Jesse Helms - Life, Death, and the Inability to Stop Evolution
One of the most anti-gay individuals in the United States, former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, passed away during the Fourth of July holiday.
Some of us are probably dancing in joy over his passage. The mainstream media is slowly tiptoeing over his controversial history as an anti-gay Senator.
The anti-gay industry is treating his death like the passage of George Washington.
But I want to take another tack.
In the past year and a half, the lgbt community has seen the passing away of three of our most persistent opponents.
There was Jerry Falwell, who will always be defined not by his influence on politics but the bad choices he made.
During the beginning of the AIDS crisis, he could have ministered to the sick. However, he took advantage of the calamity to enhance his own reputation. Through rhetoric and brochures designed to scare and inflame ignorance, he exploited and grew fat off of the suffering of those who stricken with the disease.
Worse than that, his actions served as a blueprint. Like some female monster out of mythology, his efforts sired offspring either equally or more determined to demonize the lgbt community; i.e. Paul Cameron, Peter LaBarbera, the LaHayes, James Dobson, Janet Folger, etc.
Then there was James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, who wrapped himself up in Biblical doctrine and demanded that others repented while he spun untrue stories of ACLU and homosexual boogeyman and secretly worked to convert America into a theocracy.
Then comes the third party in the triumvirate: Jesse Helms.
Helms was a man who claimed that this country needed a "spiritual revival," while freely and openly feeding on fear.
He was a shining example of not only the underside of this country, but of human nature in general. Hateful, homophobic, and racist, Helms was so stewed in the self-righteous juices of his own rhetoric that he was immune to its bad smell.
He was like that dog in the Aesop fable; the one who was so unruly that he was given a bell as a badge of shame. In his ignorance, the dog mistook the bell as a symbol of pride.
Such was Helms when he heard himself being described as a bigot.
I group those men together to emphasize a point. No matter how many lies they spun, how offensive their words were, or how many people they swayed, in the great scheme of things, Falwell, Kennedy, and Helms are pretty much irrelevant.
Why? Because while they hindered lgbts, they did not stop us. We are still here and we are strong. In fact, we continue to get stronger every day.
Lgbt children are coming out at earlier ages, same-sex families are beginning to be acknowledged as they should be, and slowly but surely, the entire community is evolving past being punchlines, past secret encounters in public places, and into the mainstream.
We are rejecting the lies spun by folks like Falwell, Kennedy, and Helms that our sexual orientation somehow disqualifies us from having substantial lives.
And most of all, we are rejecting the lie that God did not create us to be the proud lgbt people that a vast majority of us are.
In the long run, Falwell, Kennedy, and Helms served their purpose. Every successful hero needs a villain to triumph over. Falwell, Kennedy, and Helms were our villains.
And we defeated them.
Not by voting them out of office or exposing them as liars (although those things would have been nice.) We defeated them by simply enduring.
So while some may think what I am saying is in bad taste, just think of Helms (not to mention Falwell and Kennedy for that matter) as footnotes in our struggle for equality.
Let our successes be their epitaphs.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Matt Barber returns to spin another distortion
Matt Barber may have left Concerned Women for America, but he still continues to distort research.
One News Now (your favorite phony news source and mine) published a piece by him entitled: Children in the 'gay marriage' crosshairs .
This piece follows standard anti-gay industry talking points that include: "marriage presents the best way to raise children" and "children deserve a mother and a father."
For the record, children deserve a good home where they have love and support. This doesn't necessarily only come from a home that features a mother and father. It can come from a home that features only a mother or only a father. Or two mothers or two fathers for that matter.
In fact in this country, families that don't fit the "traditional definition" are raising children and are doing it quite well.
They just don't matter to the anti-gay industry.
But I deviate from my point. Barber's column features the following:
While standing before the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia Senate in 2005, Robert Knight, former director of the Culture and Family Institute, testified to the following:
"In 2001, a team of pro-homosexual researchers from the University of Southern California did a meta-analysis of 'gay parenting' studies and published a refreshingly honest article in American Sociological Review, '(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?'
"The authors concluded that, yes, studies show that girls are more likely to 'be sexually adventurous and less chaste,' including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have 'fluid' conceptions of gender roles, and that researchers should stop trying to cover this up in the hopes of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda. The researchers said, in effect: Some of the kids are more likely to turn out gay or bisexual, but so what?"
Of course this is a blatant lie, but typical of Robert Knight. Before Knight joined another group, the Media Resource Center, he was involved with Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council.
While with these groups, Knight freely cited discredited researcher Paul Cameron, as well as distorted credible research in order to paint a negative picture of the lgbt community.
The example Barber used is just par for the course.
The study cited, (How) Does Sexual Orientation of the Parent Matter, was written by Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey.
My guess is that Barber intentionally omitted the authors of the study because, you see, Stacey has gone on record complaining as to how her work has been distorted.
But let's look at the "horse's mouth," so to speak.
A look at the Stacey/Biblarz study shows that what was said is more complex than what Barber and Knight claim.
Here is what the passage (page 171) actually said:
Tasker and Golombok (1997) also report some fascinating findings on the number of sexual partners children report having had between puberty and young adulthood. Relative to their counterparts with heterosexual parents, the adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste, whereas the sons of lesbians evince the opposite pattern—somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste (the finding was statistically significant for the 25- girl sample but not for the 18-boy sample).
In other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them. Yet this provocative finding of differences in sexual behavior and agency has not been analyzed or investigated further.
The gender-based roles that Stacey and Biblarz alluded to is in this passage on page 168:
For example, lesbian mothers in R. Green et al. (1986) reported that their children, especially daughters, more frequently dress, play, and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. Likewise, daughters of lesbian mothers reported greater interest in activities associated with both “masculine” and “feminine” qualities and that involve the participation of both sexes, whereas daughters of heterosexual mothers report significantly greater interest in traditionally feminine, same-sex activities (also see Hotvedt and Mandel 1982).
Similarly, daughters with lesbian mothers reported higher aspirations to nontraditional gender occupations (Steckel 1987). For example, in R. Green et al. (1986), 53 percent (16 out of 30) of the daughters of lesbians aspired to careers such as doctor, lawyer, engineer, and astronaut, compared with only 21 percent (6 of 28) of the daughters of heterosexual mothers.
So it sounds like that Stacey and Biblarz were actually saying that children raised by lgbts don't necessarily conform to the "traditional" gender roles. This point is alluded to throughout the entire study.
But Knight and Barber took passages out of the study to extrapolate the following incorrect stereotype: gays and lesbians raising children will lead to girls being lesbians and sluts and boys putting on dresses.
It's sad how these supposed Christians will lie. I think that the following point Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes made at a teleconference call says it all:
Those who oppose civil equality for gays and lesbians are actively distorting, cherry-picking, and misrepresenting the social science research in their attempts to justify discrimination . . . and unfortunately, the media often reports these distortions without investigating and fact checking them. Politicians and legislators then use that misinformation to pass bans on marriage equality, as well as foster parenting and adoption by same gender parents.
So my question to you all is: how do we stop it?
Matt Barber may have left Concerned Women for America, but he still continues to distort research.
One News Now (your favorite phony news source and mine) published a piece by him entitled: Children in the 'gay marriage' crosshairs .
This piece follows standard anti-gay industry talking points that include: "marriage presents the best way to raise children" and "children deserve a mother and a father."
For the record, children deserve a good home where they have love and support. This doesn't necessarily only come from a home that features a mother and father. It can come from a home that features only a mother or only a father. Or two mothers or two fathers for that matter.
In fact in this country, families that don't fit the "traditional definition" are raising children and are doing it quite well.
They just don't matter to the anti-gay industry.
But I deviate from my point. Barber's column features the following:
While standing before the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia Senate in 2005, Robert Knight, former director of the Culture and Family Institute, testified to the following:
"In 2001, a team of pro-homosexual researchers from the University of Southern California did a meta-analysis of 'gay parenting' studies and published a refreshingly honest article in American Sociological Review, '(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?'
"The authors concluded that, yes, studies show that girls are more likely to 'be sexually adventurous and less chaste,' including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have 'fluid' conceptions of gender roles, and that researchers should stop trying to cover this up in the hopes of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda. The researchers said, in effect: Some of the kids are more likely to turn out gay or bisexual, but so what?"
Of course this is a blatant lie, but typical of Robert Knight. Before Knight joined another group, the Media Resource Center, he was involved with Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council.
While with these groups, Knight freely cited discredited researcher Paul Cameron, as well as distorted credible research in order to paint a negative picture of the lgbt community.
The example Barber used is just par for the course.
The study cited, (How) Does Sexual Orientation of the Parent Matter, was written by Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey.
My guess is that Barber intentionally omitted the authors of the study because, you see, Stacey has gone on record complaining as to how her work has been distorted.
But let's look at the "horse's mouth," so to speak.
A look at the Stacey/Biblarz study shows that what was said is more complex than what Barber and Knight claim.
Here is what the passage (page 171) actually said:
Tasker and Golombok (1997) also report some fascinating findings on the number of sexual partners children report having had between puberty and young adulthood. Relative to their counterparts with heterosexual parents, the adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste, whereas the sons of lesbians evince the opposite pattern—somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste (the finding was statistically significant for the 25- girl sample but not for the 18-boy sample).
In other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them. Yet this provocative finding of differences in sexual behavior and agency has not been analyzed or investigated further.
The gender-based roles that Stacey and Biblarz alluded to is in this passage on page 168:
For example, lesbian mothers in R. Green et al. (1986) reported that their children, especially daughters, more frequently dress, play, and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. Likewise, daughters of lesbian mothers reported greater interest in activities associated with both “masculine” and “feminine” qualities and that involve the participation of both sexes, whereas daughters of heterosexual mothers report significantly greater interest in traditionally feminine, same-sex activities (also see Hotvedt and Mandel 1982).
Similarly, daughters with lesbian mothers reported higher aspirations to nontraditional gender occupations (Steckel 1987). For example, in R. Green et al. (1986), 53 percent (16 out of 30) of the daughters of lesbians aspired to careers such as doctor, lawyer, engineer, and astronaut, compared with only 21 percent (6 of 28) of the daughters of heterosexual mothers.
So it sounds like that Stacey and Biblarz were actually saying that children raised by lgbts don't necessarily conform to the "traditional" gender roles. This point is alluded to throughout the entire study.
But Knight and Barber took passages out of the study to extrapolate the following incorrect stereotype: gays and lesbians raising children will lead to girls being lesbians and sluts and boys putting on dresses.
It's sad how these supposed Christians will lie. I think that the following point Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes made at a teleconference call says it all:
Those who oppose civil equality for gays and lesbians are actively distorting, cherry-picking, and misrepresenting the social science research in their attempts to justify discrimination . . . and unfortunately, the media often reports these distortions without investigating and fact checking them. Politicians and legislators then use that misinformation to pass bans on marriage equality, as well as foster parenting and adoption by same gender parents.
So my question to you all is: how do we stop it?
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Herding the sheep through the use of Barackophobia
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama seems to be a popular subject on the phony news service One News Now.
Or maybe a better way to put it would be an "unpopular subject."
In the past weeks, columns and articles have been coming on the site at almost breakneck speed; all issuing an alarming tone that Obama is a sepia Damien Thorne whose possible ascension to the White House will bring forth the Rapture and the Second Coming of Jesus.
Which confuses me.
Of course the notion is stupid, but why are these so-called Christians fearful if such was the case.
I thought they were supposed to be swept up to Heaven when the Rapture does come, leaving the rest of us - the "unwashed sinful masses" - to our doom.
Seriously though, One News Now's tone with these articles and columns only serves to underscore just how Christianity has fallen in this country. One News Now is supposed to be a pro-family site that speaks for traditional morality. Yet, it manipulates its readers with fear:
Meetings with Obama confusing Evangelicals
Add me to the list!
Obama numbered among 'false prophets' (OneNewsNow.com)
Obama, supporters attack Dobson (OneNewsNow.com)
Evangelist questions Obama's Christianity (OneNewsNow.com)
Michelle Obama confirms husband's support for homosexual causes ...
Obama accused of 'dragging biblical understanding through gutter ...
Obama's communist ties investigated (OneNewsNow.com)
If I were to use One News Now as a news source rather than a great source for amusement, I would get the following impressions about Obama:
4. Obama is secretly a Muslim who will make Islam the official religion when elected.
3. Obama took his Senatorial oath on the Koran.
2. Obama is not the anti-Christ, but his election will invite the coming of the Anti-Christ.
1. Obama is the Anti-Christ, and therefore is also gay because the Anti-Christ is supposed to be gay.
Sometimes I get the impression that Jesus is postponing his Second Coming for fear of embarrassement over the mindsets of his "followers."
UPDATE - It seems that my One News Now links went to a Rick Astley video. It has been fixed. You can now click on links and see the One News Now articles.
God help you.
UPATE 2: Apparently it's not taken care of. Figures.
You think I'm getting to them?
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama seems to be a popular subject on the phony news service One News Now.
Or maybe a better way to put it would be an "unpopular subject."
In the past weeks, columns and articles have been coming on the site at almost breakneck speed; all issuing an alarming tone that Obama is a sepia Damien Thorne whose possible ascension to the White House will bring forth the Rapture and the Second Coming of Jesus.
Which confuses me.
Of course the notion is stupid, but why are these so-called Christians fearful if such was the case.
I thought they were supposed to be swept up to Heaven when the Rapture does come, leaving the rest of us - the "unwashed sinful masses" - to our doom.
Seriously though, One News Now's tone with these articles and columns only serves to underscore just how Christianity has fallen in this country. One News Now is supposed to be a pro-family site that speaks for traditional morality. Yet, it manipulates its readers with fear:
Meetings with Obama confusing Evangelicals
Add me to the list!
Obama numbered among 'false prophets' (OneNewsNow.com)
Obama, supporters attack Dobson (OneNewsNow.com)
Evangelist questions Obama's Christianity (OneNewsNow.com)
Michelle Obama confirms husband's support for homosexual causes ...
Obama accused of 'dragging biblical understanding through gutter ...
Obama's communist ties investigated (OneNewsNow.com)
If I were to use One News Now as a news source rather than a great source for amusement, I would get the following impressions about Obama:
4. Obama is secretly a Muslim who will make Islam the official religion when elected.
3. Obama took his Senatorial oath on the Koran.
2. Obama is not the anti-Christ, but his election will invite the coming of the Anti-Christ.
1. Obama is the Anti-Christ, and therefore is also gay because the Anti-Christ is supposed to be gay.
Sometimes I get the impression that Jesus is postponing his Second Coming for fear of embarrassement over the mindsets of his "followers."
UPDATE - It seems that my One News Now links went to a Rick Astley video. It has been fixed. You can now click on links and see the One News Now articles.
God help you.
UPATE 2: Apparently it's not taken care of. Figures.
You think I'm getting to them?
Monday, June 30, 2008
SC Black Pride 2008 - we shook up the state
Forgive me for taking an interlude from the daily grind of focusing on the anti-gay industry.
I would like to brag a little bit today.
My state celebrated our third annual Black Pride last week and it was a monster success with over 1,000 in attendance.
From our opening ceremonies (where Columbia Mayor Bob Coble presented us a proclamation) to our awards banquet, each event was heavily attended. We received a lot of attention, positive comments, and contacts.
Most of all, lgbt South Carolinians of color went away empowered.
One thing I liked about this year was the support we received from the lgbt community at large.
Our events were not only attended by African-American gays and lesbians, but folks from other ethnicities. And there was none of that nonsense about black gays "segregating" ourselves.
So many times in the past whenever I heard lgbts ask why is there a need for a Black Pride, I would have to let them know that they sound like heterosexuals asking why is there a need for a gay pride.
I think that our community is starting to realize that while we are all lgbt, our experiences and cultures when it comes to dealing with our orientations are different. And the fact of the matter is that sometimes lgbts of color have no sense of our sexual orientation because we rarely see anything that lets us know that we are a part of the community.
But not last week.
All in all, it was worth all of the work members of the SC Black Pride Committee (including my humble self) put in to make this pride a success. It was worth the long meetings, the phone conversations, the fundraisers that didn't work, the calls to vendors, the emails, and all of the seemingly miniscule but nonetheless important elements for putting together a pride.
It was worth it to see so many lgbts of color gathered together publicly and openly without fear of reprisal; no tension, no cliques, no trying to hide their affection for their prospective partners, and no pretentions about trying "not to look gay."
There was nothing but unity and love in the air.
And that's how it's supposed to be.
Forgive me for taking an interlude from the daily grind of focusing on the anti-gay industry.
I would like to brag a little bit today.
My state celebrated our third annual Black Pride last week and it was a monster success with over 1,000 in attendance.
From our opening ceremonies (where Columbia Mayor Bob Coble presented us a proclamation) to our awards banquet, each event was heavily attended. We received a lot of attention, positive comments, and contacts.
Most of all, lgbt South Carolinians of color went away empowered.
One thing I liked about this year was the support we received from the lgbt community at large.
Our events were not only attended by African-American gays and lesbians, but folks from other ethnicities. And there was none of that nonsense about black gays "segregating" ourselves.
So many times in the past whenever I heard lgbts ask why is there a need for a Black Pride, I would have to let them know that they sound like heterosexuals asking why is there a need for a gay pride.
I think that our community is starting to realize that while we are all lgbt, our experiences and cultures when it comes to dealing with our orientations are different. And the fact of the matter is that sometimes lgbts of color have no sense of our sexual orientation because we rarely see anything that lets us know that we are a part of the community.
But not last week.
All in all, it was worth all of the work members of the SC Black Pride Committee (including my humble self) put in to make this pride a success. It was worth the long meetings, the phone conversations, the fundraisers that didn't work, the calls to vendors, the emails, and all of the seemingly miniscule but nonetheless important elements for putting together a pride.
It was worth it to see so many lgbts of color gathered together publicly and openly without fear of reprisal; no tension, no cliques, no trying to hide their affection for their prospective partners, and no pretentions about trying "not to look gay."
There was nothing but unity and love in the air.
And that's how it's supposed to be.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
One News Now publishes pro-Obama article - I think I am in the Twilight Zone
It is obvious that James Dobson chose to attack Barack Obama because Obama is appealing to some Christians.
This appeal highlights a split that has been hinted at in the media. Some Christians are simply getting tired of Dobson and his ilk boggarting the interepretation of family and values.
And they are speaking out on it.
But I never thought I would see the following:
A well-known black clergyman who supports Barack Obama says evangelical Christian leader Dr. James Dobson displayed a "holier than thou" attitude and "poisoned the waters" while assailing the presidential candidate's theological views.
During Tuesday's Focus on the Family radio show, Dobson accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview." The Illinois senator and his supporters have been returning fire ever since. (See earlier stories)
Methodist pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell of Houston, who performed the benediction at both of President Bush’s inaugurations, has launched the website JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com. He says although Dobson has been a "clear and clarion voice bringing attention to the spiritual and social value of the family," the pro-family leader was out of line in his criticism of Obama's interpretation of scripture and the Constitution.
And in typical One News Now fashion, the article does not present both sides of the argument. The interview with Caldwell, which is extremely pro-Obama, is the article.
Of course commentators to the article pretty much skewer Caldwell, but for one brief shining moment, it was Camelot.
It is obvious that James Dobson chose to attack Barack Obama because Obama is appealing to some Christians.
This appeal highlights a split that has been hinted at in the media. Some Christians are simply getting tired of Dobson and his ilk boggarting the interepretation of family and values.
And they are speaking out on it.
But I never thought I would see the following:
A well-known black clergyman who supports Barack Obama says evangelical Christian leader Dr. James Dobson displayed a "holier than thou" attitude and "poisoned the waters" while assailing the presidential candidate's theological views.
During Tuesday's Focus on the Family radio show, Dobson accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview." The Illinois senator and his supporters have been returning fire ever since. (See earlier stories)
Methodist pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell of Houston, who performed the benediction at both of President Bush’s inaugurations, has launched the website JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com. He says although Dobson has been a "clear and clarion voice bringing attention to the spiritual and social value of the family," the pro-family leader was out of line in his criticism of Obama's interpretation of scripture and the Constitution.
And in typical One News Now fashion, the article does not present both sides of the argument. The interview with Caldwell, which is extremely pro-Obama, is the article.
Of course commentators to the article pretty much skewer Caldwell, but for one brief shining moment, it was Camelot.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
First event of SC Black Pride 2008 a success!!!!
The first event of the 2008 SC Black Pride was a HUGE success. It was a get together at a local hotspot. People slowly gathered in but once they did, we all had a good time.
Big shout out to my friends from Houston - Sean and Melissa. Told ya I would mention you!!!!
Also, every fourth Saturday in June is now officially Black Pride Day in the city of Columbia. Thanks to Mayor Bob Coble and the Columbia City Council for that awesome proclamation.
The rest of the week promises to be better and I can't wait.
FX network and changing the game plan
But all isn't happiness as far as I am concerned. There is a recent controversy that has been on my mind. I'm calling some folks out.
And these folks aren't the opposition:
30 Days, FX Networks’ original series produced by Morgan Spurlock, "examines social issues in America by immersing individuals in a life that requires them to see the world through another’s eyes,’" according to the show’s Web site. In 2006, the series won a GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Reality Program for the "Gay/Straight" episode.
During the June 24 episode, entitled "Same Sex Parenting," Kati, a woman who opposes gay and lesbian parents and their families, lives for 30 days with gay parents Dennis and Thomas and their four adopted sons. The episode includes the personal stories of kids raised by lesbian and gay parents.
Regrettably, the episode also features a defamatory statement by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, an anti-gay activist organization, who claims: "Homosexuality is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse, and those are all reasons for us to be concerned about placing children into that kind of setting." While there is no credible scientific research that backs Sprigg’s claim - and much that disputes it - the episode presents his assertion as if it were fact and offers no credible social science experts or child health authorities to challenge Sprigg’s assertion. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, and many other child health and social services authorities who support parenting by qualified lesbian and gay parents dispute Sprigg’s claim.
From what I understand, the episode was worse than thought. Apparently it also allowed Dawn Stefanowicz (whom I have blogged about on numerous occasions) to spout her "story" about being a child in a gay home where the father was an irresponsible sex addict.
Some of us are up in arms because Sprigg and Stefanowicz was able to spout their lies unchallenged.
Now I have not seen this program, nor do I plan to. But here is what bothers me.
Why are we wasting time bitching at FX? Don't we have our own magazines? Don't we have our own network?
We know that the anti-gay industry routinely lies about lgbts. We know that they either rely on the discredited studies of Paul Cameron or distort legitimate studies.
So why hasn't there been a special report on it in our magazines or some type of documentary on it on the LOGO channel?
True, I wrote a book on the subject and I have devoted two webpages on the same subject, but let's be honest. In the great scheme of things in our community, my voice doesn't really amount to much.
That is to say, no one really knows who I am. Where are our prominent folks on this subject?
Speaking of my book, it was self-published and thus rough around the edges so I got some legitimate criticism over it. However, one criticism really pissed me off.
I was told that I was saying things that people already knew.
Oh really? How many of us know the entire history of Paul Cameron? Or the distortion of the 1997 Canadian study? Or the list of prominent doctors and researchers whose complaints about the distortion of their work have been ignored?
The sad thing is that many of us do not know because those of us in the lgbt community with some stroke, some degree of power over what gets chosen as news aren't doing their jobs.
That's why we look like we have been caught with our dicks in our hands when lies are spun about how anti-discrimination ordinances will lead to predators boldly walking into women's bathrooms.
and that's why we focus on irrelevant shit like Sally Kern's allegedly gay son rather than why is Sally Kern relying on the studies of a man who talked about tattooing AIDS victims.
The point is that we shouldn't be wasting time complaining that networks like FX aren't doing their jobs when we have the means to get the information out ourselves.
There needs to be a concerted effort by us to document and catalogue the specific distortions of the anti-gay industry.
Let's put folks like Peter LaBarbera and Concerned Women for America on the defensive for a change.
The first event of the 2008 SC Black Pride was a HUGE success. It was a get together at a local hotspot. People slowly gathered in but once they did, we all had a good time.
Big shout out to my friends from Houston - Sean and Melissa. Told ya I would mention you!!!!
Also, every fourth Saturday in June is now officially Black Pride Day in the city of Columbia. Thanks to Mayor Bob Coble and the Columbia City Council for that awesome proclamation.
The rest of the week promises to be better and I can't wait.
FX network and changing the game plan
But all isn't happiness as far as I am concerned. There is a recent controversy that has been on my mind. I'm calling some folks out.
And these folks aren't the opposition:
30 Days, FX Networks’ original series produced by Morgan Spurlock, "examines social issues in America by immersing individuals in a life that requires them to see the world through another’s eyes,’" according to the show’s Web site. In 2006, the series won a GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Reality Program for the "Gay/Straight" episode.
During the June 24 episode, entitled "Same Sex Parenting," Kati, a woman who opposes gay and lesbian parents and their families, lives for 30 days with gay parents Dennis and Thomas and their four adopted sons. The episode includes the personal stories of kids raised by lesbian and gay parents.
Regrettably, the episode also features a defamatory statement by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, an anti-gay activist organization, who claims: "Homosexuality is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse, and those are all reasons for us to be concerned about placing children into that kind of setting." While there is no credible scientific research that backs Sprigg’s claim - and much that disputes it - the episode presents his assertion as if it were fact and offers no credible social science experts or child health authorities to challenge Sprigg’s assertion. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, and many other child health and social services authorities who support parenting by qualified lesbian and gay parents dispute Sprigg’s claim.
From what I understand, the episode was worse than thought. Apparently it also allowed Dawn Stefanowicz (whom I have blogged about on numerous occasions) to spout her "story" about being a child in a gay home where the father was an irresponsible sex addict.
Some of us are up in arms because Sprigg and Stefanowicz was able to spout their lies unchallenged.
Now I have not seen this program, nor do I plan to. But here is what bothers me.
Why are we wasting time bitching at FX? Don't we have our own magazines? Don't we have our own network?
We know that the anti-gay industry routinely lies about lgbts. We know that they either rely on the discredited studies of Paul Cameron or distort legitimate studies.
So why hasn't there been a special report on it in our magazines or some type of documentary on it on the LOGO channel?
True, I wrote a book on the subject and I have devoted two webpages on the same subject, but let's be honest. In the great scheme of things in our community, my voice doesn't really amount to much.
That is to say, no one really knows who I am. Where are our prominent folks on this subject?
Speaking of my book, it was self-published and thus rough around the edges so I got some legitimate criticism over it. However, one criticism really pissed me off.
I was told that I was saying things that people already knew.
Oh really? How many of us know the entire history of Paul Cameron? Or the distortion of the 1997 Canadian study? Or the list of prominent doctors and researchers whose complaints about the distortion of their work have been ignored?
The sad thing is that many of us do not know because those of us in the lgbt community with some stroke, some degree of power over what gets chosen as news aren't doing their jobs.
That's why we look like we have been caught with our dicks in our hands when lies are spun about how anti-discrimination ordinances will lead to predators boldly walking into women's bathrooms.
and that's why we focus on irrelevant shit like Sally Kern's allegedly gay son rather than why is Sally Kern relying on the studies of a man who talked about tattooing AIDS victims.
The point is that we shouldn't be wasting time complaining that networks like FX aren't doing their jobs when we have the means to get the information out ourselves.
There needs to be a concerted effort by us to document and catalogue the specific distortions of the anti-gay industry.
Let's put folks like Peter LaBarbera and Concerned Women for America on the defensive for a change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)