Wednesday, February 10, 2010

AFA's Gary Glenn makes desperate attempt to justify his call to 'criminalize homosexal behavior'

Yesterday, I wrote a post about how the American Family Association of Michigan's Gary Glenn publicly said he thinks that "homosexual behavior" should be criminalized.

Naturally what I wrote totally disagreed with his premise. Glenn didn't exactly like what I wrote so he wrote me back.

What ensued is a back and forth, which I think demonstrates just how folks like Glenn will attempt to manipulate facts and figures for their own purposes.

A summary is the following: Glenn lists reasons why "homosexual behavior" should be outlawed, but his reasonings are either studies taken out of context or work which specifically places the blame on homophobia for  the health issues in gay men (of course Glenn omits the lesbian community). When this is pointed out to him, Glenn refuses to retreat but engages in what seems to be a version of  "Pickett's charge." And like the original Pickett's charge, his desperate push is destroyed. His comments are in rude and mine are in blue.


Hi Al,

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm happy to directly address precisely what I mean when I said that homosexual behavior is proven to be a threat to public health and safety.

I was referring to the dramatically increased incidence of mental illness, substance abuse, eating disorders, STDs, life-threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis, and premature death by up to 20 years among individuals who engage in homosexual behavior.

My sources for the references above would be the Journal of the American Medical Association, Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, the Centers for Disease Control, the Lesbian and Gay Medical Association, the (homosexual) Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition, the Canadiam Medical Association Journal, etc., etc. -- none of whose researchers, far as I know, are named Cameron.

I was also referring to "Life in the Bushes," the propensity of an apparently sizeable segment of individuals who engage in homosexual behavior to engage in multiple on-the-spot anonymous sexual encounters in city parks, highway rest stops, public rest rooms, "gay" bookstores, etc. -- a practice advertised and promoted any any number of "gay" websites.

For example, as the Royal Oak (Mi.) Daily Tribune reported March 23, 2000, regarding a police raid on one such location:

"(Hazel Park City Manager Joseph) Young also said the Oakland County Health Department had been called to check the business after suspected 'bodily fluids' had been found there. 'Essentially it revolves around conditions existing in the building that we feel make it unsafe,' said (Hazel Park Police Chief David) Niedermeier."

Or as the Detroit Free Press reported March 24, 2000:

"Investigators said gay sexual activity was common at seven of the adult bookstores raided Wednesday. The seven bookstores had so-called buddy booths, which let patrons masturbate while watching one another, said Ypsilanti Police Det. Sgt. Craig Annas. Some of the booths had portals that allowed sexual activities to take place between partners in different booths, Annas said. 'The result is that male semen gets all around these rooms,' endangering the public through possible exposure to infected bodily fluids, he said. ...But Jeff Montgomery, executive director of Detroit-based Triangle Foundation, a gay-and-lesbian-rights group, defended the bookstores and said the raids were politically motivated harassment of gays."

Or as openly lesbian Detroit News columnist Deb Price commented regarding such public health-threatening activity in her weekly homosexual advocacy column:

"The Los Angeles County Health Services found half of HIV-positive men were having sex in public places without telling their sex partners of their status and often not using condoms."

That's what I was referring to, Al, when I said homosexual behavior and the homosexual lifestyle are a "proven threat to public health and safety."

No weaseling or Camorenesque talking points required.


Actually Mr. Glenn, while you didn't refer to Cameron per se, you did use his distortive (sp) techniques. For example:

You mentioned the so-called short life span of gay men. Now if I am not incorrect, you got that citation from the Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology. And you are referring to a 1997 study done by Canadian researchers. What you omitted was the fact that in 2001, those same researchers went on record complaining about how their work was being distorted by people like yourself .

Now in your other examples, you mentioned incidents having to do with such things as substance abuse, eating disorders, STDs, and mental illness. HOWEVER, you make a inaccurate implication that these things are indicative of the lgbt orientation.

None of the journals you cited have EVER said that those behaviors are indicative of the lgbt orientation. Legitimate health organizations and researchers have actually blamed the effects of lgbts having to deal with being stigmatized in an unaccepting society for these negative behaviors.

For example, the American Cancer Society says the following regarding cancer:

"Some of the risk factors for the GLBT population include lack of insurance policies covering unmarried partners, which makes it harder to access quality health care. Also, fear or past experience of discrimination by health care providers may cause some men and women to ignore recommended screenings for such things as colon, breast, and prostate cancer. This may prevent cancers from being detected early, when they are much easier to treat. "

Regarding AIDS, the Centers for Disease Control have said the following :

"To avoid social isolation, discrimination, or verbal or physical abuse, many men who have sex with men (MSM), especially young and minority MSM, do not disclose their sexual orientation (1--3). Young MSM who do not disclose their sexual orientation (nondisclosers) are thought to be at particularly high risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection because of low self-esteem, depression, or lack of peer support and prevention services that are available to MSM who are more open about their sexuality (disclosers)."

Regarding substance abuse, this is what was said :

"A study by Dr. Michael P. Marshal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center revealed that LGBT teens are 190 percent more likely to use drugs and alcohol than are heterosexual teens, and that the usage rate is even higher among certain subgroups. . . .

"Homophobia, discrimination and victimization are largely what are responsible for these substance use disparities in young gay people,"

The sad thing is that you actually pervert the mission of the journals you mention for your own nasty purposes. It's similar to a racist taking journals dealing with African-American health to claim that blacks are abnormal or inferior.
What we are talking about here is stigmatizing gays - which by the way, plays a huge deal in the other examples you mentioned regarding some gay men's dangerous sexual exploits. Gay men who don't accept themselves are most likely to engage in dangerous sexual behavior. If you don't believe me, please consult Ted Haggard.

Mr. Glenn, I enjoyed this talk because it is so rare that someone from your side of this so-called culture battle will take the time to put his ignorance and homophobia on display for us lgbts to break down.

If your attempt was to prove your point regarding why "homosexual behavior" should be criminalized, you failed miserably. But if you were making the case to outlaw homophobia rather than "homosexual behavior," I think you make an excellent case.


Al, it's unlikely I'll take the time to "dissect," as you say, each of the misleading points you raise in rebuttal.

With a busy day ahead, this one will suffice for now.

We're all no doubt aware (yawn) that the scientists who conducted the Oxford-reported study -- whose continued access to homosexual test subjects in Vancouver is dependent upon their remaining in the test subjects' good graces -- issued a poltical (not scientific) objection to the fact that someone dared quote their findings that college-age men who engage in homosexual behavior would die 8 to 20 years younger than the general population.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal and others continued to cite their scientific findings anyway, despite the researchers' political posturing, since the medical journals are interested in what medical researchers are good at (medical research), not what they're not good at (agenda-driven politics).

But that's only one source, and the others aren't named Cameron either.

For example, in its formal complaint accusing the Canadian healthcare system of being "homophobic," the homosexual Rainbow Health Coalition stated:

"(W)hat research exists consistently indicates that the life expectancy of GLB people is substantially lower than that of the general population. ...It has been estimated that gay/bisexual men have a life expectancy 20 years less than the average man in Canada. In their book Caring For Lesbian and Gay People—A Clinical Guide, authors Dr. Allan Peterkin and Dr. Cathy Risdon suggest that the life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 55 years. Less research has been conducted on the life expectancy for lesbians in Canada but health indicators suggest that while it is not as low as that for gay men, it is still lower than the life expectancy of the general population."

Of course, the Rainbow Health Coalition mimics your self-deluding claim that it's those who disapprove of homosexual behavior, not those who engage in it, who are responsible for the medical results of such behavior.

Which puts them at odds with the Vancouver researchers, who were honest enough (when they were engaged in science rather than politics) to attribute the shorter lifespans to the elevated incidence of AIDS transmitted through homosexual activity.

As to the other pathologies associated with homosexual behavior, it will be difficult for you to explain how "homophobia" is responsible for elevated incidence of, say, anal cancer or HIV infection.

It's the repeated physical act and resulting trauma or transmission of infection that leads to the diseases, Al, notwithstanding the political pablum of your assertions and delusions that someone else is to blame.

Accepting responsibility for your own behavior, rather than blaming others, is a fairly universal standard of honesty and maturity.

We won't hold our breath waiting on that, but in the meantime, states should have the right to regulate activity which they judge to pose a threat to public health, safety, and morals. I have no expectation of convincing you of that point, since my position in this discussion is the one not based on delusion.



in your defense of distorting the Canadian study, you reveal a certain degree of dishonesty.

You use the work of these researchers but when they point out how wrong you are, then you suddenly question their credibility. Why use their work in the first place if their credibility was in question?

And your citation of information from the Rainbow Health Coalition further proves this point. You are mischaracterizing the work of Rainbow Health Coalition to prove that "homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle," but you disregard the group's premise that it is homophobia which is causing gay men to have health problems. If you don't agree with the premise of the work, then why cite the work in the first place?

Again, you have shown your basic homophobia and desire to mislead in the name of Christ. You claim that "homosexual behavior" (and in doing so, you totally ignore the lesbian population) should illegal because it is a health hazard. And then you claim to back up your premise by citing "pro-gay" research. However, you either attack the researchers for attempting to clarify their work or intentionally ignore the actual premise of their research (i.e. it is homophobia which leads to health problems in gay men).

Before you start pontificating on the idea that you stand for morality and truth, have a serious discussion with yourself about your definition of morality and truth. I sincerely doubt you know the meaning of either word.

Bookmark and Share


Bill S said...

Since he believes "homosexual behavior" should be criminalized, it's perfectly reasonable to assume he's in favor of enforcing laws against it, and in favor penalties for a conviction.
So, two questions:
how does he propose such laws be enforced, and what should the penalty be?

PersonalFailure said...

His comments are in rude and mine are in blue.

You owe me a keyboard!

David in Houston said...

"...pose a threat to public health, safety, and morals"

I'm still trying to figure out how what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is a threat to PUBLIC health, safety, and morals? Are these gay men grabbing people off the street and forcing them to have unprotected sex? Are they "straight" bashing innocent citizens? His desperation is palpable; because he knows he's going to be on the losing side of this battle for equality.

George Bingham said...

I Love It!!
"Gay men who don't accept themselves are most likely to engage in dangerous sexual behavior. If you don't believe me, please consult Ted Haggard."

Way to go! That statement definitely proves your point! What a great way to illustrate the stigma!


Marlene said...

I just *love* how these supposedly "Christian" people conveniently ignore one of their own Commandments: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against a neighbor".

Are they deluded enough to the point where they believe they're exempt from this Commandment because they're opposing "gay activists"?

Give me a freaking break!

Anonymous said...

From Gary Glenn:

Al, there's no need for me to attempt to "prove" that "homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle."

That's already documented beyond any rational doubt, including by organizations and researchers who agree with you politically.

The only thing you've disputed is WHY "homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle." I say there's an elevated incidence of AIDS, anal cancer, and hepatitis because of the homosexual behavior and lifestyle itself. You wisely don't even attempt to dispute the medical dangers associated with homosexual behavior -- in fact, you admit them -- your only argument being the delusion that it's all somebody's else's fault.

For the record, I appreciate your conceding and stipulating the unhealthy danger point.

I cite the scientific findings of pro-homosexual researchers, simply because you (and they) can't argue their findings away. I don't cite their politically correct spin after the fact, in which they most often are attempting to explain away findings (their own) that don't serve their political purposes or alliances. (No better example than the researchers in Vancouver.)

BTW, there's plenty of similar research from similar sources re: the elevated incidence of dangerous medical conditions among lesbians. I don't need to take time to cite all of those to make my point.

I don't "claim to back up (my) premise by citing 'pro-gay' research." I merely quote the "pro-gay" research.

For example, from Vancouver:

"CONCLUSION: 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. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

Please note that the name of their study was: "Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men."

Please note that the name of their study was NOT: "Modelling the impact of 'homophobia' on mortality in gay and bisexual men."

Nor was there any suggestion in the original and actual scientific research that the elevated incidence of HIV was due to anything other than the fact that MSM were having SM.

So, when scientists cite science, we quote them. And when they're "pro-gay" scientists, it's particularly difficult for you (and them) to explain their findings away.

When scientists make feeble attempts at political damage control after the fact, they may lose credibility in that context, but their findings stand.

Hope this is helpful. You may spend the rest of the day explaining why what the "pro-gay" scientists wrote in their scientific conclusion above isn't true.

How it's really all Jerry Falwell's or Jim Dobson's or Gary Glenn's fault that MSM get HIV and cancer.

bigolpoofter said...

You go, Ms. Glenn! I would assume that you'll also bring back stoning of adulterers and parental execution of unchast children, plus end divorce regardless of the circumstances.

Anonymous said...

>>mental illness

Cite your (peer-reviewed) psychological sources.

>>substance abuse

Cite your sources.

>>eating disorders

Cite your sources.


Cite your sources.

>>life-threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis

Cite your sources.

>>and premature death by up to 20 years among individuals who engage in homosexual behavior.

Cite. your. sources.

BlackTsunami said...

Gary, stop it because I didn't concede ANYTHING. It's like you are putting your fingers in my ears and ignoring my rebuttal to your distortions.

And to make it worse, when you are caught lying, you claim that you don't have the time to refute my rebuttals. Why don't you just admit that you can't refute me and your entire premise of "homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle" is built on lies, junk science and legitimate research taken out of context.

You seem to think that stubbornly repeating a deception suddenly makes that deception true. It doesn't.

An example of this is how you repeated the distortion of the Canadian study even after informed of how you were inaccurate. Since you repeated the study, allow me to repeat the words of the clarification those researchers made:

"In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, 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.4

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used."

You accuse these researchers of damage control but where is your proof of this? Let me guess - you are "too busy" to find it.

You don't repeat research, you cherry-pick it, pulling out portions that supposedly prove your argument while omitting the portions which refutes the points you are trying to make. It's sad, pathetic, and totally un-Christian.

Apparently you HAVE forgotten the part of the Bible which speaks against bearing false witness.

MauraHennessey said...

Mr Glenn;
You left out the Lesbians. A tad misogynistic of you.
I am affronted.

Anonymous said...

Gary Glenn:

Al, don't get upset because you (and the Vancouver researchers) can't explain away their original findings.

When they conducted actual scientific research, they reported that college-age men who engage in homosexual behavior will die 8 to 20 years younger than the general population.

Then, in their political spin in response to the fact that someone dared cite their scientific findings in a way that offended their test population, they SPECULATED that "IF we were to repeat this analysis today," they'd find a different result.

The first is science backed up by hard data, the second politically-motived speculation for damage control. (No proof needed beyond what you yourself posted.)

Anonymous asks for citations of medical pathologies everyone already knows are associated with homosexual behavior.

I'm not gonna time spoonfeeding you info that's widely known and just as accessible to you online as it is to me.

But I will cite one specific source, and two more that address multiple pathologies...


Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal of the American Medical Association, January 2001, re: a government-sponsored study of 5,988 adults aged 18 to 64 in the Netherlands.

CONCLUSION: "The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders."

Anticipating homosexual activists' typical claim that all such pathologies among individuals involved in homosexual behavior is merely a reaction to "homophobia," the study preemptively noted that "the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant" than in other countries.

I.e., incidence of mental illness is elevated even in a country with little or no social stigma re: homosexual behavior.

Given the limit on length of posts, see next post.

Anonymous said...

From Gary Glenn:

Second citation -- the Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition (homosexual activist group) in a formal complaint accusing the Canadian healthcare system of "homophobia":


"(W)hat research exists consistently indicates that the life expectancy of GLB people is substantially lower than that of the general population. ...It has been estimated that gay/bisexual men have a life expectancy 20 years less than the average man in Canada. In their book Caring For Lesbian and Gay People—A Clinical Guide, authors Dr. Allan Peterkin and Dr. Cathy Risdon suggest that the life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 55 years. Less research has been conducted on the life expectancy for lesbians in Canada but health indicators suggest that while it is not as low as that for gay men, it is still lower than the life expectancy of the general population.


"A significant number of studies focusing on the suicide rate of GLB people suggest that, when compared with the heterosexual population, GLB people commit suicide at rates that range from a low of twice as often, to a high of 13.9 times more often, than the general population. A more usually quoted number is that GLB people have a suicide rate 3 times greater than that of the general population."


"Studies have found that GLB people have smoking rates ranging from a low of 1.3 times higher, to 3 times higher, than that of the general population. Studies of GLB youth have shown smoking rates even higher, with one study of young lesbians in the southern United States stating that 78% were smokers."


"Studies into the rates of alcoholism in GLB people show a range from a low of 1.4 times
higher, to a high of 7 times greater, than the general population."


"Studies show that GLB people have higher rates of illicit drug use ranging from a low of 1.6 times higher, to a high of 19 times higher, than the general population."


"It is estimated that 5% of the general population experiences severe depression at some point in their lives. However, studies into depression within the GLB community show rates ranging from a low of 1.8 times higher, to a high of 3 times higher, than those within the general population."


"Gay and bisexual men...comprise 76.1% of the AIDS cases since statistics were first kept and 45% of the new HIV infections each year. ...(I)t is clear that the HIV/AIDS infection rate in the GLB community is significantly higher than that of the general population. ...the HIV/AIDS infection rate in the GLB community is 9 times higher than that of the general population. If one uses Statistic Canada’s figure of 1.7% for the percentage of the population that is GLB and becoming infected, then the infection rate is 26 times higher than the general population."


"Gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women are at higher risk for some cancers as a result of their sexual orientation... Because of higher rates of smoking and alcohol use, GLB populations are at a higher risk for lung and liver cancer. Sexually-active gay and bisexual men have a higher prevalence of anal cancer precursors due to frequent exposure to the human papillomavirus, a virus believed also to be a contributor to high rates of head, throat and neck cancers among this same population. Lesbians are reported to be at a higher risk for breast cancer based on particular risk factors more prevalent in this population. Lesbians are also at increased risk for cervical cancer..."

See full complaint here:


Due to limit on length of posts, see next post...

Anonymous said...

From Gary Glenn:

And finally, from GAY WIRED, July 18, 2002:

For Your Health: 10 things gay men need to know

A survey of members of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) released this week listed 10 health care concerns men who have sex with men (MSM) should include in discussions with their physicians or other health care providers...

1. HIV/AIDS, Safe Sex: That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known...

2. Substance Use: Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines.

3. Depression/Anxiety: Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population.

4. Hepatitis Immunization: Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis. These infections can be potentially fatal, and can lead to very serious long-term issues such as cirrhosis and liver cancer.

5. STDs: Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate. This includes STD infections for which effective treatment is available (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, public lice, and others), and for which no cure is available (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus, etc.).

6. Prostate, Testicular, and Colon Cancer: Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer.

7. Alcohol: Although more recent studies have improved our understanding of alcohol use in the gay community, it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men.

8. Tobacco: Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies.
Tobacco-related health problems include lung disease and lung cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and a whole host of other serious problems.

9. Fitness (Diet and Exercise): Problems with body image are more common among gay men than their straight counterparts, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa.

10. Anal Papilloma: Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus-which cause anal and genital warts-is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.

(End of GayWired story)


Now, Al, given that even homosexual activist groups attest to the facts above, don't insult your readers' intelligence by continuing to dispute that the homosexual lifestyle is marked by severe personal and public health consequences.

Which is why, if we care about the health and lives of our fellow human beings, its practice should be strongly discouraged and states should be able to prohibit it in order to protect public health and safety.

(Disclaimer: No feelings of desperation were experienced in the compilation of the citations and commentary posted above.)


BlackTsunami said...

On the contrary, Gary, there is nothing for me to be upset about. The fact that you continue to come here and attempt to rationalize your lies clearly demonstrate that I have struck a nerve.

Your claims that the reasons why homosexuality is a supposed deadly lifestyle is "widely known" is nothing more than a cop-out.

About that Vancouver study, again where is your proof that the clarification was a result of damag control. They were clarifying the work because folks like you kept distoring it. I should point out that the original study didn't blame the lgbt orientation for the problems gay men were having with HIV/AIDS but rather not having good HIV/AIDS prevention programs in place.

If you had looked at the original study rather than a religious right distortion of it, you would know this.

And it's the same for the study regarding mental illness. You omitted the following statement from the study:

"It is unclear to what extent findings from this Dutch study can be generalized to other cultures or nations."

Also, Theo Sandfort, the author of the study said the following:

"There is a difference between the U.S. and the Netherlands in terms of acceptance of homosexuality. That does not mean that there is no homophobia (and homophobic damage) in the Netherlands. It is not clear how difference in climate affects the prevalence of mental disorders. We don't know the final answers, but in the U.S. as well as the Netherlands, homophobia is related to mental health problems."

BlackTsunami said...

Gary, about the Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition, we covered this already. The Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition placed the sole blame for these health problems on homophobia:

"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."

And this is the crux of your dishonesty. You claim that the lgbt orientation should be outlawed because it is "dangerous," but no research shows this. The research actually shows that homophobia plays a great deal in the health problems which gay men face (you always want to ignore the lesbian population). And when you use research which talks about gay men's health problems, you cherry pick facts but either omiting or casting aside pertinent information in order to suit your agenda.

And what's worse is the fact every time you come on this blog with a new fact, everyone reading sees through your lies.

I'm just glad that you are too proud to be humiliated. That HAS to be the only reason why you persist in lying even after proven wrong.

BlackTsunami said...

Note to Mr. Glenn:

Gary, I rejected your last comment not because of the ridiculous circular argument you continue to engage in but because you tried to use my blog to advertise for an ex-gay group. Sorry but I simply will not abide that sort of thing.

But speaking of your circular arguments, please be aware of the fact that your ridiculous justification for "making homosexual behavior illegal" is now a matter of public record so that folks can get a good view on how people on your side of the argument engage in lies and distortions to get points across. Your hypocrisy is now viewable by us all.

Bill S said...

And he STILL hasn't answered my question: if he wants consensual homosexual sex to be criminalized, HOW does he want such laws enforced? What methods for rounding up homosexuals does he want to use?
And once they've been arrested, what kind of punsishment should they face? How much prison time are we talking about?
And should this be a federal law?

Anonymous said...

I am a bit late to the party, but this:

"There is a difference between the U.S. and the Netherlands in terms of acceptance of homosexuality. That does not mean that there is no homophobia (and homophobic damage) in the Netherlands."

is unequivocally true. Speaking as a gay boy (closeted, though) from the Netherlands, even though there is a little less bullshit we have to wade through than if we were living in the US, being queer in our supposed "gay utopia" isn't a joyride.

Legally speaking -- we can get married, yes, but adoption laws are still more strict on gay couples than they are on straight couples. We don't enjoy the same protection from discrimination in employment. And, the little rights we have managed to gather, are of course being fought by our own Christian groups (CU and SGP -- you can look them up on Wikipedia if you would want to).

That's just legally speaking. As I pointed out before I'm still in the closet. Let me assure you that this has nothing to do with that I've been too lazy to utter the words "I'm gay" in public. Even though I live in the best city of the country, am in one of the better schools (high level, "white" school), and live with what are arguably the most accepting parents I could have wished for (my mom has a load of lesbian friends) I still fear the reaction of my peers and more extended family if I were to come out.

And that's just active homophobia. I haven't even touched onto heteronormativity. (e. g. I have read, in my life, maybe five books with gay protagonists. I have read a lot of books.)

Basically, what I want to say, there is no country in the world where homophobia doesn't exist.

Bill S said...

Well said.

George Bingham said...

@ Bill S,

Re How he thinks the laws should be enforced?

Maybe he thinks that once laws like his are passed, the US will automagically become graced by God such that lightning will strike wherever homosex takes place!

Dave said...

Another good question for Gary Glenn is how would criminalizing homosexuality reduce any of these health risks? It seems to me it would only drive gay people more undergrounds and away from medical care, something Glenn probably wants. So far that's what three bigots in the last week calling for us to be classified as criminals? This trend is starting to worry me a bit.

BlackTsunami said...


I have a feeling that they might not the only ones before it's all said and done. if this happens, the lgbt community must not lose our heads in anger and busy ourselves with pointing out their evil and hypocrisies. They are, in a word, cutting their own throats.

Bill S said...

They don't actually CARE about "health risks". Any more than they care about unborn babies when they protest against abortion.
The difference between the tactics they use against reproductive freedom and against gay rights boils down to this:
No matter how much they hate women, they realize they still NEED women for breeding purposes. So they try to be more subtle with their misogyny, so as not to completely alienate women.
On the other hand, they view homosexuals as worthless, expendable. So they don't even TRY to conceal their contempt for them.

Anonymous said...

I have engaged in this discussion multiple times online in multiple places. Sometimes I think there is just some computer somewhere spewing the same things over and over. I take the time because I fear that some young person will read the Gary Glenns and not realize that their "research" and "citations" are largely bogus.

What I think too often gets lost here is our ability to acknowledge, as a larger society, that HIV/AIDs is a serious illness--which has dire consequences for all who are afflicted--regardless of the means by which it is transmitted. Certainly we know that it does not stay neatly within a gay demographic. A large piece of the harm done by folks like Gary Glenn is to remove focus from the very real things that we need to do (safe sex, universal precautions and so forth) in order to slow the spread of the disease. Instead he offers up some misguided notion that if we can just stop gay men from having sex the problem will go away.

Certainly we know that HIV/AIDs is not the only health risk faced by people who are gay. Like any other disease we are wise to pay attention to the demographics, the vectors by which it is spread and the environmental factors that affect the disease process. And we need to include injury risks that center on certain groups as well.

Folks like Gary Glenn have no business discussion public health. They completely miss out on the public part. But the rest of us need to avoid getting trapped into such discussions--because the lead us down the path of trying to be right and away from the path of looking at real health issues.