Sorry Peter and Conservapedia, but 'gay bowel syndrome' still does not exist
Our friend Peter LaBarbera is practically falling over himself over in his latest post:
Conservapedia, a new online encyclopedia seeking to become a conservative alternative to the very liberal-biased Wikipedia takes a politically incorrect look at the medical phenomenon known as ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome’ — a term that homosexual activists are trying to purge from scientific and popular usage. Gay Bowel Syndrome describes a “clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients,” according to Conservapedia, which cites mainstream medical sources such as Johns Hopkins’ ‘HIV Guide’ in its article with 93 footnotes.
I talk about "gay bowel syndrome" in my book. I say the following:
According to the “Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus,” http://encyclopedia.
thefreedictionary.com:
“Gay bowel syndrome was a term fi rst used in 1976 prior to the discovery of AIDS, to describe a series of parasitic disorders caused by oral/anal contact and allegedly related to gay male sexual activity. The term was abandoned by the medical community in the 1980s because the problems that attributed to it were not specific to homosexuals, not confined to just the bowels, nor did it meet the medical definition of a syndrome.”
First of all, Conservapedia is not necessarily an accurate or objective source of information. It was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of well-known conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly stated that he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.
In other words, Conservapedia is another case of a someone attempting to manufacture his version of the truth when reality does not suit him.
In this particular case, Conservapedia claims the following:
Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients . . .
Conservapedia uses three sources for this claim and all of them are over 10 years old; two of them are from the 1970s.
Let's break this down some more.
Peter makes a huge point to note that the Conservapedia article contains 93 footnotes that, according to him, proves that "gay bowel syndrome" is a legitimate term.
Let's look at those footnotes:
Footnotes 1, 5, 15, 25, 31, 40, 47, 58 are the same - an article published in 1976 entitled The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases.
And that is not the only case in which the article uses duplicate footnotes, including the following examples:
Footnotes 2, 7, and 11- Clinical features and diagnosis - Inflammatory Bowel Disease, part 1 American Family Physician, Feb 15, 1993 by Glen E. Hastings, Richard J. Weber
Footnotes 10 and 12 - Dr. Michael Heller, The gay bowel syndrome: a common problem of homosexual patients in the emergency department. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1980
Conservapedia also says:
in 2004 Medscape stated that gay bowel syndrome is a significant issue in regards HIV infection (The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also features an article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape).
The Medscape piece and the John Hopkins article says the following:
This is a retrospective review of clinical proctitis in gay men seen at a STD clinic in San Francisco. The review included men with rectal symptoms of pain, itching, tenesmus, rectal bleeding or discharge who underwent clinical evaluation including anoscopy with diagnostic tests for C. trachomatis, N. gonorrhoeae, HSV and syphilis. The results show relatively high rates of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and HSV. No pathogen was found in 46 of the 101 patients studied.
Yes, I bolded that first sentence to make a point. Examples of gay men seen at STD clinics (especially in one city) are not necessarily indicative of the lgbt community at large. It is the same as using examples of African-American men in prison to gauge the habits of African-American men not incarcerated.
The articles also say the studies of those men in STD clinics took place in the years 2000-2001. That is six to seven years ago.
Now the articles do use the phrase "gay bowel syndrome," but they are vague as to the legitimacy of the term. And that does give Peter and Conservapedia a little raft to stake their lies.
But other than those two articles, does Conservapedia have any recent information?
Not necessarily. Conservapedia mentions 2007 articles regarding STDs, but only as an attempt to link those STDs together as an example of "gay bowel syndrome."
As a matter of fact, a good portion of the information Conservapedia has regarding the term "gay bowel syndrome" itself is from the 1970s and 80s; the years that the term was thought to be legitimate.
And Conservapedia even contradicts itself by saying the following:
Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients (the diseases are not exclusive to male homosexuals).
Doesn't that last statement contradict the entire tone of the Conservapedia article?
Lastly, Conservapedia says the following:
Although the term gay bowel syndrome is not used as frequently as the 1980's, as mentioned previously Medscape has an article on gay bowel syndrome that was published in 2004 that was entitled ''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome". Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website has a duplicate of the aforementioned article by John G. Bartlett, M.D. at Medscape which was entitled New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome". In addition, an online medical dictionary has an entry on gay bowel syndrome. Also, the website Biology-Online.org has an article on gay bowel syndrome.
As I said before, John Hopkins and the Medscape articles was talking about data that is close to seven years old and solely dealt with gay men in an STD clinic in San Francisco. And neither article goes into detail regarding the legitimacy of the term "gay bowel syndrome."
Lastly, both online dictionaries mentioned by Conservapedia (particularly Biology-Online.org) looks like online dictionaries in which anyone can add terms.
Basically, Conservapedia is taking advantage of online technology to pass along distortions and untruths as reality. And Peter is just loving it:
We at Americans For Truth believe that it is long past time for federal and state governments (and academia) to study the serious health risks associated with male homosexual sex and promiscuity, just as federally-sponsored studies helped educate the public on the significant dangers of smoking. Allowing homosexual activists a “protester’s veto” over legitimate medical inquiry and research will only cost more men’s lives, as larger society and especially young men are denied clear information on the additional health risks of “gay” sex viz a viz normal, natural straight sex.
Peter, if there should be any investigations, they should focus on why you and folks like yourself obsess over what you think lgbts do in the bedroom.
And let's not forget Conservapedia.
I guess its next goal will be attempting to give Paul Cameron some degree of credibility.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Charlene Cothran lied to me
I am sure you all are aware of Charlene Cothran, the African-American publisher of Venus Magazine who is now claiming that she is an "ex-gay."
Let me make you aware of something else.
When Cothran announced her "change," I wrote her a letter. She answered my letter. The following is our exchange:
My letter:
You are Being Used
While I do not agree with your latest exploits, I respect them. However please be advised as you claim to look towards Heaven that you do not allow yourself to be deceived by those with an agenda. Already some folks are using your story in attempts to deny those of us who are comfortable with our orientation our basic rights.
You see that is the paradox involving those claiming to be "ex-gay." Many of us gays have no problem with your decisions. However, groups like Focus on the Family, etc try to use your experiences to keep job-protection ordinances and the like from being passed.
Your situation reminds me of Angie and Debbie Winans. First, they wrote a song criticizing homosexuality called "It's Not Natural," then they begin speaking in legislative committees against laws that would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment and housing.
Where is the line drawn? Please remember my point as you go about your days. Don't allow yourself to be used to deny me my rights as a gay black man.
Her response:
I am acutely aware that many on the 'right' want to use me/my story for their own narrow benefit. In many interviews I remind them that every gay or lesbian person...every PERSON deserves basic HUMAN RIGHTS. The right to NOT be fired from their jobs for being gay, the right to declare whom ever they please as their 'next of kin' for medical emergency, property exchange, insurance privileges etc.
Now the rest of her letter goes on about gays recruiting children but since it is not relevant to my point, I will not not include it.
So Ms. Cothran believes that lgbts have a right to employment, etc. Too bad that many whom she now calls allies don't believe the same thing. Cases in point:
A vote is expected soon on H.R. 2015, the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA). If passed, the bill would grant special employment rights and protected minority status to individuals who define themselves based upon chosen sexual behaviors and others who — among other things — suffer from clinical self-delusion. It would force employers to abandon their First Amendment civil rights at the workplace door.
TAKE ACTION: If enacted into law, The Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA, H.R. 2015) and the federal “hate crimes” bill, H.R. 1592 (recently passed by the House), would be the first time that “gender identity rights” are recognized in federal law. This would usher in a new wave of persecution for people opposed to homosexuality and gender confusion . . .
At bottom is the religious exemption language for H.R. 2015, ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would use federal government powers to ban “employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” (Emphasis is added below.) ENDA would apply to businesses with 15 or more employees.
We at Americans For Truth generally oppose the concept of religious exemptions to pro-homosexual laws because religious people alone should not be able to exercise their freedoms to oppose aberrant sexual behavior.
These hateful and untrue statements came from our friend Peter LaBarbera and his group Americans for Truth (in name only).
Ms. Cothran spoke at a recent fundraiser for the group.
So while Ms. Cothran claims to believe that lgbts should have job protection, she does not have a problem with aligning herself with a group who tells lies to prevent said job protection.
Her actions remind me of a man who claims not believe in lynching, but not only does subtle things to incite the mob but also benefits from their bloodlust.
Apparently being a hypocrite has become a characteristic of being an "ex-gay."
I am sure you all are aware of Charlene Cothran, the African-American publisher of Venus Magazine who is now claiming that she is an "ex-gay."
Let me make you aware of something else.
When Cothran announced her "change," I wrote her a letter. She answered my letter. The following is our exchange:
My letter:
You are Being Used
While I do not agree with your latest exploits, I respect them. However please be advised as you claim to look towards Heaven that you do not allow yourself to be deceived by those with an agenda. Already some folks are using your story in attempts to deny those of us who are comfortable with our orientation our basic rights.
You see that is the paradox involving those claiming to be "ex-gay." Many of us gays have no problem with your decisions. However, groups like Focus on the Family, etc try to use your experiences to keep job-protection ordinances and the like from being passed.
Your situation reminds me of Angie and Debbie Winans. First, they wrote a song criticizing homosexuality called "It's Not Natural," then they begin speaking in legislative committees against laws that would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment and housing.
Where is the line drawn? Please remember my point as you go about your days. Don't allow yourself to be used to deny me my rights as a gay black man.
Her response:
I am acutely aware that many on the 'right' want to use me/my story for their own narrow benefit. In many interviews I remind them that every gay or lesbian person...every PERSON deserves basic HUMAN RIGHTS. The right to NOT be fired from their jobs for being gay, the right to declare whom ever they please as their 'next of kin' for medical emergency, property exchange, insurance privileges etc.
Now the rest of her letter goes on about gays recruiting children but since it is not relevant to my point, I will not not include it.
So Ms. Cothran believes that lgbts have a right to employment, etc. Too bad that many whom she now calls allies don't believe the same thing. Cases in point:
A vote is expected soon on H.R. 2015, the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA). If passed, the bill would grant special employment rights and protected minority status to individuals who define themselves based upon chosen sexual behaviors and others who — among other things — suffer from clinical self-delusion. It would force employers to abandon their First Amendment civil rights at the workplace door.
TAKE ACTION: If enacted into law, The Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA, H.R. 2015) and the federal “hate crimes” bill, H.R. 1592 (recently passed by the House), would be the first time that “gender identity rights” are recognized in federal law. This would usher in a new wave of persecution for people opposed to homosexuality and gender confusion . . .
At bottom is the religious exemption language for H.R. 2015, ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would use federal government powers to ban “employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” (Emphasis is added below.) ENDA would apply to businesses with 15 or more employees.
We at Americans For Truth generally oppose the concept of religious exemptions to pro-homosexual laws because religious people alone should not be able to exercise their freedoms to oppose aberrant sexual behavior.
These hateful and untrue statements came from our friend Peter LaBarbera and his group Americans for Truth (in name only).
Ms. Cothran spoke at a recent fundraiser for the group.
So while Ms. Cothran claims to believe that lgbts should have job protection, she does not have a problem with aligning herself with a group who tells lies to prevent said job protection.
Her actions remind me of a man who claims not believe in lynching, but not only does subtle things to incite the mob but also benefits from their bloodlust.
Apparently being a hypocrite has become a characteristic of being an "ex-gay."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
More lies, more aggravation
As soon as I get over anti-gay industry lies (see Monday's post), more come my way.
John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute wrote a piece today, Criminalizing Your Thoughts, that criticizes the recently passed Matthew Shepard Act.
Naturally he is touting the same "this law will lead Christians to be arrested for speaking out against homosexuality" lie. The following caught my attention:
For example, Christians have been prosecuted under a state hate crime law for “singing hymns” and peacefully “carrying signs” while attending a homosexual fair in Pennsylvania. Because the signs challenged the morality of homosexuality, these Christians were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors and faced 47 years in prison for attempting to preach at a homosexual street fair. Indeed, a state judge determined that the prosecutions could go forward. His rationale was that the Christians’ speech constituted so-called “fighting words.”
This of course is not true. According to People for the American Way:
The story as told by Repent America and other Religious Right groups – most recently in two videotaped ads by grandmothers who participated in the Repent America protest against the festival – is that people were arrested merely for “sharing the gospel” on public property. The arrest of the protestors and subsequent charges against them on several counts – some under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law – is, in the mythology of Repent America, proof that the goal of gay rights activists in general, and hate crimes laws in particular, is to outlaw the gospel.
The kernel of truth at the bottom of the propaganda pile is that the two grandmothers and others were in fact arrested while protesting Philadelphia’s OutFest, and a local prosecutor did charge them with violations of several laws, including the state’s hate crimes law.
But none of those charges were for “sharing the gospel.”
Repent America doesn’t mention that a federal court later found that the women “insulted individual attendees, blocked access to vendors, and disobeyed direct orders from the police, who were trying to preserve order and keep the peace.” The police arrested the protesters only after “their presence disrupted public order.” Unlike the organizers of OutFest, Repent America leaders failed to obtain a permit from the city. The city and the police gave the women great leeway, but they still overstepped the bounds of peaceful protest.
The First Amendment allows equality advocates to rally, and allows those with a different point of view to protest. But it doesn’t mean that protestors have the right to disrupt the rally or drown out its speakers. It is universally recognized that public safety officials can place reasonable “time, place, and manner restrictions” on people exercising their first amendment rights in order to preserve public order and prevent one group from trampling another’s rights. The court, which noted that Repent America did not get a permit for their protest, found that the police applied the law reasonably when the bullhorn-wielding Repent America protestors refused a request to move to another location and instead sat down in the street.
It is also important to note that the court dismissed the hate crimes charges in this case. In fact, the resolution of the situation proves the opposite of what the Right claims – despite their disruptive behavior and refusal to obey police requests, the protestors were neither convicted nor sentenced for breaking hate crimes laws.
The Rutherford Institute claims that it is a "civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated."
Apparently telling the truth doesn't seem to fit into these noble goals.
As soon as I get over anti-gay industry lies (see Monday's post), more come my way.
John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute wrote a piece today, Criminalizing Your Thoughts, that criticizes the recently passed Matthew Shepard Act.
Naturally he is touting the same "this law will lead Christians to be arrested for speaking out against homosexuality" lie. The following caught my attention:
For example, Christians have been prosecuted under a state hate crime law for “singing hymns” and peacefully “carrying signs” while attending a homosexual fair in Pennsylvania. Because the signs challenged the morality of homosexuality, these Christians were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors and faced 47 years in prison for attempting to preach at a homosexual street fair. Indeed, a state judge determined that the prosecutions could go forward. His rationale was that the Christians’ speech constituted so-called “fighting words.”
This of course is not true. According to People for the American Way:
The story as told by Repent America and other Religious Right groups – most recently in two videotaped ads by grandmothers who participated in the Repent America protest against the festival – is that people were arrested merely for “sharing the gospel” on public property. The arrest of the protestors and subsequent charges against them on several counts – some under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law – is, in the mythology of Repent America, proof that the goal of gay rights activists in general, and hate crimes laws in particular, is to outlaw the gospel.
The kernel of truth at the bottom of the propaganda pile is that the two grandmothers and others were in fact arrested while protesting Philadelphia’s OutFest, and a local prosecutor did charge them with violations of several laws, including the state’s hate crimes law.
But none of those charges were for “sharing the gospel.”
Repent America doesn’t mention that a federal court later found that the women “insulted individual attendees, blocked access to vendors, and disobeyed direct orders from the police, who were trying to preserve order and keep the peace.” The police arrested the protesters only after “their presence disrupted public order.” Unlike the organizers of OutFest, Repent America leaders failed to obtain a permit from the city. The city and the police gave the women great leeway, but they still overstepped the bounds of peaceful protest.
The First Amendment allows equality advocates to rally, and allows those with a different point of view to protest. But it doesn’t mean that protestors have the right to disrupt the rally or drown out its speakers. It is universally recognized that public safety officials can place reasonable “time, place, and manner restrictions” on people exercising their first amendment rights in order to preserve public order and prevent one group from trampling another’s rights. The court, which noted that Repent America did not get a permit for their protest, found that the police applied the law reasonably when the bullhorn-wielding Repent America protestors refused a request to move to another location and instead sat down in the street.
It is also important to note that the court dismissed the hate crimes charges in this case. In fact, the resolution of the situation proves the opposite of what the Right claims – despite their disruptive behavior and refusal to obey police requests, the protestors were neither convicted nor sentenced for breaking hate crimes laws.
The Rutherford Institute claims that it is a "civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated."
Apparently telling the truth doesn't seem to fit into these noble goals.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Book update!!!!!!!!!!!
No I have not forgotten about my book.
It has been a little over a month since its publication and things are going better than I expected.
My book has been getting a bit of attention (though no word on whether or not Peter LaBarbera and company at Americans for Truth took my advice and actually bought a copy) through word of mouth.
I think it's safe to assume that Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters is becoming an underground favorite. A big thanks to those bloggers who believed in this project from the beginning and went out of their way to publicize my book on their sites (you guys know who you are!)
Also, thanks to my webmaster for setting up my page.
There have also been mentions in high profile lgbt sites such as PageQ and Americablog. So slowly but steadily, my book is building up steam.
I know that due to a variety of factors (such as my book being self-published), my book will not make a huge impact at first. Therefore, I set a goal of selling at least 100 copies before I kick things into high gear.
With the help of so many people, I am almost there.
And I know that the best is yet to come.
No I have not forgotten about my book.
It has been a little over a month since its publication and things are going better than I expected.
My book has been getting a bit of attention (though no word on whether or not Peter LaBarbera and company at Americans for Truth took my advice and actually bought a copy) through word of mouth.
I think it's safe to assume that Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters is becoming an underground favorite. A big thanks to those bloggers who believed in this project from the beginning and went out of their way to publicize my book on their sites (you guys know who you are!)
Also, thanks to my webmaster for setting up my page.
There have also been mentions in high profile lgbt sites such as PageQ and Americablog. So slowly but steadily, my book is building up steam.
I know that due to a variety of factors (such as my book being self-published), my book will not make a huge impact at first. Therefore, I set a goal of selling at least 100 copies before I kick things into high gear.
With the help of so many people, I am almost there.
And I know that the best is yet to come.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Ignorant people are aggravating the hell out of me
I apologize for the length of this post but I am aggravated.
No matter how I try to be calm over the situation, I never fail to get angry and exasperated when I see an ignorant Christian spouting anti-gay industry lies about lgbts.
I get angry because I hate when my people are lied on and I get exasperated because I really wonder when oh when will they ever learn?
So what got me upset today?
A piece on the site Virtue Online called 20 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality.
The author of the piece, John F. McKenna, is described as a member of St. Paul's Church in Darien, Connecticut, one of the "Connecticut Six" churches that oppose their bishop's stand in favor of a non-celibate gay bishop consecrated as bishop of New Hampshire.
To me he is a classic case of what is wrong with Chrisitianity in this country - someone so caught up in ego regarding his relationship with God that he allows himself to be used in order to spread lies and propaganda.
Let's take this piece apart bit by bit:
2. Who is harmed by supporting such relationships?
Most importantly, those who are inclined toward homosexuality are harmed if they act on those impulses. A widespread myth is that AIDS is the main danger, but AIDS is actually just a small part of the health hazard. Consider some of the others:
They include 26 types of diseases other than AIDS (Journal of Adolescent Medicine); a life expectancy equal to that experienced in 1871 (Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology); high risk of three types of hepatitis (Centers for Disease Control); proctitis associated with the gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, & syphilis widespread among homosexuals (Journal of the American Medical Association); an incidence of anal cancer 35 times higher than usual (Dr. Joel Palefsky, an expert in that field); among lesbians, a higher prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C (Sexually Transmitted Infections, a journal).
Some of the health hazards exist even in the extremely unusual situations in which there is complete faithfulness with neither of the partners having had prior relationships. The inherent weakness of the body results in its inability to withstand gay sex without a serious risk of damage, including tearing of the sphincter, fistular infections of the rectum, and incontinence. Support for physical relationships among members of the same sex is a false benevolence, a well-meant gesture that is very often a death sentence .
There are so many things wrong with this passage. Let's take that part about the supposed gay life span. McKenna is distorting a 1997 Canadian study to claim that gays have a short life span? And how do I know that he is distorting this study? Because in 2001, the creators of the study went on record complaining about how the religious right were misusing their work in the exact way McKenna was. Their letter is here.
As for the rest of McKenna's claims regarding diseases, please note that he does not give an exact notation of the studies he got the information from. Given how he distorted the 1997 Canadian study, his vague citations have no credibility.
But the most grevious error McKenna makes in this section is inferring that anal sex is "homosexual behavior. Not only does he make the mistake of thinking that anal sex is a fixture in gay sexual intercourse (which it is not) but he omits the fact that many heterosexuals have an interest in the sexual act.
16. Isn't it obvious that in raising children, all that matters is love, regardless of gender? Why not two mommies?The fact remains that gender matters--perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing.
The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother."
Psychology Today explained in 1996 that "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children."
A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa. According to Harvard educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty.
Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers. (Research done by Focus on the Family)
I purposely bolded the names of Kyle Pruett and Carol Gilligan. I think many reading this blog knows why. Last year, they both went on record complaining how Focus on the Family distorted their work to make the claims that McKenna is now alluding to in his piece. Their complaints are here.
17. But supporting gay rights in the church and in general is really very benign. Where's the real harm?
Let's say there are six million American gays dying at the usual American death rate of .8%, and so 48,000 are dying each year. According to the official Danish statistical agency, 80% of married gays do not reach old age, and if that applies to the U.S., then 38,400 American gays are dying young each year. (Compared to fewer than 4000 Americans over the entire history of the Iraq war.)
Now that is untrue. That citation comes from yet another bad study from our friend the discredited Paul Cameron. In this particular case, not only did Cameron distort his findings, but he also distorted how and where he presented them. That is here.
19. But won't same-sex marriage alter the whole social pattern of homosexuality?
According to researchers studying same-sex marriage in Scandinavia over the past 15 years, marriage has had no discernible impact on homosexual patterns of instability. The rapid breakup of same-sex marriages is parallel to the rapid breakup of same-sex couples who haven't been married. Very few avail themselves of same-sex marriage to begin with, and of those who do, the liaisons have usually been quite short-lived.
Now that is a bold-faced lie. The fact of the matter is that no one was married in the study McKenna was talking about. I go into more detail about this in my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
The study in question looked at casual gay partnerships. It was conducted between the years 1984 and 2000. Same sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands (i.e. Scandinavia) in 2001.
I apologize for not having blog links for it but I have the information available for anyone who wants to know more or wants to challenge me.
The fact of the matter is that McKenna does not know what the heck he is talking about. It is apparent that he shopped for data that enhanced his beliefs. He did not even attempt to see about the legitimacy of the so-called facts he was citing.
And I don't think he cared. As long as it enhanced his belief that homosexuality is a sin, then the data he found is correct, according to him at least.
Not very Christian, is it?
I apologize for the length of this post but I am aggravated.
No matter how I try to be calm over the situation, I never fail to get angry and exasperated when I see an ignorant Christian spouting anti-gay industry lies about lgbts.
I get angry because I hate when my people are lied on and I get exasperated because I really wonder when oh when will they ever learn?
So what got me upset today?
A piece on the site Virtue Online called 20 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality.
The author of the piece, John F. McKenna, is described as a member of St. Paul's Church in Darien, Connecticut, one of the "Connecticut Six" churches that oppose their bishop's stand in favor of a non-celibate gay bishop consecrated as bishop of New Hampshire.
To me he is a classic case of what is wrong with Chrisitianity in this country - someone so caught up in ego regarding his relationship with God that he allows himself to be used in order to spread lies and propaganda.
Let's take this piece apart bit by bit:
2. Who is harmed by supporting such relationships?
Most importantly, those who are inclined toward homosexuality are harmed if they act on those impulses. A widespread myth is that AIDS is the main danger, but AIDS is actually just a small part of the health hazard. Consider some of the others:
They include 26 types of diseases other than AIDS (Journal of Adolescent Medicine); a life expectancy equal to that experienced in 1871 (Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology); high risk of three types of hepatitis (Centers for Disease Control); proctitis associated with the gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, & syphilis widespread among homosexuals (Journal of the American Medical Association); an incidence of anal cancer 35 times higher than usual (Dr. Joel Palefsky, an expert in that field); among lesbians, a higher prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C (Sexually Transmitted Infections, a journal).
Some of the health hazards exist even in the extremely unusual situations in which there is complete faithfulness with neither of the partners having had prior relationships. The inherent weakness of the body results in its inability to withstand gay sex without a serious risk of damage, including tearing of the sphincter, fistular infections of the rectum, and incontinence. Support for physical relationships among members of the same sex is a false benevolence, a well-meant gesture that is very often a death sentence .
There are so many things wrong with this passage. Let's take that part about the supposed gay life span. McKenna is distorting a 1997 Canadian study to claim that gays have a short life span? And how do I know that he is distorting this study? Because in 2001, the creators of the study went on record complaining about how the religious right were misusing their work in the exact way McKenna was. Their letter is here.
As for the rest of McKenna's claims regarding diseases, please note that he does not give an exact notation of the studies he got the information from. Given how he distorted the 1997 Canadian study, his vague citations have no credibility.
But the most grevious error McKenna makes in this section is inferring that anal sex is "homosexual behavior. Not only does he make the mistake of thinking that anal sex is a fixture in gay sexual intercourse (which it is not) but he omits the fact that many heterosexuals have an interest in the sexual act.
16. Isn't it obvious that in raising children, all that matters is love, regardless of gender? Why not two mommies?The fact remains that gender matters--perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing.
The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother."
Psychology Today explained in 1996 that "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children."
A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa. According to Harvard educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty.
Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers. (Research done by Focus on the Family)
I purposely bolded the names of Kyle Pruett and Carol Gilligan. I think many reading this blog knows why. Last year, they both went on record complaining how Focus on the Family distorted their work to make the claims that McKenna is now alluding to in his piece. Their complaints are here.
17. But supporting gay rights in the church and in general is really very benign. Where's the real harm?
Let's say there are six million American gays dying at the usual American death rate of .8%, and so 48,000 are dying each year. According to the official Danish statistical agency, 80% of married gays do not reach old age, and if that applies to the U.S., then 38,400 American gays are dying young each year. (Compared to fewer than 4000 Americans over the entire history of the Iraq war.)
Now that is untrue. That citation comes from yet another bad study from our friend the discredited Paul Cameron. In this particular case, not only did Cameron distort his findings, but he also distorted how and where he presented them. That is here.
19. But won't same-sex marriage alter the whole social pattern of homosexuality?
According to researchers studying same-sex marriage in Scandinavia over the past 15 years, marriage has had no discernible impact on homosexual patterns of instability. The rapid breakup of same-sex marriages is parallel to the rapid breakup of same-sex couples who haven't been married. Very few avail themselves of same-sex marriage to begin with, and of those who do, the liaisons have usually been quite short-lived.
Now that is a bold-faced lie. The fact of the matter is that no one was married in the study McKenna was talking about. I go into more detail about this in my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
The study in question looked at casual gay partnerships. It was conducted between the years 1984 and 2000. Same sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands (i.e. Scandinavia) in 2001.
I apologize for not having blog links for it but I have the information available for anyone who wants to know more or wants to challenge me.
The fact of the matter is that McKenna does not know what the heck he is talking about. It is apparent that he shopped for data that enhanced his beliefs. He did not even attempt to see about the legitimacy of the so-called facts he was citing.
And I don't think he cared. As long as it enhanced his belief that homosexuality is a sin, then the data he found is correct, according to him at least.
Not very Christian, is it?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Something worth knowing about the Folsom Street Fair and our friend Peter
Yesterday, an online buddy of mine wrote me saying that he attended the Folsom Street Fair. His observations are very interesting:
I have to say I went to the Folsom Street Fair (and this was my third year).
It is clear from these pictures that the whippings and such that occurred on Folsum Street were not the popular parts of the Street Fair (his pictures of the flogging shows 4 people watching, plus himself and Allyson Smith). He might find them exciting, but it isn't the focus of the Street Fair.
And most people who went were fully dressed. It is extremely rare to see fully naked people on the street. One thing that Peter LaBarbera didn't mention in his complaining about nudity--it is legal in San Francisco to walk around fully nude.
I've only seen it once outside of Folsom Street. There were also volunteers who were asked to go around and ask people who were having sex to stop. It is not condoned at the street fair. It is possible that Peter LaBarbera was standing in the way of these volunteers as he excitedly filmed the oral sex for at least 1/2 hour!
It is also clear from these pictures that Peter LaBarbera asked most of these people to pose for him.
My friend was wrong about one thing. Peter did not say the oral sex went on for half an hour. He was talking about the "mutual masturbation:"
Naked “leathermen” fondle each other in a public sex scene as passers-by stop to watch and take pictures. This scene (see next photo) went on for at least a half hour, as new men would come and join in the mutual masturbation.
However the question still remains. Just how did Peter know how long the "mutual masturbation" went on.
Let me guess. He was watching and timing it for "research purposes."
Yesterday, an online buddy of mine wrote me saying that he attended the Folsom Street Fair. His observations are very interesting:
I have to say I went to the Folsom Street Fair (and this was my third year).
It is clear from these pictures that the whippings and such that occurred on Folsum Street were not the popular parts of the Street Fair (his pictures of the flogging shows 4 people watching, plus himself and Allyson Smith). He might find them exciting, but it isn't the focus of the Street Fair.
And most people who went were fully dressed. It is extremely rare to see fully naked people on the street. One thing that Peter LaBarbera didn't mention in his complaining about nudity--it is legal in San Francisco to walk around fully nude.
I've only seen it once outside of Folsom Street. There were also volunteers who were asked to go around and ask people who were having sex to stop. It is not condoned at the street fair. It is possible that Peter LaBarbera was standing in the way of these volunteers as he excitedly filmed the oral sex for at least 1/2 hour!
It is also clear from these pictures that Peter LaBarbera asked most of these people to pose for him.
My friend was wrong about one thing. Peter did not say the oral sex went on for half an hour. He was talking about the "mutual masturbation:"
Naked “leathermen” fondle each other in a public sex scene as passers-by stop to watch and take pictures. This scene (see next photo) went on for at least a half hour, as new men would come and join in the mutual masturbation.
However the question still remains. Just how did Peter know how long the "mutual masturbation" went on.
Let me guess. He was watching and timing it for "research purposes."
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Porno Petey strikes again
There he goes again.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth (in name only) has just published his eyewitness report of San Francisco's Folsom Street Fair complete with pictures.
For those who us who are aware of Peter's proclivities, it is business as usual, as he makes us all aware of every "depraved" sexual act we missed as we go about with our boring lives.
In other words, business as usual.
For the record, I have never been to Folsom Street Fair and I don't plan on going soon. I am not into bondage or seeing half dressed people in chains and leather walking the streets.
Not that it matters to Peter or any of his supporters. In their eyes, my boring life as a gay man is a dodge, an illusion put forth by some secret gay empire.
And it is up to Peter (like some reluctant hero of a Stephen King novel) to "expose" the true face of lgbt America. Which, according to him, is all about baccanalia and hedonism.
Never mind that there are many other lgbts like me who have no interest in Folsom Street Fair or that there are a good number of heterosexuals (as evidenced in the pictures Peter took) that do have an interest in such goings on, laws determining lgbt self-determination should be decided solely on the anti-gay spin Peter try to put forth from his "investigation."
It would be ludicrous if Peter wasn't so damned serious and the implications of his innuendoes weren't so damned scary.
There he goes again.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth (in name only) has just published his eyewitness report of San Francisco's Folsom Street Fair complete with pictures.
For those who us who are aware of Peter's proclivities, it is business as usual, as he makes us all aware of every "depraved" sexual act we missed as we go about with our boring lives.
In other words, business as usual.
For the record, I have never been to Folsom Street Fair and I don't plan on going soon. I am not into bondage or seeing half dressed people in chains and leather walking the streets.
Not that it matters to Peter or any of his supporters. In their eyes, my boring life as a gay man is a dodge, an illusion put forth by some secret gay empire.
And it is up to Peter (like some reluctant hero of a Stephen King novel) to "expose" the true face of lgbt America. Which, according to him, is all about baccanalia and hedonism.
Never mind that there are many other lgbts like me who have no interest in Folsom Street Fair or that there are a good number of heterosexuals (as evidenced in the pictures Peter took) that do have an interest in such goings on, laws determining lgbt self-determination should be decided solely on the anti-gay spin Peter try to put forth from his "investigation."
It would be ludicrous if Peter wasn't so damned serious and the implications of his innuendoes weren't so damned scary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)