The Family Research Council and the Disappearing Studies on Homosexuality

While we are all anticipating an Obama Administration and while the religious right continues to compile inaccurate anecdotes about “gay persecutors,” something strange has taken place on the Family Research Council’s webpage.

Several “studies” about homosexuality are gone.

The following studies are no longer on the Family Research Council’s webpage - The Negative Effects of Homosexuality, Homosexuality and Child Abuse, and Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk.

If you click the following links (taken from here), you will see what I am talking about:

"Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Insight No. 247 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), May 17, 2002 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)

· "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality," Insight No. 232 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), March 6, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1)

· "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Insight No. 238 (Washington: Family Research Council) November 1, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3)

These studies were supposed to show the so-called “dangers of homosexuality.” All of the religious right talking points about lgbts are touched on including:

Gays molest children at a high rate,

Gays have a short life span,

Gays and lesbians don’t know how to be monogamous,

Gays and lesbians have high rate of domestic violence.

The author of these items, Timothy Dailey, is still employed with the Family Research Council and one of his areas of "expertise" is homosexuality. This is highly strange because according to his bio, Dailey’s Ph.D. and qualifications all fall under religion.

For the record, his studies about homosexuality were highly flawed.

In them, Dailey cited out-of-date data compiled in the early 1970s, distorted other studies (including the 1997 Canadian study concerning the “gay life span”), and relied on discredited work (i.e. discredited researcher Paul Cameron).

One of his papers in particular, Homosexuality and Child Abuse, got complaints from former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, A. Nicholas Groth.

In 2002, Groth said that Dailey distorted his work to claim that gays molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men.

The irony is that this was the same error Paul Cameron made with Groth’s work in 1984. Groth complained then too.

I don’t know when Dailey's studies was removed, but they were on the webpage in 2006. It was at that time on my blog I noted how some of them included the following proviso:

Please note: this article is an archived item on Family Research Council's website; the information contained therein may be outdated.

At the time, I called it a "cover your ass disclaimer."

I called the Family Research Council last week in order to get some answers. A very nice woman who answered my call told me that I would have to speak Dailey to get more details.

I left two messages via email and have yet to receive an answer.

So the question is are we seeing some quiet acknowledgment by the Family Research Council that some of their “studies” on lgbts were flawed?

Since I haven't spoken to Dailey, I cannot give a definite answer.

But if this is the case, then I think the Family Research Council owes the lgbt community more than an covert abandonment of these studies.

I would like to have something a bit more public from the Family Research Council. These studies are present on other unaffiliated sites and have probably been used numerous times in attempts to beat back pro-gay legislation.

Also they have helped form inaccurate images put forth about lgbts by the religious right.

In light of how we lgbts have been unfairly called terrorists for our reaction over the Proposition 8 vote, anything less than a full and public acknowledgement is unacceptable.

Anything less than a full and public acknowledgement would be a classic case of throwing rocks and then pleading innocence when those hit by the rocks react.

The audacity of nonsense - The One News Now and The Peter version

From an online buddy, Pam Spaulding, I discovered something very interesting regarding One News Now.

The phony news source didn't exactly eliminate its comments section.

It has the comments section as a forum where you have to register to become a member.

Apparently allowing people to comment on articles backfired on One News Now because some folks (myself included) took it upon themselves to correct the inaccurate spin the phony news source placed on some articles.

I am undecided on whether or not I will register. I'm tempted because I know that the forum will be a mass of bad studies regarding the lgbt community.

But I am getting a kick out of just reading the comments.

One thing that I did notice: these so-called Christian folks are scared of Barack Obama.

I have never in my life seen so much homophobic, racist, and xenophobic language coming from a webpage outside those of white supremacists.

Really though, it's par for the course for these folks. They are so annoyingly manic about elections.

To them, every election is an episode of McGyver where they have to manipulate and finagle the outcomes because the "wrong" outcome will bring the United States closer to the lake of fire complete with monsters out of the Book of Revelations.

Talk about dramatic.

When Bush was elected, I didn't freak out (of course in hindsight maybe I should have). When the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 1994, I didn't run in the streets screaming and crying about the end of the world.

I made the best of it. Why do these folks who cater to One News Now and this entire bullshit about them being the "chosen people" and the United States being the "chosen country" flip out when elections don't go their way?

Why do they see every election as a make or break situation where if their choice don't win, God is going to part the skies and make the destruction of Sodom and Gommarah seem like a picnic on a sunny day?

Who knows with these folks?

And while I am on the subject of audacity, I have to talk about my friend Peter LaBarbera (i.e. Porno Pete, The Peter, He With the Chunky Butt and Disappearing Hairline - I know I am going to get it for that one.)

Peter seems to be on a tear with Soulforce because the group "dares" to want to have conversations with various churches regarding their positions on homosexuality.

And Peter seems to be upset at one church in particular:

Would Willow Creek have agreed to a (forced) meeting with activists claiming that using pornography is not a sin, or that the “swinging” lifestyle is OK with God? No way. I think they bowed to Soulforce’’s pressure to “dialogue” because this particular sin, as Greg aptly calls it, enjoys a certain worldly favor that most others do not. Christ said His followers would get persecuted for following Him, and these days that includes being smeared as a “bigot” or a “homophobe” — and being accused of “spiritual violence” by the savvy activists at Soulforce — merely for agreeing with God that homosexual behavior is a sin that can be overcome through Jesus Christ.

I'm not going to go into intricate details about this. If Willow Creek wants to have a discussion with Soulforce, that is their right.

As I understand it, Peter is not a member of the church. What right does he have to interfere with their Biblical interpretations? Granted he does have a First Amendment right to criticize but the fact that he would only reveals his ego trip.

Apparently it's not enough for Peter to believe that homosexuality is a sin. He feels that it is his place to make sure that all churches believe this way.

Tell me again, Peter. Just who is trying to force their beliefs on whom?