Parents urged to circumvent the law? How Un-Christian

Gay/Straight support clubs and anything else that looks at homosexuality in a supportive manner in America's schools is a major sticking point for the anti-gay industry.

However there is not that much they can do about it, particularly about gay/straight support clubs. According to the Federal Equal Access Act, students can form any club they want as long as:

Attendance is voluntary,
The group is student-initiated,
The group is not sponsored by the school itself, by teachers, by other school employees, or by the government, and
The group is not disruptive. i.e. it "does not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school.

No matter what they do, say, or claim, the anti-gay industry has been on the losing end in a vast majority of cases when they try to attack students' right to form a gay/straight support group.

That doesn't mean that they won't stop trying to circumvent this law. Case in point, a recent article in Agape Press - Fighting Back -- Pro-Family Groups Find Ways to Combat Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools.

The article is pretty much up front in encouraging parents to think of ways to make it difficult for students to form gay/straight support clubs, including pushing for parental permission slips and encouraging students to form "ex-gay" clubs in hopes of undermining the purpose of the gay/straight alliances.

The hypocrisy of forming "ex-gay" clubs as a way of undermining gay/straight alliances is best served in reading the following article that appeared in a November 16th issue of Agape Press - PFOX Official: Homosexual Activists Want to Censor Ex-'Gay' Message.

The most egregious thing that comes out of this week's article is the following:

Linda Harvey, founder of the Ohio-based pro-family group Mission America, has developed one common-sense tool. Harvey's "Risk Audit Project" is a comprehensive survey which measures the promotion of homosexuality in a given public school district. (The survey can be downloaded for free at the organization's website.)

The Risk Audit Project measures the extent to which public school districts are collaborating with homosexual activists by determining, among other things, whether schools have adopted pro-homosexual policies or curricula, and whether the school district is sponsoring pro-homosexual clubs, events, or activities.

Common sense tool? Bull!

First of all, Linda Harvey is not any type of expert on the gay community. Her web page clearly states that she is a former "ad executive." Harvey is like so many other phony religious right experts, hiding her prejudice behind a Jane Wyatt cum Barbara Billingsley fascade. She, like so many of them, appeal to Christians' egos and fears with lies and stereotypes backed by junk science.

For example, her claim about gays and children:

“When people have views supporting homosexuality they should not be involved with youth in any way, period. Because they:
will provide inaccurate, misleading information to kids;
may limit a student’s opportunity to hear warnings about the behavior;
may advocate or model inappropriate behavior;
may be directly involved in the molestation of kids themselves; or
may be in a position to allow others to do so” - Fairy Tales Don’t Come True, February 13, 2006

Her "Risk Audit Plan," which can be viewed here is more of the same lies.
In the section called Why Homosexual Activism in Schools Endanger Students, the organizations list
several reasons why they think homosexuality is a danger including:

"(homosexuality) reduces life expectancy at age twenty by at least 8 to 20 years; increases by at least 500% the risk of contracting AIDS; increases the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease by nearly 900%; increases by 4,000% the risk of developing anal cancer; substantially increases the likelihood of smoking, having mental health disorders (other than same-sex attraction), being the victim of “domestic” violence, and being involved in alcohol and drug abuse; substantially increases the likelihood of contracting hepatitis and other gastrointestinal infections; substantially increases the risk of contracting bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer; and has high levels of participation in sadomasochism, coprophilia, sadomasochism, fisting, and other dangerous, deviant sex practices involves extraordinarily high levels of promiscuity.”

Those are Paul Cameron claims, but she does not list him as a source. She lists The Negative Effects of Homosexuality by Timothy Dailey and The Health Risks of Gay Sex by John R. Diggs as her sources.

But these two studies have a multitude of problems, which I cover in my book, including:

The Negative Effects of Gay Sex:

It lists Paul Cameron as a source

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 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) was distorting their work.

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.

He 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.

He 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.

The Negative Effects of Homosexuality:

It also lists Paul Cameron as a source

Timothy Dailey use a 1985 survey of lesbians at a Michigan music festival to claim that lesbians have a high rate of domestic violence. However, according to the reviewer of the study, Suzana Rose, Ph.D., of the 1099 lesbians participants, most were white and between the ages of 20-45.
She also said:
“Questions concerning perpetrating abuse need to distinguish between actions taken in
self-defense and actions initiated by the aggressor. This point was not assessed here. Findings are limited by the selective recruiting of participants.”

Dailey also uses the Weinberg and Bell book to claim that all gay men are promiscuous despite the fact that both authors said their work was not indicative of all gay men.

Dailey uses the term “gay bowel syndrome," even though the term does not exist.

Dailey cites a study that says young gay men are in danger of catching disease at a high rate. He omits the part of the study that said they need places to build their self esteem as homosexuals.

In addition, he performs mathematical manipulation on percentages gauged in legitimate studies in order to push forth a higher percentage of gay men catching diseases.

He generalizes convenience sample studies as indicative of the gay population at large.

Harvey and the groups who endorsed this latter day Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, etc.) actually want parents to use it in order to make it more difficult for gay and heterosexual students to support each other. Harvey needs to realize that believing that homosexuality is a sin does not entitle her to be an expert on the gay community. Furthermore, exploiting people's fears and stereotypes through junk science is highly un-Christian.

Lastly, inviting people to circumvent federal law through lies, innuendo, and chicanery is not only un-Christian, it is also unethical and immoral.

I may not know what Jesus would do, but I know that he would not do what the anti-gay industry is advising parents to do.