Agape Press - a study of a slick contradiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is just plain wrong.

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

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

Hypocrisy is NOT a Christian value.

Gays hate God? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

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

Apparently we gays hate God.

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

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

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

And basically Kevin wraps it up by saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the caliber of "Christian" McCullough is.

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

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

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

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

And we love God.

Links to spiritual gay groups:

www.operationrebirth.com

http://www.soulforce.org/

http://www.gaychristian.net/

http://www.christiangay.com/

http://www.whosoever.org/

Headless Monster citing #1

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

Let me explain further.

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

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

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

Two recent events prove my point.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headless Monster citing #2

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

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

The piece is filled with errors. For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next, Mr. Fitzgibbons says the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's with the code words?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That image was effective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Michael Reagan for real?

Are we in Mississippi circa the 1960s?

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

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

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

These comments are from the column:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator obviously "pinch hitting" for anti-gay industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A challenge to Peter LaBarbera and anyone else

Something terrible happened recently in Great Britain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't have sex with blacks!
Avoid AIDS!

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

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

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

Here is the question for you, Peter.

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