Know your lgbt history - Sanford and Son

Sanford and Son is a favorite classic television show of mine.

That is except for one episode, which is one of the nastiest, most homophobic things I have seen on television.

In some ways, it's worse than that Police Woman episode, Flowers of Evil, with the three lesbian murderesses.

Via a case of circumstances, Fred Sanford (Redd Foxx) is led to believe that his son, Lamont (Demond Wilson) is gay.

And when he investigates, confusion happens and Lamont now thinks that Fred is gay.

It's a nasty episode on so many levels. The word "homosexual" or "gay" is never said (except for the name of the gay bar in the center of the confusion - The Gay Blade).

Also, the gay sexual orientation is something treated like it should be avoided rather than celebrated. And to make it all worse, there are two examples of stereotypical gay characters seen in the episode. If you blink, you miss them.

Take it from me when I say blink as much as possible.

"Luckily," the situation resolves itself.

That is if you want to call it a resolution. I call the ending of this episode the real abomination.







Past Know Your LGBT History postings:

Know your lgbt history - In Living Color

Know your lgbt history - Cleopatra Jones and her lesbian drug lords

Know your lgbt history - Norman, Is That You?

Know your lgbt history - The 'Exotic' Adrian Street

Know your lgbt history - The Choirboys

Know your lgbt history - Eddie Murphy

Know your lgbt history - The Killing of Sister George

Know your lgbt history - Hanna-Barbera cartoons pushes the 'gay agenda'

Know your lgbt history - Cruising

Know your lgbt history - Foxy Brown and Cleopatra Jones

Know your lgbt history - I Got Da Hook Up

Know your lgbt history - Fright Night

Know your lgbt history - Flowers of Evil

The Jeffersons and the transgender community

The national conversation the lgbt community needs and clips for a slow news day

A national conversation about the intersection of race, sexuality and gender is on deck - HRC begins a much needed discussion in our community. I will post more on this later but right now, check out this hit from Pam's House Blend.

And if you want to see the report, print it out, download it, etc - go here.

Utah Paper Rejects Gay Wedding Blurb - Color me surprised.

Okay, it's a slow news day today. With that in mind, allow me to play the following clips designed to lift your spirits and make you laugh:

Anti-gay group NARTH makes a complete fool of itself

The old adage "it's better to be thought of as a fool rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" would apply to the anti-gay group NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality).

NARTH recently put out a press release criticizing the APA (American Psychological Association) for its decision to come out against ex-gay therapy.

Part of the press release reads as follows:

NARTH appreciates that the APA stressed the importance of faith and religious diversity. Unfortunately, however, the report reflects a very strong confirmation bias; that is, the task force reflected virtually no ideological diversity. No APA member who offers reorientation therapy was allowed to join the task force. In fact, one can make the case that every member of the task force can be classified as an activist. They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view. For example, they omitted the Jones and Yarhouse study, the Karten study, and only gave cursory attention to the Spitzer study.

And this is where the fun starts. NARTH cited several studies to back up its claim about reparative therapy. However some of those studies weren't on the up-and-up. According to the site Truth Wins Out, the Jones and Yarhouse study had many flaws:

•Jones and Yarhouse originally sought 300 participants, but after more than a year of seeking to round up volunteers, they had to settle on only 98 participants.

•During the course of the study, 25 dropped out, and one participant’s answers were too incomplete to be used.

•Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” (direct quote). Some of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.

•After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied — he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn’t, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.

•Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as “success” stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy — something many conservative gay people already do.

•The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite — or because of — this omission, the authors of this study make the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.

In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it. And the study’s supposed success stories were gay celibate individuals who adopted false labels to direct attention away from frequently undiminished same-sex attraction.

Furthermore, NARTH distorts the Robert Spitzer study. In 2001, psychologist Robert Spitzer published a controversial study that seemed to claim that small number of people can change their orientation from gay to heterosexual.

In 45-minute individual telephone calls with 143 “ex-gays” and 57 “ex-lesbians,” Spitzer asked them 60 questions dealing with their feelings and behavior before and after they allegedly changed their orientations. They also talked about their strategies, feelings and motives for changing. Many of these individuals were referred to Spitzer by “ex-gay” groups.

When Spitzer’s findings were made public, the anti-gay industry lauded him, making sure to mention that he was one of the principle people who led the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

Spitzer himself went on record declaring that he was “appalled” at how his work was being simplified. He also published a column in the May 23, 2001 edition of The Wall Street Journal. He said that “complete change is uncommon.”

In addition, in a 2006 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Spitzer said that he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his study may have been either lying to him or themselves.

But the piece de resistance of stupidity of NARTH's press release is the following:

With regard to possible negative effects of therapy, as in all provisions of psychological care, the possibility exists that the client may not be happy with the outcome. We believe the report indirectly supports the findings published in the current Journal of Human Sexuality that reveal no significant ill-effects of therapy.

Now just what is the Journal of Human Sexuality? Why it's a booklet that NARTH itself publishes. From the Box Turtle Bulletin:

The Journal of Human Sexuality is actually a booklet published by NARTH themselves. In fact, it’s structured more like a book than a journal, with only one article whose title matches the title on the front cover. This journal is billed as “volume 1,” and was, according to its acknowledgment, conceived back when Joseph Nicolosi was still president at NARTH. At this rate, I would expect volume 2 to show up sometime in 2011.

This is very similar to another stunt pulled by George A. Rekers in 1996. He too created a one-off journal, also called The Journal of Human Sexuality which seems never to have made it to a second volume. It looks like NARTH decided to recycle Rekers old idea.

And as for this new journal’s “peer reviewed” status? Well, I guess when you have a paper written by an anti-gay activist posing as a therapist, and you send that paper off to other anti-gay activists posing as therapists, all of whom are members of your tight little NARTH club with no possibility of an actual independent review taking place, then maybe I would have to concede that the effort was “peer reviewed.” Unfortunately, that’s not the definition accepted by the scientific community.

This publication is not a dispassionate study of changes in sexual orientation. It is a cannon-blast of anti-gay animus in a long 94-page screed, a veritable anti-gay propaganda omnibus touching on all sorts of unrelated subjects including HIV/AIDS, alcohol and drug abuse, violence, psychiatric disorders, and “promiscuity as the new social norm.” As far as anti-gay propaganda goes, there’s little that’s missing here.

So you have a bogus group putting out a bogus press release which cites bogus information.

I almost feel sorry for NARTH but then I realize I shouldn't.

After all, the group worked hard for their ridicule. And when anyone works hard for something, they should receive it.

It's the American Way.

Why I DO NOT support October's national equality march

Those who are consistent readers of this blog know that I do not support the idea of the national march that is to take place in October.

To me, it all has to do with misplaced priorities and our inability to channel our anger in the right direction.

No matter how it comes across, a national march is going to boil down to a huge group of us holding signs with useless catchy slogans, chanting, and then afterwards going back to our own communities (who many of us do not support as we should) without a clue as to our next course of action except for to group ourselves in our prospective cliques.

A national march will provide excellent photo ops (for us and the religious right) and evoke nostalgic memories of Stonewall, Queer Nation, and Act-Up but it will not address our present standing in the fabric of this country nor will it give us a plan for the future.

All it will do is show how angry we are.

Well I have news for everyone.

America knows that we are angry. America knows it because we have been telling it for the past 30 plus years. And now America is yawning because yet again we are planning to tell it.

A national march is a fast food solution to our problems. It will not:

give us new ways to combat ignorance and homophobia in our prospective communities,

educate gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on the needs of our transgender brothers and sisters and vice versa,

teach us to respect the generational, racial, cultural, social, and economic differences in the lgbt community.

address the fact that the lgbt community is evolving at a fast rate and past actions we took part in as "outsiders" will probably not apply now.

And lastly, I do not support the idea of a national march because I don't think it is being held for us. I see it as glorified street theatre for the bored.

And, to coin an old phrase, there lies the rub.

I don't want to use my anger at how I'm treated as a gay man as a performance piece. I want to harness it. I want to use it to make the world better for, if not myself, other lgbts.

Carrying signs and shouting slogans for the benefit of President Obama (but definitely not Congress because they won't be in session), the folks at home, or whoever may be watching television just isn't going to cut it for me.

I want something more substantial than a trip to Washington where I will be marching for a couple of hours.

My anger as a gay man, my love for my ENTIRE lgbt community, and my concern for its future (especially the future of our lgbt children) needs something more edifying and solution-oriented than just a day trip to Washington where I will mingle with other like-minded angry folks.

And frankly, until I see signs that a national march will provide this, I am going to do what I have been doing before this national march idea came about - stay home and support my lgbt community in my own way whether it be volunteering at the local center, attending fundraisers, writing on my blog, or talking one-on-one to those questioning their orientation.

It's not as glamorous as a national march in Washington, but right now, it's definitely more rewarding.

HRC supports national march, slurred student gets PAID, and other Thursday midday news briefs

Video: Hey kids, want some Candi? Ooh, not so fast, gay Johnny... - Check out this post from Goodasyou.org featuring an "interview" with Focus on the Family's Candi Cushman; that is if you can without being nauseated. Notice how she semantically puts lgbts on the opposite end of parents with school children, as if lgbt children aren't attending our nations schools or lgbt parents don't lead families. That's the false image Cushman and others like her try to push on America.

On-air wingnuts stoke 'Obama may round up Americans into internment camps' conspiracy - This has CEASED to be funny a while back.

HRC Statement on National Equality March in Washington - HRC backs national march. I am NOT in favor of this but I do respect the position HRC is in with this thing.

MN: Student Wins $25K Judgment For Anti-Gay Slurs By Teachers - From Joe. My. God., a feature on my new best friend. LOL

Report: Burundi Gays Suffer Under Harsh New Anti-Gay Laws - From Rod 2.0 Beta, awful news about my brothers and sisters in Burundi.

Paul Cameron enabler bares his lying teeth at ENDA

Coral Ridge Ministries writer Robert Knight has written an interesting(and I use that word very, very loosely)piece against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The gist of Knight's attack is the following:

ENDA is profoundly dangerous. It turns private sin into a public right and brings the force of government against morality itself. Any such law is a violation of our unalienable rights as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. To put it more simply, a statute that directly contradicts God's moral law is illegitimate. Laws embody and reflect morality, or they are not laws. They are tyranny. That's why so-called same-sex "marriage" laws are absurd and treacherous. Forcing citizens to accept a counterfeit as the real thing is an act of despotism.

ENDA adds not only "sexual orientation" but "gender identity" to federal workplace anti-discrimination law. Thus, it takes an ax to the idea that sexual behavior has a natural normalcy or any relation to morality. It falsely equates a changeable condition (sexual desire) with race and ethnicity. Worse, it turns traditional values into a form of bigotry punishable under the law.

So to Knight, ENDA should be opposed because homosexuality is a sin. Well I'm glad he cleared that up.

Whether Knight knows it or not, his attack on homosexuality as a "behavior" that should not be protected is really opening the door to declare that religious beliefs in the workplace should be not be protected because after all, religion is a behavior.

To tell the truth though, I am disappointed with Knight's piece. I can always count on Knight to go to extremes with opposing any anti-discrimination laws.

For example when he said the following in 2003 about Nashville's attempt to add sexual orientation to it's nondiscrimination code:

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.

Knight, who used to be employed with the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, has on occasion manipulated facts in his written and verbal pieces. He also freely cited discredited researcher Paul Cameron, even citing Cameron data in front of Congress in an attempt to defeat ENDA.

From the site Wired Strategies under the section, Gays are diseased, die early, and are less productive than heterosexuals comes this:

"homosexual behavior is extremely unhealthy, contributing to the spread of AIDS, hepatitis A, B and C and other sexually transmitted diseases….A study of more than 6,400 obituaries in homosexual publications reveals that homosexuals typically have far shorter life spans than the general population. Other reports indicate that homosexuals are more likely to have drug and alcohol abuse problems. It is unfair to force businesses to pay the extra insurance expense and lost productivity that inevitably results from homosexual behavior." [Editors note: the source for this "research" is the discredited Dr. Paul Cameron - see below for extensive information about his extreme beliefs]
- Robert Knight, Family Research Council, testifying at ENDA Hearings, July 29, 1994 - committee on Labor and Human Resources, US Senate.

In my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, I recount meeting Knight and his "so what" answer when I pressed him about using Cameron's work even after he knew of the discredited researcher's reputation.

So naturally, Knight has no problem distorting the facts and conjuring up ugly images of "godless gays on the attack" when it suits his purpose.

But the fact that Knight didn't conjure up these false images against ENDA may mean that he and others on his side have already given up the fight against it.

Then again, knowing the religious right, they could be saving their ammunition until the time when the vote actually comes up.

What Harvey Milk would tell the lgbt community to do

Harvey Milk got his due today as his nephew, Stuart Milk, accepted his Presidential Medal of Freedom. The video is below:



It's interesting to me that a lot of lgbts have speculated what Harvey Milk would have said to President Obama had he been alive to accept this award.

I prefer to think that Milk wouldn't say anything to President Obama because he would be too busy talking to us.

I would like to think that he would tell us to not stop challenging those who won't give us our basic rights. And to do all we can to bring attention to the fact that we are human beings who deserve respect.

And I think he would tell us to continue to fight in every way possible, whether it be by this weekend's Kiss-In, fighting for ENDA, to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to pass hate crimes legislation.

Personally, I would like to think that he would tell me to continue to go about my work exposing the distorted and discredited studies of the religious right.

But most of all, I think he would tell us to love and respect ourselves and each other because that is where it all begins. If we do not respect each other and ourselves, then we have no right demanding it from heterosexuals.

A gay bashing victim blames himself, militia groups are on the rise, and other Wednesday midday news briefs

A Victim Takes the Blame - Oh please. If people who flirt are allowed to be beaten up, then let me to arm heterosexual ladies with some bricks.

Officials See Rise In Militia Groups Across US - Pay attention, folks.

High-ranking Dems rub shoulders; Maine anti-gays rub desperation lamp - President Obama takes picture with Congressman Barney Frank and his partner. Apocalypse imminent.

Gay Sex Causes Swine Flu - Now I know some gay men can be pigs, but this is ridiculous.

Low-life teabagger protestor tears up poster of Rosa Parks at health care town hall - I guess they figured Rosa Parks was a Muslim Socialist Fascist Nazi Kenyan . . . oh never mind. These people are nuts.

And now, a double dish of crazy brought to you by those same folks who cannot stand the lgbt community:

Janet Porter Reveals The Coming American Genocide

Farah: Obama's Grandmother Was Really His Mother

I'm going to say this and I don't care who gets offended.

I haven't seen white folks this upset since the verdict of the O.J. Simpson trial. The election of Barack Obama as president has sent some of them off the deep end. And I think it's way past time to start praying that this situation doesn't end tragically for this country.

Religious right tries to smear Harvey Milk on his day of honor

I spoke too soon yesterday.

Religious right members won't even let us have one day or one honor for our people without throwing their ugly hands into the mix in order to mess it up.

Family Research Council spokesperson Peter(I would like to see gays exported from the United States instead of being imported)Sprigg has written a nasty piece (which I am sure will be picked up) for World Net Daily:

When President Obama today awards a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk, it may mark the first time in history that the nation's highest civilian award has been granted primarily on the basis of someone's sex life.

. . . But Milk is famous only for winning one election, being murdered – and having sex with men. In his "gay rights" stump speech, Milk once said, "Like every other group, we must be judged by our leaders and by those who are themselves gay." What can we conclude about the homosexual movement in America based on the life of Harvey Milk? I recently decided to find out by reading "gay journalist" Randy Shilts' 1982 biography of Milk, "The Mayor of Castro Street."

Spriggs proceeds to break down his version of Milk's sex life with the panache and tenacity of a repressed religious leader going into detail about gay sex to shocked parishoners.

Maybe he is taking lessons from his friend Peter LaBarbera.

And when Sprigg isn't grousing about Milk's alleged sex life, he launches other unsubstantiated charges against Milk - i.e. he was anti-lesbian, he faked a hate crime, etc.

It's almost sad, really.

Sprigg's attack on Milk is the equivalent of a racist mentioning the Watts Riot of the 1960s without talking about the conditions that led up to it.

Harvey Milk's Presidential Medal of Freedom will not be posthumously awarded to him for his "sex life." And to minimize how he positively affected the American experience reveals more about Sprigg's homophobia than Milk's "sex life."

Harvey Milk is receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom because he stood up unashamed to be who he was. He demanded that he not be tolerated, not be accepted, but be respected.

And he also demanded in his own way that lgbts not accept what homophobes give us but to take what belongs to us - our God-given right to pursue the American Dream.

I guess I should be angry at Sprigg, but I'm not. Nothing he or any of his cohorts can say will ruin this moment for me.

Harvey Milk was an American hero and today he will be honored as such. He will be the first (hopefully not the last) gay man to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Milk is not receiving this honor because he was a famous actor who happened to be gay, or a famous musician who happened to be gay.

And he is certainly not receiving this honor for his alleged sex life.

Milk is receiving this honor as a openly gay man who challenged the notion that lgbts are unhappy people with hedonistic lives. His honor puts all of us out of the darkness of the smoky bars and into the front room of the White House, if you will.

I happen to like that move.

Milk was a diamond and no amount of dirt can remove his luster or the luster of this moment.

So nice try, Sprigg. But no sale.

Harvey Milk gets ignored while religious right try to unsuccessfully feast on President Obama

Tomorrow (or today - depending on when you read this post), Harvey Milk gets his due.

Personally, I am surprised just about how quiet the religious right and others have been about Milk receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Then I look at the conservative site Town Hall and the religious right phony news site One News Now, and I realize why they are so quiet.

These are just a few stories from today's One News Now:

Town hall meetings = democracy at work

Real 'grassroots' show out in New Hampshire

Obamacare meets Twitter

'Politics of hope' reduced to name-calling

Liberal media bias continues unchecked

And then there is Town Hall:

Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare

Obama's Seven Deadly Political Sins

I Thought 'Dissent Is Patriotic'

Pat Buchanan: Angry White Men

Phyllis Schlafly: Obama Brings Chicago-Style Intimidation

So apparently Harvey Milk and the rest of us are off the menu and President Obama is the main course.

Although according to Daily Kos, there is about to be a shift of entrees that ranks up there with the ending of the Three Little Pigs where the last pig ate the wolf.

Daily Kos is claiming that President Obama is actually benefitting from the town hall madness:

The President's already-solid approval ratings have started to climb. The increase in the President's poll numbers can be traced back to when conservative protesters stepped over the line at town meetings; the public, apparently, doesn't like people who quash civilized discussion by rudely screaming ad nauseam. But the media has a "dramatic" story line that they must stick to at all costs, so they aren't reporting the rise in the President's poll numbers, and are instead citing two-week old polls to keep their story line going.

So I guess this means that thanks to all of the health care madness, lgbts can enjoy a moment in the sun uninterrupted by the religious right (at least I hope so) when Milk gets his long awaited due as an American hero.

But do we have to put up with the following for it.

It's a clip of an interview with a protestor of the New Hampshire town hall meeting with the President; the guy who brought the loaded gun.

Chris Matthew eviserates him but still . . . ugh:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Education award for religious right spokesperson? and other Tuesday midday news briefs

MCPS Award for Sprigg? - The situation I talked about last week regarding FRC's Peter Sprigg and the education award nomination he received is getting some folks riled up. Good.

This writer hasn't had sex since last night. Look, I've 'changed'! - Another lie courtesy of the ex-gays.

Illinois HIV/AIDS Services Survive Gov. Pat Quinn's Budget Cuts - This is a good thing. Isn't that right, Martha Stewart?

ACLU, School Board Reach Settlement - We win another decision allowing students to form gay/straight alliances in schools.

Protect Marriage Washington's finance report looks sketchy - And the makings of a good day

Libraries should NEVER stock ex-gay books, not even in the fiction section

Yesterday, I alluded slightly to an article about the ex-gay group PFOX complaining that a library in Wisconsin will not stock books by ex-gay authors.

By the comments on this story, the idea that a library would stock ex-gay books seems laughable.

But don't be so quick to laugh the notion off. PFOX and Regina Griggs is exploiting an angle that could give the lgbt community and libraries a multitude of problems:

PFOX executive director Regina Griggs said: "Apparently, the West Bend Community Memorial Library is not interested in diversity.

"We urge Michael Tyree, the library's director, to be inclusive of the ex-gay community and accept our donation of ex-gay books. According to its own policy, the library has a 'professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in developing collections'."

Yet again, Regina Griggs and PFOX tries to cast itself as the innocent victim of intolerance. The lgbt community must be very clear and very focused on just why those claims are bogus

The situation in Wisconsin did not begin with PFOX demanding that libraries carry ex-gay books. It began with them teaming with parents to make libraries eliminate lgbt-oriented books or move them to the adult section.

So this situation is about neither diversity or "tolerance." It's about a bunch of liars trying to undermine the well-being of our lgbt children.

It's about dehumanizing lgbts and reducing our lives to a sex choice or a bad behavior when our lives are neither of these things.

And as a post I wrote yesterday said, it's about trying to manipulate the system to pass along junk science as truth.

Truth should never be sacrificed for the sake of diversity.

Now I don't know any ex-gays personally but I have a question: why is it that the ones I do see are either connected with some religious right group or have some bogus ministry?

Why is it if these folks want to be left alone are they making a point to give the lgbt community so much hell?

I don't believe in the credibility of the ex-gay movement, period. And I have a feeling that if you pull back the curtain, you will see some religious right "grant money" exchanging hands.

So to make a long story short, I don't believe that public libraries should EVER stock ex-gay books, not even for the sake of diversity.

If this is successful, then might I suggest some racist literature about the natural inferiority of African-Americans.

Or how about the Protocol of the Elders of Zion (i.e. the phony document which claimed that there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world).

After all, if you opened up library stocks to one group of liars for the sake of "diversity," then why not others?

Related articles:

PFOX - a conduit of lies and bad studies

When it comes to gays and lesbians, children understand more than you think

On the pages of One News Now and other religious right publications, we are taking a backseat as they all combine their "talents" with other conservatives to kill President Obama's plan for health care reform.

So I decided to get on youtube for something appropriately pro-lgbt to end the day.

And I found something good from a Dutch television show in which children are questioned about gays and lesbians.

It's something to remember the next time the religious right goes on about how "children must be protected" in that annoying Helen Lovejoy way that they do. Children aren't stupid:

PFOX wanting school libaries to stock its lies and other Monday midday news briefs

Library asked to stock 'ex-gay' literature - Stock it in the fiction section. I see PFOX has got its dirty mitts all over this

Marriage commission members take dim view of adoptions by same-sex couples - Cause every child has a right to live in a place with NO love.

Hundreds rally in SF against AIDS cuts - This is good. Raise some hell.

Billie Jean King and Harvey Milk to be honoured by Obama - King and Milk get their due this Wednesday. And other than Focus on the Family, the other religious right shoe hasn't dropped yet.

Rhode Island: NOM pollutes the state with its 'Marriage Day' on August 16 - Of course THOSE lgbts aren't invited. I say show up anyway with your families.

PFOX - a conduit of lies and bad studies

One of the greatest hypocrisies of ex-gay groups is how they seek victimhood status against the alleged gay agenda that discriminates them for daring to want to "be free from homosexuality," while simultaneously allowing themselves to be a funnel/conduit for some of the most extreme anti-gay propaganda in existence.

PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) is a perfect example of the hypocrisies of the ex-gay movement.

On it's webpage, PFOX has this huge section called "Equal Rights," where it posts articles pushing the lie that ex-gays are somehow discriminated against. Such articles include: Are Ex-gays Next?, Ex-Gay Declaration of Independence, Hear our message, then judge, and Ex-Gays Face Double Discrimination.

And a few of these articles have huge errors. Such as the piece Putting Adolescents at Risk.

This article pushes the notion that:

Males who self-identify as “gay” before age 18 are highly likely to have been victims of sexual abuse and/or to suffer from untreated Gender Identity Disorder (GID). This puts them at high risk for a number of negative outcomes. When these problems are untreated, the boys often act out in ways that draw negative attention to themselves. The strict restriction of bullying and other mistreatment by fellow students is, of course, important, but it is equally important to address the underlying problems. Even if an adolescent boy does not suffer from sexual abuse or GID, sexual activity combined with the predictable adolescent irresponsibility carries a high risk.

However one of the sources which PFOX uses to prove this claim is being distorted:

The following is the conclusion of a study of the association of health risk behaviors and sexual orientation: “GLB youth who self-identify during high school report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors, including suicide, victimization, sexual risk behaviors, and multiple substance abuse use. In addition, these youth are more likely to report engaging in multiple risk behaviors and initiating risk behaviors at an earlier age than their peers.” (Garofalo 1998)

The study PFOX is referring to is The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents, by Massachusetts pediatrician Robert Garofalo.

PFOX is implying that the study says that the lgbt orientation is causing bad behavior in youth.

PFOX was not the first group to use Garofalo's work to make this claim. In 1998, the Family Research Council and 14 other so-called religious right groups, including the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family, ran a full-page ad in The Washington Post using Garofalo's study to claim that "homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle."

When Garofalo found out how his research was being used he got angry because you see, his study never faulted the lgbt orientation for bad behavior amongst gay youth.

Garofalo contended that his research was saying that when gay teenagers abuse drugs or contemplate suicide, it is because of the unaccepting culture they face. - Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, Anne E. Kornblutt, The Globe Staff, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998

Another article in PFOX's Equal Rights section, African Americans: Same Sexuality & Race, cites a study by discredited researcher Paul Cameron:

According to the Omega Journal, a leading publication on death and dying, the median age of death for a homosexual man without AIDS And With a long-term sexual partner is only 41 years of age. The median age of death of heterosexual married men is 75 years. The average age for a married, African American male is 69 years. Given these statistics, this is not only a moral issue, but an emerging public-health crisis. Passing laws that would institutionalize a lifestyle that could cut the lives of our young men by nearly a third is unthinkable.

But the one thing that takes the proverbial cake when it comes to the hypocrisies of PFOX is this link.

For not curious enough to click it, the link is a diagram from that lovely anti-gay group, the Allied Defense Fund, that outlines supposedly how we lgbts are slowly taking over the world in color coordinated splendor.

I don't know what's worse; the fact that someone loony enough to think this up is getting gainfully employed or the fact that I wish lgbts could get as coordinated as we are shown to be in the diagram.

You can't have it both ways, PFOX. If you want "tolerance" from our community, then you don't put ugly and untrue things about us on your webpage.

No one should have to tolerate being kicked in the teeth.

It will stop only AFTER the president has been lynched

Former SC Governor Ben Tillman, March 23, 1900:

We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be equal to the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him. I would to God the last one of them was in Africa and that none of them had ever been brought to our shores. - (Editor's note - Tillman currently has a statue dedicated to him on the grounds of the SC State House)

Rush Limbaugh, March 21, 2009:

"We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president."

Mayor Joseph Smitherman of Selma, Alabama 1965:



Rush Limbaugh, 2009:



Former SC Senator Strom Thurmond, 1948:



Glenn Beck, 2009:


There isn't a thing wrong with disagreeing with President Obama. But there is something inherently ugly with using covert racism and evoking images of Hilter, Nazis and brown-shirted fascism simply because you don't like his policies. And there is something equally wrong with trying to push off the seriousness of these attacks by whining that "liberals did the same thing to George Bush."

When folks say that, I feel like I'm a parent trying to talk down to a child. Common sense dictates that two wrongs never make a right.

Although between you and me, I seem to never hear about the liberal crazies until some folks on the right evoke their presence in order to blunt attention away from the extremities on their side. I'm not saying that liberal crazies aren't out there, but seriously how many people who thought Bush was behind 9-11 was given televised interview time in comparison to the interviews given by Orly Taitz or the other birthers and assorted sufferers of "Obama Derangement Syndrome."

Maybe I'm being overly paranoid but this entire thing is spooking the hell out of me. President Obama is already receiving an average of over 30 threats a day as it is.

All it takes is one spurred-on loony, one weapon, and one opportunity. And then presto, we have the history lesson to end all history lessons - a 21st century lynching.

We already have some of the ingredients for a lynching, i.e. white folks being exploited by the agents of fear filling their ear with nonsense about their rights and "way of life" being taken away.

The only difference is that this isn't a small Southern town in the civil rights movement era and the players aren't a lone black activist and a stubborn white community.

This mess is happening on a grander scale involving the first African-American President of the United States, a small multitude of scared citizens, and talking heads throwing out verbal bombs about FEMA death camps, euthanasia, and snitch patrols while not caring where they land or who they strike.

Or worse, caring very much about where they land and who they strike.

I pray that my fear doesn't become a reality but if it does, are we going to remember those who spurred this mess on. Such as these folks:



"Words can generate deeds and he who verbally incites strife is as guilty as those who physically creates strife." - Aesop

From the Archives: Something ELSE guaranteed to piss you off

Months ago, I wrote a post bringing attention to a repulsive anti-gay comic book that masqueraded as correct information regarding the lgbt community.

It was a 1986 comic was created by a man named Dick Hafer.

Well the site which featured the comic book has found yet another one by Hafer and it's just as nasty, probably more repulsive. It was created just as AIDS came on the scene. Notice how the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron is cited:







The webpage featuring this comic is not anti-gay. It's a site that looks at "problem-based comics" from the past.

But it is still an excellent look at the past of anti-gay activism and we must ask ourselves (yet again) are the messages we get from the religious right today really any different from the ones Hafer threw out?

Do the male followers of Fred Phelps really have nice butts?

I have rarely if ever featured crazy Fred Phelps and any of his followers on my blog. However, the following clips is HILARIOUS!!!

And it's something to break the monotony of a boring Saturday:

From the Archives: Sorry Conservapedia and Peter LaBarbera, but 'gay bowel syndrome' still does not exist

Editor's note - This is a piece I wrote in 2007. It illustrates just how some homophobes are determined to twist science to suit their lying agendas.

Our friend Peter LaBarbera is practically falling over himself over in his latest post:

Conservapedia, a new online encyclopedia seeking to become a conservative alternative to the very liberal-biased Wikipedia takes a politically incorrect look at the medical phenomenon known as ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome’ — a term that homosexual activists are trying to purge from scientific and popular usage. Gay Bowel Syndrome describes a “clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients,” according to Conservapedia, which cites mainstream medical sources such as Johns Hopkins’ ‘HIV Guide’ in its article with 93 footnotes.

I talk about "gay bowel syndrome" in my book. I say the following:

According to the “Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus,” http://encyclopedia.
thefreedictionary.com:

“Gay bowel syndrome was a term fi rst used in 1976 prior to the discovery of AIDS, to describe a series of parasitic disorders caused by oral/anal contact and allegedly related to gay male sexual activity. The term was abandoned by the medical community in the 1980s because the problems that attributed to it were not specific to homosexuals, not confined to just the bowels, nor did it meet the medical definition of a syndrome.”

First of all, Conservapedia is not necessarily an accurate or objective source of information. It was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of well-known conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly stated that he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.

In other words, Conservapedia is another case of a someone attempting to manufacture his version of the truth when reality does not suit him.

In this particular case, Conservapedia claims the following:

Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients . . .

Conservapedia uses three sources for this claim and all of them are over 10 years old; two of them are from the 1970s.

Let's break this down some more.

Peter makes a huge point to note that the Conservapedia article contains 93 footnotes that, according to him, proves that "gay bowel syndrome" is a legitimate term.

Let's look at those footnotes:

Footnotes 1, 5, 15, 25, 31, 40, 47, 58 are the same - an article published in 1976 entitled The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.

And that is not the only case in which the article uses duplicate footnotes, including the following examples:

Footnotes 2, 7, and 11- Clinical features and diagnosis - Inflammatory Bowel Disease, part 1 American Family Physician, Feb 15, 1993 by Glen E. Hastings, Richard J. Weber

Footnotes 10 and 12 - Dr. Michael Heller, The gay bowel syndrome: a common problem of homosexual patients in the emergency department. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980

Conservapedia also says:

in 2004 Medscape stated that gay bowel syndrome is a significant issue in regards HIV infection (The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also features an article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape).

The Medscape piece and the John Hopkins article says the following:

This is a retrospective review of clinical proctitis in gay men seen at a STD clinic in San Francisco. The review included men with rectal symptoms of pain, itching, tenesmus, rectal bleeding or discharge who underwent clinical evaluation including anoscopy with diagnostic tests for C. trachomatis, N. gonorrhoeae, HSV and syphilis. The results show relatively high rates of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and HSV. No pathogen was found in 46 of the 101 patients studied.

Yes, I bolded that first sentence to make a point. Examples of gay men seen at STD clinics (especially in one city) are not necessarily indicative of the lgbt community at large. It is the same as using examples of African-American men in prison to gauge the habits of African-American men not incarcerated.

The articles also say the studies of those men in STD clinics took place in the years 2000-2001. That is six to seven years ago.

Now the articles do use the phrase "gay bowel syndrome," but they are vague as to the legitimacy of the term. And that does give Peter and Conservapedia a little raft to stake their lies.

But other than those two articles, does Conservapedia have any recent information?

Not necessarily. Conservapedia mentions 2007 articles regarding STDs, but only as an attempt to link those STDs together as an example of "gay bowel syndrome."

As a matter of fact, a good portion of the information Conservapedia has regarding the term "gay bowel syndrome" itself is from the 1970s and 80s; the years that the term was thought to be legitimate.

And Conservapedia even contradicts itself by saying the following:

Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients (the diseases are not exclusive to male homosexuals).

Doesn't that last statement contradict the entire tone of the Conservapedia article?

Lastly, Conservapedia says the following:

Although the term gay bowel syndrome is not used as frequently as the 1980's, as mentioned previously Medscape has an article on gay bowel syndrome that was published in 2004 that was entitled ''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome". Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website has a duplicate of the aforementioned article by John G. Bartlett, M.D. at Medscape which was entitled New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome". In addition, an online medical dictionary has an entry on gay bowel syndrome. Also, the website Biology-Online.org has an article on gay bowel syndrome.

As I said before, John Hopkins and the Medscape articles was talking about data that is close to seven years old and solely dealt with gay men in an STD clinic in San Francisco. And neither article goes into detail regarding the legitimacy of the term "gay bowel syndrome."

Lastly, both online dictionaries mentioned by Conservapedia (particularly Biology-Online.org) looks like online dictionaries in which anyone can add terms.

Basically, Conservapedia is taking advantage of online technology to pass along distortions and untruths as reality. And Peter is just loving it:

We at Americans For Truth believe that it is long past time for federal and state governments (and academia) to study the serious health risks associated with male homosexual sex and promiscuity, just as federally-sponsored studies helped educate the public on the significant dangers of smoking. Allowing homosexual activists a “protester’s veto” over legitimate medical inquiry and research will only cost more men’s lives, as larger society and especially young men are denied clear information on the additional health risks of “gay” sex viz a viz normal, natural straight sex.

Peter, if there should be any investigations, they should focus on why you and folks like yourself obsess over what you think lgbts do in the bedroom.

And let's not forget Conservapedia.

I guess its next goal will be attempting to give Paul Cameron some degree of credibility.

2009 UPDATE - It seems that Conservapedia is trying to give Paul Cameron some degree of credibility. The entry on him says in part:

The APA and ASA have issued statements denouncing Cameron for holding positions contrary to theirs. They have not, however, pointed out any specific flaws in his published peer-reviewed scientific papers. So it is patently obvious that they are trying to suppress his findings for political reasons

Talk about having your fingers in your ears. For prosperity's sake, let's look at the actual story regarding the APA (American Psychological Association) and ASA's (American Sociological Association) position on Paul Cameron:

Homophobic 'researcher' Paul Cameron in all of his repulsive glory

Know your lgbt history - In Living Color

In Living Color was a groundbreaking sketch comedy show that appeared on Fox in the late 1980s. It was the first of its kind because it was an urban show focusing on the African-American community.

Nowadays, it's remembered as the show that launched the careers of actor Jim Carrey and the Wayans family (Shawn, Keenan, Marlon, Kim, and Damon).

It's probably also remembered for its sketch comedy characters such as Homey the Clown and the Men on . . . series.

The Men on . . . series featured two extremely flamboyantly gay black men espousing their opinions on various subjects while making sure to lace their conversation with sexual double entendres.

I will be honest with you. The first sketch segment of the Men On . . . series (Men on Films - seen in the first clip) left me laughing so hard that tears were running down my eyes. Of course I was a freshman in college and years away from admitting my true sexual orientation:



However, like with all sketch comedy shows, when segments become popular, they continue to be shown to the point of being beaten to death. That was a huge problem with the Homey the Clown segment. Yes we know that he is a militant black man forced to debase himself as a clown for "The Man." It was funny the first and second time.

But the tenth time, it got annoying. And so did the Men On . . . series. Especially considering that the show made the two characters so damned broadly stereotypical that they began to be seen as insults to the lgbt community, as this Men on Football segment demonstrates:



Past Know Your LGBT History postings:

Know your lgbt history - Cleopatra Jones and her lesbian drug lords

Know your lgbt history - Norman, Is That You?

Know your lgbt history - The 'Exotic' Adrian Street

Know your lgbt history - The Choirboys

Know your lgbt history - Eddie Murphy

Know your lgbt history - The Killing of Sister George

Know your lgbt history - Hanna-Barbera cartoons pushes the 'gay agenda'

Know your lgbt history - Cruising

Know your lgbt history - Foxy Brown and Cleopatra Jones

Know your lgbt history - I Got Da Hook Up

Know your lgbt history - Fright Night

Know your lgbt history - Flowers of Evil

The Jeffersons and the transgender community

Anti-gay One News Now freaks out over pro-gay news, ENDA support, and other Friday midday news briefs.

Harry Reid "wholeheartedly supports" ENDA - He had better and he had better not be the only one.

AFA vs. AAA: The former is certainly earning its 'F' - What if you announced a boycott and got folks laughing at you because of it?

Ballot prospects for anti-gay rights measure dim - Don't celebrate yet. But keep your fingers crossed.

Texas alcohol board reports violations in gay bar raid - The police are in trooouble.

Signs that the religious right has lost it's mind - Apparently, recent pro-gay news is making One News Now scramble and scramble badly. Read the following three articles. They are so bad I was almost tempted not to write in a comment. Please note I said "almost:"
APA 'ignoring the science' on homosexual reparative therapy - The most comically inane article that One News Now has ever published.

New ENDA bill 'turns private sin into a public right' - Because as we all know, the United States is a theocracy. LOL

ABA meddles in marriage issue, members exit - A suitable completion of One News Now's trio of trash.

And to make it worse, One News Now has yet to announce that Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe they are still in shock.

Proposition 8 protests vs. Town Hall tyranny - right wing hypocrisy on display

The news about people acting like they have no home training at these health care town hall meetings across the country will backfire against the Republican party. But regardless, I hope no one gets seriously hurt.

To me however, it does show the blatant hypocrisy of the right wing.

Remember in November of last year when Proposition 8 was passed? Remember how angry we lgbts got? Remember how we protested across the country?

While some of us went too far in our anger, the point is that it was a genuine outcry of rage. It was a genuine protest from a group of people who had been stepped on for too long.

Unlike this mess happening now in which the majority are white folks who are programmed by right wing groups with "talking points" or bombthrowers like Glenn Beck or Michelle Malkin (the proverbial child playing matches). And their guilliblity is made easy because they are too afraid to realize that their anger is not with the health care but with their inability to admit that they just don't like "THAT NEEEGROOOO" as president.

Think about it. When they shout and cry at meetings about "how they want their country back," they aren't referring to health care costs or single payer options.

And speaking of Malkin, remember how she wept and cried with pseudo disgust over us "gay bullies" who supposedly attacked people via protests and boycotts? Remember how Mike Huckabee told only one side to the Phyllis Burgess incident (i.e. the anti-gay protester who was pushed and her stryofoam cross taken from her after she elbowed her way through crowd of anti-Proposition 8 protestors so that she could get on camera). Remember how the religious right portrayed the lgbt community on the whole as thugs who were allegedly threatening people, vandalizing churches, and shouting people down?

Well either I am in the Twilight Zone or there has been a shift. Malkin now approves of shouting people down and religious right groups are encouraging folks to show up at these town hall forums.

While Malkin specifically was quick to shine a very bright light on the excesses of the Proposition 8 protests, she is trying to downplay just how nasty these "tea bag" protestors are acting at these health care forums.

Apparently protesting in anger is only wrong when gay folks do it. When lemmings do it at health care forums, it's "democracy in action."

Yet another way us lgbts are looked at as second class citizens.

When the lives of lgbts of color are diminished by melodrama, we all suffer

By no means think that I am trying to advertise this hot mess of a video. But everyone needs to understand why it's so difficult to have a decent dicussion about the lives of lgbts of color in the black community.

When melodramatic bullshit like this is shown, any thoughts of having a concrete discussion goes out of the window.

J.L. King should be ashamed of himself.

PFOX answers my question, Obama and the Advocate, and other Thursday midday news briefs

Regarding my post about Peter Sprigg's award nomination, PFOX has emailed me the name of the award it nominated him for:

The Montgomery County, MD Public School’s Award for Distinguished Service to Public Education

Which brings further accentuates the point of my post. Nominating Sprigg for this award is like giving a Grammy to one of those American Idol rejects. And I mean the really bad ones.

Exodus International Responds to the APA Resolution on Change Therapy - Guess who's not happy with the APA's decision on ex-gay therapy.

There are a lot of phone calls to make about ENDA co-sponsorship - Oh geez. I got DeMint and Graham. Who's got roots on me?

Details Emerge About the Estate of Author E. Lynn Harris - Miracle upon miracle! BET is talking about a possible gay issue. Granted it's about deceased author E. Lynn Harris and his estate but hey, it's better than Soul Plane.

Top gay magazine bemoans Obama - Top gay magazine The Advocate breaks from its schedule of celebrity stoking to criticize President Obama's inaction on lgbt issues. Pot, meet kettle.

Freepers upset over APA repudiation of ex-gay mess

While the folks at the phony news service One News Now have been silent over yesterday's decision by the American Psychological Association that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments, the Neanderthals at Free Republic aren't at a loss for words.

I love those morons. Their comments always make very pro-lgbt victory even sweeter:

No one bats an eye when a straight guy goes gay but the thought of a gay guy going straight drives them bonkers.

Yeah. I’m actually in support of this. If we start normalizing therapy to change sexual orientation it’s only a matter of time until people start talking about straight to gay therapy for “repressed” children and adults. Or straight to a “happier, more natural, and well adjusted bi-sexuality” for people. I’d rather leave the lid on this bowl of fish and say that people should work this out for themselves without psychologists poking their brains.

The drive to normalize homosexual sex started with pressuring the APA (American Psychiatric Association) to remove homosexuality from their diagnostic manual. Homosexuality was correctly (in my opinion) described as an abnormality or disorder to be treated. The homosexuals are the ones that pressured the APA into removing it from their DSM.

The APA declaration is totally false and politically motivated.

you shouldn't support anything the APA advocates. It is a corrupt organization that spews out lies and non-science to back the gay mafia, who have taken over control of the agency.

The fact that homosexuals have changed orientation is a fact. Even the homosexualist, and closet homosexual, child abuser, Kinsey, stated that sexuality was fluid. It is all about sexual morality. Most homosexuals are emotionally damaged--either molested or/and mentally abused when a child--or complete pagan hedonists.

Do you honestly think that people who rape babies are "born" with that orientation? APA believes it is NOT a learned behavior..which is bullcr*p.

Primates, when denied their natural mother and a natural environment produce offspring, who not only are super aggressive and antisocial, they become sexually dysfunctional (think sexual deviants Gacy, Keppler, Dahmer, Roelm, Hitler, Manson, Kinsey, --it is endless..... Abusive parenting creates sexual deviancy. By advocating and encouraging homosexuality, you are advocating child abuse.

True, in Greek and Roman societies homosexuality was glorified as in many pagan societies...Plato even mused on the glories of man-boy sex, but without Judeo-Christian influence, that was the norm......and to think it isn't a learned behavior is absurd.

Editor's note - While it's usually my policy not to interrupt Freeper rambling, I must comment. I find it odd that this person mentions amongst examples of "sexual deviants" homosexual serial killers but conveniently says nothing about Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, the Yorkshire Ripper, Gary Ridgeway, or Harvey Glatman - heterosexual serial killers. Granted, this person's tangent is enough to suggest that he or she get some type of medication, I felt I just had to add that bit.

If you look below the surface of this report, the implications are outright disturbing. Homo-leftists will run with this proclamation to the max and will literally attempt a push for criminalizing such therapy. This will dovetail perfectly with their ever-earlier indoctrination of young children - effectively brain-washing them into a never-to-return condition. Homosexuality will be effectively mandated by law.

Why would a Christian advocate a pseudo-science that is pressured by political activists to change their labels, without relying on scientific facts or data to back up it statements..The APA lost me when they were taken over by the gay mafia.....by caving into the pressure of the militant homosexuals to take their lifestyle choice off of the mental disorder list proved it was not a scientific organization, but a political propaganda one.

I swear, you just gotta love "dem Freepers."