 2006. It was advisory only-- Illinois does not have ballot initiatives like California.

I was one of many volunteers for Fair Illinois, the organization that verified the signatures on the petitions. Lots of forged signatures and non-existent people. I know this because we were connected to the actual voter registration database when we audited their work. It was a complete sham.

You are correct. Laurie Higgins is now part of their echo chamber. It's rather incestuous-- the IFI and AFTAH are each other's Boards. All they've got is each other.

Laurie Higgins is about as qualified to talk about gay men and women as Elaine Donnelly is about the military. A bunch of junk science by a pair of quacks.

I, too, wondered why AFTAH was not labelled a hate group too.

I have to ask a basic question here: Does the SPLC even know that AFTAH exists? And how do we nominate The Peter for this? (seriously)

Does anyone know?

So the basic question is should Americans for Truth be considered as a hate group?

According to SPLC:

Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.

Over the years, Americans for Truth and LaBarbera has done more than enough to fulfill this requirement. LaBarbera seems to have made it his life's work to attack and villify the lgbt community via campaigns of misinformation, lies, and out-and-out ugly commentary.

SPLC has talked about LaBarbera before:

Peter LaBarbera, head of the Illinois Family Institute and a discredited "researcher" whose work has been denounced by the American Psychological Association for producing bogus data (Editor's note - actually that is incorrect. It was Paul Cameron who was denounced by the American Psychological Association. However, LaBarbera freely cites Cameron's work) "proving" homosexual behavior is deleterious to health and welfare, called homosexuality "disgusting." LaBarbera, who "investigates" this lifestyle by hanging out in gay chat rooms, insisted that good Christians must "stand up to homosexual aggression" and stop using "that hoary euphemism" -- "sexual orientation." He called for the repeal of all "sexual orientation laws" -- laws that ban discrimination against gays -- because they violate religious freedom. He demanded the closing down of all "homosexual establishments." And he spoke of the "need to find ways to bring back shame to those practicing homosexual behavior."

SPLC would do well to, at the very least, investigate the anti-gay activities of Americans for Truth.

You can tell them your feelings about the situation by contacting them via here.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Good news out of Arkansas that I missed

This happened last week and I nearly missed talking about it. This is a definite step in the right direction:

An Arkansas judge says a lawsuit can go forward challenging the state’s ban on unmarried couples adopting children.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza ruled Tuesday that issues the lawsuit raises are important enough to go to trial.

The Arkansas attorney general’s office had sought a dismissal, saying no one had been directly affected by the ban.

The voter-approved ban went into effect Jan. 1. It prohibits unmarried couples who live together from adopting or fostering children. Its authors acknowledge it was aimed at homosexuals.

The Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of more than a dozen families. They argue that the act violates their rights and that its language was misleading to voters.

The law is ridiculous. It robs children of the chance to be included in good homes in order to fulfill someone's antiquated definition of the word "family." Sooner or later this law will be struck down.

Hopefully more sooner than later.
Monday midday news briefs

Gay adoption raises an issue still unmined - Sooner or later the gay adoption issue in Florida will go our way and that will be good news for children who have no suitable place to call home.

Uganda Situation Continues To Deteriorate; Exodus Washes Their Hands - And the situation gets worse.

Boycott Jamaica Site Launched - Stella may have gotten her groove back in Jamaica (and we know how THAT story ended) but Alvin isn't setting one foot there until they start getting a bit saner about lgbts.
Illinois Family Institute uses Paul Cameron’s work but claims its not a hate group

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI), the alleged pro-family group that was once led by anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, is angry at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for labeling it a hate group.

In a letter written on the site Opposing Views, IFI member and phony gay expert Laurie Higgins (who herself has a history of demonizing the lgbt community) claims that the group has been unfairly targeted simply because of its moral belief that homosexuality is wrong:

I assumed that IFI made (SPLC’s) their list because we are committed to exposing and opposing the use of public money via public education to affirm and advance a particular understanding of the nature and morality of homosexual conduct that is unproven, controversial, and, we believe, destructive to the lives of individuals and the fabric of society.

Since, in the distorted view of pro-homosexual organizations, our efforts constitute hatred, the only way we can be deemed not hateful is to change our views on the nature and morality of homosexual conduct, or to accept the continued use of public money to affirm and advance liberal/radical views on the nature and morality of homosexual conduct through public education. That's a pretty tall and scary order.

But is this the actual reason? Probably not. As the letter continues, we get more details:

For clarification I called the Southern Poverty Law Center and spoke with Heidi Beirich. Our conversation was troubling in that Ms Beirich revealed that even a tenuous, distant connection to statements the SPLC doesn't like will land an organization on their hate groups list. She told me that the only reason IFI is listed is that in 2005, IFI's former executive director Peter LaBarbera posted a very short article by Paul Cameron for which Mr. LaBarbera wrote an even shorter introduction.

Although there were no defamatory comments made in Cameron's piece or LaBarbera's introduction, Ms. Beirich claimed that in other articles by Cameron, he had suggested that, in Ms. Beirich's words, "Gays are sickly, and people should stay away from them." IFI has no idea if that claim is true, but if it is, IFI rejects it, finds it inconsistent with Scripture, and finds it repellent. The problem is we did not cite or endorse any such rhetoric, and yet the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled IFI as an active hate group.

The article in question was a rehashing of Cameron’s discredited gay life span study. It also makes the claim that the Centers for Disease Control’s own work proves Cameron’s study to be accurate. This is a lie (which would make the piece defamatory, wouldn’t it?) A member of the CDC went on record saying that the article’s claim was totally inaccurate:

“[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.” - Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention

Higgins really steps into it when she says the following:

Ms. Beirich also claimed that Cameron cited a purportedly erroneous statistic regarding shortened life-spans. I responded that I could see how a statistic could be erroneous and derived from flawed methodology, but I don't see erroneous statistics as defamatory or hateful. I don't think health statistics alone, even statistics that emerge from flawed methodologies, can be construed as hatred. In fact, if there are particular health risks associated with particular sexual practices, it would be callous and irresponsible not to share that information publicly.

So according to Higgins, even if Cameron’s statistics are inaccurate, they may not necessarily be hateful or wrong.

IFI would have a point here, except for Cameron’s words:

“What homosexuals do is so incredibly stupid, so patently absurd and antibiological, that only a foolish society would take their whimpering about ‘equal rights with heterosexuality’ seriously . . . Are we supposed to feel so sorry for them that we join them in the march to the cemetery?” - The Advocate, October 29, 1985

“At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, ‘Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.’ According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983.” - Mark E. Pietrzyk, New Republic, October 3, 1994

His actions:

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 rights ordinance. The police discovered the story to be false but the ordinance was defeated.

And mostly by the condemnation rained down on him by the medical profession:

“(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

You see, erroneous statistics can be considered as hateful if the creator of such statistics has a history of intentional inaccuracies in order to demonize a group of people. And Cameron has this history.

Now some may say that IFI cited Cameron’s work without knowing his history.

I don’t believe this to be true. I find it hard to believe that IFI had absolutely no knowledge of Cameron or his work, especially when I read the introduction of the piece in question:

As one who has read homosexual obituaries for over a decade, as a researcher of the "gay" movement, there can be no doubt that homosexual behavior shortens the life of those who practice it, especially men who have sex with other men. Paul Cameron's work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he has been demonized by the Left, but this should not discount his findings. We find it sad that more scientists have not joined Paul Cameron in assessing the extreme health risks of homosexual behavior, just like the scientific establishment researches obesity, smoking and other serious health issues.

Illinois Family Institute would support a nonpartisan federal research campaign into the health risks of homosexual behavior to further investigate Cameron's work.

And to make matters worse, Higgins will not acknowledge that IFI was inaccurate. Instead, she claims that "new work" proves Cameron’s falsehoods to be accurate:

But, more important, the same finding regarding reduced life expectancy for homosexual men has been reported by a world-reknowned medical journal, and has been cited as true by homosexual activists when it serves their purposes. That study, which appeared in Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that "In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."

Higgins is referring to the 1997 Canadian study that was distorted by religious right groups. We know this because in 2001, the authors of the study complained about it:

“ . . . if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia."

Certainly, an organization with a moral objection to homosexuality shouldn’t automatically be considered as a hate group.

But the problem with groups such as IFI is that they practice a sort of intellectual violence in which they are willing to distort credible research as well as rely on bad studies to give a negative view of the lgbt community - i.e. painting them as monsters who should be hindered and stopped at every turn.

That makes IFI no different than a racist group distorting FBI crime statistics to make the case that African-Americans are more violent than whites. Or Nazis using propaganda films against the Jewish community.

And that, as far as I’m concerned, makes them a hate group.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Peter LaBarbera exploits Weber murder case

An ugly murder took place recently. Unfortunately it's nothing new - murders take place all the time and all of them are ugly in their own fashion.

But this one was especially ugly. A former newsman, George Weber, was stabbed 50 times allegedly by a teenager he met on Craigslist.

According to reports, Weber had been looking for someone to choke him and engage in oral sex. He didn't know that the young man was a Satanist with a propensity for violence.

Peter LaBarbera has been exploiting the situation for his own purposes.

So far he has featured two consecutive posts about the crime spouting his usual unproven nonsense:

Folks, the greatest threat of violence to homosexual men comes from … other homosexual men. The stabbing murder of WABC reporter George Weber in New York is a terrible tragedy and yet it is instructive about the perils of promiscuous “gay” life. There is simply nothing that approaches the deviance of male homosexuality — especially at its sexual fringes — as other victims of gay-on-gay violence over the decades testify from the grave.

The second post featured an absolutely ridiculous comment by another so-called former gay, D.L. Foster (the interesting part put in bold by me):

“I probably will get hate mail for saying this but this type of hookup culture is common in the homosexual world. Another guy in NY who did the same thing was murdered. And yes heterosexuals do it too, but no matter what type of sexual proclivity it is, SIN leads to death. The best course of action is to get out of the deadly sin business and live for Christ.“

Let's be honest.

Had Weber been a heterosexual and his murderer been a teenaged girl, neither Foster nor LaBarbera would have given a damn.

In LaBarbera's posts, I saw the usual stuff - the lie that the lgbt orientation is indicative of hedonism, the lie that "you can walk away from homosexuality," the ugly innuendoes that lgbts aren't capable of having health relationships or families.

But one thing I did not see, and this bothers me, is concern for Weber and his family. No words of condolescences, no comments of concern, no words of encouragement. Nothing.

It's almost if LaBarbera went through reports of the crime drooling while he thought up the ways he could indict the lgbt community for Weber's murder rather than young man who possibly committed the crime.

LaBarbera's vile behavior is no different than a racist who will count how many black men were arrested for crimes on the evening news so that he can talk about it the next day on whatever white supremacist forum he is a member of.

I could easily say that the heterosexual community isn't blameless in this situation because after all, the alleged murderer has a girlfriend.

But I won't play that game.

Nine years ago I lost my father, Alvin S. Glenn, to violence.

Trust me when I say that for the family of the victim, the anger and feelings of helplessness never completely go away.

I pray that justice is served for Weber and his family can find some sort of peace after this awful incident.

I also wish that LaBarbera, for once, would have shown some taste and discernment.

Or at least acted like he gave a damn about the person rather than his "cause."

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Beware of the 'yeah, but' Christian

Say what you will about the religious right, their behavior is a boon for people who like to create new words and phrases.

Sometimes the only way you can describe their actions is to invent new words and phrases.

Take my favorite phrase for example - headless monsters. A headless monster is a story or an idea that consistently gets refuted but continues to be repeated as truth due to the ignorance or the blind persistence of those repeating it.

Like the notion that "homosexuality takes decades off of your life," or "gay men molest children at a very high level."

Recent events have led me to create another new phrase to describe the religious right - the "yeah, but" Christian.

The "yeah, but" Christian is someone who, when caught in a contradiction or hypocrisy, pulls an addendum out of the air supposedly justifing his or her behavior even if he or she rails against someone else for behaving in the same manner and if said behavior contradicts all that he or she claims to stand for.

Take this case for example courtesy of One News Now:

Opposition is mounting to the University of Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama to be a commencement speaker in May.

Inviting the most pro-abortion president in history to speak at a Catholic school is not the only issue, according to David Castanzo is a spokesman for the
Cardinal Newman Society.

"For a Catholic institution to make a clear and decisive move to award a doctoral degree to an individual who is so opposed to the pro-life movement, that is where the primary conflict comes into play," he explains.

The Catholic League is taking no official position, believing it is a matter for the church to resolve internally. But spokeswoman Susan Fani does encourage people to go to NotreDameScandal.com to sign a petition drive launched by the Cardinal Newman Society.

By reading many of the comments on this article, a lot of folks aren't exactly happy with Notre Dame for inviting President Obama.

But weren't some these folks the same people who gave the lgbt community hell during the Rick Warren situation. Weren't we accused of being intolerant and not wanting to "start a dialogue" with folks who think that homosexuality is a sin?

Aren't some of these individuals guilty of the same bit of "intolerance?"

"Yeah, but abortion is murder. No middle ground."

Then there is this situation:

A self-proclaimed bisexual male teacher in New York has invited his seventh-grade students and their parents to witness his commitment ceremony to another man.

The New York Times reports 32-year-old Chance Nalley gave slips of paper to his entire seventh-grade class at Columbia Secondary School, inviting them to the upcoming ceremony to be held at St. Paul's Chapel on the campus of Columbia University on April 4.

Nalley teaches math, science, and engineering at the school -- "whose mission statement includes a commitment to diversity," notes the Times. Nalley reportedly obtained his principal's support before coming out to his students in the fall of 2007, when the school opened.

And of course some of the comments from this article is screaming bloody murder.

But aren't some of these the same folks who believe that parents should be the final word when it comes to the raising of children? If the parents allow their children to attend, then what's the problem?

"Yeah, but homosexuality is a sin."

Yet another addendum.

If this sort of thing keeps up, then my next book will be a religious right-to-English dictionary.
Thursday mid day news briefs

Barney clariifies remarks on Scalia - Don't back down, Barney!

NC: lobbying black legislators during the Day of Action was an eye-opening experience - An excellent post giving a good reason why more needs to be done to not allow folks to divide the lgbt and African-American experience. People like myself shouldn't have to "choose" to be either gay or black.

Ugandan Gov’t Poised to Take “Stern Action” Against Gays - This shit is getting waaay past scary.
Ugly situation in Uganda intensifies

Anti-gay spokespeople from the United States went to Uganda for a "conference" and the next thing you know, villification of the lgbt community in that country intensified:

Two newspaper (so far) and three television stations in Uganda have reported on a sensationalistic press conference organized by Stephen Langa, director of Kampala-based Family Life Networks, which appears to be the start of a fresh public anti-gay vigilante campaign.

The Ugandan media is continuing to take notice of the recent anti-gay conferences and meetings which have been taking place in Kampala the past few weeks. The most recent meeting was held on March 22. These series of meetings were instigated by a three-day conference organized by Langa and featured talks by three American anti-gay activists, including Exodus board member Don Schmierer, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, and Richard Cohen protegé Caleb Lee Brundidge.

The lie of recruiting children has been (and continues to be) a staple in anti-gay hysteria, especially in this country. But imagine, if you will, having the full brunt of the media and the government behind these lies:

Ugandan news media have been issuing regular reports of that conference and two follow-up meetings which have been held on successive Sundays since then. The latest one from Uganda Pulse reported on a press conference held today:

Parents in Uganda have expressed concern over the increasing levels of homosexuality, defilement and sexual harassments of children. The parents under the Family Life Network (FLN) says that information revealed from several reliable sources indicates that many children in schools are facing horror, frustration, mental and psychological torture for being cajoled into homosexuality.

FLN’s Executive Director, Langa Steven say [sic] that there are agents involved in recruiting children into homosexuality and lesbianism. Langa says that these suspected groups take advantages children by using deception, manipulation and coercion.

Pastor Joseph Male who addressed a press conference in Kampala with Langa also says that findings show that immorality groups are recruiting children into homosexuality. He says these homosexual promoters hide behind human rights organization and claim to be protecting sex minorities Uganda.

Pastor Male claims that these groups spend about 2,000,000 per week to recruit university students into homosexuality and lesbianism.

And this only scratches the surface of what they are doing over there. My prayers go out to my lgbt brothers and sisters in Uganda.

Big props to Box Turtle Bulletin which has published a brilliant report on anti-gay activities in Uganda:

Complete BTB Coverage:

Mar 26: The “Ex-Gay” Star of the Uganda Anti-Gay Campaign

Mar 25: More on Uganda Anti-Gay Vigilante Incitement

Mar 25: Another Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign May Have Begun In Uganda

Mar 23: Schmierer’s & Lively’s Uganda Talks Continue to Reverberate

Mar 17: Lively Defends Forced Therapy Proposal

Mar 16: Commentary: When Good Men Do Nothing

Mar 13: Sanctimony Alert

Mar 13: Scott Lively and Alan Chambers Respond to Questions About Uganda Conference

Mar 13: Exodus Applauds Schmierer’s Part in Uganda Conference

Mar 12: South African LGBT Advocates Condemn Exodus

Mar 12: Ex-Exodus Minister Condemns Uganda Conference

Mar 12: Ugandan Conference Leaders Call For Another Meeting While Pushing Pedophilia Theme; Exodus Continues Silence

Mar 11: Open Letter To the Exodus International Board of Directors

Mar 10: Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay”

Mar 9: Exodus Removes Link To Scott Lively From Its Web Site

Mar 9: EU Group Condemns Ugandan Conference

Mar 8: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three — Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide & Pedophilia; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism

Mar 6: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two

Mar 6: Exodus’ Silence About Uganda: Day Five

Mar 6: Exodus Board Member Participates In Uganda Conference Calling For Forcing Gays Into Conversion Therapy

Mar 5: Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala

Mar 5: Warren Throckmorton Speaks Out Against Uganda Conference

Mar 5: International LGBT Group Expresses Concern About Uganda Conference

Mar 2: Anonymous Ugandan Blogger Wants Answers From American Anti-Gay Activists

Feb 24: Exodus Board Member Joins Nazi Revisionist At Uganda Conference

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Did Concerned Women for America commit a 'super distortion?'

Sometimes we get so caught up in calling religious right groups liars and bigots that we sometimes neglect giving specific proof of our claims.

With that in mind, I want to focus on an interesting item I discovered on the Concerned Women for America's (CWA) webpage.

In the 2005 piece which remains on the webpage, Several Reasons to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, CWA outlines several reasons why Americans should oppose same-sex marriage.

Like the majority of information put out by religious right groups, this list is full of distortions and studies taken out of context. However, there is one thing I want to zero in on:

One epidemiological study found that “gay” men lose 8-20 years off their lifespan. (Source: Hogg RS, Strathdee SA, Craib KJP, O'Shaughnessy MV, Montaner JSG, Schechter MT. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. Int J Epidemiol 1997;26(3):657-61)

In Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver AIDS has been the leading cause of early death among men since 1989. (Source: Hogg RS, Heath KV, Strathdee SA, Montaner JSG, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT. HIV/AIDS mortality in Canada: evidence of gender, regional and local area differentials. AIDS 1996;10:889-94)

Now those who are familiar with my work on religious right distortions know that the first citation I showed is a distortion of a 1997 Canadian study. We know this because in 2001, the six researchers listed complained about how their work was being distorted.

The fact that CWA cited this study four years after the authors' clarification says a lot about the organization's dishonest.

However, CWA has "proof" that its citation of the 1997 study is accurate:

The above confirmed in other studies as well. Studies in Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying and the International Journal of Epidemiology indicate that homosexuality can take decades off men's lives.

Please note that CWA did not name the authors of these two studies. And I think I know why.

The first study from Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying was co-authored by our friend, the discredited Paul Cameron.

That's another mark on CWA's dishonesty.

The second study is even more interesting - the study from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

I think that it is the 1997 study - the same study CWA claims is proof of the alleged short life span of gay men.

So breaking it down:

CWA says that a 1997 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology proves that gay men have short life span.

It also says other studies prove this point. One of the studies CWA lists as proof is the original 1997 study.

If you doubt me, then I invite you to search the International Journal of Epidemiology's archives like I did.

When I looked for information, I couldn't find anything talking about the "gay life span" except for the 1997 study and the 2001 clarification.

But just in case I am in error, I emailed CWA asking for more information.

I was polite but I doubt that I will receive an answer.

Continuing to distort a study even after it's been clarified as well as relying on a discredited researcher is bad enough.

But if the CWA actually has the cojones to commit such a bold act as distorting the same study in two different contexts, then I'm simply speechless.

Because I have officially seen it all.
Wednesday mid-day news briefs

Gainesville votes to keep open washroom policy for transgenders - And now, the One News Now version of the article, which is really the Associated Press article with hilarious reader comments added below.

Incidentally, drinking Pepsi makes foxes pee - As this post from Goodasyou.org and my recent run-in with James MacDonald proves, the ex-gay movement is a sham. The spokespeople claim that they just want to be left alone. But by their actions, they intentionally work to undermine lgbt progression and rights.

The Peter doesn't like being called a bigot (or Satan's Lover) - LaBarbera makes it his life's work to attack the lgbt community and then wonders why we consider him a bigot. By the way, his version of the events surrounding his "speech" conveniently omits the man calling protesters the "f" word.

Haggard suggested divorce after scandal - Ted Haggard keeps staying in the spotlight. Geez!
Good news out of Gainesville, FL!!!

This came out last night but I wanted to wait and post it this morning - nothing like good news to start the day:

Gainesville, Fla.’s Amendment 1 -- which, if passed, would have repealed a number of antidiscrimination protections for LGBT residents in the college town -- failed at the polls Tuesday. With the majority of precincts reporting, results have the amendment failing with 61% voting no and 39% voting yes.

The repeal movement began last year after the city commission revised the antidiscrimination law to include protections for transgender people in employment, housing, and public accommodations -- including restrooms.

Opponents using scare tactics about mixed-sex public bathrooms gathered enough signatures to place a referendum of the protections on the ballot. Charter Amendment 1 would have eliminated not only transgender protections but also protections for gays and lesbians in the North Florida city. It also would have forbade the city to add protected categories that are not included in the Florida Civil Rights Act, which does not recognize sexual orientation or gender identity.

If I know the religious right (and I do), this isn't the end of the "bathroom" lies. As some of the voters in this link clearly demonstrates, you can fool some of the people some of the time.

But it's still nice to see such a smackdown at the ballot box.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Anti-gay writer boon for lgbt community

Yes the debate is still going on between me and you know who, but I want to talk about something else.

Robert Knight is back to doing what he likes to do best - smearing the lgbt community.

Knight has made a career out of trolling around various right-wing conservative groups as some sort of "culture analyst."

He was involved with the Family Research Council. Then he moved to Concerned Women for America. His last gig was with the Media Resource Center.

And now he is a writer at Coral Ridge Ministries.

The news of Knight's newest position was met with a huge amount of eye rolling by those who know of his history and a scratching of the head by those not familiar with him.

I personally met the news with a little bit of glee.

The way I see it, the religious right have been pushing hard the propaganda image of them being innocent Christians who are beset by an angry mob of radical homosexual activists when all they are trying to do is perserve so-called American values.

Knight's very presence shoots that image right out of the park.

A perfect way to describe him would be Truman Capote without the wit, the charm, the intelligence - all of the stuff that made Capote's verbal venom so palpable to many.

In other words, he makes Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber look like Sunday school teachers.

My guess is that in today's climate if you put this nut on television for five minutes, you would have Michelle Bachman voting for gay rights (farfetched I know but bear with me).

I had the "privilege" of meeting Knight in 2004 when he came to the University of South Carolina as a part of a debate with former HRC head Elizabeth Birch.

He is a lot shorter in person. Shorter than me, even. But his audacity was gigantic.

I was able to ask him after the debate about why he continuously referred to the discredited research of Paul Cameron in many of his past writings.

His exact words to me were: “Yes we have used his research. So what?”

I can't say I was surprised. After all, I didn't expect him to drop to his knees and beg my forgiveness.

And that uncaring attitude about lying and being verbally ugly could work for us, if we take proper advantage of it

So I greet Knight's return by commemorating a few of his "best" comments against the lgbt community:

“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” - Reclaiming America For Christ Conference, “Homosexuality” panel, February 28, 1999

“(Robert) Knight feels the festival organizers’ excuse that the kids’ films were being shown in a separate part of the theater is not good enough. He says there is a cavalier attitude on the part of pro-homosexual advocates, who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and therefore, if the kids happen to get exposed to it, their response is ‘So what? Maybe some of them might be gay, and maybe this will inspire them.’” - Parents Warned Against ‘Family-unfriendly’ Film Festivals - Agape Press (One News Now) December 13, 2004

“Instead of being lionized,(sex researcher Alfred) Kinsey’s proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist.” - Associated Press, Nov. 10, 2004 (Knight did retract this comment. Too bad he has never done so with comments he says about lgbts)

“Just look at the human body . . . You can’t fool nature. The rectum was not made for sexual activity. It is an exit ramp, not an entry ramp.” - Rolling Stone, March 18, 1999

“Few public officials and businessmen realize that when they allow the addition of ‘sexual orientation’ to their nondiscrimination codes, they are tying their own hands when it comes to objecting to:

A man in a highly visible sales job coming to work in a dress and high heels;

A woman in a highly visible position coming to work in men’s clothes;

A person of indeterminate sex who insists on using either the men’s
room or the women’s room;

A person of either sex who indulges a taste for extreme sexual promiscuity and pornography during working hours despite being charged with representing the company’s tone and character;

A man who frequents prostitutes while on business trips and claims that it is none of the company’s business, regardless of the company’s public image.” - Why Nashville Should Reject the ‘Sexual Orientation’ Law, Concerned Women for America, March 4, 2003

“One pro-family advocate feels the ACLU, in its efforts to force the homosexual agenda in American schools, is using the bullying tactics of Chairman Mao to ‘reprogram’ staff and students on the issue of homosexuality.” - Knight: ACLU’s Pro-Homosexual ‘Bullying’ Tactics Reminiscent of Chairman Mao, Agape Press (One News Now), July 21, 2005

Tuesday mid-day newsbriefs

The war of words between me and David MacDonald continues. I swear if that man spins his head any faster in order to explain away his inaccuracies, I'm going to call the Exorcist. Or at least move out of the way so that the pea soup doesn't get on my shoes.

IL: The Peter's anti-gay speaking gig in Arlington Heights brings out demonstrators - Our friend Peter LaBarbera is speaking at a Christian Academy. I say why protest comedy events. Seriously though from the pictures, it looks like we turned out and turned it out in a good way.

Today Is The Day - President Obama's people meets with the religious right. I should have sent him my rosary beads.

VT Senate approves homosexual 'marriage' bill - The One News Now version of the story, complete with hilarious comments.

Coral Ridge Ministries Back In The Culture War Business - I say this is good news. Robert Knight is our Newt Gingrich - guaranteed to make us look good.
Fallout from Canadian ex-gay piece

Yesterday, I posted an entry about how ex-gay Christian singer James MacDonald manipulated a complaint by gay rights groups in Canada to give an inaccurate picture of lgbts.

He used the statistics of gay health in the complaint to blame the lgbt orientation for negative behavior such as alcohol abuse and depression (although in his defense, he is saying that he was talking about "gay sex" and not gay people).

MacDonald omitted the fact that the complaint placed the blame on homophobia and a lack of interest in lgbt health care for the negative behaviors.

Since last night, MacDonald and I have been going back and forth about what the complaint said, what he meant to say, and what he was actually saying.

I still say that he is not being honest and of course he disagrees.

Our exchange is in the comments section of the entry and it's an interesting read.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Monday news briefs

Gay marriage bill passes Vermont Senate - Yaaaay!!!

Yea, 'Wash Times'? It's only his donation that bears mentioning? - Oh look - the pro-Proposition 8 folks are lying (again).

Most of the Seventh Grade Will Be at the Commitment Ceremony - This is an excellent article.

Notre Dame Unleashes a Fury - Some people don't want President Obama to speak at Notre Dame. In their defense - just does Obama think he is? The president?

UK PREACHER: STONING GAYS IS OK - But if he is punished for it, then he is a victim of "political correctness."
They lie in Canada too : ‘Ex-gay’ Christian singer misrepresents statistics

Today comes a reminder that religious right lies about the lgbt community don't take place solely in America.

Over a week ago, Canadian "ex-gay" and Christian recording artist David MacDonald published a piece entitled Gay Sex is Downright Dangerous and Abstinence Won't Kill You: I Should Know

Be forewarned, however. The piece does not contain any salacious details on his past sexual history. MacDonald chooses to repeat the inaccurate mantra that "homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle."

And he has statistics to "prove" this assertion. An added feature of these "statistics" is that they come from gay advocates in five Canadian cities.

The statistics are as follows:

Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.

GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.

GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.

GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.

GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.

GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.

Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.

Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.

GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.

I emailed MacDonald and he generously supplied me with where he received the statistics.

They came from a complaint by Canadian gay rights groups who were demanding that the government do more for lgbt health issues.

MacDonald seems to be under the mindset that since pro-gay groups are saying these things, then it proves his point.


While MacDonald was somewhat accurate with his citations, he still misrepresented them.

In his piece, MacDonald claimed that the lgbt orientation is a dangerous lifestyle and the statistics he cited proves this. But that’s not what the complaint said.

From page two of the complaint:

The health status of GLB Canadians is among the poorest of any population in Canada. These health and wellness issues have been linked through research to the experience of living in a homophobic and heterosexist culture that undermines the dignity of GLB people and impinges on their ability to strive for success and happiness. We assume that Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada will tend to reflect the homophobic and heterosexist culture from which their personnel are drawn. On that basis, we insist that they have a responsibility to rise above that tendency in order to achieve their Mission and Vision as they apply to GLB Canadians. Research into the causes and nature of health and wellness of GLB people is limited and needs to be supported at levels that will allow the appropriate catch-up relative to similar research aimed at the general population. What research exists to date clearly demonstrates that GLB people are significantly impacted by homophobia and heterosexism.

In other words, while the complaint by the pro-gay groups acknowledges unhealthy behaviors in the gay community (although it may be inaccurate about the lifespan claim - that sounds like the 1997 Canadian study that has consistently been distorted by the religious right), it places the blame solely on lgbts having to live in a homophobic society as well as inaction by the Canadian government on lgbt health issues.

And this point is made time and time again throughout the entire complaint.

However, MacDonald doesn't say a word about this point in his piece.

This is a tactic we have seen so many times with members of the religious right - i.e. use statistics to claim that the lgbt orientation is dangerous while omitting the explanation behind the statistics that clearly lay the blame on a third factor (i.e. homophobia, lack of research in the health and well-being of the lgbt community).

In this case, some may say what’s the big deal? It’s just some wannabe Christian singer in Canada?

I say it’s perfect look into the mindset of someone so wrapped up in proving what he thinks the Bible says about homosexuality that he is willing to ignore what it says about truth.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Wayne Besen smacks down Peter LaBarbera - eat your heart out, Hulk Hogan

Our friend Peter LaBarbera is gunning for Truth Wins Out head Wayne Besen:

FOX Enabling Besen’s Bigotry?

AFTAH’s web category “Hateful Homosexual Attacks on Ex-Gays” was practically created for Wayne Besen — whose mischievously named organization “Truth Wins Out” pursues a flat earth-like campaign to deny that people can overcome homosexuality. (Besen has a difficult time explaining away the happy lives of countless former homosexuals — like Janet Boynes, Stephen Black, Charlene Cothran, Stephen Bennett, and Yvette Schneider.) Besen practically stalks some ex-”gay” leaders like Greg Quinlan (see below), and he joined the leftist anti-Christian group Gay Liberation Network in smearing Dr. James Dobson as “hateful” — and falsely accusing him of fomenting “hate violence” against homosexuals. Despite his fanatical anti-religious bigotry, Besen is an occasional guest on FOX’s “The O’Reilly Factor” (e-mail oreilly@foxnews.com), where he comes off as far more moderate than he is in real life. Besen was on “The Factor” tonight and attacked the Pope as having a “credibility problem.” Thankfully, he was easily bested by an able opponent representing the Catholic TV network EWTN.

LaBarbera was referring to a recent appearance of Besen on the O'Reilly Factor in which he discussed the Pope's ridiculous position on using condoms to stop the spread of AIDS (the Pope is against condoms).

Besen, for his part, wasn't about to let LaBarbera's ramblings go unanswered:

I don't blame Peter LaBarbera for hating me.

I was the first to publicly recognize that he had a bizarre fascination with gay male S&M. There never seemed to be a leather event this supposedly heterosexual man missed. He'd attend these parties "undercover" to do "research." Meanwhile, he would blatantly ignore similar events - including swingers clubs - that were heterosexually focused. It does not take Freud to know that this behavior is somewhat abnormal and a little bit odd.

. . . Last night, Porno Pete attacked me, yet again, on his struggling vanity blog. He made a number of false allegations and outright lies. I could refute each fib, but I won't waste my time. This is because LaBarbera has become irrelevant. No one cares what he has to say. I almost feel bad for him.

Well, okay, I'll address one lie. Porno Pete talks of successful "ex-gays." The truth is, he had teamed up with former ex-gay activists John Paulk, Michael Johsnton and Wade Richards. Paulk was photographed in a gay bar by me. Johnston entered a sex addiction facility after meeting men on the Internet. Richards came out of the closet. If there is one man in America who knows that so-called "ex-gay" programs do not work, it would be LaBarbera. But, he conveniently left these failures associated with his ministry off his blog. Talk about intellectual dishonesty and denial!

His Americans for Truth venture is a dismal failure and has no impact on public policy, nor the culture at large. It is just one angry man with "issues" who under the pretense of activism shows hardcore gay porn to church folk. He's a creep with a traveling peep show. A pervert disguised as a puritan.

Ouch. Okay you may accuse me of being biased for saying this but . . .

Score one for Wayne.

If Peter is smart, he will stop before this gets too ugly. But then again, knowing Peter . . .
Friday news briefs

Vermont Senate panel approves gay marriage bill - and suddenly, things get very interesting

La. must add 2 dads' names to birth certificate - We win one in Louisiana

Leaked memos: Gay rights group make new charges over LDS Prop 8 role - What's a Friday without more hell rained down on the Mormon church for its role in the passing of Proposition 8?
The Family Research Council loves to scare people

Apparently I'm on the Family Research Council's email list and despite the emails I send back (politely written of course) letting them know that I do not agree with their agenda, I still continue to get their letters.

Today, I got a really good one containing the usual prognostications of doom and despair under the Obama Administration including:

Silencing the moral voices of America is critical for the Left to place America under government control, except when it comes to moral or sexual restraint.

It's all in The Agenda. It was posted on the official White House website within hours of President Obama's inauguration. It's a virtual laundry list of radical left-wing ideas, including:

"Hate Crimes" Legislation. The Left believes people who engage in homosexual behavior deserve special legal protections and wants to punish those who speak out publicly against the homosexual agenda.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Imagine an America where radicals can use the federal government to force businesses and churches to hire homosexuals, the way that Canada enforces its so-called tolerance laws. The Left thinks that is a good idea.

Then there's the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that I just mentioned.

The Left is trying to disguise this blatantly unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment by calling it "Community Broadcast Standards," "Diversity" or "Localism."

Whatever they call it, they want to drive Christian and conservative voices off the radio airwaves.

They want to silence you!

It amazes me how this so-called Christian organization will tell these blatant lies and demonize folks with different points of view as "radicals."

President Obama has repeatedly that he does not favor re-introducting the Fairness Doctrine

Hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with speech but violent acts. Hate crimes legislation already exists in cases of race and religion and no one's free speech has been attacked in those cases. What we want is to merely add sexual orientation to the categories.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will contain an exemption for churches. But what about businesses in general?

With the Family Research Council, you have to read between the lines. Is the organization saying that a manager of a restaurant with a "personal religious belief" that homosexuality is a sin can fire an employee for being gay?

That's a question which needs to be posed to FRC head Tony Perkins.

I suppose it's good that I am on FRC's email list so that I can keep a better track of the organization's distortions.

But reading the lies is still a drag.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

If the Freepers are upset, then it must be a good thing

The commentators at One News Now aren't the only ones upset at the Obama Administration for signing the U.N. resolution urging the decriminalization of homosexuality.

The folks at right wing site Free Republic have weighed in.

Every now and then when something good happens to the lgbt community, I go to the Free Republic site and enjoy the foaming at the mouth I see there.

And the Freepers rarely fail to disappoint:

Are we now the Unites States of Sodom?

Anderson Cooper probably doing cartwheels.


Seems Obama administration is bending over (forward) to please the gay mafia

I sure Barney Frank will make oral arguments the function of the day...

Another knee jerk reaction to a bunch of homo prostitutes screaming fire and murder where there is great nuisance coming from them in the first place.

It will now be a crime to criticize the homo-agenda.

This is nothing new or unexpected. Liberals are obsessed with the deviant perversion of sodomy. Remember how Bill Clinton's first act as President of the United States was to insist that the military adopt the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing the abominable, disease ridden, child molesting perverts to serve alongside the good, clean, patriotic American men and women of our armed forces?Liberals don't seem to understand the danger they put people in by allowing these modern day typhoid Mary's to indiscriminately mingle with the general population.

This MAY make homosexual behavior MANDATORY in the USA! Treaties can even supercede the Constitution!

Oh if that last comment were true in the cases of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jack Black, and Abraham Benrubi, I'd be a happy man.
Thursday mid-day news briefs

Legislation Aims to Ban 'Gay' From School - It boggles my mind the way some state legislators work.

Christian law group loses fight with Hastings - Good ruling. The organization can exist but if it disallows members for certain reasons, it should not get funding or recognition.

Elevating homosexuality to new heights - The Obama Administration endorses statement asking for the decriminalization of homosexuality - naturally One News Now and its readers aren't happy.
My appearance on the Gay Agenda

Last night, I appeared on the internet radio show, the Gay Agenda to talk about my blogs and book.

It was an interesting discussion that ventured into a lot of territory.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Sources: US to sign UN gay rights declaration

This is such a simple issue and has nothing to do with notions of an alleged gay conspiracy. We gay citizens of the world have the right to be who we are without the fear of imprisonment and death.

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official.

More here
Dissecting a One News Now article

First, I neglected to put the time in which I appear on the Gay Agenda tonight.

It will be 8 p.m. EST.

Now on to the post

Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber is angry that Florida State Senator Nan Rich has filed a bill repealing the 1977 law banning gay adoption in the state. Rich filed a a second bill to give judges the authority to determine adoptions based exclusively on the best interest of the child.

One News Now gives Barber room to vent without the courtesy of presenting the other side. So I thought I would add the other side from another article which took a more objective view of children raised by gay parents:

Matt Barber:

"The actions here by Senator Nan Rich are clearly without merit, and she has the audacity to say that she is considering what is in the best interest of children. Well that defies logic, reason, and science."

Post-Gazette article:

A number of professional medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association -- have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.

For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research -- approximately 67 studies -- looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families.

Moreover, a 2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child's mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship.

Matt Barber:

"Frankly the studies have shown clearly that it is in the best interest of children to have a mother and a father."

Post-Gazette article:

The problem with the research cited . . . is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households.

"There are virtually no studies that make a direct comparison with same-sex parents," he said, noting census data show one in four same-sex couples are raising a child under the age of 18.

Editor's note -
Gates was speaking about research cited by James Dobson. However, Dobson was making the same claims as Barber - "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."

The lesson here is clear - Barber doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. But that's business as usual with him.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

I will be appearing on the 'Gay Agenda' and other news briefs

Tomorrow evening, I will be interviewed on the Gay Agenda, a progressive internet radio show. I will be talking about my blogs, book, and life in general as a gay man of color.

Wish me luck and hope I don't pull a Bobby Jindal.

Tuesday news briefs

Nazi-enabling Pope tells Africans not to use condoms - God I miss Pope John Paul already

Children of same-sex couples tell their story - This needs to happen as often as possible

Indiana School District Allows Girl to Wear Tuxedo to Prom - Sometimes, the small victories are the sweetest.

AFA AIDS Solution: Gov't Action Against Homosexuals - The lies start regarding the HIV situation in Washington, D.C.
LaBarbera helps us even if he doesn't mean to

I talk a lot about Peter LaBarbera and his group, Americans for Truth for good reason. He can be, at times, our biggest help in this so-called culture war.

His idiocies make us look good.

A perfect example is his defense of Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively's attendance at an anti-gay conference in Uganda as well as Uganda's anti-gay laws (which sentences gays to life imprisonment):

At AFTAH, we preach Christian mercy and have denounced Talibanesque capital punishment for homosexuals in countries like Iran. But we also believe that if states and localities here in America (and governments abroad) wish to ban sodomy, they have every right to do so . . .

I wonder if that cover Jamaica, where groups have been known to hunt gays down in the streets.

No one is so naive to not realize that LaBarbera means gays when he says "sodomy." And this isn't the first time he has stood in the corner of someone who doesn't deserve any defense:

We find it sad that more scientists have not joined Paul Cameron in assessing the extreme health risks of homosexual behavior, just like the scientific establishment researches obesity, smoking and other serious health issues.

Illinois Family Institute would support a nonpartisan federal research campaign into the health risks of homosexual behavior to further investigate Cameron's work.

Both Lively's and Cameron's organizations have been deemed as official hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center not because of their stance against homosexuality, but because of how they lie to stigmatize the lgbt community.

Which brings me back to Peter. We are always talking about famous people and movements in history but sometimes we forget the "foils," or the folks whose stance against these people and movements actually benefitted them.

The African-American civil rights movement had Bull Connor, Bill Clinton had Newt Gingrich, and now we have Peter LaBarbera.

With James Dobson gone, the best thing for our community would be for LaBarbera to get a more active role in the religious right. Dobson evoked an image of the morally straight grandfather. LaBarbera evokes the image of the strange uncle who can't keep his mouth shut.

I did not agree with Dobson but at least he had a certain style in his attitude- a certain methodology that demonstrated an intelligent mind.

LaBarbera doesn't seem to care who he supports or what it makes him look like.

And that can only be a plus for us.

Because right now, LaBarbera is the living embodiment of the anti-gay movement and the religious right in general - spiritually empty, psychologically bloated, and willing to subvert reality and truth to make his own position more palpable to the American public.

But sooner or later reality has a habit of coming through. The flowery language of traditional values and the sweet rhetoric of faith and family is permeated by an odor of corruption, arrogance, and hatred.

And no matter how you try, you can't cover stink.

More on Scott Lively and the Uganda conference is at Box Turtle Bulletin.
Julian Bond tells it like it "T.I." is!

from HRC Back Story

National NAACP Chairman Julian Bond gave such a powerful speech in support of LGBT rights at HRC’s Los Angeles Gala Dinner on Saturday, March 14 that we knew it important to give proper to highlight his speech .

Here are a few choice statements from his speech:

When someone asks me, “are gay rights civil rights?” my answer is always, “Of course, they are.” Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives: the right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not, or should not, enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn’t “special” to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship.

People of color ought to be flattered that our movement has provided so much inspiration for others. That, it has been, that our movement has been so widely imitated. That our tactics, our methods, our heroes, our heroines, and even our songs, have been appropriated or served as models for others.

Now, no parallel between movements is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries and people of color carried the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination; sadly, so do many others. And those others deserve the law’s protection and civil rights too….

Like race, our sexuality isn’t a preference. It is immutable; it is unchangeable. And the constitution protects us against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences.

In particular, Bond’s response to many of the biblical passages used by Christian conservatives to condemn homosexuality (including those favorite scriptures in Leviticus) is must-see TV. His humorous refutation of “cafeteria Christians” begins about 15:25 in the video above. (You can see the video from the webpage)

Monday, March 16, 2009

President Obama meets with THEM - why we shouldn't lose our heads

From Religious Right Watch comes this news:

The Brody File has learned that conservative Evangelical groups will meet with the head of the White House Faith-Based Office on Tuesday.

Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council will meet with Joshua DuBois, the man who leads the administration’s office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group.

Trust me when I say that I am a bit alarmed by this meeting. FRC and CWA have been at the forefront of stigmatizing the lgbt community via lies, inaccurate anecdotes, and bad studies.

Just last year, I had an interesting encounter with FRC regarding its claim of no longer using "outdated sources."

But I am hoping that my lgbt brothers and sisters will a more cautious attitude instead of going off breathing fire.

We have every right to be concerned over President Obama's people agreeing to meet with these folks but we also have to understand that it is his modus operandi. Obama has a history of trying to gain a consensus with folks who do not share his opinion on political matters.

For that, I can respect him.

The bulk of our anger and concern should not be with President Obama, but with FRC and CWA. I've already seen some webpages where the two groups are being called "anti-gay hate groups."

That's all well and good but there is a problem with simply calling these groups names. You leave an avenue open for them to show phony piety and go into their "why are we called haters when we simply want to uphold traditional values" routine again.

And yet again, they will come across looking innocent while we look like barking dogs despite the the fact that their behavior over the years gives us full reason to question their motivations.

So I say cut out the name-calling and the simplistic reasons why the FRC and CWA aren't what they say they are.

Show proof. Give examples of why these groups have nothing to do with values or morality. And trust me when I say it's out there.

Two places to start is here via Box Turtle Bulletin and here in my other blog (pan down to the timeline).

It's not enough to call them anti-gay. It's time we start proving our assertions. Let the White House know the depth of the dishonesty these groups stoop to.

You can contact the White House here.
Washington, D.C. faces problem with HIV - the truth before the lies begin

From Washington, D.C. comes a huge problem regarding HIV:

A new report by D.C. health officials says that at least 3 percent of residents in the nation's capital are living with HIV or AIDS and every mode of transmission is on the rise.

The findings in the 2008 epidemiology report by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration point to a severe epidemic that's impacting every race and sex across the population and neighborhoods.

Scheduled to be released Monday, the report says that the number of HIV and AIDS cases jumped 22 percent from the nearly 12,500 reported in 2006. Almost 1 in 10 residents between ages 40 and 49 are living with HIV, and black men had the highest infection rate at almost 7 percent.

The report says that the virus is most often transmitted by men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual transmission and injection drug use.

That's the problem. The question is how long will it be before folks on the other side of America's so-called cultural war use this calamity to stigmatize gays? At least this once, I hope they think before going off half-cocked. AIDS affects everyone and we need solutions, not cynical talking points. Nor do we need to stigmatize populations affected by the disease.

Monday news briefs

The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off - would be nice if it comes out to be true. The problem is these folks are like 1980s horror movie monsters. Just when you think they are dead, there they are again.

Madaleno: Fighting for Transgender Rights Statewide - It's nice to see a state legislator fighting for all people.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Peter LaBarbera's idea of an intellectual discussion

Today, I am doing a first - a repost of a blog entry from August 16th of last year. My reason for this repost stems from an item I read today via the Americans for Truth webpage. In answering a letter concerning his anti-gay stance, Peter LaBarbera said he has "intellectual conversations" with gays all of the time.

The August 16th post is one of these supposed intellectual conversations he had with me:

Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero

On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.

Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:

"The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community. "

By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.

Don't be fooled.

You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.

Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:

From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am

Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.

Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.

but you miss the point, peter.

Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.

The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.

Look around you. It's crumbling now.

In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.

You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.

Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net


Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.

Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.

You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.

And the list of deceptions goes on and on.

Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.

I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.

Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?

In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.

From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am

This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?

Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?

EDITOR'S NOTE - Peter never did give me an answer to that question.

Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:08 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.

How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.

And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.

In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.

I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.

What are you trusting in?

I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you

It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.

Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net


what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.

And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?

Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?

You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.

This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.

In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"

You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?

Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.

Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.

Just something to remember the next time LaBarbera tries to paint himself as a noble Christian warrior. I have never known a noble Christian warrior who ducks and dodges and produces talking points when confronted with his lying behavior.

Maybe LaBarbera has a different version of the Bible.

Bookmark and Share