Batten down the hatches! Another "manufactured marytr"

Yesterday, I talked about how the anti-gay industry took the case of the firing of a anti-gay amendment supporter and tried to make it a case of gays "silencing the opposition."

Well possibly here comes another one. I say possibly because we don't know all of the facts in the case.

The Associated Press is reporting that a student attending Missouri State University is suing the school because allegedly she was brought in front of an ethics committee for refusing to write and sign letters to the Missouri state legislature to approve gay adoption and foster parenting. (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/49318.aspx)

Now details are sketchy but we all know that won't stop James Dobson, Agape Press, Donald Wildmon or any other members of the anti-gay industry.

Even as you read this, they are creating letters, press releases, and talking points about the incident. I expect a full article in Agape Press featuring the student in a Joan of Arc mode.

I also fully expect so-called "pro family" and conservative columnists (i.e. Matt Barber, Peter LaBarbera, Bill O'Reilly, Kevin McCullough, etc.) to write all sorts of drivel that will be featured in places such as Town Hall and World Net Daily.

I wish they would wait for the full story. Officials at the school have declined comments until they get the full story.

Now if the situation happened like the young woman is claiming then by all means give her recompensement.

But the anti-gay industry is notorious for taking an incident (a misunderstanding or a bit of singular bad behavior by someone overzealous) and try to frame it as a plot to hurt Christians.

I am going to follow this situation and keep you all posted. Until then, watch and count how many times the anti-gay industry will milk the incident.

Agape Press - a study of a slick contradiction

The October 20th edition of anti-gay Agape Press features an article on a Virginia food plant employee who was allegedly fired for supporting one of those "marriage amendments" via a written message on his truck (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/202006a.asp):

Luis Padilla was reportedly terminated from his employment at a Cargill Foods plant in Harrisonburg because of a written message on the rear window of his pickup truck that read: "Please, vote for marriage on Nov. 7." That is the day when voters in Virginia will be considering a proposed amendment to the state constitution protecting traditional marriage.

According to the Daily-News Record in Harrisonburg, Padilla -- who worked in Cargill's human resources office -- was dismissed for insubordination when he refused to remove the message, which company officials could be considered harassment. He apparently had removed the sign when first requested, then later posted it again and parked his truck outside the company parking lot. The newspaper report indicates the former Cargill employee was trying to reach an accommodation with the company about the message when he was fired.

Now apparently, Mr. Padilla has been hired back and will be compensated for the three weeks he was out from work (http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=5606139&nav=S6aK).

Of course, Agape Press will push Mr. Padilla as yet another "manufactured martyr" in its war against the gay community. The article contained all sorts of platitudes about "those who want tolerance can't show tolerance" and the like without even considering the fact that this may have been an incident of a overzealous employer. No gay representative was even quoted in the article, even though it pretty much accused the Virginia's gay community of getting Mr. Padilla fired.

Personally, I am glad Mr. Padilla got his job back. He clearly was not harassing anyone with his message, therefore he should have a right to state his opinions. Like it or not, not everyone feels that gays have the right to have their relationships protected.

But four days later, Agape Press featured this article, AFA: Online Queries Reveal Wal-Mart's Promotion of Homosexuality (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/242006c.asp) :

. . .the American Family Association (AFA), one of the groups that has called on Christian consumers to spend their dollars elsewhere as a sign of their displeasure with Wal-Mart's pro-homosexual leanings, says the nation's largest retailer is not just working with the homosexual agenda of the NGLCC, it is promoting it. As proof, AFA offers up examples of books available for purchase through Wal-Mart's online bookstore -- books the pro-family group contends support or defend homosexuality. . .

(AFA 's Randy) Sharp also notes that Wal-Mart is now considering same-sex "partner" benefits, bolstering AFA's notion that the retailer has moved from neutrality to actively promoting the homosexual lifestyle. "Through their services, through their benefits, through their products -- all of these things lead to only one analysis," says the special projects director, "and that is that Wal-Mart is supportive of homosexual marriage in America."

One more fact you should know: Agape Press is owned and distributed by the American Family Association.

So in other words, according to the American Family Association, it is terrible that a man is fired for expressing potentially anti-gay beliefs but a company that caters to its gay customers and establishes benefits for its gay employees is even worse.

That is just plain wrong.

If Mr. Padilla has a right to state his opinion about homosexuality then Wal-Mart should have that same right to seek out gay money and protect its gay employees.

Why does the American Family Association think that Mr. Padilla should have his rights but Wal-Mart shouldn't have the same rights?

Hypocrisy is NOT a Christian value.

Gays hate God? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

World Net Daily columnist Kevin McCullough has an interesting theory about gays and marriage equality.

Apparently we gays hate God.

In a recent column( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52633), he draws an incredibly interesting (albeit irrational and sex driven) theory about why we gays are pushing for marriage equality:

"No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.

They wrongfully believe that the guilty voice within them is an echo of a prudish state that seeks to limit their freedoms. They wrongfully believe that the judgment they feel is emanating from "Bible thumpers." And what they fail to admit is that the voice that condemns them the loudest is never a human voice – but in fact the voice of their own conscience informed by the truth of the God who created them."

And basically Kevin wraps it up by saying:

"Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."

World Net Daily isn't exactly a gay positive publication (and that is the understatement of the decade for those of us who have seen it) and Mr. McCullough is not exactly a gay positive individual. On occasion, he has said some unsubstantiated things about the gay community. And he has never backed any of it up with proof:

"The "alphas" in homosexual relationships, be they men or women, are many times recruiting younger partners. A vast percentage of those who enter the homosexual life do so after having been sexually initiated by an older person of their sex – be it consensual or not – it usually has the feel of enticement or seduction." - The ‘Gay’ Truth, May 30, 2003

Also, his activities attacking the gay community go further. In an earlier post, I made reference to a situation regarding David Parker's war with his son's elementary school in Massachusetts.

Parker created a media event last year because he was upset that his son brought home a b0ok showing a same-sex couple. Parker escalated the situation until he was arrested. A year later, Parker's son was involved in a fight at school with a friend over a cafeteria seat. School officials were quick to stop the situation and notified the Parkers and the parents of the other child.

But almost a month later, a press release was sent out claiming that Parker's son was attacked by a gang of students because of his father's fight against the school.

McCullough was one of the initial spreaders of this story (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50669).

Now the school was quick to refute the claim about the fight involving Parker's son (http://www.lexingtoncares.org/ChildsAltercationUnrelated.html).

But no one, McCullough included, who claimed that Parker's son was attacked because of his father's anti-gay stance apologized or addressed the lie they told.

That is the caliber of "Christian" McCullough is.

I am sorry if I sound mean but McCullough's claim about gays hating God disturbs me. It makes me angry because it was God who led me to know that I am perfect in His sight as a gay man. If it had not been for Him leading me and guiding me through my coming out process, I would not be here today.

McCullough's nasty claim is an anathema to me. His arrogance reminds me of a childhood friend who, when I got the best of him in sports, would tell me that his loss didn't matter because he was a Christian and was going to heaven while I was going to hell.

Mr. McCullough, some of us in the gay community may distance ourselves from religion because of people like you attempting to bogart the throne of God like you are a bouncer at some celestial nightclub, but we never distance ourselves from God nor his love of us.

Despite attempts to legislate our lives, you will never legislate our faith. God loves us for the gay, lesbians, bisexual, or transgender creations that we are.

And we love God.

Links to spiritual gay groups:

www.operationrebirth.com

http://www.soulforce.org/

http://www.gaychristian.net/

http://www.christiangay.com/

http://www.whosoever.org/

Headless Monster citing #1

I haven't done this in a while and luckily for me, I ran into two headless monsters.

Let me explain further.

A headless monster a belief that has been refuted over and over again, but is still pushed as fact, usually by someone who has a vested interest in telling lies.

You can kill the head but the monster still lives because it is being propped up.

Headless monsters are key to the anti-gay industry's exploitation of people of faith about the lives of gays.

Two recent events prove my point.

The first involves a state representative in Kentucky (Joseph Fischer) who claims that gays choose their orientation (http://news.kypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061025/NEWS02/610250347/1014):


Fischer claims to have done research on the subject via looking at an ex-gay webpage, NARTH.

The point of view of NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) is not backed up by any legitimate medical group.

Even more than that, I took a look at its webpage and googled a certain name whom many of us all know and love: Paul Cameron.

Cameron, who was kicked out the American Psychological Association for intentionally misrepresenting his colleagues' work (amongst his other dubious honors) is referenced twice on studies that appear on NARTH's webpage.

Here - http://www.narth.com/docs/conversiontherapy.html

and here - http://www.narth.com/docs/olson.html

NARTH uses the work of a discredited researcher without any comments about the controversy surrounding his work. Can anyone believe anything the organization puts out?

Or better yet, if a group of pediatricians discredit a colleague for possibly exposing his patients to potential danger, would Rep. Fischer continue to take his child to that pediatrician?

Headless Monster citing #2

I had to go all the way to Australia for this one.

A doctor, Richard Fitzgibbons was interviewed as to the supposed dangers of the "homosexual lifestyle" and how schools are not telling children about this (http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=398)

The piece is filled with errors. For example:

"M. Xiridou in 2003 reported that a long-term relationship among those he studied was 18 months, and overall they had an average of 18 to 26 partners per year. Consequently, due to AIDS and other diseases sexually active homosexual and bisexual males can lose up to 20 years of life expectancy."

First of all, M. Xiridou is a woman: Maria Xiridou. The fact that Mr. Fitzgibbons did not know this demonstrates how he was only interested in mainpulating the information rather than finding out facts.

I cover Dr. Xiridou's study in my upcoming book because it is one of many that the anti-gay industry distorts to demonize the gay community. Her study wasn't even looking at gay relationships. It was solely based in the city of Amsterdam and its purpose was:

"To access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)."

Now according to Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin(http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm):

"Dr. Xiridou and her colleagues based their research article on the Amsterdam Cohort Studies of HIV infection and AIDS among homosexually active men. These studies began in 1984, and had several different protocols in their lifetime:

Oct 1984-1985: Gay men aged 18-65 with at least two sexual partners in the previous six months. In other words, monogamous partners were explicitly excluded.

April 1985-Feb 1988: Study enrollment was continued, except HIV-negative men were now excluded. Only HIV-positive men were added.

Feb 1988 – Dec 1988: The study was re-opened to HIV-negative men.

Various additional enrollments continued from through 1998. Especially notable was a special recruitment campaign for men under the age of thirty beginning in 1995. After 1996, all men above the age of thirty were dropped from the study. Their data was excluded from subsequent analyses.

Nobody outside of Amsterdam was accepted into the study except for AIDS patients who attended clinics in Amsterdam for treatment. This makes the study almost exclusively an urban one.

So, what do we have? We have a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and under the age of thirty. While this population was good for the purposes of the study, it was in no way representative of Amsterdam’s gay men, let alone gay men anywhere else."

Now the part of Mr. Fitzgibbons's quote Consequently, due to AIDS and other diseases sexually active homosexual and bisexual males can lose up to 20 years of life expectancy, is a flat out lie.

He makes it seem that Dr. Xiridou found this out through her study but she never said anything of the type.

Mr. Fitzgibbons is distorting a 1997 study by six Candian researchers. These six researchers went on record in 2001 saying that their work was being distorted by members of the anti-gay industry (http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499).

Next, Mr. Fitzgibbons says the following:

"Dr John Diggs has assembled overwhelming medical evidence on the serious health risks of the lifestyle in his article, 'The Risks of Gay Sex'. And yet young people are not being informed about this."

I think I have covered just a few of the fallacies in Diggs's study in an earlier post but they bear repeating. I cover him in my upcoming book also:

Diggs, on two occasions, 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 unlike that any investigator will ever 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) were distorting their work. By the way, it is the same one Fitzgibbons references.

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 what were the circumstances surrounding it.

Richard Fitzgibbons is described as a major contributor to Homosexuality and Hope, published by the Catholic Medical Association of the United States. Apparently it is one of those "you don't have to be gay" books. If Mr. Fitzgibbons wants to give gays hope, then he should stop distorting their lives.

What's with the code words?

Someone tell me what in the world are the so-called prominent television journalists getting paid for these days? They obviously aren't doing their jobs. According to the site http://www.newshounds.us/:

" (Sean) Hannity smugly finished his interview by telling (Bill) Hemmer that he had given some quotes to Cheney from Nancy Pelosi. He said that Cheney shrugged, and smiled, and said those were San Francisco values not mid America values."

And check out Chris Matthews (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610240010)

"Do you think -- does she (Nancy Pelosi) look like if she gets a full -- a full spread on TV, like 60 Minutes, a program like that, she'll probably get more on 20/20, shows like that? Do you think she's looking too San Francisco?"

And now you have a correspondent from CNN, Candy Crowley, asking Democratic House of Representative candidate Heath Shuler:

"Are you a Nancy Pelosi Democrat?" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610250003)

In an earlier post, I said that it seems that our so-called news gatherers are taking on Republican talking points about Rep. Nancy Pelosi before she even has the opportunity to become Speaker of the House. They seem to be trying to undermine her before she even takes the job.

It reminds me of when Ronald Reagan was running for president in the 1980 election. He made up a story about a "welfare queen" ripping off the government (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm).

The story, of course, was a lie designed to exploit people's ignorance about welfare. But more than that, Reagan's lie conjured up the racist image of lazy fat black women in house dresses who sat around getting pregnant in between watching their "stories" and collecting welfare checks.

That image was effective.

Now, over 20 years later, we have journalists, gatekeepers if you will, taking a page from Reagan's book. What the hell are "San Francisco values" anyway?

Apparently they are supposed to mean "anything goes," which means free love, polygamy, socialism, and yes, homosexuality.

Just like Reagan used racist connotations to get elected in 1980, so-called objective journalists are using homophobic terms to smear Rep. Nancy Pelosi in 2006.

Now I don't know if Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House after November 7 and if she does, I don't know whether or not she will be effective.

But I do know what true journalism is and none of our overpaid, simple minded people smiling on camera spouting soundbites and polemic statements fit the bill.

We should expect and demand more from those who claim to tell us the facts without bias.

I have said it once, and I will say it again:

I dare anyone to tell me that this is purely coincidental.

Is Michael Reagan for real?

Are we in Mississippi circa the 1960s?

I ask that question because of a column I read today by conservative Michael Reagan entitled Conservatives don't hate gays, just agenda (http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061021/OPINION01/610210329/1014/OPINION).

Mr. Reagan is commenting in blogger Michael Rogers and his outing of in-the-closet Congressmen in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal.

Mr. Reagan's piece is the usual load of nonsense about "the gay agenda" and such but he does something I found very interesting.

These comments are from the column:

I know a lot of gays who live in California. Most of them are not supportive of gay marriage. Most gays are not supportive of the radical gay issue of punishing the Boy Scouts because they won't allow homosexuals to be scoutmasters . . .

Liberals take it as an article of faith that conservatives hate gays. That's absolutely untrue. What we don't support is the radical gay agenda. We are utterly opposed to gay marriage, homosexual scoutmasters or promoting the gay lifestyle in our schools.
And, as I said, most gays agree with me and not with Rogers on these issues.

Now I am a gay man, but I am also a black man. Therefore, I am very sensitive and extremely cognizant about several things when it comes to issues of race and the like.

The thing that strikes me about Reagan's column is how he sounds like the racists in the 1960s. You know who I am talking about. The ones who would say things like:

"Our niggras were alright until them Yankees up north and that N A A C P and the rest of them outside agitators got 'em all riled up."

It seems that the phrase "radical gay agenda" has replaced "outside agitators" but the connotation is still the same.

I wrote Mr. Reagan a letter expressing those very concerns. I don't think he will write me back. But if he does, I am anticipating that he will talk about how dare I compare the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s to today's gay rights movement. How dare I say the two are similar.

But Mr. Reagan, how can the movements not be similar when the ignorance of their opposers are pretty much the same?

Senator obviously "pinch hitting" for anti-gay industry

The Washington Blade is reporting that Senator Tom Coburn is investigating how some agencies fighting the AIDS crisis is spending money going to conferences.

His legislative assistant "conveniently" sent out an email about how "Paul Kawata, executive director of the National Minority AIDS Council, a Washington, D.C., group that organized the Florida AIDS conference, stayed in a penthouse suite at Hollywood’s Westin Diplomat Hotel that included a large screen TV, a luxury spa and a grand piano."

Now Mr. Kawata has gone on record saying that the room was free of charge "along with 25 free meeting rooms, as a “perk” for booking 950 guest rooms at the hotel, 11 months ago, for a conference that drew 3,000 attendees."

The entire article is here - http://www.washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=9300

But I have harped on the hotel room with the grand piano because I know that is the item that members of the anti-gay industry will probably harp on if and when they use what Senator Coburn is doing for their own benefit.

Senator Coburn seems to be hinting that HIV/AIDS prevention organizations are wasting taxpayer money.

But more than that, he is giving Dobson, Sheldon, and company more fodder to feed upon.

Senator Coburn has never been a friend to the gay community but he is in the hip pocket of Dobson and company. I am willing to bet that by next week, an headline in Agape Press (and press releases by various so-called "pro family" groups) will feature a spot on the hotel room with the luxury piano. What's more, the article will probably not be objective but quote some phony "pro family" activist who will whine about the money spent on HIV/AIDS prevention and education in leiu of diseases that allegedly more of a body count.

You see, this is all a game. And Senator Coburn just threw the anti-gay industry a forward pass.

A challenge to Peter LaBarbera and anyone else

Something terrible happened recently in Great Britain.

An 11-year-old child was murdered by a 14-year-old. And the story is that the murder happened because the 11-year-old refused the 14 year old’s sexual advances.

First off, it was a terrible thing to have happened and we need to pray for all parties involved.

Unfortunately our friend Peter LaBarbera is yet again salivating over the prospect of "catching a homosexual in an act of violence."

On his webpage, Peter makes sure to mention the awful tale but with the headline - Eleven-year-old stabbed 16 times after rejecting homosexual advance.

It seems to Peter that the possibility that a gay person was involved trumps the crime itself.

Which leads me to the challenge that I know he won’t take.

It’s really meant to be rhetorical and it’s a challenge to him and anyone else interested.

A couple of years ago, I ran across a flyer that said:

Don't have sex with blacks!
Avoid AIDS!

The flyer was put out by a white racist group and showed the picture of a black man who had been passing the disease AIDS to his heterosexual sexual partners.

The flyer also contained the names of two other black men who had been convicted of this crime.

The flyer went on to say "These black sexual predators lied about being HIV positive and had sex with dozens of white women . . . Don't be the next victim."

Here is the question for you, Peter.

Do you think that there is a difference between what that racist group claimed about black men and what you claim about gay men?

The art of undermining

Today's blog entry is a departure from the norm because of recent events I want to call everyone's attention to:

"If politics were fair, Democrats would be in as much trouble as Republicans. And they'd be just as vulnerable. They've been obstructionist, anti-tax-cut, soft on terrorism, and generally obnoxious. On top of that, Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America. But in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, with a GOP-run Congress, Democrats aren't the issue. Republicans are." - "journalist" Fred Barnes, Oct. 23rd edition of the Weekly Standard

"I think it's interesting, Matt, that both sides agree on the stakes. It is Iraq. It is whether we support the president's policy in Iraq or not. It is whether we want Nancy Pelosi to be the first woman speaker of the House or not. My own view is that iconic fact of that woman sitting behind the president during a State of the Union address is an enormous change in our culture. A lot of professional women and men women will say, 'Great.' A lot of the more conservative people will say, 'Wait a minute, this woman's from San Francisco, she's a liberal.'" - "journalist" Chris Matthews, The Today Show, Sept. 5th

"Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive." - "journalist" Brit Hume, Fox News, Oct. 15th

"Ordinarily, a party's leadership structure is set by the caucus in advance, and all members are expected go along with the decision. In the eight years Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, has been speaker, he's never had a protest vote cast against him. Mrs. Pelosi, whose voting record is considerably more liberal than many of her fellow Democrats, has never enjoyed that luxury. In last year's election for speaker, one Democrat opposed her for the top post. Four Democrats opposed her in 2003, with three of them simply voting "present" as a protest. Such protest votes are a sign of dissension within a party. But in the upcoming Congress -- where Democrats could hold the majority by just one or two seats -- any members who vote for someone other than Mrs. Pelosi or simply decide not to vote could trigger parliamentary mayhem. " - Pelosi no shoo-in for job as speaker, The Washington Times, Oct. 20, 2006

Does anyone see a pattern here? An echo chamber is forming.

Obviously, in getting ready for a possible change in leadership on Nov. 7, some "journalists" are undermining Rep. Nancy Pelosi's credibility to serve as U.S. of Representatives Speaker of the House before she even has the opportunity to take over the duties.

This is how Al Gore lost in 2000.

Journalists, instead of doing research, took Republican talking points against Gore (i.e Al Gore has a problem with lying because he claims to have invented the internet) and repeated them on talk shows and news commentaries, creating an echo chamber that ultimately helped Bush.

Gore's loss demonstrated just how dangerous lazy journalists are.

Now I am afraid that the same thing is happening with Pelosi.

Just who are these people who claim that Pelosi is unpopular? Do any polls verify this?

No and as proof of this, check out this link- http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005

One thing this does prove - misrepresentation is not a hallmark that belongs solely to the anti-gay industry.

Liberty Sunday: Garbage in, Garbage out

"They want to silence, and they will silence, Christians. If we don’t win this battle, the day will come when they’ll walk into your church if you say one thing wrong [or] bad about homosexuality; they’ll walk in your church and they’ll shut you up and you’ll be arrested for a hate crime. That sounds far, far removed but it’s the truth."

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "there they go again."

By now, the anti-gay industry's whinefest, or as they call it, "Liberty Sunday" is over and done. And it was the same mess they always perpetrate.

Blah, blah, blah, homosexuals are out to get us. Blah, blah, blah, it's an agenda to hurt Christians.

I don't know what's worse: the fact that they always conveniently forgetting how many of us gay folks have a deep faith in God or the fact that they are trivializing Christianity by reducing it to a Tammany Hall voting machine.

But lying on the gay community is a usual occurrence for Wildmon.

According to the website, Media Matters for America, Wildmon repeated a lie about gay income during a March 2006 radio broadcast (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603160008):

"You know, I saw yesterday how much - - how much money the homosexual community has. I mean, good gracious, the average homosexual makes four times more than I do"

Not only did Media Matters call this claim a lie, but also it had the facts to back up its claim:

"Though Wildmon did not state specifically ‘how much money the homosexual community has,’ according to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, the AFA has, for many years, based its statements on average gay incomes on a discredited 1988 survey by the Simmons Market Research Bureau, which listed the average gay income as $55,430 . . ."

Media Matters for America went on to say that the survey was discredited because it did not reflect a representative sample of the gay population. Apparently, the survey only questioned readers of popular gay-oriented magazines and those who filled out sign-up sheets for the 1993 Gay March on Washington:

"As the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals, Inc. (NOGLSTP) noted, ‘ People who buy and read newspapers and magazines tend to have more education and higher incomes. Gay events attract people who can afford to travel or pay an entry fee.’"

As a further example of this, Media Matters for America said, the NOGLSTP also demonstrated that a 1989 survey by the Simmons Bureau showed that readers of African-American-oriented magazines earned 41 to 82 percent more than average African-Americans.

Media Matters for America added this coda that shed even more light on Wildmon’s exaggeration about gay and lesbian income:

" . . . even if the Simmons survey was accurate, Wildmon’s assertion that ‘the average homosexual earns four times more than I do,’ would not be. According to the AFA’s 2004 990 filing - -the Internal Revenue Service’s return for organizations exempt from income tax – Wildmon paid himself $58,010 plus $31, 787 in benefits and a housing allowance of $39,200. He paid his son, Tim, who is president of AFA, $79,000"

We are not the problem. Obviously, Wildmon has gay on the brain.

Scalia's ignorance

In less than a month, my blog has over 1,000 hits. Now I am not completely computer literate but I think that is damned good.

It shows that you all are interested in what I have to say and for that I thank you. Now I hope you buy my book. :D

But onto today's news

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia continues to bitch about the Lawrence vs. Texas decision. In a debate with ACLU head Nadine Strossen, he said that homosexual sodomy is not in the Constitution(http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Scalia_says_abortion_homosexual_sodomy_1016.html)

No kidding.

Scalia, who dissented with the majority of the court in that decision, still continues to harp about it in terms of gay sex. Don't get me wrong, I think Scalia is a brilliant man. He has to be if he is on the Supreme Court. So why does he continue to break the Lawrence vs. Texas case down to incorrect simplicity?

Lawrence vs. Texas (and by the way, the case is covered in my upcoming book as to how the anti-gay industry creates moral panics) was not about sodomy. The case asked the question can the United States government create laws that discriminate against a group of people simply based on the "morality of the majority."

Remember, Texas's sodomy law prosecuted gays, not heterosexuals.

The court obviously said no, which it should have. People should not be discriminated against simply because of the "morality of the majority."

Of course "the right to homosexual sodomy" is not written in the Constitution. But the right to be judged equally is.

The real question is that how can someone as intelligent as Scalia be so unintelligent about something so simple?

It just goes to show that even intelligence can fall victim to bias.

"Liberty Sunday"

Well "Liberty Sunday" took place and it was as nauseating as I thought it would be. In the coming days, I intend to break down several lies and distortions that Perkins, Dobson, Wildmon and company committed yesterday.

But bear with me if I don't do it tonight. Even I need a break from the trash pits.

Liberty Sunday, the Conspiracy Theory, and the Echo Chamber

When I talked about tonight's anti-gay industry whinefest, Liberty Sunday, two posts ago, I made an error.

I said that Liberty Sunday was indicative of one anti-gay industry propaganda technique: dire consequences.

Actually, Liberty Sunday is a combination of the dire consequences technique and another technique which I outline in my upcoming book: the conspiracy theory.

From time to time, so-called "pro family" groups will claim that gays are undertaking a huge Machiavellian conspiracy to overturn American values or "force acceptance."

These groups hardly ever offer any proof of a conspiracy, but will take unrelated current events and string them together on the strings of paranoia.

The only reason why the conspiracy theory works so well for the anti-gay industry is because they have many people of faith bamboozled to believe every word that comes out of their mouths.

So-called “pro family” groups claim to speak for and to people of faith. Unfortunately many of these people of faith are not familiar with the gay community. Nor are they aware of the diverse segments that make up the gay community. In short, they view gays and lesbians as monolithic or all the same. Lastly, a great majority of them view homosexuality as a sin.

All the anti-gay industry has to do is pull up a “questionable” quote from at least one gay or lesbian leader to exploit this ignorance and they easily have these people of faith convinced that an “agenda” is afoot.

It amounts to ego stroking. The anti-gay industry are constantly complimenting people of faith in an offhand way. Statements like "our Christian values," "this country was found on Christian principles," or "we must take our country" back gives people of faith an impression that all of their opinions are righteous.

So what happens when an entity, like say the Supreme Court does not agree with this notion? Why the Supreme Court must be wrong because it disagrees with the opinion of "righteous people." Even more, the Supreme Court must be under the "thrall of activist judges."

When you have a group of people in your hip pocket, you can manipulate them in all sorts of ways, even creating an echo chamber.

Or check this out:

the Supreme Court rules for against a law they favor. Agape Press, owned by the American Family Association, prints an article biased, of course, against the ruling, and quoting so-called “pro family” leaders such as Gary Bauer who claim that the ruling is a travesty on the country. Other talking heads such as Robert Knight and Pete LaBarbera write columns falsely claiming that the Supreme Court ruled against them because of alleged biases of the justices. These columns are filtered to other right-wing publications and web pages.

James Dobson (Focus on the Family) criticizes the ruling on his radio program, as does Tony Perkins (Family Research Council). Other articles are written trying to prove how the ruling will hurt America. More articles are written digging up speeches that the judges made, hinting on flimsy correlations between their ruling and so-called personal biases. The think tanks emanating from these groups write books smearing the reputations of the judges. The phrase “activist judges” is used over and over again in columns, articles, and books.

The Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council, and other so-called “pro family” groups solicit donations making the claim that either the ruling will doom Christians and will lead to homosexuality being taught “as normal” to children or it will lead to criticizing homosexuality as a hate crime. They get people of faith who are gullible enough to believe their lies to write letters in to Congress and their local newspapers (using a script of their talking points.) Andrea Lafferty (Traditional Values Coalition) and others lobby the Congressional halls citing data from the books and columns, even if the data may be distorted and misinterpreted (which it often is).

There are backdoor meetings with and threats from people such as Dobson and Lou Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition) to President Bush and members of Congress. President Bush and members of Congress use the “activist judges” quote in speeches and on the floor of Congress. So-called news programs (Fox News) begin debating whether or not judges have a bias against people of faith.

Right-wing bloggers and columnists begin writing about “activist judges.” Meetings are coordinated across the nation complaining about “activist judges.” Bills are proposed to “limit judicial tyranny.” Events such as Justice Sunday or Liberty Sunday fill the airwaves, scaring people of faith about a supposed plot to take away their liberties and their ability to worship.

Through it all, no one has offered up any credible proof as to the suspected bias of the judges. The echo chamber that the anti-gay industry create replaces truth; utilizing the very same power they claim that the gay community have.

And the people who assist most the creation and progression of this echo chamber are naive people faith, totally convinced that the anti-gay industry is trying to protect their interests and their very lives.

Lying is so simple yet so complicated.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Agape Press

It's been wild in South Carolina. Apparently we face an anti-marriage equality amendment on our ballot. Subsequently, my community have been mobilizing like never before.

This is good for a number of reasons. The main reason being that many have written off this state. Everyone seems to be talking about how anti-marriage equality amendments may be defeated or blunted in Wisconsin or Colorado, but have taken for granted the gay community in South Carolina.

We are putting up a rip-snorting (yeah I said rip-snorting) fight. Trust me, if we go down in this state, it will be with both barrels loaded.

But I did have time to point out a very interesting contradiction of terms as to how the anti-gay industry looks at us:

In the article, Sexualized Culture Blamed for Teacher-Student Sex Epidemic (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/302006d.asp), Agape Press thinks that it is terrible that there is a trend with female teachers having sex with their male students.

In this respect, I agree with the publication. But rather than attacking the teachers per se, the Agape Press article seems to be blaming the "culture" for the problem:

"Kupelian is convinced there are several primary factors fueling the epidemic of teacher-student sex. For one, he says, American culture is very sexualized.

'Our popular culture is swimming in it, TV and movies are filled with it, and with the Internet, more young people have seen hard-core sexual images than at any time in history," he exclaims. "That's one major factor. But there's another huge factor, which I think is even more devastating, and that is that many Americans just have no understanding of right and wrong anymore.'

Kupelian, author of the book The Marketing of Evil, says the epidemic can also be traced to a lack of parental involvement in children's education."

Interesting.

Now check out this article, Ex-Homosexual Ministry Leader: 'My Heart Breaks for Mark Foley' (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/52006e.asp) :

"Stephen Bennett, a former homosexual and founder of Stephen Bennett Ministries (SBM), says his ministry often deals with homosexuals who were abused as youngsters. In fact, he says there is a definite correlation between molestation and homosexuality. "

Stephen Bennett, by the way, is not an expert. He is another phony spokesperson propped up by anti-gay industry money.

So when a female teacher molests a male child, it's the "culture" but when a male molests a boy or teenager, it's because he is a "dirty homosexual?"

Oh yeah, tell me again how objective and Christian you are, Agape Press.

Liberty Sunday Sham!

The anti-gay industry is having a huge simulcast event this Sunday entitled Liberty Sunday. To put it in the words of Family Research Council head Tony Perkins, the event is taking place because:

"The expansion of non-discrimination laws to include homosexuality inevitably constricts our right to express and act on our religious beliefs. Recently, there has been a string of incidents involving government intolerance against those who live out their faith in the public square. "

In other words, Mr. Perkins is saying, "yes we believe that gays should be denied jobs, housing, etc because of their orientation. Our religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin should supersede any rights that gays have as U.S. citizens. In addition, we are going to either manipulate current events or make up stories about gays are keeping Christians from expressing their beliefs."

Indeed on the Liberty Sunday webpage, people are encouraged to write in and tell stories of how they have been discriminated against. These stories, unsubstantiated of course, will no doubt be peddled in future mailings of anti-gay industry groups or on news programs by their spokespeople.

This is yet another tactic of the anti-gay industry: Dire Consequences.

One of the most effective tactics of the anti-gay industry is to claim that pro-gay laws will lead to "dire consequences." They say that laws created to protect gays would either a: cause homosexuality to be “forced” on everyone, particularly children or b: cause those who supposedly speak out against homosexuality to be jailed. Possible coercion by an “aggressive homosexual lobby” is a constant theme in anti-gay industry data.

The “dire consequences” argument is an old fear tactic that was used in other battles. Just as white racists claimed that any elimination of Jim Crow laws would lead to mixed couples and “mongrelization,” the anti-gay industry claim that any law or ordinance that protect gays and lesbians from discrimination or give them any form of visibility is a capitulation that would lead America down a pathway to destruction.

In April 2005, several hundred people gathered together at the state house in Maine. Michael Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, called what was going on “an hour of deep crisis.” Several individuals, Heath included, talked about how they were angry at the legislature and how marriage is a sacred institution.

Heath even said, “Gone forever will be the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman for life. Marriage will have been destroyed, the family as we know it will disappear, and the long-desired goal of social disintegration will be complete.”

So what exactly were these people angry about?

Believe it or not, they were angry at a bill that had nothing whatsoever to do with same sex marriage. The bill, which was signed by Governor John Baldacci, prohibited discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and other areas based on sexual orientation. Nothing in the bill addressed same sex marriage.

Heath and his supporters attached same sex marriage to the argument because they were seeking to overturn the bill via a referendum. However, none of them said how the prohibition of housing, credit, or job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation could lead to same sex marriage.

Robert Knight from the Concerned Women for American attended the same rally. He claimed the following:

“If the gay activists succeed at everything they do, you will see the criminalization of Christianity.”- Politics, religion simmer at anti-gay rights rally, Bangor Daily News, April 29, 2005

By threatening that the anti-discrimination bill would lead to gay marriage, the Christian Civic League was able to get enough signatures to force a repeal referendum.

Luckily Maine’s voters did not fall for this subterfuge. By a large majority, they voted to turn back the referendum.

Liberty Sunday is what the anti-gay industry tried to do in Maine on a larger scale.

I noticed that one of the speakers of this simulcast will be David Parker. Last year in Massachusetts, Parker was arrested at his son's elementary school for not leaving a school meeting. He was angry that his son brought home a book that talked about same sex households.

Parker tried to claim that any conversation about same sex households constituted a talk about sexual behavior and pressed that his son be opted out of such discussions, even if they happened by chance.

No doubt he will talk about how he was handcuffed and put in jail merely for being a concerned parent.

I go into detail about Parker in my upcoming book. I won't give away much of what I dicovered, but I will say this: Parker's claim is a lie. Not only did he intentionally get arrested but a year later, he falsely claimed that his child was beaten up because of his stand against the school. When it was discovered that this was not the the case, neither Parker nor the so-called "pro family" groups apologized for the press releases they sent out.

The entire story is here (http://www.lexingtoncares.org/ChildsAltercationUnrelated.html)

I hope Parker recounts the lie of his son getting beaten up because if he does, then I know what my post will be on Monday.

Paul Cameron, the Traditional Values Coalition, a little game that I like to call "Time Line" (revised and revisited)

I see our friend Lou Sheldon is frothing at the mouth again about gay people and pedophilia:

"Homosexual activists from the Log Cabin Republicans and other liberal radicals are making the TV talk show rounds claiming that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is a half-truth designed to confuse the viewer into thinking that adult homosexuals have no interest in boys." - (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2883)

In honor of Mr. Sheldon's "mission" to stamp out "homosexual pedophilia," I would like to reprint a time line I wrote a month ago about him, Paul Cameron and truth. Revisions have been made to correspond with recent dates:


July 31, 2005

"(Paul) Cameron's work is controversial even among conservative groups. For example, the Traditional Values Coalition claims to speak for 43,000 churches. For three years, the coalition has quoted Cameron's studies on its website in an article headlined, ''Report Shows Homosexual Foster Parents Apt To Molest Children," and has told its membership to 'read and distribute Dr. Cameron's report.'

But when The Boston Globe asked the Traditional Values Coalition last week about Cameron, the group responded within minutes by removing all references to Cameron from its website. The group's spokeswoman, Daniella Lopez, said Cameron's research had been ''mistakenly' put on the website." - Beliefs Drive Research Agenda of Think Tanks, The Boston Globe


March 31, 2006

I order a copy of Traditional Values Coalition head Lou Sheldon's The Agenda. One of the passages from The Agenda is as follows:

"In 1993 and 1994, Dr. Paul Cameron conducted an important study of the mortality rates of homosexuals . . . what he found ws that the median age of death was the late thirties for those who acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). For those who had not developed AIDS, the median age of death was only slightly longer, in their early forties."

Sheldon refers to Cameron's work several times in The Agenda.


October 11, 2006

While The Agenda was published before the Boston Globe interview, neither Sheldon nor his organization has made any type of public comment regarding the usage of Cameron's work in The Agenda. Nor is it known whether or not the Traditional Values Coalition issued any type of recall of The Agenda.


October 11, 2006

The report, Exposed: Homosexual Child Molesters, remains on the Traditional Values Coalition webpage. The report contains these two passages:

“Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexual.”

“In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from 1-2 percent of the population.”

This study can be found here - http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

Now check out these two passages from Paul Cameron's study, Child Molestation and Homosexuality (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html):

“Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases they had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles"

“In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin, associate professor of psychology at Whitman College, conducted a 10 state survey and found 199 sexual abuse cases involving teachers. 122 male teachers had abused female pupils and 14 female teachers had abused male students. In 59 cases, however, male teachers had abused male pupils and in 4 cases, female teachers had abused female students (overall 32% were homosexual).”


What do you think of a man who will castigate gays for being immoral and sick but does not relying on information (which his own organization admits to not being credible) in order to prove his opinions about gays?

Can you say hypocrite, boys and girls?

Who Dawn Stefanowicz? A headless monster in the making

On her webpage (http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/aboutdawn.php), Dawn Stefanowicz says the following:

Dawn has been married for 22 years and was raised in a homosexual household. She acknowledges that children are impacted and influenced long-term by various family structures and living arrangements. Dawn addresses the impact of legislation affecting children. These center around the areas of marriage, adoption, sexuality, and education. She has testified in Boston, Massachusetts, in Tallahassee, Florida, to the Washington Supreme Court Justices, and to The Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in Ottawa. Dawn speaks to a wide range of groups and wrote the article 'Same-Sex Marriage: Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered?' Her media experiences include television, radio and print. Her book, Out from Under: Getting Clear of the Wreckage of a Sexually Disordered Home, will be published in 2007.

It sounds terrible, don't it? A person who was raised in a gay home telling how it negatively impacted her life.

I don't know whether or not Ms. Stefanowicz is telling the truth. If she is, then my heart goes out to her.

But I can't help but be suspicious about her and her motives.

For one thing, she did not come virtually from nowhere.

In this article in Agape Press (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/152005c.asp), she recounts her tale, but using the verbage the anti-gay industry uses against us:

"According to Stefanowicz, the liberal media in Canada has done a 'very poor job' of presenting evidence on the influence the homosexual lifestyle has on children. 'Scientific data and negative personal experiences related to this issue that are obviously relevant -- they're ignored, they're not discussed,' she says."

And what studies are these? I noticed that on her personal webpage, she recounts her life. It is pretty much the same story she repeated in the August 2005 American Family Association Journal (http://www.afajournal.org/2005/august/805Stefanowicz.asp).

But there is one difference.

Her American Family Association story contains endnotes and references to studies and columns by various so-called "pro family" groups and spokespeople including Family Research Council's Timothy Dailey (debunked on this and other sites), Stephen Bennett, and our friend Paul Cameron.

The version of her personal story present on her webpage have the endnotes and references conveniently omitted.

I don't know if Ms. Stefanowicz is telling the truth about her life. But I do know that she is obviously tailoring her personal story to suit pretty much every stereotype, talking point, and lie the anti-gay industry spreads about us.

You know what? That kinda makes me mad.

I am sorry if Ms. Stefanowicz had a bad life but if what she claims is true, it was her father's fault, not the gay community. There are many homes in which there are gay parents and the children are not suffering because of it. For that matter, there are many homes with heterosexual parents and the children are being abused. This is not meant to be an indictment on heterosexual homes. I am just making a point.

And my anger is not just for myself. I have a good friend who took it upon himself to take in two young boys who had no sense of family. Hopefully he will be able to adopt those two boys and the other three children he took in.

He is a good man from a large loving family. He has a good head on his shoulders and is currently trying to start his own business. He also happens to be gay.

Because of this woman's possible need to blame someone else for her bad life, he may have problems giving those children a good home. Ms. Stefanowicz's story (probably omitting the endnotes and references) will probably be spread throughout every anti-gay industry webpage. She will probably be able to appear on Fox News, the 700 Club, and various other places peddling her story unchallenged.

A female Paul Cameron if you will.

Meanwhile my friend and countless other gays and lesbians who are raising children to be upstanding citizens will have more stigma thrown their way.

That is the real tragedy.

Headless Monsters just don't stop

One day, I am going to sit down and compile a list of the top headless monsters (i.e. myths) that the anti-gay industry puts out about us.

A perfect case in point is how they have attemtped to connect pedophilia with homosexuality due to the Mark Foley controversy.

Apparently Family Research Council head Tony Perkins just can't leave well enough alone. He has come out with The Politically Incorrect Truth, a piece that supposedly proves the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality.

Rather than link to that lying piece of propaganda, I think it would be better to link to Jim Burroway's excellent smackdown of Perkins's lies via Box Turtle Bulletin (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/)

However, now that Perkins has put out his lie, it will now be repeated ad nauseum via sources where it cannot be refuted i.e Agape Press. I expect to see The Politically Incorrect Truth showcased on many so-called "pro family" webpage unchallenged.

And it will be until it is refuted. Then Perkins and company will dig up and distort another study that they can pervert for their own purposes.

It is happening already. Another wanna be pastor, S. Michael Craven, repeats Perkins's lies almost verbatim on Crosswalk - a so-called "pro family" webpage (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mCraven/?adate=10/09/2006)

I sent Mr. Craven a nice letter detailing how his column has distortions, but he probably won't answer me back.

As long as people like Perkins can repeat lies in places where they can go unchallenged, guillible Christians like Mr. Craven will believe them.

The Anti-Gay Industry and Sexual Health

I promised an excerpt from my upcoming book and though some wrote asking about Paul Cameron and exact deception techniques of the anti-gay industry, I decided to focus on something not entirely talked about: how their attempts to connect being gay with bad sexual health actually hinders the community from receiving good medical care:

The use of the term "gay bowel syndrome" is just one of the many ways the anti-gay industry attempts to push the notion that gays on the whole are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and are therefore more susceptible to diseases. In his first sentence of the same study, (Glenn T.) Stanton makes the statement:

"HIV is the most notable infection associated with homosexual sex and other promiscuous behaviors . . ."

On the Focus on the Family website is the following question:

"Is AIDS God’s punishment on gays, lesbians, and other promiscuous people?"

Even the Traditional Values Coalition gets into the act:

"Contrary to what groups like ACT UP would have us believe, it is not "silence" about AIDS that spreads the disease or other homosexual- related STDs. It is homosexual behavior that spreads HIV infection and death. Health officials have stated that an estimated 20,000 people between the ages of 13 and 24 are infected with HIV each year in the U.S."

These statements are deliberate distortions. There are no legitimate studies that say homosexual sex is in itself a promiscuous behavior.

Also, HIV is associated with "unsafe sexual behavior," be it homosexual or heterosexual intercourse. It is an especial distortion the way TVC phrases the sentence about "homosexual behavior" before the sentence, "Health officials have stated that an estimated 20,000 people between the ages of 13 and 24 are infected with HIV each year in the U.S."

The organization makes it sound as if unprotected sex between gays is responsible for each and every one of these new infections. It conveniently forgets the heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, and intravenously drug users who are infected by HIV.

In a general sense, sex has a very dual effect on Americans. It is the veritable hornet’s nest at the top of the tree and Americans are the children with the stick constantly prodding it in order to see what happens next. As with the actual case of the child prodding the hornet’s nest, when activity builds, Americans run for cover.

The anti-gay industry exploits this dual effect by using the supposed promiscuity of the gay community like a sort of Joseph McCarthy list, changing the numbers to suit whatever audience they are talking to:

"One study determined that homosexual males have from between 20 to 106 sexual partners per year. It’s no wonder that homosexual men account for over 50% of all hepatitis cases, and still account for over 50% of all AIDS cases despite the fact that they only make up 1-3% of the population." - The Gay Agenda vs. Family Values - Matt J. Barber

"Fidelity is almost unheard of in homosexual relationships; the average number of partners for each person is eight. These relationships are not open -- they are wide open. A homosexual publication, The Advocate, reports that 57 percent of its homosexual readers claimed they had sexual relations with 30 or more partners. Twenty-nine percent of their readers had anonymous bathhouse sex. A 1991 study of homosexual men in New York revealed an average of 308 sexual partners per man." - Supremes Ruled Wisely: Arizona Can’t Afford Same Sex Marriage - The Arizona Conservative

An article in USA Today in November 1984 reported that homosexuals have an average of 50 different sexual partners each year. - Offering Hope to Homosexuals -http://www.firststone.org/articles/topics/homosexuality/offering_hope_to_homosexuals.htm

"Homosexual activists claim their lifestyle, which in some cases includes thousands of sexual partners, should be sanctioned, protected, and granted special rights by society. Would you critique this stance?"- a "loaded" question on the Focus on the Family web page

"Studies in Sexual Preference (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3% of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2% could be classified as either monogamous or semi - monogamous." - The Catholic Family Association of America - http://www.cathfam.org/Hitems/HMonogamy.html

"A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners." - Timothy Dailey - The Negative Effects of Homosexuality

How the anti-gay industry perverts statistics can act as a stumbling block to the gay community receiving adequate health care.

In the case of STDs, some in the anti-gay industry would blame the "culture" for any outbreak in the heterosexual community. However, in the case of gays and lesbians, they are quick to blame the identity of being gay rather than the sexual behavior of individual gay people or how societal rejection contributes to the sexual behavior of individual gay people.

According to the article Health Care Screening for Men Who Have Sex with Men, gay men can be at a high risk for preventable diseases. The article also said that gay males do not receive appropriate medical information for a number of reasons, including

the patient being fearful to come out to his or her doctor,

the personal discomfort the doctor may feel about having a gay or lesbian patient,

possible open hostility of the doctor to having a gay or lesbian patient, and

concern that the patient’s employer may learn his or her orientation and terminate their employment.

Furthermore, the article also said that younger men are possibly at a higher risk for diseases but due to low self-esteem, depression, or lack of peer support.

Now in the hands of an objective medical practitioner, this information would be geared to providing solutions to these problems.

In the hands of so-called "pro family" groups, the sole purpose of this information would be demeaning the gay community. No matter how it is presented, the connotation would be "look at those filthy, nasty homosexuals."

Consider these facts:

More than half of all people will get an STD at some point in their lives

The estimated total number of people living in the US with a viral STD is over 65 million.

Every year, there are approximately 15 million new cases of STDs, some of which are curable.

One in two sexually active persons will contact an STD by age 25

When the anti-gay industry throws the possibility of catching diseases in the mix, they are not only exploiting America’s unfamiliarity with homosexuality, but also its uncomfortability with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The truth of the matter is that many people do not know about sexually transmitted diseases and they will not take it upon themselves to get informed about them.

In almost every study, talking point, research paper, or anything the anti-gay industry puts out regarding the gay community is the notion that gays are increasingly promiscuous. These studies continue to say that gays are susceptible to all sorts of diseases.

Bear in mind that a large number of these studies consists of small sample studies (like studies of gays with HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases or a small number of gays in a city).

And members of the anti-gay industry will omit any part of a study that say outside factors (i.e. rejection because of orientation) make it difficult for members of the gay community to sexually mature.

Then Robert Knight, Timothy Dailey, James Dobson, etc. claim that creating situations that are gay friendly (i.e. same sex marriage, passage of anti-discrimination laws) will put people, particularly children, at risk for "HIV, hepatitis A,B, and C, "gay bowel syndrome," human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea, and other sexual transmitted diseases . . ."

There is no logic in this line of reasoning; only fear tactics.

The power of aggressive voices

Tomorrow, i will put out an excerpt from my book. Today, however, I want to speak about something that bothers me and yes it's another dynamic of the Mark Foley controversy.

I got a transcript via email today detailing an appearance of conservative commentator Pat Buchanan on MSNBC'S Scarborough Country (I think I know the person who sent me the email but I am not sure because he only sent me his email address, which I won't publicize without his permission:

"Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Rodham Clinton, marched in gay pride parades in New York, in which I believe that NAMBLA floats were moved right along.. and these are child predators who are arguing for getting rid of laws between men and boys they’re marching with that, that will go into..."

Buchanan also accused U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of marching with NAMBLA.

On the Media Matters webpage, I picked up this transcript interview with religious conservative leader Paul Weyrich:

NORRIS: Now before we go on, I think I can say, Mr. Weyrich, that there are quite a few people who would take exception to the statement that homosexuals are preoccupied with sex.

WEYRICH: Well, I don't care whether they take exception to it. It happens to be true. I mean --

NORRIS: That is your opinion.

WEYRICH: Well, it's not my opinion. It's the opinion of many psychologists and psychiatrists who have to deal with them.

It has been documented on this blog that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have spoken untrue comments about gays and pedophilia.

What we are seeing here is an anti-gay industry propaganda technique that is crucial to the survival of their lies: repetition.

It does not matter how many times how these lies about our community has been debunked. If they are constantly repeated unchallenged, then they have life.

And that is the crucial component that is present in all of the examples I have just listed; the fact that these lies went virtually unchallenged.

Where in the hell were the aggressive gay spokespeople willing to stop the program and say something to the effect of "hold it! give me examples! Give me proof of your charges."

Someone needed to demand proof from Weyrich, Buchanan and company and give them hell when they would not be able to provide it. We see that the so-called objective news media are not doing this. I am personally disappointed (and really not surprised in the case of Joe Scarborough) at members of the media who did not do their damn jobs and let these charges go unchallenged.

You gotta do more than look pretty and speak perfect diction boys and girls. Where is the hell is your integrity?

It does not matter how many times we bloggers go after Perkins, Buchanan and company because if they are able to appear on programs like Scarborough Company, like the O'Reilly Factor basically by themselves and are able to list a tissue of lies without the courtesy of correction, we are going to have problems.

We need to demand more of a gay presence on these news programs. And lastly, we need to demand that those who speak for us know what the difference between speaking politely and not taking any shit.

A request from me

I am all Foleyed out so until there is something pressing (i.e. another headless monster from the anti-gay industry), I am going to give the situation a rest for a while

But I do have a request and I am going out on a limb on this one.

As you all know, this site is to preview and publicize my upcoming book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. My book is the culmination of a two year odyssey into the so-called research of the anti-gay industry.

It also sprung from my incomplete series of reports that is present on Joe Brummer's site (i.e. The Six Roads of Deception).

Saturday, I am going to put out another excerpt of my book. My question is to you all: What would you like this excerpt to focus on?

My book is 11 chapters and focuses on Paul Cameron, the six propaganda techniques of the anti-gay industry, as well as how their lies hurt the sexual health of the gay community.

I am going out on a limb because this would require some of u to write in and respond. I hope someone does. LOL

Let me know what you think.

Well its about time! Mark Foley controversy part three

One good thing about this entire situation regarding former Congressman Mark Foley is how quickly we are defending ourselves against the claim that we gays are inclined to molest children.

The rhetoric from the anti-gay industry and their supporters is heating up:

" . . . studies show that homosexuals are disproportionately prone to pedophilia. The fact that Foley had contacted a male page for his photograph should have set warning bells ringing across Capitol Hill." - Ben Shapiro (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17367)

"Homosexuals reproduce sexually by molesting children. This creates a cycle of violence and disordered behavior that creates future generations of abusers and predators." - Jason Jones(http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/973281157.html)

And now Stephen Bennett has gotten in the act, offering his "expert" opinion on the so-called gay community. (http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/54318113.html)

For the record, Bennett is no expert in anything involving the gay community. He is just yet another "ex-gay for pay" that the anti-gay industry employs to make life harder for those of us who are content with our orientation.

But we have vigourous defenders who have gone on record disputing the notion that homosexuality and pedophilia is somehow connected.

Media Matters gave a sweet smackdown to Family Research Council head Tony Perkins (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610040014)

And now John Walsh of America's Most Wanted have come out in favor of the truth in this issue (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/04/walsh-foley/)

I feel safe in saying that very few are buying into the nonsense that Perkins, Shapiro and the rest are putting out. But that does not mean that they should be ignored. I am just willing to bet that when this blows over, we will have to deal with the controversy again. It may be a letter to the editor by supporters of the anti-gay industry or even a fundraising appeal, but we will have to deal with the Mark Foley situation again.

How we stand against the propaganda thrown against our community at this time will have definite repercussions in the future.

So that in mind, please inform yourselves and above all support sites like Ex-Gay Watch, Box Turtle Bulletin, Joe Brummer, and my humble self. Support us with monetary donations or hits.

And above all, educate yourselves so when people come at you with their lies, you can protect yourself both verbally and spiritually.

Mark Foley Part Deux: Headless Monster alert!!

As unbelievable as it seems, members of the anti-gay industry and others are determined to make the Mark Foley controversy into a case of "gays gone amok."

Yesterday, I talked about how our friend Peter LaBarbera (and former game show host Ben Stein) was trying to connect Foley’s misdeeds to the false claim that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected.

Today, wannabe moralists Gary Bauer and Linda Harvey weighed in on the controversy. It is incredible what comes out of the mouths of these supposedly Christian people. Harvey’s comments are especially vindictive:

"Apparently, Rep. Mark Foley is homosexual. And like many homosexual men, he likes young teen boys."

Luckily, my fellow blogging colleagues (i.e. Joe Brummer, Jim Burroway and Box Turtle Bulletin, and the folks at Ex-Gay Watch - all linked below) aren’t wasting this opportunity to showcase anti-gay bigotry at its finest.

But I want a little bit of this smackdown, so allow me to add my bit.

Earlier today, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council had this to say about the Foley controversy in the piece, Pro-Homosexual Political Correctness Sowed Seeds for Foley Scandal:

"While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3% of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys--and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual."

It has been refuted time and time again (in fact several times on this blog) that a man molesting molesting a boy does not necessarily make the man gay. In many studies, the man has been identified as heterosexual.

But apparently members of the anti-gay industry seem to think if they ignore the truth, it will go away.

What I want to know is what study is Perkins referring to that allegedly showed 86 percent of child molesters are gay.

In short, I am calling Tony Perkins a damned liar.

Perkins, LaBarbera, Harvey and Bauer continue to push their headless monsters and I fully support them doing such because now, there is a group of us who are going to challenge their lies at every turn.


Book update

I have received many emails asking about the status of my book. It is still scheduled to be published next year. To tell the truth, I was tired looking at the damned thing until a friend in Los Angeles volunteered to give it a look over. Fresh eyes were exactly what I needed in order to continue the work. My friend brought many new ideas to the table and I intend to use them.

Also, I have to add information about the Foley controversy because, as seen by my example of Perkins above, the anti-gay industry are shooting themselves in the foot and I want to record every gasp of pain.

Lastly, for anyone who is interested, I do intend to post another small excerpt this weekend.

Mad props to Box Turtle Bulletin

First of all, I want to give a huge shout out to Jim Burroway and Box Turtle Bulletin (linked below) for their excellent parody, The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.htm)

I invite everyone to download the piece and especially pay attention to the final part. It breaks down how exactly the anti-gay industry has been lying on us for the past decade.

Ben Stein is a big fat homophobe (my apologies to Al Franken)

It was bound to happen.

Members of the anti-gay industry and others are now attempting sneak in a condemnation of homosexuality into the Mark Foley controversy.

For the record, Foley’s misconduct is a case of a grown man taking advantage of a child and sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

Not that it would do any good, but I wish someone would mention that little fact to our friend Peter LaBarbera. He is practically salivating for the chance to use the Foley controversy as another chance to demonize the gay community.

I wrote LaBarbera a letter calling attention to his hypocrisy, although I know he won’t answer it.

For him, a chance to attack the gay community is like manna from heaven.

However, I am very disappointed in who else has joined in. Former game show host and Nixon apologist Ben Stein has gotten into the act with his column, Hypocrisy, Democrat Style (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10434), in which he says:

"I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys."

Please bear in mind that not only Stein does not give any proof of this but he also claims:

"I have many gay friends and they are great people."

Even when they are molesting children, Ben? I didn’t know you were so solicitous to pedophiles.

When I read Stein’s column, I can understand why some gay leaders have been silent about going on record regarding Mark Foley.

When Polly Klaas, Samantha Runion, or any other young girl was abducted, sexually abused, and murdered, no one said that the crimes committed against them were indicative of the nature of the heterosexual male.

But when that innocent young boy Jesse Dirkhising was sexually abused and murdered in 1999, LaBarbera and others like him attempted to crucify the entire gay community for the crime, instead of the young men involved.

Now it seems that Stein is in on the act.

For the record, there is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all attest to this fact.

Stein’s column adds up to homophobia, pure and simple. It is one thing to think that homosexuality is a sin but to use that belief to make the claim that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected is just wrong.

A wise man once said, "a racist is a man who eats with black people, knows black people, have black friends, but sees a black man taken away in handcuffs and swears that the criminal is indicative of the entire race."

Stein proves that this adage is also true about homophobes.

Hate crime or another lie?

Apparently a family in Colorado has been the victim of a hate crime. Allegedly, someone has been tampering and burning down signs they have been putting up in their yard.

These are not pro-gay signs so naturally the family is claiming that a "gay activist" is behind the crimes.

Focus on the Family is also making this claim as seen by the headline of their press release detailing the events in question - Gay Activist Starts Fire in Colorado Family's Front Yard (http://family.org/cforum/news/a0042120.cfm)

There are several questions that come up about the incident. The webpage http://www.goodasyou.org/ goes into detail about the questions, so I will just paraphrase.

For one thing - the family claims that a video camera clearly shows the face of the person committing the crime but there are no arrests.

For another thing, the article makes no mention of a police investigation.

Thirdly, as far as I have seen, no other news source has reported the crime.

Now if anyone having to do with gay activism is guilty of this crime, then they should prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no excuse for arson and damaging someone's property.

However, if it turns out that this is not the case, then it would be no surprise to me. On more than one occasion, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, etc. have distorted a current event to add fire to their claims about a so-called gay conspiracy.

This is clearly demonstrated by the tone of the article, which seems to milk the "gay want tolerance but can't show tolerance" angle that the anti-gay industry plays like a broken record.

The sad thing about the Colorado incident, no matter the outcome, is that the anti-gay industry will most likely use it in press releases and in front of legislative bodies as proof that we in the gay community do not deserve equal protection under the law.