Forced Vacation from Culture War
Hopefully you all will forgive me if I take a very small sabbatical from posting.
Yesterday, my apartment building caught on fire. No one was hurt but the building was rendered unlivable.
Luckily, my apartment suffered only water and smoke damage. And also, my notes for my book were not damaged at all.
But subsequently, my mother and I are held up in a hotel room while we are searching for another place to live. We have until Friday before we have to move out.
So as much as I would love to talk about Peter LaBarbera and the anti-gay industry (my post yesterday was going to talk about our lovely friend/enemy Jeff Gannon), I am going to have to take a short leave.
I will hopefully be back later this week or early next. I'm pushing for later this week.
Peace.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
George Will gets it wrong
It's bad enough that the lgbt community has to deal with the consistent spin from the anti-gay industry that we are trying to steal the liberty and freedom of Christians.
But when someone who is considered "mainstream" starts that type of spin, we have problems.
George Will is considered to be an intelligent columnist and an esteemed Washington insider. He has the respect of many of his jounalistic colleagues and is also the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, probably the highest honor a journalist can receive.
So why, in his recent column, did he channel our friend and former Concerned Women for America employee Robert Knight.
Will talks about the recent case involving the city of Oakland vs. two Christian employees. I have talked about the case in past postings, but here is the gist:
Gay employees working for Oakland's government formed a group. In response, two Christian employees formed their own group. In the flyer advertising the Christian group, terms like "integrity" and "natural family" were used in ways that attacked gay employees.
The Christian group was told to revise the flyer. They refused and sued the city of Oakland.
Having lost their case in the 9th Circuit Court, the employees are now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And that is the case. It sounds so simple that it involves gays and Christians, which means you have people coming out of the woodwork throwing out claims of a "gay agenda" trying to silence Christians.
Of course the anti-gay industry is trying to use this story in their litany of lies about the gay community.
Now they seem to have a friend with George Will.
In his column, he says:
Some African-American Christian women working for Oakland's government organized the Good News Employee Association, or GNEA, which they announced with a flier describing their group as "a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values."
The flier was distributed after other employees' groups, including those advocating gay rights, had advertised their political views and activities on the city's e-mail system and bulletin board. When the GNEA asked for equal opportunity to communicate by that system and that board, it was denied. Furthermore, the flier they posted was taken down and destroyed by city officials, who declared it "homophobic" and disruptive.
. . . The treatment of GNEA illustrates one technique by which America's growing ranks of self-appointed speech police expand their reach: They wait until groups they disagree with, such as GNEA, are provoked to respond to them in public debates, then they persecute them for annoying those to whom they are responding.
Will puts the same spin on this story that the anti-gay industry put on past situations like the David Parker and Repent America cases i.e. claiming that gays want to curtail the freedom of speech of Christians, but omitting the fact that the Christians in question acted in a way that went way beyond freedom of speech.
And what makes matters worse, he tries to tie the situation in with hate crimes legislation. One guess what position he took.
Will's address is georgewill@washpost.com
If you write him, please don't be rude or ugly. And please don't throw around tired phrases and words like "homophobic" and "bigot." Make your argument in a reasonable manner. The following is my letter:
For years, I have read your columns and many times disagreed with what you have said.
But there was always a respect for your opinion because you never gave the impression that you were feeding readers a line, so to speak.
Your recent column, Free Speech vs.Gay Rights, changes all of that.
You were derelict in your duty as a gatekeeper because you did not tell the entire facts of the case regarding the Good News Employee Association case in Oakland.
If you will forgive me for being so bold, I am of the opinion that you intentionally meant to deceive your readers.
Your first sentence, Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime, can only be called for what it is; a damned lie.
This is from an article in the Oakland Tribune on Feb. 16, 2007:
Rederford and Christy sued, claiming their rights were violated by an Oakland anti-discrimination policy that promotes homosexuality and denounces Christian values. A federal judge dismissed the city as a defendant in March 2004, and in February 2005 granted summary judgment in favor of then-City Manager Robert Bobb and CEDA Deputy Executive Director Joyce Hicks. Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher on Thursday asked Lively whether his clients realize they have "a rather low level of protection" on potentially incendiary or discriminatory language in the workplace, and should "keep away from words that'll rile people up."
"But shouldn't that go both ways?" Lively replied, noting his clients hadn't complained about the National Coming Out Day e-mail.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta noted that e-mail had invited readers to "a rally against hatred and bigotry -- is that disparaging to your clients?"
Circuit Judge Richard Clifton said he believes "there are eggshells on both sides" of this argument, yet he doesn't see what the e-mail had done to vilify Rederford and Christy while it's not hard to see how their flier vilified gays and lesbians. "It's hard to avoid the inference, 'We lack ethics, we lack integrity because these people are here.'"
Your explanation, The treatment of GNEA illustrates one technique by which America's growing ranks of self-appointed speech police expand their reach: They wait until groups they disagree with are provoked to respond to them in public debates, then they persecute them for annoying those to whom they are responding, is poorly reasoned and I feel intentionally vague.
The pro-gay group's flyers had no language attacking those who do not agree with homosexuality. Nor did the pro-gay group attack anyone opposing lgbt rights as having no integrity. Nor did they attack their families and accuse them of not being natural, unlike the flyer of GNEA that caused all of this ruckus.
So just how did the pro-gay group provoke Rederford and Christy?
And this case has nothing to do with the "gay agenda" or "hate crimes," but rather what actions an employer should take when employees feel that their religion allows them to demean the families of other employees not sharing their beliefs.
I would expect what you wrote to come from someone like Robert Knight, Brent Bozell, or Cliff Kincaid and not someone who is an esteemed Washington columnist and a Pulitzer Prize recipient.
It's bad enough that the lgbt community has to deal with the consistent spin from the anti-gay industry that we are trying to steal the liberty and freedom of Christians.
But when someone who is considered "mainstream" starts that type of spin, we have problems.
George Will is considered to be an intelligent columnist and an esteemed Washington insider. He has the respect of many of his jounalistic colleagues and is also the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, probably the highest honor a journalist can receive.
So why, in his recent column, did he channel our friend and former Concerned Women for America employee Robert Knight.
Will talks about the recent case involving the city of Oakland vs. two Christian employees. I have talked about the case in past postings, but here is the gist:
Gay employees working for Oakland's government formed a group. In response, two Christian employees formed their own group. In the flyer advertising the Christian group, terms like "integrity" and "natural family" were used in ways that attacked gay employees.
The Christian group was told to revise the flyer. They refused and sued the city of Oakland.
Having lost their case in the 9th Circuit Court, the employees are now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And that is the case. It sounds so simple that it involves gays and Christians, which means you have people coming out of the woodwork throwing out claims of a "gay agenda" trying to silence Christians.
Of course the anti-gay industry is trying to use this story in their litany of lies about the gay community.
Now they seem to have a friend with George Will.
In his column, he says:
Some African-American Christian women working for Oakland's government organized the Good News Employee Association, or GNEA, which they announced with a flier describing their group as "a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values."
The flier was distributed after other employees' groups, including those advocating gay rights, had advertised their political views and activities on the city's e-mail system and bulletin board. When the GNEA asked for equal opportunity to communicate by that system and that board, it was denied. Furthermore, the flier they posted was taken down and destroyed by city officials, who declared it "homophobic" and disruptive.
. . . The treatment of GNEA illustrates one technique by which America's growing ranks of self-appointed speech police expand their reach: They wait until groups they disagree with, such as GNEA, are provoked to respond to them in public debates, then they persecute them for annoying those to whom they are responding.
Will puts the same spin on this story that the anti-gay industry put on past situations like the David Parker and Repent America cases i.e. claiming that gays want to curtail the freedom of speech of Christians, but omitting the fact that the Christians in question acted in a way that went way beyond freedom of speech.
And what makes matters worse, he tries to tie the situation in with hate crimes legislation. One guess what position he took.
Will's address is georgewill@washpost.com
If you write him, please don't be rude or ugly. And please don't throw around tired phrases and words like "homophobic" and "bigot." Make your argument in a reasonable manner. The following is my letter:
For years, I have read your columns and many times disagreed with what you have said.
But there was always a respect for your opinion because you never gave the impression that you were feeding readers a line, so to speak.
Your recent column, Free Speech vs.Gay Rights, changes all of that.
You were derelict in your duty as a gatekeeper because you did not tell the entire facts of the case regarding the Good News Employee Association case in Oakland.
If you will forgive me for being so bold, I am of the opinion that you intentionally meant to deceive your readers.
Your first sentence, Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime, can only be called for what it is; a damned lie.
This is from an article in the Oakland Tribune on Feb. 16, 2007:
Rederford and Christy sued, claiming their rights were violated by an Oakland anti-discrimination policy that promotes homosexuality and denounces Christian values. A federal judge dismissed the city as a defendant in March 2004, and in February 2005 granted summary judgment in favor of then-City Manager Robert Bobb and CEDA Deputy Executive Director Joyce Hicks. Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher on Thursday asked Lively whether his clients realize they have "a rather low level of protection" on potentially incendiary or discriminatory language in the workplace, and should "keep away from words that'll rile people up."
"But shouldn't that go both ways?" Lively replied, noting his clients hadn't complained about the National Coming Out Day e-mail.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta noted that e-mail had invited readers to "a rally against hatred and bigotry -- is that disparaging to your clients?"
Circuit Judge Richard Clifton said he believes "there are eggshells on both sides" of this argument, yet he doesn't see what the e-mail had done to vilify Rederford and Christy while it's not hard to see how their flier vilified gays and lesbians. "It's hard to avoid the inference, 'We lack ethics, we lack integrity because these people are here.'"
Your explanation, The treatment of GNEA illustrates one technique by which America's growing ranks of self-appointed speech police expand their reach: They wait until groups they disagree with are provoked to respond to them in public debates, then they persecute them for annoying those to whom they are responding, is poorly reasoned and I feel intentionally vague.
The pro-gay group's flyers had no language attacking those who do not agree with homosexuality. Nor did the pro-gay group attack anyone opposing lgbt rights as having no integrity. Nor did they attack their families and accuse them of not being natural, unlike the flyer of GNEA that caused all of this ruckus.
So just how did the pro-gay group provoke Rederford and Christy?
And this case has nothing to do with the "gay agenda" or "hate crimes," but rather what actions an employer should take when employees feel that their religion allows them to demean the families of other employees not sharing their beliefs.
I would expect what you wrote to come from someone like Robert Knight, Brent Bozell, or Cliff Kincaid and not someone who is an esteemed Washington columnist and a Pulitzer Prize recipient.
Friday, June 22, 2007
A Paul Cameron supporter emails me
I wasn't going to post today but something happened that I just couldn't pass up commenting on.
A person who is obviously a supporter of discredited researcher Paul Cameron contacted me today. He sent me two emails. The most interesting of the two is the second:
Ha, 'lies of paul cameron'. Another response to your comment on Box Turtle Bulliten, maybe you should actually read the study, instead of believing (or making up) unfounded and brief statements by 'gay' controlled organizations.
I don't know who this person is (I have my guesses) but I do want to address his or her claim.
Apparently according to him, Paul Cameron's research has been discredited due to "unfounded" statments by "gay controlled organizations."
Oh really?
Let's take a look at these "gay controlled organizations:"
“(Cameron) misrepresents my fi ndings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and
that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” - A. Nicholas Groth, 1984
“Given what I now know, I believe there are fl aws with Paul Cameron’s study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years.”— former Secretary of Education and author of The Book of Virtues William Bennett, the New Republic, February 23, 1998
On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that “Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists” by the APA Board of Directors.In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research.”
The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, “The Paul Cameron Case,” is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron’s frequent lecture and media appearances.
In 2005, the Boston Globe spotlighted Cameron in an article entitled Beliefs Drive Research Agenda of New Think Tanks. According to the article, when the Traditional Values Coalition was asked about Cameron, the organization responded by allegedly removing all references to Cameron from its web page. A spokesperson for the organization, Daniella Lopez, said the research had been placed on the web page by mistake.
Cameron and Cameron’s report on “life expectancy” in homosexuals vs heterosexuals is severely methodologically flawed. . . The authors should know, and as PhD’s they presumably do, that this report has little to do with science. It is hard to escape the idea that non-scientific motifs have driven the authors to make this report public. The methodological flaws are of such a grave nature that no decent peer-reviewed scientific journal should let it pass for publication. - Morten Frisch, Danish epidemiologist, April 2007
"We do not support the work of Paul Cameron nor desire to use flawed research"- Alan Chambers, Exodus International, April 26, 2007
I linked only the Alan Chambers comment but if anyone wants the links to other ones, email me.
My point is this: different people from different ideologies and backgrounds have all condemned Paul Cameron's "research."
The only conspiracy that exists is solely in the mind of Mr. Cameron and those guillible enough to support his lies.
I wasn't going to post today but something happened that I just couldn't pass up commenting on.
A person who is obviously a supporter of discredited researcher Paul Cameron contacted me today. He sent me two emails. The most interesting of the two is the second:
Ha, 'lies of paul cameron'. Another response to your comment on Box Turtle Bulliten, maybe you should actually read the study, instead of believing (or making up) unfounded and brief statements by 'gay' controlled organizations.
I don't know who this person is (I have my guesses) but I do want to address his or her claim.
Apparently according to him, Paul Cameron's research has been discredited due to "unfounded" statments by "gay controlled organizations."
Oh really?
Let's take a look at these "gay controlled organizations:"
“(Cameron) misrepresents my fi ndings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and
that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” - A. Nicholas Groth, 1984
“Given what I now know, I believe there are fl aws with Paul Cameron’s study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years.”— former Secretary of Education and author of The Book of Virtues William Bennett, the New Republic, February 23, 1998
On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that “Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists” by the APA Board of Directors.In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research.”
The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, “The Paul Cameron Case,” is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron’s frequent lecture and media appearances.
In 2005, the Boston Globe spotlighted Cameron in an article entitled Beliefs Drive Research Agenda of New Think Tanks. According to the article, when the Traditional Values Coalition was asked about Cameron, the organization responded by allegedly removing all references to Cameron from its web page. A spokesperson for the organization, Daniella Lopez, said the research had been placed on the web page by mistake.
Cameron and Cameron’s report on “life expectancy” in homosexuals vs heterosexuals is severely methodologically flawed. . . The authors should know, and as PhD’s they presumably do, that this report has little to do with science. It is hard to escape the idea that non-scientific motifs have driven the authors to make this report public. The methodological flaws are of such a grave nature that no decent peer-reviewed scientific journal should let it pass for publication. - Morten Frisch, Danish epidemiologist, April 2007
"We do not support the work of Paul Cameron nor desire to use flawed research"- Alan Chambers, Exodus International, April 26, 2007
I linked only the Alan Chambers comment but if anyone wants the links to other ones, email me.
My point is this: different people from different ideologies and backgrounds have all condemned Paul Cameron's "research."
The only conspiracy that exists is solely in the mind of Mr. Cameron and those guillible enough to support his lies.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Nothing too much to talk about today
This has been a busy week for me because my group, Palmetto Umoja, is helping to conduct South Carolina's second annual Black Pride.
That being the case, my postings have been a bit sparse and will probably continue to be for the remainder of the week.
But I encourage everyone who hasn't already to read yesterday's posting on Charlene Cothran. And also, this link that gives an excellent dissertation of her appearance on today's episode of The 700 Club.
It looks like the question I posed yesterday is being answered and it ain't good.
This has been a busy week for me because my group, Palmetto Umoja, is helping to conduct South Carolina's second annual Black Pride.
That being the case, my postings have been a bit sparse and will probably continue to be for the remainder of the week.
But I encourage everyone who hasn't already to read yesterday's posting on Charlene Cothran. And also, this link that gives an excellent dissertation of her appearance on today's episode of The 700 Club.
It looks like the question I posed yesterday is being answered and it ain't good.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Charlene Cothran
Today, I am going to talk about something I have avoided.
I avoided talking about this issue because I did not want it to seem that I am attacking someone for their personal choice.
But after my post two days ago about black ministers poisoning the African-American community against lgbts, I have been thinking.
There is a lot of unfortunate potential for ignorance in the black community about gays and lesbians. Black folks don't want to acknowledge that gay folks exist in their midst.
Therefore the community is susceptible to believe anyone claiming to be an expert on the "gay agenda." And yes, that includes Paul Cameron.
It also includes someone coming to them claiming to have "lived the gay lifestyle but got deliverance through Jesus."
Many black folks, due to the inability of the community to acknowledge lgbts of color, would actually believe those lies.
And a potential belief that lgbts can change our orientation would work to further dehumanize us in a community that has a problem acknowledging our existence, but one many of us look to for support and love.
It is for this reason that I want to talk a little about Charlene Cothran.
For those who do not know, she is the publisher of Venus Magazine, a publication that once dealt with gay issues from an African-American perspective.
However, Charlene now claims she is no longer gay. Subsequently, the magazine's focus has changed.
This also means that she is referred to by people like Peter LaBarbera as someone who has been "freed from homosexuality:"
Please be a part of the wonderful story of former lesbian Charlene’s Cothran’s rebirth in Christ by subscribing to her magazine VENUS - which has been transformed from a publication that celebrated “gays and lesbians” to one that tells that stories of people like herself who have overcome homosexuality with God’s help.
I have no problem with Cothran's personal decision, but I have a problem with her allowing herself to be used by the anti-gay industry. Especially when it looks like she is not even sure of her choices, as seen by this interview:
I think what many are saying, gay and straight, about your experience is that you are not saying, "I was a practicing lesbian, and now I love men because of Christ." You've said you are celibate. So, what about you now really makes you heterosexual?
Charlene: Nothing. You’ve spoken a piece of truth. Right now I am completely satisfied with my walk, which is me and God. My prayer wasn’t—Lord make me heterosexual. My prayer was not fix me, repair me and make me straight—that was not my prayer. My prayer was God make me whole in every sense of the word, make me whole mentally, make me whole spiritually, make me whole completely! Take this mean tongue out of me, you know; I had this mean spirit where I could just take a person down on a few short comments. That was just as dynamic a change as the gay thing…make me whole financially, you send me plenty of provisions, but why is it that I don’t prioritize things the way I should at this stage in my life? Make me whole in every area. I asked God for complete wholeness. He doesn’t come to save a piece of you.
Are you saying that you are not heterosexual?
Charlene: I am saying that I am celibate right now. I’m not saying there won’t ever be a man in my life. You’re asking me about where I am and that's all I can speak to. Today I am celibate. Again, I don’t say I will never have a man in my life, I’m not saying I will never be married to a man. Who knows what the Lord has in store for me. But…there is one thing I can say and one thing I will go on record and say—I will never be entangled with the bondage of lesbianism again. You can put me on record for that and I know that people are going to be turning over every stone, looking and magnifying and trying to find some dirt. I invite you to continue to look and see if you can find something on me. I will never be entangled with lesbianism again! Right now I’m celibate, now, where the Lord's going to move me, what opportunity he's going to place in my path for me from here on—I don't know.
Are you physically attracted to men?
Charlene: [pauses] I am physically attracted to the spirit of Christ right now. You're trying to take me down a road that I won't go down right now
Charlene's story is more intricate than what has been put out there. The spin has been that she has been "delivered" from homosexuality. But her story is a bit more complicated.
I have a personal opinion of Ms. Cothran's choice, but I will not voice it and I hope that what I am saying will not be considered to be a personal attack because my intent is not to demean her.
But the question has to be asked: will she talk truthfully about her decision publicly or will she go on a tangent about the "gay influence" in public schools?
Will she explain that she considers herself not heterosexual but celibate, or will we see her on press releases criticizing pro-gay laws or on posters gagged and falsely claiming that adding lgbts to hate crime laws will lead to her arrest for "telling her story."
Will Ms. Cothran work try to establish a dialogue about the intricacies of sexual orientation or will she be featured in public campaigns repeating lies about lgbts and promiscuity, child molestation, or life spans?
So my problem does not lie with Ms. Cothran's past choice, but her future choices.
There is a danger in my black community. There is a groundswell of people (i.e Harry Jackson, Ken Hutcherson, Wellington Boone) who think that since they believe homosexuality to be a sin, anything they do or say to hinder pro-gay visibility is a good thing, even if the words coming out of their mouths are lies.
The black community needs education on the lives of lgbts of color, not showcasers or attention grabbing demagogues. We have enough of those.
And I want to know just where does Ms. Cothran stand on this issue?
I don't ask that of myself. I ask that question in the name of the millions of lgbts of color who have to deal with the choices she makes.
Do the right thing, Ms. Cothran.
Today, I am going to talk about something I have avoided.
I avoided talking about this issue because I did not want it to seem that I am attacking someone for their personal choice.
But after my post two days ago about black ministers poisoning the African-American community against lgbts, I have been thinking.
There is a lot of unfortunate potential for ignorance in the black community about gays and lesbians. Black folks don't want to acknowledge that gay folks exist in their midst.
Therefore the community is susceptible to believe anyone claiming to be an expert on the "gay agenda." And yes, that includes Paul Cameron.
It also includes someone coming to them claiming to have "lived the gay lifestyle but got deliverance through Jesus."
Many black folks, due to the inability of the community to acknowledge lgbts of color, would actually believe those lies.
And a potential belief that lgbts can change our orientation would work to further dehumanize us in a community that has a problem acknowledging our existence, but one many of us look to for support and love.
It is for this reason that I want to talk a little about Charlene Cothran.
For those who do not know, she is the publisher of Venus Magazine, a publication that once dealt with gay issues from an African-American perspective.
However, Charlene now claims she is no longer gay. Subsequently, the magazine's focus has changed.
This also means that she is referred to by people like Peter LaBarbera as someone who has been "freed from homosexuality:"
Please be a part of the wonderful story of former lesbian Charlene’s Cothran’s rebirth in Christ by subscribing to her magazine VENUS - which has been transformed from a publication that celebrated “gays and lesbians” to one that tells that stories of people like herself who have overcome homosexuality with God’s help.
I have no problem with Cothran's personal decision, but I have a problem with her allowing herself to be used by the anti-gay industry. Especially when it looks like she is not even sure of her choices, as seen by this interview:
I think what many are saying, gay and straight, about your experience is that you are not saying, "I was a practicing lesbian, and now I love men because of Christ." You've said you are celibate. So, what about you now really makes you heterosexual?
Charlene: Nothing. You’ve spoken a piece of truth. Right now I am completely satisfied with my walk, which is me and God. My prayer wasn’t—Lord make me heterosexual. My prayer was not fix me, repair me and make me straight—that was not my prayer. My prayer was God make me whole in every sense of the word, make me whole mentally, make me whole spiritually, make me whole completely! Take this mean tongue out of me, you know; I had this mean spirit where I could just take a person down on a few short comments. That was just as dynamic a change as the gay thing…make me whole financially, you send me plenty of provisions, but why is it that I don’t prioritize things the way I should at this stage in my life? Make me whole in every area. I asked God for complete wholeness. He doesn’t come to save a piece of you.
Are you saying that you are not heterosexual?
Charlene: I am saying that I am celibate right now. I’m not saying there won’t ever be a man in my life. You’re asking me about where I am and that's all I can speak to. Today I am celibate. Again, I don’t say I will never have a man in my life, I’m not saying I will never be married to a man. Who knows what the Lord has in store for me. But…there is one thing I can say and one thing I will go on record and say—I will never be entangled with the bondage of lesbianism again. You can put me on record for that and I know that people are going to be turning over every stone, looking and magnifying and trying to find some dirt. I invite you to continue to look and see if you can find something on me. I will never be entangled with lesbianism again! Right now I’m celibate, now, where the Lord's going to move me, what opportunity he's going to place in my path for me from here on—I don't know.
Are you physically attracted to men?
Charlene: [pauses] I am physically attracted to the spirit of Christ right now. You're trying to take me down a road that I won't go down right now
Charlene's story is more intricate than what has been put out there. The spin has been that she has been "delivered" from homosexuality. But her story is a bit more complicated.
I have a personal opinion of Ms. Cothran's choice, but I will not voice it and I hope that what I am saying will not be considered to be a personal attack because my intent is not to demean her.
But the question has to be asked: will she talk truthfully about her decision publicly or will she go on a tangent about the "gay influence" in public schools?
Will she explain that she considers herself not heterosexual but celibate, or will we see her on press releases criticizing pro-gay laws or on posters gagged and falsely claiming that adding lgbts to hate crime laws will lead to her arrest for "telling her story."
Will Ms. Cothran work try to establish a dialogue about the intricacies of sexual orientation or will she be featured in public campaigns repeating lies about lgbts and promiscuity, child molestation, or life spans?
So my problem does not lie with Ms. Cothran's past choice, but her future choices.
There is a danger in my black community. There is a groundswell of people (i.e Harry Jackson, Ken Hutcherson, Wellington Boone) who think that since they believe homosexuality to be a sin, anything they do or say to hinder pro-gay visibility is a good thing, even if the words coming out of their mouths are lies.
The black community needs education on the lives of lgbts of color, not showcasers or attention grabbing demagogues. We have enough of those.
And I want to know just where does Ms. Cothran stand on this issue?
I don't ask that of myself. I ask that question in the name of the millions of lgbts of color who have to deal with the choices she makes.
Do the right thing, Ms. Cothran.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Brian Camenker knows the answer!
By now, everyone has heard of the recent decision by the Massachusetts Legislature not to put the issue of same sex marriage up to a vote for a constitutional amendment.
It was a great victory and one that has the anti-gay industry reeling.
But one member is sure he knows why lgbts won.
Brian Camenker is a very interesting person to say the least. He is the head of Mass Resistance, an organization dedicated to stopping the so-called "gay agenda" in Massachusetts.
I like to think of him as a statewide Peter LaBarbera. Camenker has a very sordid history in the state; one of his many endeavors involve taking pictures of pride parades and posting them on his web page, complete with interesting comments regarding the "sinfulness" of the person in the picture.
According to him:
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
That's right. According to Camenker, there should have been more talk about how nasty gay folks are, how we have short life spans, how we molest children at a high rate, how we practice blood sacrifices, etc. etc.
Paging Paul Cameron!
Apparently when the organization pushing for the vote appealed to what they thought was common sense, real common sense took hold and legislators realized that gay folks just want what everyone else wants: comfort, stability, and a right to protect our loved ones.
Ain't reality grand?
By now, everyone has heard of the recent decision by the Massachusetts Legislature not to put the issue of same sex marriage up to a vote for a constitutional amendment.
It was a great victory and one that has the anti-gay industry reeling.
But one member is sure he knows why lgbts won.
Brian Camenker is a very interesting person to say the least. He is the head of Mass Resistance, an organization dedicated to stopping the so-called "gay agenda" in Massachusetts.
I like to think of him as a statewide Peter LaBarbera. Camenker has a very sordid history in the state; one of his many endeavors involve taking pictures of pride parades and posting them on his web page, complete with interesting comments regarding the "sinfulness" of the person in the picture.
According to him:
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
That's right. According to Camenker, there should have been more talk about how nasty gay folks are, how we have short life spans, how we molest children at a high rate, how we practice blood sacrifices, etc. etc.
Paging Paul Cameron!
Apparently when the organization pushing for the vote appealed to what they thought was common sense, real common sense took hold and legislators realized that gay folks just want what everyone else wants: comfort, stability, and a right to protect our loved ones.
Ain't reality grand?
It's Monday so it's time for another one of Harry Jackson's lies
Yet again, black minister Harry Jackson writes another column falsely claiming that adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation will lead to ministers being jailed for speaking out against homosexuality.
But his column this week is also a little bit more whiny than usual.
It seems that USA Today published an article Friday about his claims regarding hate crimes legislation. And the publication actually dared to present both sides of the issue.
This led to a huge smackdown of Jackson's claim by Harry Knox from HRC's director of Religion and Faith Program:
(Harry) Jackson's argument "is a lie, and it should not be told in the name of the Gospel," he said.
Now I like that. No big production, no corny "let's win the hearts and minds of America," and no mincing of words.
And the words struck Jackson to the heart apparently, as witnessed by what he wrote.
But for a better deconstruction of Jackson's latest lies, go here.
But sad to say, Jackson is not alone.
On this site, I found this thing to my left. I won't even try to analyze it.
I will just say the eight commandment - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Yet again, black minister Harry Jackson writes another column falsely claiming that adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation will lead to ministers being jailed for speaking out against homosexuality.
But his column this week is also a little bit more whiny than usual.
It seems that USA Today published an article Friday about his claims regarding hate crimes legislation. And the publication actually dared to present both sides of the issue.
This led to a huge smackdown of Jackson's claim by Harry Knox from HRC's director of Religion and Faith Program:
(Harry) Jackson's argument "is a lie, and it should not be told in the name of the Gospel," he said.
Now I like that. No big production, no corny "let's win the hearts and minds of America," and no mincing of words.
And the words struck Jackson to the heart apparently, as witnessed by what he wrote.
But for a better deconstruction of Jackson's latest lies, go here.
But sad to say, Jackson is not alone.On this site, I found this thing to my left. I won't even try to analyze it.
I will just say the eight commandment - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Just who does she think she is?
From an online buddy comes something I just couldn't resist talking about.
Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition took it upon herself to try and correct a legend in the African-American civil rights movement.
Angry because U.S. Representative John Lewis commemorated the anniversary of the historic Loving vs. Virginia decision (that made interracial marriages legal in the United States) to push a resolution that speaks out in favor of same-sex marriages, Lafferty said the following:
“Rep. Lewis is a member of the Old Guard of civil rights activists who have sold out to the homosexual movement . . ."
Okay this bothers me on so many levels.
And before anyone even tries to claim victimhood status for Mrs. Lafferty, I would like to say that she has a right to say whatever she wants. I do not want to silence her.
But I want to call attention to that fact when every time one opens his or her mouth to comment on something, there are such things as discernment and credibility.
Or in other words, you can say what you want but if someone can spot how you look like a damned fool for what you said, pointing out your ignorance is not censorship.
Or to simplify it more, just who in the heck is Andrea Lafferty to criticize John Lewis on matters of civil rights.
John Lewis has given his time, energy, and much of his blood (I've seen pictures of him after he was beaten bloody) to ensure that African-Americans have basic human rights. From the founding of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) to the Freedom Riders to the 1963 March on Washington and finally to the halls of Congress, Lewis is the very epitome of a tireless worker for good.
It is more to Lewis's credit that he recognizes the similarities that we all have when it comes to wanting basic rights and the means for self-determination.
Andrea Lafferty, on the other hand, has been involved in a group that relies on bad studies and outright lies to demonize the lgbt community.
The most suffering for the "cause of civil rights" she probably had to undergo was having a hair out of place when throwing out soundbites on a pseudo news show that generously lets her ramble without courtesy of a rebuttal guest.
Or breaking a nail while writing a column due to the excitement of listing salicious details of "homosexual encounters" in attempts to scare the potential reader.
Or maybe breaking a heel when she is walking the halls of Congress and "monitoring" committee meetings.
Her criticizing Lewis on the state of civil rights is like a b-movie actor criticizing Meryl Streep on her performing skills.
Lastly, Lafferty has the nerve the say the following:
Homosexuals have no shame when it comes to exploiting every noble social movement in our culture. These radical groups routinely come up with a new ‘holiday’ or special week in order to push their agenda upon the rest of us—and if you protest against this callous exploitation of important historical events, you’re labeled a homophobic bigot.
Okay Andrea, I won't label you as a homophobic bigot.
But I will label you as confused.
Just because your father, Lou Sheldon, got some black ministers teamed up against gay marriage does not give you any credibility to start attacking a black man whose very life has been dedicated to fighting injustice.
If you had any sense, you would hush your mouth, pay attention, and take good notes while Lewis is talking.
But speaking of those black ministers aligned with your father, if you want to have a good conversation about selling out, I suggest you confer with them.
From an online buddy comes something I just couldn't resist talking about.
Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition took it upon herself to try and correct a legend in the African-American civil rights movement.
Angry because U.S. Representative John Lewis commemorated the anniversary of the historic Loving vs. Virginia decision (that made interracial marriages legal in the United States) to push a resolution that speaks out in favor of same-sex marriages, Lafferty said the following:
“Rep. Lewis is a member of the Old Guard of civil rights activists who have sold out to the homosexual movement . . ."
Okay this bothers me on so many levels.
And before anyone even tries to claim victimhood status for Mrs. Lafferty, I would like to say that she has a right to say whatever she wants. I do not want to silence her.
But I want to call attention to that fact when every time one opens his or her mouth to comment on something, there are such things as discernment and credibility.
Or in other words, you can say what you want but if someone can spot how you look like a damned fool for what you said, pointing out your ignorance is not censorship.
Or to simplify it more, just who in the heck is Andrea Lafferty to criticize John Lewis on matters of civil rights.
John Lewis has given his time, energy, and much of his blood (I've seen pictures of him after he was beaten bloody) to ensure that African-Americans have basic human rights. From the founding of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) to the Freedom Riders to the 1963 March on Washington and finally to the halls of Congress, Lewis is the very epitome of a tireless worker for good.
It is more to Lewis's credit that he recognizes the similarities that we all have when it comes to wanting basic rights and the means for self-determination.
Andrea Lafferty, on the other hand, has been involved in a group that relies on bad studies and outright lies to demonize the lgbt community.
The most suffering for the "cause of civil rights" she probably had to undergo was having a hair out of place when throwing out soundbites on a pseudo news show that generously lets her ramble without courtesy of a rebuttal guest.
Or breaking a nail while writing a column due to the excitement of listing salicious details of "homosexual encounters" in attempts to scare the potential reader.
Or maybe breaking a heel when she is walking the halls of Congress and "monitoring" committee meetings.
Her criticizing Lewis on the state of civil rights is like a b-movie actor criticizing Meryl Streep on her performing skills.
Lastly, Lafferty has the nerve the say the following:
Homosexuals have no shame when it comes to exploiting every noble social movement in our culture. These radical groups routinely come up with a new ‘holiday’ or special week in order to push their agenda upon the rest of us—and if you protest against this callous exploitation of important historical events, you’re labeled a homophobic bigot.
Okay Andrea, I won't label you as a homophobic bigot.
But I will label you as confused.
Just because your father, Lou Sheldon, got some black ministers teamed up against gay marriage does not give you any credibility to start attacking a black man whose very life has been dedicated to fighting injustice.
If you had any sense, you would hush your mouth, pay attention, and take good notes while Lewis is talking.
But speaking of those black ministers aligned with your father, if you want to have a good conversation about selling out, I suggest you confer with them.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
200 posts and over 10,000 hits later . . . .
Forgive me for bragging but today is a milestone. This is my 200th post and what a strange trip it has been.
When I initially started this blog, it was to publicize my upcoming book (out this fall). I had no idea that it would last this long.
But I am proud of the work I have done, however miniscule it is in the huge landscape of the lgbt community.
Which reminds me of the bad mood I am in.
Apparently my publisher hasn't begun working on my corrections yet. This problem is compounded by the fact that if my corrections were worked on upon, they would have been finished and I would be receiving them now.
I'm not exactly a popular person at the publishing house right now. It's not like I used bad language or anything, but I let them know that I was very angry at their error.
My anger is a huge problem. I rarely get very upset but when I do, I get into scorched earth mode. This means I was so mad at my publisher, I was threatening to demand a refund and take my manuscript somewhere else.
But cooler emotions prevailed. It's too late in the game to pursue a new publisher. So I suffciently calmed down by cleaning my house (yeah I know, it's a Joan Crawford stereotype. So sue me already.)
And tomorrow I will have a nice polite conversation with my publishing house.
But for tonight, no talking about my book, no talking about James Holsinger or Peter LaBarbera, no railing on the anti-gay industry.
Just rest.
Forgive me for bragging but today is a milestone. This is my 200th post and what a strange trip it has been.
When I initially started this blog, it was to publicize my upcoming book (out this fall). I had no idea that it would last this long.
But I am proud of the work I have done, however miniscule it is in the huge landscape of the lgbt community.
Which reminds me of the bad mood I am in.
Apparently my publisher hasn't begun working on my corrections yet. This problem is compounded by the fact that if my corrections were worked on upon, they would have been finished and I would be receiving them now.
I'm not exactly a popular person at the publishing house right now. It's not like I used bad language or anything, but I let them know that I was very angry at their error.
My anger is a huge problem. I rarely get very upset but when I do, I get into scorched earth mode. This means I was so mad at my publisher, I was threatening to demand a refund and take my manuscript somewhere else.
But cooler emotions prevailed. It's too late in the game to pursue a new publisher. So I suffciently calmed down by cleaning my house (yeah I know, it's a Joan Crawford stereotype. So sue me already.)
And tomorrow I will have a nice polite conversation with my publishing house.
But for tonight, no talking about my book, no talking about James Holsinger or Peter LaBarbera, no railing on the anti-gay industry.
Just rest.
Monday, June 11, 2007
PFOX gets into the act. Does Holsinger really need this group as an ally?
Apparently James Holsinger has allies that maybe he does not need.
PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) have gotten into knee deep into the argument, issuing a press release claiming that Holsinger and ex-gays in general are being discriminated against:
Ex-gays and Americans who support the right to self-determination of same-sex attraction are routinely ridiculed by the very people who claim to be victims themselves. “Gay activists lobby to be included in tolerance policies, hate crimes and employment non-discrimination legislation, but work hard to deny ex-gays the right to the same treatment,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX.
. . . “Americans need to face the growing issue of bigotry perpetrated upon ex-gays and their supporters. Gay activists cannot claim sympathy as victims when they attack ex-gays for political purposes of their own,” said Griggs. “Tolerance is not a one-way street. All individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions deserve the right to self-determination and happiness based on their own needs, and not the political inconvenience of others.”
Oh really?
Before PFOX contends itself to play Joan of Arc, I want to remind it of this press release from 1996:
FRC Creates PFOX To Counter PFLAG (fwd) WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 /PRNewswire/ --
"For too long, many people have come to believe that people with homosexual desires cannot change. The `once gay, always gay' fiction has persuaded more than a few Americans to support so- called `gay rights' out of a misdirected sense of compassion. But it is anything but compassionate to tell someone that have no hope of change and that they might as well indulge in sexual behavior that is unhealthy, immoral and in many cases, even fatal," Bob Knight said Thursday during a ground breaking news conference.
Knight, Family Research Council Director of Cultural Studies, participated in a 9:30 a.m. news event to unveil PFOX -- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (Contact: Anthony Falzarano) -- a new, national parents group that will counter the pro-homosexual PFLAG. The news event, which included former homosexuals and lesbians, also highlighted the Second Annual National Coming OUT OF Homosexuality Day. (Contact: Michael Johnston)
Knight made the following comments during the news event at the National Press Club: "Over on the mall this week, the AIDS quilt is a silent and wrenching testimony to the hundreds of thousands of people struck down with premature death. The quilt also symbolizes tragic choices made by many people who were misled into believing they had no other option. How many of these sons, daughters, fathers, brothers or sisters would be alive today if they had had access to compassionate people like these around me who have been caught up in sexual or drug addiction but have broken the deadly pattern?
"Today's message is very simple: No one has to be `gay.' No one should reject a family member because that family member is `gay.' But love does not require accepting behavior that is harmful. In fact, real love in action is a conscious effort to steer someone away from behavior that can hurt or even kill. It isn't always easy, but it can be done, as evidenced by the many who have. "
Parents, Family and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), which is being introduced today, has been formed to aid people who have family members struggling with homosexuality. PFOX is dedicated to correcting the many distortions and increasingly abusive assertions made by homosexual activist groups against those with whom they disagree.
The homosexual activist movement despises and attacks the ex-gay movement out of fear that these people are exactly who they say they are: people once in bondage to homosexuality but now freed to pursue a fuller life. But their lives are evidence of options rarely discussed by very real."
Let's look at the cast of characters mentioned in the 1996 press release:
Family Research Council - on more than one occasion cites bad studies and cherry picked research to demonize the gay community.
Robert Knight - freely used Paul Cameron's work as well as other cherry picked work to demonize the gay and lesbian community. He has also been known to verbally attack physicians who complain about the distortion of their work (i.e. Dr. Robert Garafalo - as mentioned in my upcoming book)
Michael Johnston - traveled the country talking about how he was delivered from the "evils of homosexuality" while at the same time having clandestine hotel encounters with gay men and exposing them to the HIV virus.
PFOX was created not to preserve the right of self-determination of ex-gays, but to act as a stumbling block for those of us who are comfortable with our lgbt orientation.
For the group to try and claim victimhood status in the case of James Holsinger defies all logic.
And the fact that the group got involved in this matter demonstrates why gay community's concerns about Holsinger are valid.
You can't run away from your past, no matter how you try to pretty yourself up.
Apparently James Holsinger has allies that maybe he does not need.
PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) have gotten into knee deep into the argument, issuing a press release claiming that Holsinger and ex-gays in general are being discriminated against:
Ex-gays and Americans who support the right to self-determination of same-sex attraction are routinely ridiculed by the very people who claim to be victims themselves. “Gay activists lobby to be included in tolerance policies, hate crimes and employment non-discrimination legislation, but work hard to deny ex-gays the right to the same treatment,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX.
. . . “Americans need to face the growing issue of bigotry perpetrated upon ex-gays and their supporters. Gay activists cannot claim sympathy as victims when they attack ex-gays for political purposes of their own,” said Griggs. “Tolerance is not a one-way street. All individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions deserve the right to self-determination and happiness based on their own needs, and not the political inconvenience of others.”
Oh really?
Before PFOX contends itself to play Joan of Arc, I want to remind it of this press release from 1996:
FRC Creates PFOX To Counter PFLAG (fwd) WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 /PRNewswire/ --
"For too long, many people have come to believe that people with homosexual desires cannot change. The `once gay, always gay' fiction has persuaded more than a few Americans to support so- called `gay rights' out of a misdirected sense of compassion. But it is anything but compassionate to tell someone that have no hope of change and that they might as well indulge in sexual behavior that is unhealthy, immoral and in many cases, even fatal," Bob Knight said Thursday during a ground breaking news conference.
Knight, Family Research Council Director of Cultural Studies, participated in a 9:30 a.m. news event to unveil PFOX -- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (Contact: Anthony Falzarano) -- a new, national parents group that will counter the pro-homosexual PFLAG. The news event, which included former homosexuals and lesbians, also highlighted the Second Annual National Coming OUT OF Homosexuality Day. (Contact: Michael Johnston)
Knight made the following comments during the news event at the National Press Club: "Over on the mall this week, the AIDS quilt is a silent and wrenching testimony to the hundreds of thousands of people struck down with premature death. The quilt also symbolizes tragic choices made by many people who were misled into believing they had no other option. How many of these sons, daughters, fathers, brothers or sisters would be alive today if they had had access to compassionate people like these around me who have been caught up in sexual or drug addiction but have broken the deadly pattern?
"Today's message is very simple: No one has to be `gay.' No one should reject a family member because that family member is `gay.' But love does not require accepting behavior that is harmful. In fact, real love in action is a conscious effort to steer someone away from behavior that can hurt or even kill. It isn't always easy, but it can be done, as evidenced by the many who have. "
Parents, Family and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), which is being introduced today, has been formed to aid people who have family members struggling with homosexuality. PFOX is dedicated to correcting the many distortions and increasingly abusive assertions made by homosexual activist groups against those with whom they disagree.
The homosexual activist movement despises and attacks the ex-gay movement out of fear that these people are exactly who they say they are: people once in bondage to homosexuality but now freed to pursue a fuller life. But their lives are evidence of options rarely discussed by very real."
Let's look at the cast of characters mentioned in the 1996 press release:
Family Research Council - on more than one occasion cites bad studies and cherry picked research to demonize the gay community.
Robert Knight - freely used Paul Cameron's work as well as other cherry picked work to demonize the gay and lesbian community. He has also been known to verbally attack physicians who complain about the distortion of their work (i.e. Dr. Robert Garafalo - as mentioned in my upcoming book)
Michael Johnston - traveled the country talking about how he was delivered from the "evils of homosexuality" while at the same time having clandestine hotel encounters with gay men and exposing them to the HIV virus.
PFOX was created not to preserve the right of self-determination of ex-gays, but to act as a stumbling block for those of us who are comfortable with our lgbt orientation.
For the group to try and claim victimhood status in the case of James Holsinger defies all logic.
And the fact that the group got involved in this matter demonstrates why gay community's concerns about Holsinger are valid.
You can't run away from your past, no matter how you try to pretty yourself up.
Box Turtle Bulletin nails Holsinger paper
Just as I knew they would, Jim Burroway and Box Turtle Bulletin revealed James Holsinger's paper on homosexuality for the farce that it is.
Burroway reveals things about the paper that I didn't even notice:
The whole point of Holsinger’s paper is to draw a sharp contrast between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships.
But to do so, he he culls his evidence largely from papers which describe injuries from nonconsensual intercourse to denigrate consensual relationships, he describes odd sexual practices that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples to denigrate the minority of gay couples who indulge in those same practices, and he misleads his readers by padding his bibliography with more references to papers explicitly describing injuries experienced by heterosexual men and women to imply that they describe gay men instead.
In other words, to describe gay sexual acts, more often than not he turned to papers which describe injuries sustained through heterosexual activity.
And then he used this evidence from heterosexual activity to say that “when the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.” But what does this evidence suggest about “complementarity” in heterosexual relationships? Holsinger doesn’t answer.
Now some folks have continued to try and make the case one of Holsinger's religious beliefs but don't be fooled by such platitudes.
Holsinger manipulated credible scientific work to denigrate gay males. His paper appealed to bad stereotypes and urban legends about gay men and anal sex. I'm surprised he didn't try to prove the notorious "gerbil" story.
Is this the man we want as surgeon general?
And speaking of Holsinger's defenders, I noticed that One News Now hasn't said a thing about the story.
In that past when the news service was Agape Press, it freely reported Paul Cameron's studies and other notorious bits of junk science regarding the lgbt community.
For that matter, has the Family Research Council made a statement about Holsinger? I don't see why the group shouldn't. In the past, members such as Robert Knight and Timothy Dailey published a bunch of studies about the lgbt community.
Some of these studies still exist on the FRC web page.
Why so silent, boys?
Just as I knew they would, Jim Burroway and Box Turtle Bulletin revealed James Holsinger's paper on homosexuality for the farce that it is.
Burroway reveals things about the paper that I didn't even notice:
The whole point of Holsinger’s paper is to draw a sharp contrast between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships.
But to do so, he he culls his evidence largely from papers which describe injuries from nonconsensual intercourse to denigrate consensual relationships, he describes odd sexual practices that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples to denigrate the minority of gay couples who indulge in those same practices, and he misleads his readers by padding his bibliography with more references to papers explicitly describing injuries experienced by heterosexual men and women to imply that they describe gay men instead.
In other words, to describe gay sexual acts, more often than not he turned to papers which describe injuries sustained through heterosexual activity.
And then he used this evidence from heterosexual activity to say that “when the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.” But what does this evidence suggest about “complementarity” in heterosexual relationships? Holsinger doesn’t answer.
Now some folks have continued to try and make the case one of Holsinger's religious beliefs but don't be fooled by such platitudes.
Holsinger manipulated credible scientific work to denigrate gay males. His paper appealed to bad stereotypes and urban legends about gay men and anal sex. I'm surprised he didn't try to prove the notorious "gerbil" story.
Is this the man we want as surgeon general?
And speaking of Holsinger's defenders, I noticed that One News Now hasn't said a thing about the story.
In that past when the news service was Agape Press, it freely reported Paul Cameron's studies and other notorious bits of junk science regarding the lgbt community.
For that matter, has the Family Research Council made a statement about Holsinger? I don't see why the group shouldn't. In the past, members such as Robert Knight and Timothy Dailey published a bunch of studies about the lgbt community.
Some of these studies still exist on the FRC web page.
Why so silent, boys?
Sunday, June 10, 2007
James Holsinger has some explaining to do
It seems that the controversy over Bush's surgeon general nominee, James Holsinger, continues unabated.
And the issue is getting more cloudy.
Several of his defenders are coming out of the woodwork defending Holsinger, making it seem that he is a latter-day Mother Teresa. These defenders include a lesbian:
Maria Kemplin, a former colleague of Dr. Holsinger’s who is a lesbian, is familiar with the 1991 report. But in a letter she sent to Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, she wrote of Dr. Holsinger as a friend who helped without judging her.
“I am a liberal Democrat and a member of gay and women’s rights organizations,” Ms. Kemplin wrote. “Still, I strongly support Dr. Jim Holsinger as a leader and administrator who is able to see across divisive issues and relate with integrity to people, no matter their life circumstance.”
Good, then Holsinger won't have any problems answering questions about that paper he wrote demonizing gay men.
One of the biggest calamities of the American media is the abject laziness of our journalists. Sometimes in pursuit of "popular" stories, they miss the stories that, with a little time and effort given to them, can bring much needed attention to important issues.
And to me, one of the biggest underreported stories have been how the anti-gay create phony scientific studies to push forth a religious point of view, much like Holsinger did in 1991.
The lgbt community has had to deal with "scientific papers" put out by groups like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc. accusing us of molesting children, having a short life span, and other assorted ills.
These papers either use bad sources or cherry pick credible information to reach a conclusion already frought in the author's mind - that gays and lesbians are sick people and anything that protects us is a bad thing.
Case in point is a recent article talking about gays adopting children:
Judith Stacey, a sociology professor at New York University and co-author with Tim Biblarz of "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" in the American Sociological Review, says conservative groups distorted the findings of her 2001 study, which found some slight differences in children of lesbian mothers in terms of career choices and sexual experimentation. And while some of her ongoing work is finding "minor differences in sexuality and possibly in the range of comfort, but just barely, with non heterosexual behavior," a European study of daughters of lesbians has found a skew toward more heterosexual partners. . .
When Dr. (James) Dobson, in his Time magazine essay criticizing Ms. Cheney, cited research from Kyle Pruett at Yale University to state that children need fathers, Dr. Pruett, author of "Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child," was furious, claiming Dr. Dobson had misrepresented his findings to suggest that children of gay parents would somehow suffer developmentally. After attempts to contact Dr. Dobson proved fruitless, he taped an interview and posted it on YouTube.com excoriating the conservative leader.
. . . Mr. (Peter) Spriggs (from the Family Research Council) remains unrepentant about his and Dr. Dobson's use of research to bolster their contention that children do best with a mother and a father.
"No scholar has the right to dictate how another person will use his data, just because he happens to disagree from a political point of view," he said.
On the contrary Mr. Spriggs. If a scholar's work is being used incorrectly, he or she has a right to call foul.
And a community who has been maligned by usage of said work has a right to complain and demand answers, particularly if the alleged perpetrator is vying for a position to represent this community.
So Holsinger's defenders can trot as many lesbians as they want out of the woodwork. And I don't even care if it's discovered that Holsinger was the one who really parted the Red Sea and performed the miracle of the loaves and the fishes.
If he wants to be my surgeon general, he needs to answer for his attempts to call me and mine sick people.
It seems that the controversy over Bush's surgeon general nominee, James Holsinger, continues unabated.
And the issue is getting more cloudy.
Several of his defenders are coming out of the woodwork defending Holsinger, making it seem that he is a latter-day Mother Teresa. These defenders include a lesbian:
Maria Kemplin, a former colleague of Dr. Holsinger’s who is a lesbian, is familiar with the 1991 report. But in a letter she sent to Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, she wrote of Dr. Holsinger as a friend who helped without judging her.
“I am a liberal Democrat and a member of gay and women’s rights organizations,” Ms. Kemplin wrote. “Still, I strongly support Dr. Jim Holsinger as a leader and administrator who is able to see across divisive issues and relate with integrity to people, no matter their life circumstance.”
Good, then Holsinger won't have any problems answering questions about that paper he wrote demonizing gay men.
One of the biggest calamities of the American media is the abject laziness of our journalists. Sometimes in pursuit of "popular" stories, they miss the stories that, with a little time and effort given to them, can bring much needed attention to important issues.
And to me, one of the biggest underreported stories have been how the anti-gay create phony scientific studies to push forth a religious point of view, much like Holsinger did in 1991.
The lgbt community has had to deal with "scientific papers" put out by groups like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc. accusing us of molesting children, having a short life span, and other assorted ills.
These papers either use bad sources or cherry pick credible information to reach a conclusion already frought in the author's mind - that gays and lesbians are sick people and anything that protects us is a bad thing.
Case in point is a recent article talking about gays adopting children:
Judith Stacey, a sociology professor at New York University and co-author with Tim Biblarz of "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" in the American Sociological Review, says conservative groups distorted the findings of her 2001 study, which found some slight differences in children of lesbian mothers in terms of career choices and sexual experimentation. And while some of her ongoing work is finding "minor differences in sexuality and possibly in the range of comfort, but just barely, with non heterosexual behavior," a European study of daughters of lesbians has found a skew toward more heterosexual partners. . .
When Dr. (James) Dobson, in his Time magazine essay criticizing Ms. Cheney, cited research from Kyle Pruett at Yale University to state that children need fathers, Dr. Pruett, author of "Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child," was furious, claiming Dr. Dobson had misrepresented his findings to suggest that children of gay parents would somehow suffer developmentally. After attempts to contact Dr. Dobson proved fruitless, he taped an interview and posted it on YouTube.com excoriating the conservative leader.
. . . Mr. (Peter) Spriggs (from the Family Research Council) remains unrepentant about his and Dr. Dobson's use of research to bolster their contention that children do best with a mother and a father.
"No scholar has the right to dictate how another person will use his data, just because he happens to disagree from a political point of view," he said.
On the contrary Mr. Spriggs. If a scholar's work is being used incorrectly, he or she has a right to call foul.
And a community who has been maligned by usage of said work has a right to complain and demand answers, particularly if the alleged perpetrator is vying for a position to represent this community.
So Holsinger's defenders can trot as many lesbians as they want out of the woodwork. And I don't even care if it's discovered that Holsinger was the one who really parted the Red Sea and performed the miracle of the loaves and the fishes.
If he wants to be my surgeon general, he needs to answer for his attempts to call me and mine sick people.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Anything you don't want to do, let the black folks do it for you
(Sidebar - If you haven't already, please read yesterday's post on Bush's surgeon general nominee)
I guess Kenneth Blackwell considers himself a lone wolf. No doubt it's not easy being a black conservative in today's environment.
But I am sure it can get quite lucrative when it comes to what you can get away with.
His column in Townhall is a good example of what I am talking about. It is yet another diatribe filled with lies about hate crimes legislation:
A bill making it illegal for people of various faiths to freely hold and profess their respective religion's teaching on sexual morality is working its way through Congress. Regardless of your politics, every American who cares about free speech and religious liberty should tell their U.S. senators to oppose this legislation. This bill has already passed the House of Representatives on a largely party-line vote with a Democrat majority. It is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is expected to be voted on by the entire Senate in a month.
This bill would criminalize beliefs. If signed into law, H.R. 1592 would create a new class of crimes.
He also says the following:
As a country, do we want to be in the business of "proving" what someone thinks or denying them freedom of conscience? Do we want to rip the heart out of the First Amendment of our Constitution? Do we want to deconstruct our public square where progress has been advanced by a dialogue between faith and reason? Do we really want to embolden a 21st century secular fundamentalism by forcing religious expression from the public square?
The answer to these questions is a simple and emphatic no! What is driving the controversy associated with this bill ultimately comes down to one issue: Can the government punish a person for a "thought crime" whose religious faith includes the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral, and same sex marriage is morally objectionable?
Hate crimes legislation covers violent action not thought, as I am sure Blackwell knows. Also bear in mind that hate crimes legislation already exists in cases of race and religion. Nothing in Blackwell's column talks about those two distinctions. He only talks about hate crimes legislation being wrong when it comes to sexual orientation.
How dare lgbts want the protections that African-Americans enjoy!
Blackwell's being duplicitious. But it seems to be the role that some black conservatives want. They allow their heritage to be exploited for the status quo. They seem to be saying "we got our rights, now we will use the same prejudices, duplicitious arguments and lies that held us down to hold others down."
"And if we do it well enough, the white conservatives will give us status."
First you have Harry Jackson raging against hate crimes legislation in four or five consecutive columns. Now Blackwell is into the act as the designated black man out to put gays in their place for daring to compare themselves to black folks. Who is next to talk about it? Alan Keyes? LaShawn Barber?
With Jackson's recent columns comes the advertisement to buy his book, Black Contract with America. By accident? I don't think so.
Blackwell and Jackson may seem like men standing up for what they believe in. But I disagree.
Sounds like two guys who found a nice racket.
(Sidebar - If you haven't already, please read yesterday's post on Bush's surgeon general nominee)
I guess Kenneth Blackwell considers himself a lone wolf. No doubt it's not easy being a black conservative in today's environment.
But I am sure it can get quite lucrative when it comes to what you can get away with.
His column in Townhall is a good example of what I am talking about. It is yet another diatribe filled with lies about hate crimes legislation:
A bill making it illegal for people of various faiths to freely hold and profess their respective religion's teaching on sexual morality is working its way through Congress. Regardless of your politics, every American who cares about free speech and religious liberty should tell their U.S. senators to oppose this legislation. This bill has already passed the House of Representatives on a largely party-line vote with a Democrat majority. It is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is expected to be voted on by the entire Senate in a month.
This bill would criminalize beliefs. If signed into law, H.R. 1592 would create a new class of crimes.
He also says the following:
As a country, do we want to be in the business of "proving" what someone thinks or denying them freedom of conscience? Do we want to rip the heart out of the First Amendment of our Constitution? Do we want to deconstruct our public square where progress has been advanced by a dialogue between faith and reason? Do we really want to embolden a 21st century secular fundamentalism by forcing religious expression from the public square?
The answer to these questions is a simple and emphatic no! What is driving the controversy associated with this bill ultimately comes down to one issue: Can the government punish a person for a "thought crime" whose religious faith includes the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral, and same sex marriage is morally objectionable?
Hate crimes legislation covers violent action not thought, as I am sure Blackwell knows. Also bear in mind that hate crimes legislation already exists in cases of race and religion. Nothing in Blackwell's column talks about those two distinctions. He only talks about hate crimes legislation being wrong when it comes to sexual orientation.
How dare lgbts want the protections that African-Americans enjoy!
Blackwell's being duplicitious. But it seems to be the role that some black conservatives want. They allow their heritage to be exploited for the status quo. They seem to be saying "we got our rights, now we will use the same prejudices, duplicitious arguments and lies that held us down to hold others down."
"And if we do it well enough, the white conservatives will give us status."
First you have Harry Jackson raging against hate crimes legislation in four or five consecutive columns. Now Blackwell is into the act as the designated black man out to put gays in their place for daring to compare themselves to black folks. Who is next to talk about it? Alan Keyes? LaShawn Barber?
With Jackson's recent columns comes the advertisement to buy his book, Black Contract with America. By accident? I don't think so.
Blackwell and Jackson may seem like men standing up for what they believe in. But I disagree.
Sounds like two guys who found a nice racket.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Does the surgeon general nominee channel willful prejudice?
It turns out that President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, James Holinger, seems to have more of an anti-gay history than first thought.
Original objections mostly dealt with him being affiliated with an ex-gay ministry.
That in itself is bad enough, but the following is worse:
In 1991, Dr. James W. Holsinger -- a University of Kentucky professor who is President Bush's nominee for U.S. surgeon general -- wrote a paper arguing that gay sex is biologically unnatural and unhealthy.
Like male and female pipe fittings, certain male and female body parts are designed for each other, Holsinger wrote in a paper prepared for a United Methodist Church committee studying homosexuality. "When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur," Holsinger wrote in the paper, titled Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality.
You can read the study at this link.
For the benefit of those wondering, the study does not cite data from our friend Paul Cameron. And it does not seem to have any of the distorted studies (i.e. the 1997 Oxford study) that I have found in several religous right papers supposedly critiquing gay sex habits.
No doubt my friend Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin will break down Holsinger's paper better than I ever could.
However, I did notice a central theme about Holsinger's paper that I found disturbing.
Check out this part on page four:
Consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely provided there is adequate lubrication. Few anorectal problems and no evidence of anal-sphincter dysfunction are found in heterosexual women who have anal-receptive intercourse. However, forceful anal penetration without lubrication against a resistant sphincter will result in abrasive trauma, causing fissures, contusions, thrombosed hemorrhoids, lacerations with bleeding, pain, and psychic trauma (Bush, 1986). The most severe type of anorectal trauma follows fist fornication which during the 1970s was practiced by approximately 5% of the male homosexual population (Geist, 1988). It should be noted that this activity is occasionally practiced by heterosexual and lesbian couples.
So in other words, heterosexuals have anal sex also. Hmmmm.
Then there is this passage I found on page five:
In addition to infections and trauma, tumors are a definite risk for homosexual men. Homosexual behavior in men is a risk factor for anal cancer. Squamous-cell anal cancer is also associated with a history of genital warts, an association suggesting that papillomavirus infection is a cause of anal cancer. (Daling, 1987). Anal warts are commonly found among individuals who practice anal intercourse and only rarely found among heterosexuals practicing vaginal intercourse.
But how do anal warts affect those heterosexual engaging in anal sex? Holsinger does not talk about this.
These are just two passages in Holsinger's paper but they seem to reveal that he is practicing willful prejudice, especially when one reads the following passage found on page six:
. . . it is clear that even primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual intercourse, and the birth of children. Indeed our own children appear to intutitvely understand these facts. I think we should note that these simple "scientific facts are the same in any culture - patriarchal or matriarchal, modern or primitive, Jewish or gentile, etc. The anatomic and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.
But isn't that passage contradicting his admittance that heterosexuals engage in anal sex?
How can he criticize gay men for having anal sex because the "parts don't fit" but then not do the same for heterosexuals, who he admits also engage in anal sex?
On that same note, how can he talk about about the "health risks" of gay men having anal sex (i.e. anal warts) while at the same time sidestepping any discussion of the health risks of heterosexual having anal sex?
Whether intentional or not, Holsinger's paper does nothing more than enhance prejudices about gay men, even in at the expense of contradicting itself.
No doubt, the anti-gay industry will try to frame this argument as one of us attacking a man because of his religious beliefs.
But this is not a case of religious persecution. It's a trust issue.
How can Holsinger be counted on to fairly address the health issues of the lgbt community when it has been shown that his religious objection to homosexuality led him to write an irresponsible piece of work?
It turns out that President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, James Holinger, seems to have more of an anti-gay history than first thought.
Original objections mostly dealt with him being affiliated with an ex-gay ministry.
That in itself is bad enough, but the following is worse:
In 1991, Dr. James W. Holsinger -- a University of Kentucky professor who is President Bush's nominee for U.S. surgeon general -- wrote a paper arguing that gay sex is biologically unnatural and unhealthy.
Like male and female pipe fittings, certain male and female body parts are designed for each other, Holsinger wrote in a paper prepared for a United Methodist Church committee studying homosexuality. "When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur," Holsinger wrote in the paper, titled Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality.
You can read the study at this link.
For the benefit of those wondering, the study does not cite data from our friend Paul Cameron. And it does not seem to have any of the distorted studies (i.e. the 1997 Oxford study) that I have found in several religous right papers supposedly critiquing gay sex habits.
No doubt my friend Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin will break down Holsinger's paper better than I ever could.
However, I did notice a central theme about Holsinger's paper that I found disturbing.
Check out this part on page four:
Consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely provided there is adequate lubrication. Few anorectal problems and no evidence of anal-sphincter dysfunction are found in heterosexual women who have anal-receptive intercourse. However, forceful anal penetration without lubrication against a resistant sphincter will result in abrasive trauma, causing fissures, contusions, thrombosed hemorrhoids, lacerations with bleeding, pain, and psychic trauma (Bush, 1986). The most severe type of anorectal trauma follows fist fornication which during the 1970s was practiced by approximately 5% of the male homosexual population (Geist, 1988). It should be noted that this activity is occasionally practiced by heterosexual and lesbian couples.
So in other words, heterosexuals have anal sex also. Hmmmm.
Then there is this passage I found on page five:
In addition to infections and trauma, tumors are a definite risk for homosexual men. Homosexual behavior in men is a risk factor for anal cancer. Squamous-cell anal cancer is also associated with a history of genital warts, an association suggesting that papillomavirus infection is a cause of anal cancer. (Daling, 1987). Anal warts are commonly found among individuals who practice anal intercourse and only rarely found among heterosexuals practicing vaginal intercourse.
But how do anal warts affect those heterosexual engaging in anal sex? Holsinger does not talk about this.
These are just two passages in Holsinger's paper but they seem to reveal that he is practicing willful prejudice, especially when one reads the following passage found on page six:
. . . it is clear that even primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual intercourse, and the birth of children. Indeed our own children appear to intutitvely understand these facts. I think we should note that these simple "scientific facts are the same in any culture - patriarchal or matriarchal, modern or primitive, Jewish or gentile, etc. The anatomic and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.
But isn't that passage contradicting his admittance that heterosexuals engage in anal sex?
How can he criticize gay men for having anal sex because the "parts don't fit" but then not do the same for heterosexuals, who he admits also engage in anal sex?
On that same note, how can he talk about about the "health risks" of gay men having anal sex (i.e. anal warts) while at the same time sidestepping any discussion of the health risks of heterosexual having anal sex?
Whether intentional or not, Holsinger's paper does nothing more than enhance prejudices about gay men, even in at the expense of contradicting itself.
No doubt, the anti-gay industry will try to frame this argument as one of us attacking a man because of his religious beliefs.
But this is not a case of religious persecution. It's a trust issue.
How can Holsinger be counted on to fairly address the health issues of the lgbt community when it has been shown that his religious objection to homosexuality led him to write an irresponsible piece of work?
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Let's not get distracted by the pawns
As fun as it is to expose and malign Peter LaBarbarbera and Americans for Truth (in name only) for their supposed "hard-hitting" exposes on leather conventions, let's not lose perspective.
While it is important to focus on LaBarbera's nonsense, we shouldn't take out attention away from the larger issue.
Which is the constant attempts by the anti-gay industry as a whole to define our lives based on not who we actually are, but what they think we are.
Peter makes himself an easy and fun target, but while attention is focused on him:
President Bush is attempting to push through a candidate for Surgeon General, John Holsinger, who seems to have an anti-gay bias. Let's not allow the anti-gay industry to define the debate as one of religious persecution.
Mr. Holsinger can believe whatever he wants but as Surgeon General he is supposed to representate all of us fairly. If his religious beliefs preclude him from doing this then he has no business even being considered for the position.
LGBTs are taxpayers also, thank you very much. We don't need acceptance but we will not take disrespect.
Also:
The city of Kalamazoo became the first public employer in the state to strip health benefits from the domestic partners of its gay and lesbian employees.
City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.
The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.
So much for these amendments being created to solely "protect marriage."
Just remember not to laugh at the clown so much that you don't notice when his cohorts try to rob you blind.
One more thing: I see that the Advocate magazine is seeking responses for its annual sex survey.
This means, of course, that we can expect to see our friend Peter and others in the anti-gay industry skewer the responses to fit their fictional worldview of the "perverted homosexual."
In the past, the anti-gay industry have used magazine sex surveys to malign our community. I cover this fact in my book.
This is just a heads up to look out for how they will distort this year's survey.
As fun as it is to expose and malign Peter LaBarbarbera and Americans for Truth (in name only) for their supposed "hard-hitting" exposes on leather conventions, let's not lose perspective.
While it is important to focus on LaBarbera's nonsense, we shouldn't take out attention away from the larger issue.
Which is the constant attempts by the anti-gay industry as a whole to define our lives based on not who we actually are, but what they think we are.
Peter makes himself an easy and fun target, but while attention is focused on him:
President Bush is attempting to push through a candidate for Surgeon General, John Holsinger, who seems to have an anti-gay bias. Let's not allow the anti-gay industry to define the debate as one of religious persecution.
Mr. Holsinger can believe whatever he wants but as Surgeon General he is supposed to representate all of us fairly. If his religious beliefs preclude him from doing this then he has no business even being considered for the position.
LGBTs are taxpayers also, thank you very much. We don't need acceptance but we will not take disrespect.
Also:
The city of Kalamazoo became the first public employer in the state to strip health benefits from the domestic partners of its gay and lesbian employees.
City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.
The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.
So much for these amendments being created to solely "protect marriage."
Just remember not to laugh at the clown so much that you don't notice when his cohorts try to rob you blind.
One more thing: I see that the Advocate magazine is seeking responses for its annual sex survey.
This means, of course, that we can expect to see our friend Peter and others in the anti-gay industry skewer the responses to fit their fictional worldview of the "perverted homosexual."
In the past, the anti-gay industry have used magazine sex surveys to malign our community. I cover this fact in my book.
This is just a heads up to look out for how they will distort this year's survey.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Meanwhile, over at Wayne's
It's Monday so I see my friend Harry Jackson has written yet another column denouncing hate crimes legislation on the conservative site Townhall.
Is this his fourth or fifth column? I lose count. Broken records have that effect on me.
The longer Jackson harps on the issue (and telling the lie that the bill punishes speech rather than violent action), the more integrity he loses. Jackson is only solidying himself as a phony pastor attempting to demonize the gay community for political purposes.
As much as I would like to devote time to him, a more pressing incident caught my attention today.
Wayne Besen wrote a very humorous column on Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth (in name only) supposed expose of International Mr. Leather 2007.
Apparently he struck a serious nerve.
Not only did Peter make a poor attempt to lambast Wayne on his page, but certain people have been writing interesting comments on Wayne's blog.
The persons listed themselves as anonymous, so I won't make any guesses as to who they are. I have my guesses but I will keep them to myself.
But the comments do more than accentuate the point of my blog better than anything I could ever say:
When you meet God, you will have to account for every child who got involved with sodomy and/or other sexual perversions and ended up with AIDs, for every homosexual who ended up with Hepatitis C, distension of the anus - for every kid who was lured down the path of sodomy and sexual perversion and compulsion - for every girl who was told that playing around with the reproductive organs of other girls is what womanhood is about, for every kid who was taught that his/her body is to be used just to satisfy itself in whatever way - for every kid who was told that male and female do not mean anything at all - for every kid who bought the big, fat evil lies of the homosexual movement.
And that was a light comment. There were others about "fecal matter" and such.
While I think it is important to always refute ridiculous claims, sometimes I just can't help but laugh at them.
And wonder about those willing to repeat and believe them.
Just what is in the mind of someone who would write such filth and lies? Do he or she really think that they are speaking the truth?
Or is it a manifestation of something dark inside themselves that they refuse to acknowledge?
It's sad that these people continuously try to turn the argument of lgbt civil liberties into one of alleged gay male sexual acts.
In any case, as long as the lies are set up, let's be sure to knock them down.
And pray for those willing to speak and believe these lies because they surely need it.
It's Monday so I see my friend Harry Jackson has written yet another column denouncing hate crimes legislation on the conservative site Townhall.
Is this his fourth or fifth column? I lose count. Broken records have that effect on me.
The longer Jackson harps on the issue (and telling the lie that the bill punishes speech rather than violent action), the more integrity he loses. Jackson is only solidying himself as a phony pastor attempting to demonize the gay community for political purposes.
As much as I would like to devote time to him, a more pressing incident caught my attention today.
Wayne Besen wrote a very humorous column on Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth (in name only) supposed expose of International Mr. Leather 2007.
Apparently he struck a serious nerve.
Not only did Peter make a poor attempt to lambast Wayne on his page, but certain people have been writing interesting comments on Wayne's blog.
The persons listed themselves as anonymous, so I won't make any guesses as to who they are. I have my guesses but I will keep them to myself.
But the comments do more than accentuate the point of my blog better than anything I could ever say:
When you meet God, you will have to account for every child who got involved with sodomy and/or other sexual perversions and ended up with AIDs, for every homosexual who ended up with Hepatitis C, distension of the anus - for every kid who was lured down the path of sodomy and sexual perversion and compulsion - for every girl who was told that playing around with the reproductive organs of other girls is what womanhood is about, for every kid who was taught that his/her body is to be used just to satisfy itself in whatever way - for every kid who was told that male and female do not mean anything at all - for every kid who bought the big, fat evil lies of the homosexual movement.
And that was a light comment. There were others about "fecal matter" and such.
While I think it is important to always refute ridiculous claims, sometimes I just can't help but laugh at them.
And wonder about those willing to repeat and believe them.
Just what is in the mind of someone who would write such filth and lies? Do he or she really think that they are speaking the truth?
Or is it a manifestation of something dark inside themselves that they refuse to acknowledge?
It's sad that these people continuously try to turn the argument of lgbt civil liberties into one of alleged gay male sexual acts.
In any case, as long as the lies are set up, let's be sure to knock them down.
And pray for those willing to speak and believe these lies because they surely need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)