Earlier today, I talked about the revelation that during a recent appearance on Fox News, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins refused to engage lgbt activist Jeremy Hooper in a face-to-face debate. Most likely it's probably because when he has to debate his anti-gay position against someone who knows their stuff, the following happens:
Thursday, January 02, 2014
'Why did FRC's Tony Perkins refuse a face-to-face debate with lgbt activist?' and other Thursday midday news briefs
The conversation we're having versus the forced monologue they want us to dignify - We keep hearing ad nauseam from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that we are trying to silence folks like him when it comes to the issue of lgbt equality. We know this is a dodge and now comes a bit of proof which we SIMPLY MUST INVESTIGATE FURTHER. My friend Jeremy Hooper, during an excellent post about how anti-gay activists like to turn tv interviews into talking point monologues, has revealed some interesting information regarding a recent appearance he and Perkins made on Fox News. Allegedly, Perkins REFUSED to debate him face-to-face. Subsequently, Megyn Kelly did back-to-back interviews with Hooper and then Perkins. Enough of the jaded comments of "well I'm surprised." We need to demand answers. Why didn't Tony Perkins want to go head-to-head with Jeremy. We know the answer, but the question still needs to be raised - PUBLICLY! That's the difference between them and us. If they had such a revelation about us, they would broadcast it to the heavens. We need to broadcast this revelation in the same manner.
Limericks By Matt Barber - This is just dumb. Instead of good arguments as to why his side opposes lgbt equality, anti-gay activist Matt Barber is now writing juvenile limericks. You gotta be kidding me!
Amazon pulls book telling parents to ignore their gay kids - Thanks to another blogging friend of mine, Wil Kohl of Back2Stonewall.com, this book has been pulled from Amazon. Free speech my tuckus! Amazon is a private company. Besides if we run this claptrap by a woman who has NO expertise in lgbt healthcare, or anything else resembling lgbt healthcare, why not run books supporting lobotomies?
No ‘Mass Exodus’ From Boy Scouts As New Gay Scout Rule Goes Into Effect - Another religious right fear story bites the dust.
Anti-gay activist attack researchers for daring to correct how he distorts their work
 |
| LaBarbera |
According to one peer-reviewed [1997] study done towards the end of the 20th century, the life expectancy for the average 20-year-old gay or bisexual man [assessing "vital statistics data ... obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992"] was 8 to 21 years less than his heterosexual counterpart. (See the International Journal of Epidemiology.) Here [in 2001] the authors actually condemn as “homophobic” anyone who dares to point to their research as evidence that homosexuality carries with it certain inherent health risks. And yet they in no way deny the statistical evidence their research has uncovered. (This is one of the best examples of “professing to be wise and remaining fools” I have ever stumbled upon.) [Editor's Note: Life expectancy for homosexual men is now much longer compared to when the original IJE study was done in 1997 -- due mainly to AIDS antiretroviral drugs. Nevertheless, "men who have sex with men" (MSM) remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," said a CDC specialist describing a Fact Sheet assessing 2010 infections and published by the CDC earlier this year. Read the original 1997 Canadian study on "gay" and bisexual men's lifespan HERE and the authors' short 2001 response (referenced by Holmberg above) to conservatives who used their data to criticize pro-homosexual activism HERE.]
Allow me to explain. Anti-gay groups generally distort a 1997 Canadian study to claim that gays have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. In 2001, the authors of the study complained that their work was being distorted. LaBarbera continues to not only distort their work but also attack them for correcting the lies, claiming that their correction did nothing to disprove his negative point about lgbts. That's not true. In the 2001 letter, they said:
In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia. It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive measure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used. In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.
And the grand irony of LaBarbera's explanation? The CDC fact sheet he used to make another point about the supposed health risk of homosexuality is also another distortion. Here, LaBarbera commits the sin of omission by not including another fact sheet which calls out the socioeconomic factors which heightens HIV risk, including poverty, discrimination, stigma, and homophobia. At no point does this fact sheet back up LaBarbera's idea that the lgbt orientation is a "health risk."
LaBarbera is beyond sad here. He not only distorts legitimate research but attacks the authors of the research for daring to complain about the misuse of their work He is like one of those birthers who cling so strongly to the notion that President Obama is not an American citizen that every bit of proof contradicting their belief is merely a piece of the "conspiracy."
To put it another way, LaBarbera is what I like to call a "true believer," the most pathetic of anti-gay activists. Unlike some folks like Brian Brown of NOM or Tony Perkins of FRC, LaBarbera isn't doing what he does for a paycheck. He seems to have a deep, personal animus against gays which he covers up with Scripture and platitudes of love. Rip away that phony cover and you find someone with not a hatred of gays, but a fear of gays. It's a fear which is so intense, he won't hum a show tune because he thinks it would "turn" him gay.
Sometimes LaBarbera acts so much like a homophobic clown that he should be laughed at. Now, however, he should be pitied.