Kevin McCullough attacks Barack Obama with an ENDA lie

Barack Obama scares the right-wing.

Obviously, everyone figured this campaign was going to be a coronation for Hilary Clinton. Everyone but Obama and his supporters.

I like what's going on. It puts everyone in a tailspin. And it teaches folks to not take the American voter for granted.

And it seems that no one is more surprised than the right-wing. I'm sure they had a lot of slings and arrows ready for Clinton. But with Obama looking like he is going to be the nominee, they have to scramble hard to get the "goods" on him.

That doesn't mean that they aren't trying. I have been paying slight attention to the Reverend Wright situation. I'm not too sure about what has been going on, but one thing that I do know is the right-wing has written so much about the situation that my head is spinning.

The conservative site Town Hall probably set a record with the number of hit pieces formulated to hurt Obama.

And speaking of which, conservative writer Kevin McCullough has written his own hit piece.

Apparently he is not happy that Obama supports ENDA. His entire piece is best served by focusing on the following lie:

So stifling would ENDA be in fact that if a Youth Pastor who works with young boys in a church program got caught in an inappropriate relationship with them, ENDA would make it nearly impossible for the church involved to fire the youth pastor. ENDA would directly challenge and seek to limit religious expression, doctrine, theology, and practice.

McCullough obviously thinks that people are stupid enough to fall for that faulty line of "logic." ENDA does not protect someone against unlawful behavior (i.e. a youth pastor having an inappropriate relationship with young boys).

In fact, no anti-discrimination law does. No law barring discrimination on the basis of race, religon, or national origin gives anyone cover to engage in unlawful behavior. And the same is for laws barring discrimination on the basis on sexual orientation.

The funniest thing is that McCullough is getting taken to task by the comments on the site. I rather like this one:

I'm pleasantly surprised to find some TH readers criticizing McCullough for his utterly loony rants. He assumes that whatever he fears or hates must be something liberals support--like school shootings, for instance.

Read stuff like this and weep, conservatives, because this is what conservatism has come down to. Your glory days of intelligent commentary are far behind you now, and McCullough is now what passes for a real conservative.

Actually, I would suggest that he, and his style, are quite appropriate for the present day. Today a conservative is very, very likely to be a theocratic hate-monger like McCullough. Today's conservatives, after all, are really right-wing populists, combining in equal amounts crudity, ignorance, and meanness in one very unattractive package. So, embrace McCullough; today he really does speak for most of you.

How true indeed.


Matt Barber tries to disavow credible researchers

I have talked several times about how the anti-gay industry distorted a 1997 Canadian study in order to claim that gays have a short life span.

They always omit the fact that in 2001, the researchers of the study went on record saying that their work has been distorted.

Matt Barber from Concerned Women for America has finally addressed this situation in a new piece written today:

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, "[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group."

Naturally Barber does not go into detail talking about what "tremendous pressure" the researchers received.

I'm curious to see how much pressure, if any, was exerted in a four-year-period. The study came out in 1997. The letter was written in 2001.

Then to top it off, Barber (who is not a researcher) says this:

Of course, that's all just worthless fluff. All the political spin in the world doesn't change reality, nor does it eliminate the study's disturbing conclusions or practical implications. The research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a "perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation."

Barber's claim is bullshit. More than that; it's not only a blatant lie but a repeated drumbeat that the anti-gay industry is always sounding when they are caught lying:

No, we aren't wrong. It's those evil gays exerting pressure and forcing people to change their words.

The audacity of the anti-gay industry drives me insane. From Peter LaBarbera to Barber to James Dobson and even to those who cite their lies (Sally Kern), why is it that these people can't admit when they are wrong?

Oh no. They can't be wrong. They have a special pipeline to God so anything they say, no matter how incorrect or stupid it is, becomes correct.

It's happened so many times; a researcher or physician goes on record claiming that the anti-gay industry has distorted their work and then the anti-gay industry attacks the physician or researcher. Or downplays the complaint.

Or in some cases, totally ignores it.

Keep it up, guys. You can only tell a lie so long before it bites you in the ass. And I'm going to make sure I am around to point out the bite marks.

The webpage goodasyou.org has tracked this story , including posting the letter from the researchers crying foul over the distortion of their work.

Forgive me for copying, but I want to do the same thing:

Gay life expectancy revisited

Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V O'shaughnessy, Julio Montaner and Martin T Schechter

Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. 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.

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. 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.

In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

Peter LaBarbera tries to regain relevancy through lies

I think our friend Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth (in name only) is scrambling for attention.

Fresh from the disappointment of Hurricane Gustav killing his attempts to take pictures of "naked gay men" during Southern Decadence, Peter has been mute for a while. That is except for pathetic attempts to make Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin the new Christian martyr.

And now low and behold comes the Ray Boltz situation.

Boltz, a gospel singer who has come out as a gay man, seems to have gotten LaBarbera's undivided attention:

Ray Boltz Buys the Lie, Says God Made Him Homosexual

An excerpt reads as follows:

(Self-styled “queer” activists will say that Boltz was living a lie, but his four children do not owe their existence to a “gay” lifestyle.) I read the entire Blade story, but all you really need to know is in the final paragraph:

“This is what it really comes down to,” [Boltz] says. “If this is the way God made me , then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”

Wow, talk about presumption! This talented man is lost and he needs our prayers. Boltz may “feel” closer to God, but if you believe the Scriptures, he’s farther than ever from Him. We understand that the radical “gay” movement exalts its collective “feelings” over the Bible’s clear teaching — and certainly they are not alone in that regard — but each of us must choose between the truth and lies every day, and homosexual behavior is egregiously sinful, according to God’s Word. (See www.robgagnon.net if you are tempted to rationalize away the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual practice.) You just can’t sugarcoat that verdict, although these days even many Christians try.

Peter seems to go out of his way to bring up "success stories" of gays who have "changed" as if that negates Boltz's life story.

The fact of the matter is they don't. But that's not what attracted me to Peter's screed.

The subject of this blog has to do with how the anti-gay industry distorts studies and science to make some sort of case that homosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle."

And Peter's piece perfectly illustrates my point. Particularly this part:

Would society ever hold up the men and women who tried to overcome addictions but then failed and returned to their destructive habit as the norm and role models for others? (Yes, homosexual practice is a destructive habit, as attested by the drastically shortened lifespans and high incidence of disease among men who practice same-sex sin.)

No Peter.

Now the links that Peter uses to make this case comes from earlier posts on his blog.

The link about "high incidence of disease" comes from a post where former Concerned Women for America spokesman Matt Barber castigated former National Gay and Lesbian Task Force head Matt Foreman because Foreman called HIV/AIDS a "gay disease" in a speech at the time. Barber infers that Foreman was admitting that homosexuality is a "deadly lifestyle."

In actuality, Foreman was challenging the gay community to take the initiative to prevent HIV/AIDS in our community.

Much like NAACP head Julian Bond wanted the black community to do when he called HIV/AIDS a "black disease."

Later in the post, Barber says the following:

To the consternation of “gay” activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study - conducted by pro-”gay” researchers in Canada - was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” - more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the study, “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. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

That is only half the story.

In 2001, those same researchers went on record complaining that folks like Barber was distorting their work.

And Barber knows this because he says a few paragraphs later:

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, “[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”

Matt Barber is a liar. There was never any "pressure" on these researchers.

And please bear in mind that Barber never went into detail as to what the pressure was. He tries to dimiss the letter as "political spin.

The letter is here. Read it and determine if it sounds like spin.

The second link Peter uses to try in order to refute Boltz's declaration of his homosexuality is one having to do with the controversy regarding Bush's pick for Surgeon General, James Holsinger.

You will remember that the Holsinger nomination failed because of intense scrutiny regarding his personal opinions about homosexuality and a paper he wrote about it. Holsinger disavowed the paper to the intense consternation of the anti-gay industry, LaBarbera in general.

In attacking Holsinger's decision to disavow the paper, Peter said:

So desperate are pro-”gay” advocates to force their Bible-rejecting myth on the culture that they downplay even serious health risks that result from embracing behaviors that a loving God proscribes. The result is that children in schools across the country are NOT being taught that there are special dangers, including HIV/AIDS, associated with homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” for more information.)

I talk about Diggs' paper in my book and have mentioned it several times in this blog. But the truth always stands repeating. This is the caliber of work that Peter finds credible regarding lgbts.

For those who have not read my book, let me give you an excerpt:

Twice, John R. Diggs includes the study done by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg in their book, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, as indicative of the entire gay population. In one passage, he even refers to it as “a far ranging study of homosexual men . . .” But Bell and Weinberg never said that their findings were indicative of all gay men. They actually said “. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator willever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

Diggs cites a Canadian study twice in order to claim that gays have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. But his citation of the study is a mischaracterization. In 2001, the six original researchers (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy, Julion Montaner, and Martin T. Schechter) who conducted that study have gone on record saying that religious conservatives (like Diggs) was distorting their work. - That's right. Just like Barber, Diggs is distorting the Canadian study.

In another section entitled Physical Health, Diggs claims that gays are victims of “gay bowel syndrome.” The term is an obsolete medical term. exist and even the CDC does not use it. In fact, if one was to look at the endnotes of Diggs’ study, he would find that two of the sources he quoted concerning “gay bowel syndrome” were from articles in published in 1976 and 1983, which is consistent with the years that the term existed. One last source was a letter to the editor printed in 1994 but Diggs does not make it clear as to whatwere the circumstances surrounding it.

Diggs generalizes convenience sample studies as indicative of the gay population at large. Diggs takes studies done in foreign countries and claims that they are indicative of the gay population at large.

Diggs claims that there are five distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual populations including levels of promiscuity, physical health, mental health, lifespan, and monogamy. However, he spends very little time comparing the two dynamics. He uses all of his time castigating gay populations.

Diggs uses an out of date book, The Gay Report (published in 1979) to claim that gays are engaging in deviant sexual practices. Only once does he attempt to tie the alleged deviant practices of gays in 1979 to present day; and to do so, he cites two events that took place regarding bondage workshops. However, there is a strong indication that heterosexuals took part in these events as well as gays. Diggs ignores this dynamic.

Nothing that I am saying is new to Peter. He knows that he is using bad sources because I as well as others have pointed it out to him.

But he continues to ignore what we say as if that will make his distortions true.

I think in the case of his attack on Ray Boltz, he has taken a page from the McCain campaign: repeat a lie even after the truth has been discovered.

Sorry Peter but it's not working for them. What in the world makes you think it will work for you?