Bill Whitman is right - they do hate gays
It was a very big crowd during lunch at McDonalds today. Everyone was supersizing their menus and were also very nice.
I ran into a very polite, well-dressed young man. Another five minutes and I would have been engaged.
Apparently news of the AFA's boycott isn't affecting McDonalds here in South Carolina. And to a degree, that is interesting. After all, South Carolina is the buckle of the Bible Belt. Down here, we not only argue over Biblical interpretations, but also the length of baptism pools and the size of the cross on which Jesus was crucified.
Who knows. Maybe very few people down here know about it. Or maybe they do know about the boycott and the general feeling is "the AFA be damned. I'm hungry and hot. Now supersize me!"
Either way, it's really not surprising. Telling Americans not to go to McDonalds is like telling my great aunt not to go to church. The difference is that in the case of my great aunt, you might get cut.
But you have go give the AFA points (albeit very small ones) for using the words of McDonalds spokesman Bill Whitman.
Notice that I did not say twisting words because Whitman did infer that the actions of the AFA and others are motivated out of hatred.
It is something that us lgbts know all too well. Now some may say describing the AFA and other members of the anti-gay industry as hateful and homophobic is overused. Certainly it gives them a chance to play innocent. All we are doing is standing up for Christian values and traditional morality, they say. Why is that when Christians stand up for what they believe in, they are called haters?
I personally don't have a problem with describing the AFA and the others as hateful. I do have a problem with folks doing so without supplying proof of their offenses.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how AFA, Donald Wildmon, Peter LaBarbera, the Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America, etc. try to spin and plead ennui, they really do hate the lgbt community.
And as luck would have it, there is a paper trail. Just in time for their press conference tomorrow, too.
Read on if you have a strong stomach and feel free to pass this list to anyone else, especially "pro-boycott" supporters:
“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” — Robert Knight (formerly of the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America)
"Now the Bush Administration is opening its arms to homosexual activists who have been working diligently to overthrow the traditional views of Western Civilization regarding human sexuality, marriage and family… AFA would never support the policies of a political party which embraced the homosexual movement. Period.” – Don Wildmon, AFA Press Release
"Why is the House of Representatives wasting taxpayer dollars to discuss whether or not drag queens or she-males are offended because of their cross-dressing or sexual behaviors in a business environment?” Of course, “I already know the answer: Because liberals…are aggressively promoting the normalization of cross-dressing and transsexualism in our culture.” - Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
" . . . I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society." - Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council
“Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.” - Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel
"Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting".– Peter LaBarbera
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
David Benkof shows his ass
I am feeling frunky today (frunky - not funky. Frunkly is three steps below funky). It's probably because I hate Mondays.
Nothing can sway me out of this mood, not even the news that I have exceeded my goal of selling 100 copies of my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
One hundred copies doesn't seem like a lot, but remember this book was self-published and not promoted (at least not in the usual way). My initial goal as to sell at least 100 copies and I have reached that goal within a year of Holy Bullies's publishing.
Now it's time to work on an updated (and much better) version.
That is if I can get out of this mood.
But enough of that. The more cosmopolitan readers of this site probably already know that we have lost an enemy today in the marriage equality fight.
David Benkof, who markets himself as a gay man who believes in the "sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman" has closed the veil:
"I no longer feel comfortable being allied with the people running the Prop. 8 campaign, and the same-sex marriage movement in America in general, with a few exceptions - most notably Maggie Gallagher. I have made a tentative decision not to publicize the disturbing information that caused me to end my promotion of man-woman marriage in the United States. But there is very little that I know about those subjects that a journalist, blogger, or activist cannot find out through diligent googling and asking the right questions of the Prop. 8 campaign."
-- former proprietor of the disturbing blog "Gays Defend Marriage," David Benkof to Truth Wins Out's Wayne Besen, July 14
Benkof was slowly getting attention for the paradox of being a gay man who didn't believe in gay marriage. However, there was a possible problem with how he would allegedly distort the words of people he interviewed. Box Turtle Bulletin wrote an excellent report on him.
Maybe it's just the Monday frunkies talking but other than the paradox, I never took Benkof seriously. He is a talented writer but he was clearly exploiting the idea of being a gay man who opposes gay marriage.
And while his concession is good, two things about it bothers me.
The first is the part about him still being allied with Maggie Gallagher. Gallagher is yet another one of those "experts" from the right-wing that seem pop up about lgbts issues. However, her expertise seems to lie in playing Joan of Arc being burned at the stake by so-called radical gay activists.
The argument, "gays and liberals believe that if you support traditional marriage then you are a bigot" seems to almost always turn up in her writings.
Then there is this very interesting deception that she is guilty of:
Gay marriage opponents frequently buttress their arguments with the assertion that children have better outcomes when they grow up with a married mother and father. The most articulate advocate of this point is Maggie Gallagher, founder of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a "pro-marriage" think tank.
She summarized it best in an article in the August 2003 Weekly Standard: "As a Child Trends research brief summed up, 'Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. . . .'" She goes on to argue that because that parenting structure is best for kids, legalizing gay marriage means subjecting children to less-than-optimum outcomes: "[Gay marriage] would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine."
Child Trends, the organization that she cites, is a highly respected, nonpartisan research center. But Gallagher slyly misrepresents the conclusions of their research review, which does not discuss straight versus gay family structure, but various forms of straight family structure. Gallagher leaves out the key sentence that qualifies the statement she cites: "Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families raised by two biological parents." There is no evidence here about how children raised by gay couples fare.
A right-wing expert distorting a legitimate study? It must be a usual day in the United States.
Also there is this comment Benkof left on Pam Spaulding's site:
Since you brought it up, I thought I'd clarify. I no longer feel comfortable being allied with most of the people who run the man-woman marriage movement in the United States (not counting Maggie Gallagher). I still feel, however, that Pam Spaulding is a nasty bitch.
Okay, that pissed me off. I am talking snatching off the earrings, kicking off the shoes, putting vaseline on the face, getting ready to get ghetto on someone type anger.
My first reaction was "Oh no that $&@^ didn't!"
But then I realized that I cannot behave in such a way.
So I will just say this:
Mr. Benkof, Pam Spaulding has more integrity in her fingernail than you have in your pseudo-intellectual body. The very fact that you said what you said only goes to prove how phony you are.
But don't think that Benkof's nonsense is the only thing going on today.
Our friend Peter LaBarbera has gotten into the AFA's boycott of McDonalds. His group Americans for Truth (in name only) will join the AFA at a press conference in front of McDonalds' headquarters in Illinois. They will be joined by women who will say why they won't take their children to McDonalds ever again.
Which is fine with me. I'm sure that there will be a lot of lgbt parents who will take their children to McDonalds.
And I plan to have a supersize meal tomorrow.
And speaking of lgbt parenting, John McCain continues to be on his "please support me James Dobson and company" tour. Today he came out against gay adoption.
I liked what PFLAG had to say about this development:
"In a country where more than 125,000 children are waiting for foster parents, Senator McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). "We are disappointed and saddened that a public leader who is himself an adoptive father would deny the children in America's foster care system the opportunity to thrive as part of a welcoming family. Love makes a family, but short-sighted positions like Senator McCain's can certainly tear families apart, too."
..."Senator McCain's position is out of synch with the research and science and out of step with what is in the best interests of children waiting for a home and a family," Huckaby said. "PFLAG knows the pain inflicted upon families due to misinformation about LGBT issues. We implore Senator McCain to take a serious look at the overwhelming evidence and listen to the stories of the countless children raised by loving lesbian and gay couples. The evidence is clear: children should not be denied access to the loving homes of gay couples."
I am feeling frunky today (frunky - not funky. Frunkly is three steps below funky). It's probably because I hate Mondays.
Nothing can sway me out of this mood, not even the news that I have exceeded my goal of selling 100 copies of my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
One hundred copies doesn't seem like a lot, but remember this book was self-published and not promoted (at least not in the usual way). My initial goal as to sell at least 100 copies and I have reached that goal within a year of Holy Bullies's publishing.
Now it's time to work on an updated (and much better) version.
That is if I can get out of this mood.
But enough of that. The more cosmopolitan readers of this site probably already know that we have lost an enemy today in the marriage equality fight.
David Benkof, who markets himself as a gay man who believes in the "sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman" has closed the veil:
"I no longer feel comfortable being allied with the people running the Prop. 8 campaign, and the same-sex marriage movement in America in general, with a few exceptions - most notably Maggie Gallagher. I have made a tentative decision not to publicize the disturbing information that caused me to end my promotion of man-woman marriage in the United States. But there is very little that I know about those subjects that a journalist, blogger, or activist cannot find out through diligent googling and asking the right questions of the Prop. 8 campaign."
-- former proprietor of the disturbing blog "Gays Defend Marriage," David Benkof to Truth Wins Out's Wayne Besen, July 14
Benkof was slowly getting attention for the paradox of being a gay man who didn't believe in gay marriage. However, there was a possible problem with how he would allegedly distort the words of people he interviewed. Box Turtle Bulletin wrote an excellent report on him.
Maybe it's just the Monday frunkies talking but other than the paradox, I never took Benkof seriously. He is a talented writer but he was clearly exploiting the idea of being a gay man who opposes gay marriage.
And while his concession is good, two things about it bothers me.
The first is the part about him still being allied with Maggie Gallagher. Gallagher is yet another one of those "experts" from the right-wing that seem pop up about lgbts issues. However, her expertise seems to lie in playing Joan of Arc being burned at the stake by so-called radical gay activists.
The argument, "gays and liberals believe that if you support traditional marriage then you are a bigot" seems to almost always turn up in her writings.
Then there is this very interesting deception that she is guilty of:
Gay marriage opponents frequently buttress their arguments with the assertion that children have better outcomes when they grow up with a married mother and father. The most articulate advocate of this point is Maggie Gallagher, founder of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a "pro-marriage" think tank.
She summarized it best in an article in the August 2003 Weekly Standard: "As a Child Trends research brief summed up, 'Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. . . .'" She goes on to argue that because that parenting structure is best for kids, legalizing gay marriage means subjecting children to less-than-optimum outcomes: "[Gay marriage] would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine."
Child Trends, the organization that she cites, is a highly respected, nonpartisan research center. But Gallagher slyly misrepresents the conclusions of their research review, which does not discuss straight versus gay family structure, but various forms of straight family structure. Gallagher leaves out the key sentence that qualifies the statement she cites: "Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families raised by two biological parents." There is no evidence here about how children raised by gay couples fare.
A right-wing expert distorting a legitimate study? It must be a usual day in the United States.
Also there is this comment Benkof left on Pam Spaulding's site:
Since you brought it up, I thought I'd clarify. I no longer feel comfortable being allied with most of the people who run the man-woman marriage movement in the United States (not counting Maggie Gallagher). I still feel, however, that Pam Spaulding is a nasty bitch.
Okay, that pissed me off. I am talking snatching off the earrings, kicking off the shoes, putting vaseline on the face, getting ready to get ghetto on someone type anger.
My first reaction was "Oh no that $&@^ didn't!"
But then I realized that I cannot behave in such a way.
So I will just say this:
Mr. Benkof, Pam Spaulding has more integrity in her fingernail than you have in your pseudo-intellectual body. The very fact that you said what you said only goes to prove how phony you are.
But don't think that Benkof's nonsense is the only thing going on today.
Our friend Peter LaBarbera has gotten into the AFA's boycott of McDonalds. His group Americans for Truth (in name only) will join the AFA at a press conference in front of McDonalds' headquarters in Illinois. They will be joined by women who will say why they won't take their children to McDonalds ever again.
Which is fine with me. I'm sure that there will be a lot of lgbt parents who will take their children to McDonalds.
And I plan to have a supersize meal tomorrow.
And speaking of lgbt parenting, John McCain continues to be on his "please support me James Dobson and company" tour. Today he came out against gay adoption.
I liked what PFLAG had to say about this development:
"In a country where more than 125,000 children are waiting for foster parents, Senator McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). "We are disappointed and saddened that a public leader who is himself an adoptive father would deny the children in America's foster care system the opportunity to thrive as part of a welcoming family. Love makes a family, but short-sighted positions like Senator McCain's can certainly tear families apart, too."
..."Senator McCain's position is out of synch with the research and science and out of step with what is in the best interests of children waiting for a home and a family," Huckaby said. "PFLAG knows the pain inflicted upon families due to misinformation about LGBT issues. We implore Senator McCain to take a serious look at the overwhelming evidence and listen to the stories of the countless children raised by loving lesbian and gay couples. The evidence is clear: children should not be denied access to the loving homes of gay couples."
UPDATE - As you all can see, David Benkof is channeling a little Joan of Arc himself via the comments page.
David, no one is lying on you. You did distort Ms. Kendall's comment just like you distorted a lot of others.
That is why your credibility is low. But I have to admire your shameless plugging of yourself.
Friday, July 11, 2008
South Carolina doesn't want gay tourists, but it will take pigs and "I Believe" license plates
And I thought I wouldn't have to post today.
But my home state is in the news and it involves the lgbt community:
South Carolina’s top tourism agency has canceled an overseas advertising campaign targeting gay tourists.
The campaign, tied to gay pride week celebrations in London, included ads that proclaimed “South Carolina is so gay.” A handful of other U.S. destinations joined the campaign, including Atlanta, Boston and New Orleans.
After learning last week the state had agreed to spend tax money on the campaign — and spurred by a post on The Palmetto Scoop blog — the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism said Thursday it would not pay the tour operator.
Parks, Recreation and Tourism director Chad Prosser said an agency advertising manager signed off on the contract, proposed by the agency’s London advertising contractor.
To me, this is a story of an advertising manager making a possibly unauthorized business deal. However since it talks about the gay community, leave it to our lovely legislators to not miss this sterling opportunity to bloviate about "values:"
Some lawmakers were shocked to learn about the campaign, with state Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, calling for an audit.
Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford, said using tax money to support a social or political agenda is inappropriate.
I get it: an ad campaign to generate tourist money is a part of an "agenda," but passing legislation regarding "I Believe" license plates is a-okay.
Geez.
Please bear in mind that this is the same governor who, in 2004, walked into the State House carrying two pigs.
He wanted to get back at the legislators who overrode his budget veto by symbolizing a protest against "pork projects."
The pigs symbolized things much better than Sanford hoped. In fact, they symbolized all over Sanford and the floor of the State House.
From what I hear, the smell was especially symbolic.
So in this talk of values, who do you choose: gay folks or the Governor who was once covered in pig droppings.
I'm choosing my lgbt brothers and sisters. At least I won't have to hold my nose when I hug them.
Box Turtle Bulletin exposes a hot mess
One of my favorite sites, Box Turtle Bulletin, has exposed an unfortunate incident involving an insurance company and anti-gay industry lies. It demonstrates how difficult it is to kill anti-gay junk science:
Insure.com is a publicly traded company with an advisory board ranging from a former US Senator to executives with various companies, including AT&T. The company is a major sponsor of Bill O’Reilly’s radio talk show and Bill gives voice to their commercial.
In addition to selling insurance, they provide information about the insurance industry. Joe White, an employee and company blog contributor, wrote two pieces in which he claimed that “being gay” was a health risk, and not just a minor one.
In an article on the business website entitled Top five ways to kill yourself and get away with it, White lists the number one way to kill yourself:
1. Being gay. A gay lifestyle is by far the biggest risk to life expectancy that goes unrecognized by insurance companies. The question has been considered by multiple studies, and the gay lifestyle is universally acknowledged to decrease life expectancy. A conservative estimate is that a gay lifestyle takes away 8-20 years from the average lifespan.
In other words, living a homosexual lifestyle has health risks at least as severe as smoking (by some estimates even more), but due to the sensitive nature of the issue, life insurance companies don’t charge different rates for gays. So gays save money on life insurance at the same rate they die young.
It turns out that Mr. White made this claim based on the distortion of the 1997 Canadian study (which I have talked about ad nauseum on this site) and the "research" of the discredited Paul Cameron.
It's like a horror movie. We just can't kill the monster.
But Box Turtle Bulletin is on the case, including contacting the CEO of Insure.com.
I commend them for their work.
And I thought I wouldn't have to post today.
But my home state is in the news and it involves the lgbt community:
South Carolina’s top tourism agency has canceled an overseas advertising campaign targeting gay tourists.
The campaign, tied to gay pride week celebrations in London, included ads that proclaimed “South Carolina is so gay.” A handful of other U.S. destinations joined the campaign, including Atlanta, Boston and New Orleans.
After learning last week the state had agreed to spend tax money on the campaign — and spurred by a post on The Palmetto Scoop blog — the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism said Thursday it would not pay the tour operator.
Parks, Recreation and Tourism director Chad Prosser said an agency advertising manager signed off on the contract, proposed by the agency’s London advertising contractor.
To me, this is a story of an advertising manager making a possibly unauthorized business deal. However since it talks about the gay community, leave it to our lovely legislators to not miss this sterling opportunity to bloviate about "values:"
Some lawmakers were shocked to learn about the campaign, with state Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, calling for an audit.
Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford, said using tax money to support a social or political agenda is inappropriate.
I get it: an ad campaign to generate tourist money is a part of an "agenda," but passing legislation regarding "I Believe" license plates is a-okay.
Geez.
Please bear in mind that this is the same governor who, in 2004, walked into the State House carrying two pigs.
He wanted to get back at the legislators who overrode his budget veto by symbolizing a protest against "pork projects."
The pigs symbolized things much better than Sanford hoped. In fact, they symbolized all over Sanford and the floor of the State House.
From what I hear, the smell was especially symbolic.
So in this talk of values, who do you choose: gay folks or the Governor who was once covered in pig droppings.
I'm choosing my lgbt brothers and sisters. At least I won't have to hold my nose when I hug them.
Box Turtle Bulletin exposes a hot mess
One of my favorite sites, Box Turtle Bulletin, has exposed an unfortunate incident involving an insurance company and anti-gay industry lies. It demonstrates how difficult it is to kill anti-gay junk science:
Insure.com is a publicly traded company with an advisory board ranging from a former US Senator to executives with various companies, including AT&T. The company is a major sponsor of Bill O’Reilly’s radio talk show and Bill gives voice to their commercial.
In addition to selling insurance, they provide information about the insurance industry. Joe White, an employee and company blog contributor, wrote two pieces in which he claimed that “being gay” was a health risk, and not just a minor one.
In an article on the business website entitled Top five ways to kill yourself and get away with it, White lists the number one way to kill yourself:
1. Being gay. A gay lifestyle is by far the biggest risk to life expectancy that goes unrecognized by insurance companies. The question has been considered by multiple studies, and the gay lifestyle is universally acknowledged to decrease life expectancy. A conservative estimate is that a gay lifestyle takes away 8-20 years from the average lifespan.
In other words, living a homosexual lifestyle has health risks at least as severe as smoking (by some estimates even more), but due to the sensitive nature of the issue, life insurance companies don’t charge different rates for gays. So gays save money on life insurance at the same rate they die young.
It turns out that Mr. White made this claim based on the distortion of the 1997 Canadian study (which I have talked about ad nauseum on this site) and the "research" of the discredited Paul Cameron.
It's like a horror movie. We just can't kill the monster.
But Box Turtle Bulletin is on the case, including contacting the CEO of Insure.com.
I commend them for their work.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
One News Now 'journalist' gets taught a lesson in truth
I am watching (and taking part in) an interesting war of words on a blog site.
But first a little background:
I have talked about Ken Hutcherson many times on this blog, especially that so-called protest he organized against the Day of Silence at Mount Si High School in Washington.
But as it is, the war between Hutcherson and Mount Si goes back farther than the Day of Silence.
It began when Hutcherson was invited to speak at the high school during Martin Luther King Jr. Day. His anti-gay reputation got some teachers and students upset at the invite. One booed him during the assembly (that wasn't good taste and the teacher was reprimanded).
Another teacher questioned Hutcherson's opposition to lgbt rights.
Needless to say, Hutcherson's ego was hurt and he has had it in for the Mount Si High School ever since.
A group of concerned parents began a blog to support students and the teachers at Mount Si High School. It is called Mount Si Parents and is a very informative site.
Hutcherson, meanwhile, has continued to pursue action against the teachers of Mount Si High School. He recently complained to Rosalund Jenkins, the executive director of the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs.
Apparently he didn't get what he wanted from her because he has now accused Jenkins of making racist comments.
It boggles the mind, doesn't it.
But I am getting the crux of this post.
One News Now in their familiar biased fashion published an article regarding the situation. I would link the article but One News Now has banned any linkage from me.
The Mount Si Parents blog published a post accusing One News Now of biased reporting. The blog also clarified several issues.
And now comes the rub.
Allegedly, the author of the One News Now article, Jeff Johnson was very, shall we say, offended by what was said. He took it upon himself to say so. You can read his entire post if you pan down to it.
In part, it said:
Anonymous #1 said "One News Now is known for spinning incorrect and biased stories." Really? We report news from a biblical perspective and clearly advertise that fact in the "About" section on our site. If you reject the Bible as the infallible Word of God, you're not going to agree with our perspective on stories involving homosexuality. Similarly, if you are politically conservative, you're not going to agree with the perspective from which The New York Times reports political news. All news outlets report from a perspective. The difference is, we admit ours.
Anonymous #2 wrote: "Just in case there's any doubt about the credibility of One News Now as a legitimate news source, check out this PI Big Blog post about their story which identified sprinter Tyson Gay's name as Tyson Homosexual in stories about his record-setting run at the Olympic Trials."
Yes, we set up an automated filter to catch the politically correct word "gay" in reference to people who choose to have sex with others of the same gender, who are more accurately referred to as "homosexuals." And, yes, we forgot to take into account that there are some people whose first or last names are "Gay." The error has been corrected.
The Associated Press uses the word "gay" instead of the word "homosexual" because that's the word homosexual activists prefer. Those activists prefer the word "gay" because it's a very positive word that takes the focus off the fact that the issue under debate is their choice of sex partners.
By that reasoning, the Associated Press should refer to people who oppose abortion as "pro-life" because it is the term that group prefers and it's a positive term that takes the focus off their advocacy for restriction access to abortion.
But the AP is biased in favor of homosexuality and in opposition to restricting abortion. So they use the positive term "gay" to refer to those they support and the negative term "anti-abortion" to refer to those they oppose.
OneNewsNow tried to automatically write the AP's obvious pro-homosexual bias out of their stories as published on our site and the initial way we chose to do that didn't work out so well. Another News Flash: We're human. We made a mistake. The difference between us and the "mainstream" media is, when we became aware of the mistake, we admitted it and corrected it. Try to get that kind of response from a major newspaper or television news network. . .
But I will challenge anyone who uses the word "lie" to describe my reporting. You may not agree with the biblical perspective from which I report the news. That is your right and I am thankful that we live in a country where we can agree to disagree on that issue. But I ALWAYS endeavor to report the truth as accurately as possible within my human limitations of gathering information and discerning who is and is not being honest with me.
A "lie" is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. There are no lies in my reporting, unless I quote someone who is lying, and I will not knowingly report even that kind of statement.
Needless to say, Jeff got his ass handed to him. Various returned comments said the following:
No one is accusing YOU of lying, you are merely printing Hutchersons LIES!
Any good reporter would actually fact check their sources before making such allegations.
All of the facts are readily available to anyone who wants to be informed.
Tell me Mr. Reporter man, did you contact Dr. Potratz for his side of the story?
Have you read through the archives of the local media covering this story for the past six months?
Of course not! You just take the word of a blow hard bigot like Hutch as the truth!
Do some research and pretend you are a journalist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't the first time you have printed falsehoods because you failed to research. Here is just one example;
As previously reported, one of the teachers who booed Hutcherson sponsors the school's Gay Straight Alliance -- and also happens to teach his daughter's advanced placement British literature class. According to the pastor, his daughter has continued to suffer emotional stress in that classroom since the school assembly. But his requests to have the teacher removed from the class have been denied, forcing him to enroll his daughter, who is a senior, in an online class with the University of Washington.
This is NOT true.
Dr. Potratz booed the blow hard, NOT Kit McCormick who is the GSA advisor in question.
FACT CHECK, it's not hard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for you ONN apologetics, you folks are nothing like the New York Times, they make an effort to report the truth, you folks "report" pleasing spin for your fundamentalist audience.
As for your rewriting of AP stories to conform to your version of Political Correctness, just where was your published correction on the Tyson Gay debacle? I must have missed it, from what I saw you merely corrected the story and pretended that the error never happened. Unlike a real news source (e.g. the NYT, which publishes a correction when they make a mistake.)
So maybe you didn't intentionally misrepresent the facts in your story, but for someone, who labels himself a reporter, you showed an appalling disregard for the accuracy of your reporting. Where is your interview with Potratz to get his side of the story? Did you even bother to speak to him? Or did you just accept Hutcherson's version of events because you knew it would be pleasing to your readers (and undoubtably your bosses as well)?
Another thing journalists do is investigate, rather than just regurgitate one sides talking points. Your story reads like a Ken Hutcherson press release from a conservative activist(a fairly common thing on ONN).
Your work may not be intentional lies, but it is dishonest and disingenuous, just like your defense of it here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dear jeff,
A lot of times, One News Now articles are just one-person interviews with someone who takes their point of view.
If you doubt me, take a look at their site now. There are several Barack Obama articles present but none of them have any comments from the Obama campaign.
Being Christian is no excuse for bad journalism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and let's not forget when one news now (when it was agape press) used to freely cite paul cameron as a pro-family expert without filling its readers in on his history of distortion, censures and organizational rebukes (like from the APA for example)
This discussion is still going on. Of course there are some people who are actually trying to defend Johnson. My favorite is the following:
where in the Bible (the guide for a Christian’s life) does it say “Thou shalt not be biased”??? I don’t seem to see that anywhere and since you obviously can’t accept that two people can see the same situation differently (which I alluded to in an earlier post), let me remind you of the MOST biased of all Christians, Jesus Christ Himself, when in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 6 He states: “I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through me.”
But I have noticed that Johnson has not posted anything else as a response.
It must be hard when you have to deal with the real world instead of the world of Dobson and Wildmon.
I am watching (and taking part in) an interesting war of words on a blog site.
But first a little background:
I have talked about Ken Hutcherson many times on this blog, especially that so-called protest he organized against the Day of Silence at Mount Si High School in Washington.
But as it is, the war between Hutcherson and Mount Si goes back farther than the Day of Silence.
It began when Hutcherson was invited to speak at the high school during Martin Luther King Jr. Day. His anti-gay reputation got some teachers and students upset at the invite. One booed him during the assembly (that wasn't good taste and the teacher was reprimanded).
Another teacher questioned Hutcherson's opposition to lgbt rights.
Needless to say, Hutcherson's ego was hurt and he has had it in for the Mount Si High School ever since.
A group of concerned parents began a blog to support students and the teachers at Mount Si High School. It is called Mount Si Parents and is a very informative site.
Hutcherson, meanwhile, has continued to pursue action against the teachers of Mount Si High School. He recently complained to Rosalund Jenkins, the executive director of the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs.
Apparently he didn't get what he wanted from her because he has now accused Jenkins of making racist comments.
It boggles the mind, doesn't it.
But I am getting the crux of this post.
One News Now in their familiar biased fashion published an article regarding the situation. I would link the article but One News Now has banned any linkage from me.
The Mount Si Parents blog published a post accusing One News Now of biased reporting. The blog also clarified several issues.
And now comes the rub.
Allegedly, the author of the One News Now article, Jeff Johnson was very, shall we say, offended by what was said. He took it upon himself to say so. You can read his entire post if you pan down to it.
In part, it said:
Anonymous #1 said "One News Now is known for spinning incorrect and biased stories." Really? We report news from a biblical perspective and clearly advertise that fact in the "About" section on our site. If you reject the Bible as the infallible Word of God, you're not going to agree with our perspective on stories involving homosexuality. Similarly, if you are politically conservative, you're not going to agree with the perspective from which The New York Times reports political news. All news outlets report from a perspective. The difference is, we admit ours.
Anonymous #2 wrote: "Just in case there's any doubt about the credibility of One News Now as a legitimate news source, check out this PI Big Blog post about their story which identified sprinter Tyson Gay's name as Tyson Homosexual in stories about his record-setting run at the Olympic Trials."
Yes, we set up an automated filter to catch the politically correct word "gay" in reference to people who choose to have sex with others of the same gender, who are more accurately referred to as "homosexuals." And, yes, we forgot to take into account that there are some people whose first or last names are "Gay." The error has been corrected.
The Associated Press uses the word "gay" instead of the word "homosexual" because that's the word homosexual activists prefer. Those activists prefer the word "gay" because it's a very positive word that takes the focus off the fact that the issue under debate is their choice of sex partners.
By that reasoning, the Associated Press should refer to people who oppose abortion as "pro-life" because it is the term that group prefers and it's a positive term that takes the focus off their advocacy for restriction access to abortion.
But the AP is biased in favor of homosexuality and in opposition to restricting abortion. So they use the positive term "gay" to refer to those they support and the negative term "anti-abortion" to refer to those they oppose.
OneNewsNow tried to automatically write the AP's obvious pro-homosexual bias out of their stories as published on our site and the initial way we chose to do that didn't work out so well. Another News Flash: We're human. We made a mistake. The difference between us and the "mainstream" media is, when we became aware of the mistake, we admitted it and corrected it. Try to get that kind of response from a major newspaper or television news network. . .
But I will challenge anyone who uses the word "lie" to describe my reporting. You may not agree with the biblical perspective from which I report the news. That is your right and I am thankful that we live in a country where we can agree to disagree on that issue. But I ALWAYS endeavor to report the truth as accurately as possible within my human limitations of gathering information and discerning who is and is not being honest with me.
A "lie" is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. There are no lies in my reporting, unless I quote someone who is lying, and I will not knowingly report even that kind of statement.
Needless to say, Jeff got his ass handed to him. Various returned comments said the following:
No one is accusing YOU of lying, you are merely printing Hutchersons LIES!
Any good reporter would actually fact check their sources before making such allegations.
All of the facts are readily available to anyone who wants to be informed.
Tell me Mr. Reporter man, did you contact Dr. Potratz for his side of the story?
Have you read through the archives of the local media covering this story for the past six months?
Of course not! You just take the word of a blow hard bigot like Hutch as the truth!
Do some research and pretend you are a journalist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't the first time you have printed falsehoods because you failed to research. Here is just one example;
As previously reported, one of the teachers who booed Hutcherson sponsors the school's Gay Straight Alliance -- and also happens to teach his daughter's advanced placement British literature class. According to the pastor, his daughter has continued to suffer emotional stress in that classroom since the school assembly. But his requests to have the teacher removed from the class have been denied, forcing him to enroll his daughter, who is a senior, in an online class with the University of Washington.
This is NOT true.
Dr. Potratz booed the blow hard, NOT Kit McCormick who is the GSA advisor in question.
FACT CHECK, it's not hard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for you ONN apologetics, you folks are nothing like the New York Times, they make an effort to report the truth, you folks "report" pleasing spin for your fundamentalist audience.
As for your rewriting of AP stories to conform to your version of Political Correctness, just where was your published correction on the Tyson Gay debacle? I must have missed it, from what I saw you merely corrected the story and pretended that the error never happened. Unlike a real news source (e.g. the NYT, which publishes a correction when they make a mistake.)
So maybe you didn't intentionally misrepresent the facts in your story, but for someone, who labels himself a reporter, you showed an appalling disregard for the accuracy of your reporting. Where is your interview with Potratz to get his side of the story? Did you even bother to speak to him? Or did you just accept Hutcherson's version of events because you knew it would be pleasing to your readers (and undoubtably your bosses as well)?
Another thing journalists do is investigate, rather than just regurgitate one sides talking points. Your story reads like a Ken Hutcherson press release from a conservative activist(a fairly common thing on ONN).
Your work may not be intentional lies, but it is dishonest and disingenuous, just like your defense of it here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dear jeff,
A lot of times, One News Now articles are just one-person interviews with someone who takes their point of view.
If you doubt me, take a look at their site now. There are several Barack Obama articles present but none of them have any comments from the Obama campaign.
Being Christian is no excuse for bad journalism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and let's not forget when one news now (when it was agape press) used to freely cite paul cameron as a pro-family expert without filling its readers in on his history of distortion, censures and organizational rebukes (like from the APA for example)
This discussion is still going on. Of course there are some people who are actually trying to defend Johnson. My favorite is the following:
where in the Bible (the guide for a Christian’s life) does it say “Thou shalt not be biased”??? I don’t seem to see that anywhere and since you obviously can’t accept that two people can see the same situation differently (which I alluded to in an earlier post), let me remind you of the MOST biased of all Christians, Jesus Christ Himself, when in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 6 He states: “I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through me.”
But I have noticed that Johnson has not posted anything else as a response.
It must be hard when you have to deal with the real world instead of the world of Dobson and Wildmon.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
What happens in Arkansas may happen elsewhere
Something is presently happening in Arkansas that could negatively affect lgbts in the future:
The Little Rock, AR based organization largely responsible for placing a constitutional ban against gay marriage in Arkansas in 2004, is back in 2008 with an anti-gay adoption ban.
On Monday, the Family Council Action Committee (FCAC) met a deadline to submit 61,974 signatures to the Secretary of State to place a proposed law banning unmarried couples from adopting children on the November ballot. While the initiative bans both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the organization's website lists banning gay and lesbian couples from adoption as a goal of the law.
The Arkansas Adoption Act makes it illegal for adoptive and foster care children to be placed in homes with individuals who cohabit with a sexual partner. Single people, living alone, would be free from the restrictions.
Arkansas did initially bar gays from adopting or becoming foster parents before the state court struck down the law. Then the legislature wouldn't pass a law prohibiting lgbts from adopting or becoming foster parents.
So now some folks are taking the "let the people decide through a vote" route. And while they have tried to word the law to make it seem that its not an attack on lgbts, they freely admit that it is:
“[The Arkansas Adoption Act] is about two things. It's about child welfare, first of all. Secondly, it is to blunt a homosexual agenda that's at work in other states and that will be at work in Arkansas unless we are proactive about doing something about it,” FCAC Executive Director Jerry Cox told Fox16 News.
This attempt is nothing new. After their success in banning gay marriage, the anti-gay industry have long had their sights on making it more difficult for lgbts to be foster or adoptive parents. It is obvious that Arkansas is a testing ground. If they are successful there, then they are going to try the same thing in other states.
What gets me is this part:
The FCAC lists three primary reasons for the law: For the safety of children, to increase the number of prospective homes, and to “blunt a homosexual agenda.”
Increase the number of homes? How can you increase the number of homes that will take in children by prohibiting potential foster and adoptive parents?
Sadly, that question is not answered by the FCAC in the article.
And that is the crux of the fallacy involving denying lgbts the right to be foster and adoptive parents.
According to the National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice and Permanency Planning:
510,000 = Number of children in foster care on September 30, 2006
129,000 = Number of children waiting to be adopted on September 30, 2006
51,000 = Number of children adopted from the public foster care system in FY 2006
And according to the Department of Health and Human Services' s Administration for Children & Families, 984 Arkansas children were waiting to be adopted in 2005.
But I bet the FCAC law doesn't address that point.
What we get from them is the same talking point the anti-gay industry shovels about children in foster care:
Children have a right to a mother and father.
But (and here is the rub) the FCAC potential law does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed in this type of home. In fact, it does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed into a home at all.
You see, this talking point is not designed to do anything but create the premise that somehow two-parent heterosexual households are being discriminated against for the sake of same-sex households.
And according to national figures, this notion just isn't true.
Children don't necessarily need a home that appeals to someone's limited view of "family.
Children need homes where they can receive love and support.
And there are no studies that say they cannot receive love and support from a same-sex home.
But thanks to FCAC, Arkansas children in foster care may not get any home at all.
Something is presently happening in Arkansas that could negatively affect lgbts in the future:
The Little Rock, AR based organization largely responsible for placing a constitutional ban against gay marriage in Arkansas in 2004, is back in 2008 with an anti-gay adoption ban.
On Monday, the Family Council Action Committee (FCAC) met a deadline to submit 61,974 signatures to the Secretary of State to place a proposed law banning unmarried couples from adopting children on the November ballot. While the initiative bans both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the organization's website lists banning gay and lesbian couples from adoption as a goal of the law.
The Arkansas Adoption Act makes it illegal for adoptive and foster care children to be placed in homes with individuals who cohabit with a sexual partner. Single people, living alone, would be free from the restrictions.
Arkansas did initially bar gays from adopting or becoming foster parents before the state court struck down the law. Then the legislature wouldn't pass a law prohibiting lgbts from adopting or becoming foster parents.
So now some folks are taking the "let the people decide through a vote" route. And while they have tried to word the law to make it seem that its not an attack on lgbts, they freely admit that it is:
“[The Arkansas Adoption Act] is about two things. It's about child welfare, first of all. Secondly, it is to blunt a homosexual agenda that's at work in other states and that will be at work in Arkansas unless we are proactive about doing something about it,” FCAC Executive Director Jerry Cox told Fox16 News.
This attempt is nothing new. After their success in banning gay marriage, the anti-gay industry have long had their sights on making it more difficult for lgbts to be foster or adoptive parents. It is obvious that Arkansas is a testing ground. If they are successful there, then they are going to try the same thing in other states.
What gets me is this part:
The FCAC lists three primary reasons for the law: For the safety of children, to increase the number of prospective homes, and to “blunt a homosexual agenda.”
Increase the number of homes? How can you increase the number of homes that will take in children by prohibiting potential foster and adoptive parents?
Sadly, that question is not answered by the FCAC in the article.
And that is the crux of the fallacy involving denying lgbts the right to be foster and adoptive parents.
According to the National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice and Permanency Planning:
510,000 = Number of children in foster care on September 30, 2006
129,000 = Number of children waiting to be adopted on September 30, 2006
51,000 = Number of children adopted from the public foster care system in FY 2006
And according to the Department of Health and Human Services' s Administration for Children & Families, 984 Arkansas children were waiting to be adopted in 2005.
But I bet the FCAC law doesn't address that point.
What we get from them is the same talking point the anti-gay industry shovels about children in foster care:
Children have a right to a mother and father.
But (and here is the rub) the FCAC potential law does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed in this type of home. In fact, it does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed into a home at all.
You see, this talking point is not designed to do anything but create the premise that somehow two-parent heterosexual households are being discriminated against for the sake of same-sex households.
And according to national figures, this notion just isn't true.
Children don't necessarily need a home that appeals to someone's limited view of "family.
Children need homes where they can receive love and support.
And there are no studies that say they cannot receive love and support from a same-sex home.
But thanks to FCAC, Arkansas children in foster care may not get any home at all.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
It's Tuesday - oh boy
Well it's Tuesday and I'm all alone.
My mother has gone to Pennsylvania to participate in my uncle's wedding. That leaves me home alone until Monday. This means that I can indulge in two of my favorite guilty pleasures - butter almond ice cream and porn.
Just kidding. Butter almond ice cream is so fattening.
Seriously though, last week I alluded to the fact that I can no longer link from One News Now. Is it just me or does the site see me as a hinderance to their message?
My linkage now takes one to a Rick Astley video on Youtube. But the joke is on One News Now. I happen to like Rick Astley.
Redhaired men are my weakness.
Who am I kidding? Men with a pulse are my weakness.
However I won't be using this time alone to catch up on my quota. And when I say quota, I mean the following - according to the anti-gay industry, gay men have over 500 partners a year . . . or is it 1,000 partners in a lifetime . . . or is it 1,500 partners on Judy Garland's birthday.
Really though, just who is so damned egotistical to count sexual partners? And just what is the criteria for an official sex act. Does heavy petting count?
More importantly, why can't I find any of those slutty gay guys?
Whatever the case may be, I am waaaay behind on the quota. If I don't get some soon, then national headquarters is going to come and get me for re-education.
From what I understand, it involves being locked in a small room somewhere in the Castro and being forced to watch Barbara Streisand movies for 48 hours.
And not the good ones but the ones she made when she was blatant about wanting the Oscar for Best Director.
Something that I haven't talked about is the American Family Association's boycott of McDonalds.
Apparently because McDonalds donated $20,000 to the Gay and Lesbian National Chamber of Commerce and because the company has the audacity to protect its employees against discrimination, Donald Wildmon and that bunch has branded it public enemy number one.
You know the vernacular - "McDonalds has signed on to the radical homosexual agenda." "McDonalds is no longer for families." "Ronald McDonald and Grimace are secret lovers."
Well McDonalds has gained a loyal customer because of the boycott - yours truly.
Lastly, if you all are still here and not thinking that I am insane, I want to let you in on something that I realized last week.
Some members of U.S. Senate are pushing for that dreary marriage amendment. Not only that, but two of the sponsors are Larry "wide stance in the toilet" Craig and David "hey, prostitutes need to pay the bills too" Vitter.
Craig is a hot mess himself but doesn't the fact that Vitter is sponsoring this bill goes to prove that a lot of the things the anti-gay industry says about gay men aren't true?
They like to claim that we have so much anal sex that we end up wearing diapers.
If this was the case, then wouldn't Vitter be our ally, with his love of diapers and all?
Think about it.
And hopefully by tomorrow, I will be in a normal frame of mind.
Well it's Tuesday and I'm all alone.
My mother has gone to Pennsylvania to participate in my uncle's wedding. That leaves me home alone until Monday. This means that I can indulge in two of my favorite guilty pleasures - butter almond ice cream and porn.
Just kidding. Butter almond ice cream is so fattening.
Seriously though, last week I alluded to the fact that I can no longer link from One News Now. Is it just me or does the site see me as a hinderance to their message?
My linkage now takes one to a Rick Astley video on Youtube. But the joke is on One News Now. I happen to like Rick Astley.
Redhaired men are my weakness.
Who am I kidding? Men with a pulse are my weakness.
However I won't be using this time alone to catch up on my quota. And when I say quota, I mean the following - according to the anti-gay industry, gay men have over 500 partners a year . . . or is it 1,000 partners in a lifetime . . . or is it 1,500 partners on Judy Garland's birthday.
Really though, just who is so damned egotistical to count sexual partners? And just what is the criteria for an official sex act. Does heavy petting count?
More importantly, why can't I find any of those slutty gay guys?
Whatever the case may be, I am waaaay behind on the quota. If I don't get some soon, then national headquarters is going to come and get me for re-education.
From what I understand, it involves being locked in a small room somewhere in the Castro and being forced to watch Barbara Streisand movies for 48 hours.
And not the good ones but the ones she made when she was blatant about wanting the Oscar for Best Director.
Something that I haven't talked about is the American Family Association's boycott of McDonalds.
Apparently because McDonalds donated $20,000 to the Gay and Lesbian National Chamber of Commerce and because the company has the audacity to protect its employees against discrimination, Donald Wildmon and that bunch has branded it public enemy number one.
You know the vernacular - "McDonalds has signed on to the radical homosexual agenda." "McDonalds is no longer for families." "Ronald McDonald and Grimace are secret lovers."
Well McDonalds has gained a loyal customer because of the boycott - yours truly.
Lastly, if you all are still here and not thinking that I am insane, I want to let you in on something that I realized last week.
Some members of U.S. Senate are pushing for that dreary marriage amendment. Not only that, but two of the sponsors are Larry "wide stance in the toilet" Craig and David "hey, prostitutes need to pay the bills too" Vitter.
Craig is a hot mess himself but doesn't the fact that Vitter is sponsoring this bill goes to prove that a lot of the things the anti-gay industry says about gay men aren't true?
They like to claim that we have so much anal sex that we end up wearing diapers.
If this was the case, then wouldn't Vitter be our ally, with his love of diapers and all?
Think about it.
And hopefully by tomorrow, I will be in a normal frame of mind.
Monday, July 07, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Old lies never die - they just get repolished
An ugly trend sprouting up is how the anti-gay industry will exploit ignorance of the transgender community in order to beat back pro-gay laws:
Citizens in Gainesville, Florida, are trying to repeal an ordinance that lets anyone reject their biological sex simply by stating that they "feel like" a member of the opposite sex. At least one citizen argues that introduces some serious safety concerns for the public.
It gets even worse:
Cain Davis, chairman of Citizens for Good Public Policy, says the ordinance was not well thought out. "[A] man, for example, [can] walk into a women's restroom .... just by merely saying, 'I feel like a woman,' they can go into a women's restroom," he explains. In fact, Davis' group has been collecting reports of such incidents, including one in which an elderly woman using a wheelchair complained when an adult male followed her into the women's restroom at a local grocery store.
"And the manager said, 'He can legally do it,'" Davis relates. "The manager didn't even ask this person if he had a sexual or gender identity issue . . . "
I can't help but to question the veracity of this claim. The details are too vague. What store did this take place? What happened next? Were the police called?
It also reminds me of 1983 when discredited researcher Paul Cameron told the audience of the University of Nebraska Lutheran Church that a four-year-old boy was castrated due to a sexual attack by a gay man.
Cameron told this story as part of an attempt to defeat an anti-discrimination law in Lincoln, Nebraska. Police investigated and discovered the story to be false. But the anti-discrimination law was defeated.
So now, over 20 years after that incident, we have so-called Christians telling the same type of story and inferring that laws that would protect lgbts from discrimination would allow predators to attack our most vulnerable citizens in public areas.
I guess they figure why not go with the game plan that has been successful thus far.
Another reason to vote for Obama
James Dobson has gone on record criticizing Obama for daring to voice a version of Christianity that he doesn't agree with:
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family -- who has stayed unusually quiet in this election cycle likely due to his loathing of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz -- will tomorrow attack Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on Tuesday for a speech the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee delivered in 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.
The AP was given an advance copy of Dobson's 18-minute radio segment, which has already been taped, and will air Tuesday.
In it, Dobson hammers Obama's views of religion, and says the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," and calls Obama's views "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
Be honest. Is anyone surprised over this? If Dobson wanted to shock me, he could have said something positive about Obama.
Does Dobson really think that he is relevant to people who don't buy his phony bullshit?
He doesn't like Obama and he doesn't like McCain. If you ask me, I think Dobson may be cushioning folks for his declaration of an intent to run for president.
Okay, that is farfetched, but you have to admit - it would make things very interesting.
An ugly trend sprouting up is how the anti-gay industry will exploit ignorance of the transgender community in order to beat back pro-gay laws:
Citizens in Gainesville, Florida, are trying to repeal an ordinance that lets anyone reject their biological sex simply by stating that they "feel like" a member of the opposite sex. At least one citizen argues that introduces some serious safety concerns for the public.
It gets even worse:
Cain Davis, chairman of Citizens for Good Public Policy, says the ordinance was not well thought out. "[A] man, for example, [can] walk into a women's restroom .... just by merely saying, 'I feel like a woman,' they can go into a women's restroom," he explains. In fact, Davis' group has been collecting reports of such incidents, including one in which an elderly woman using a wheelchair complained when an adult male followed her into the women's restroom at a local grocery store.
"And the manager said, 'He can legally do it,'" Davis relates. "The manager didn't even ask this person if he had a sexual or gender identity issue . . . "
I can't help but to question the veracity of this claim. The details are too vague. What store did this take place? What happened next? Were the police called?
It also reminds me of 1983 when discredited researcher Paul Cameron told the audience of the University of Nebraska Lutheran Church that a four-year-old boy was castrated due to a sexual attack by a gay man.
Cameron told this story as part of an attempt to defeat an anti-discrimination law in Lincoln, Nebraska. Police investigated and discovered the story to be false. But the anti-discrimination law was defeated.
So now, over 20 years after that incident, we have so-called Christians telling the same type of story and inferring that laws that would protect lgbts from discrimination would allow predators to attack our most vulnerable citizens in public areas.
I guess they figure why not go with the game plan that has been successful thus far.
Another reason to vote for Obama
James Dobson has gone on record criticizing Obama for daring to voice a version of Christianity that he doesn't agree with:
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family -- who has stayed unusually quiet in this election cycle likely due to his loathing of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz -- will tomorrow attack Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on Tuesday for a speech the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee delivered in 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.
The AP was given an advance copy of Dobson's 18-minute radio segment, which has already been taped, and will air Tuesday.
In it, Dobson hammers Obama's views of religion, and says the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," and calls Obama's views "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
Be honest. Is anyone surprised over this? If Dobson wanted to shock me, he could have said something positive about Obama.
Does Dobson really think that he is relevant to people who don't buy his phony bullshit?
He doesn't like Obama and he doesn't like McCain. If you ask me, I think Dobson may be cushioning folks for his declaration of an intent to run for president.
Okay, that is farfetched, but you have to admit - it would make things very interesting.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Hot mess in Irmo
The school board met regarding the GSA and other clubs. And if they thought their decision ended this thing, they are wrong.
It's too early to tell the repercussions, but here is what I do know courtesy of WIS TV:
A South Carolina school district has voted to allow all student clubs rather than risk a lawsuit by banning a gay-friendly student organization.
But another part of the policy approved Monday night by the Lexington-Richland School District 5 school board gives parents the option of not letting their minor children participate in any school club.
Another provision prohibits student clubs from discussing sexually explicit topics in keeping with the district's abstinence-based curriculum.
First of all, the second provision is irrelevant. Supporters of the GSA (myself included) have said all along that having the GSA doesn't necessarily mean that members will talk about sexual related matters.
Now the permission slips situation is another matter all together. Parents will be given a handout listing all the clubs and will be able to pick and choose which clubs to opt their children out of.
I don't agree with this because some students are not able to come out to their parents. I have heard of situations where children coming out to their parents have been beaten and kicked out of their homes.
Permission slips do not solve the problem. They are a very cynical way of sidestepping the Equal Access Act. In the long run, those who need the GSA will be denied.
This point was brought home during the newscast. A parent whose child attends one of the schools was interviewed. She was not happy with district allowing the GSA but she does like the idea of permission slips.
Her story gets better.
Apparently, her son is gay but she will not allow him to join the GSA. She said that they have been through counseling and continue to work through the issue.
I hope the irony of this doesn't escape anyone.
My prayers are with her child and her. Hopefully one day she will realize that the very thing she denies her son is what can keep him grounded and alive.
And I hope that one day, the people in my state will stop focusing on nonsense like "I Believe" license plates and saying that they are good people and start acting like it for a change.
The school board met regarding the GSA and other clubs. And if they thought their decision ended this thing, they are wrong.
It's too early to tell the repercussions, but here is what I do know courtesy of WIS TV:
A South Carolina school district has voted to allow all student clubs rather than risk a lawsuit by banning a gay-friendly student organization.
But another part of the policy approved Monday night by the Lexington-Richland School District 5 school board gives parents the option of not letting their minor children participate in any school club.
Another provision prohibits student clubs from discussing sexually explicit topics in keeping with the district's abstinence-based curriculum.
First of all, the second provision is irrelevant. Supporters of the GSA (myself included) have said all along that having the GSA doesn't necessarily mean that members will talk about sexual related matters.
Now the permission slips situation is another matter all together. Parents will be given a handout listing all the clubs and will be able to pick and choose which clubs to opt their children out of.
I don't agree with this because some students are not able to come out to their parents. I have heard of situations where children coming out to their parents have been beaten and kicked out of their homes.
Permission slips do not solve the problem. They are a very cynical way of sidestepping the Equal Access Act. In the long run, those who need the GSA will be denied.
This point was brought home during the newscast. A parent whose child attends one of the schools was interviewed. She was not happy with district allowing the GSA but she does like the idea of permission slips.
Her story gets better.
Apparently, her son is gay but she will not allow him to join the GSA. She said that they have been through counseling and continue to work through the issue.
I hope the irony of this doesn't escape anyone.
My prayers are with her child and her. Hopefully one day she will realize that the very thing she denies her son is what can keep him grounded and alive.
And I hope that one day, the people in my state will stop focusing on nonsense like "I Believe" license plates and saying that they are good people and start acting like it for a change.
Countdown to South Carolina Black Pride
This Monday is very interesting.
The Lexington-Richland School District 5 board is expected to vote on a new policy regarding school clubs. This comes as a result of the controversy involving a GSA at Irmo High School, which I have talked about on many occasions.
Rest assured that when word comes down as to what they do, I will have something to say about it.
Meanwhile, the same folks who wrote that book about John Kerry (remember the Swiftboaters) will be writing one on Barack Obama.
As if anyone is surprised. No doubt, the book will be a hit for people who read One News Now. That phony news site is getting highly shrill in their anti-Obama fervor.
From commentators, to columns, to "news" articles, not a day goes by where readers aren't seeing something new and very negative about Obama.
The last I checked, he has been confirmed as the anti-Christ.
And here I thought the anti-Christ was the person who invented cell phones.
But this day finds me waiting in anticipation.
On Wednesday, the opening ceremony of South Carolina Black Pride will take place.
To tell the truth, I am optimistic about the entire week.
This will mark the third occasion of black pride. The first black pride was mildly successful. We did a good job in many things but had a problem getting the lgbt community of color completely involved.
The second year was a hot mess which I will not speak of.
This year, we went all out. Making sure we learned lessons from the first two, the committee worked its ass off getting the community involved. Many of us went out on weekday nights to hand out flyers and network to the "children" despite the fact that we had to be at work early the next day.
We bent over backwards to involve all facets of the lgbt community of color (hence an excellent mini-ball will be taking place during the expo on Saturday) while at the same time getting press coverage and support from the lgbt community at large.
And we were highly successful. The word is definitely out.
Also, this year, I have not heard any complaints about black gays "segregating themselves" by having a black pride. Maybe I am being too optimistic, but I really think folks are starting to get where we are coming from. I think that people are understanding that black pride does not subtraction but addition.
So keep your fingers crossed because this week is going to be very interesting.
http://www.southcarolinablackpride.com/
This Monday is very interesting.
The Lexington-Richland School District 5 board is expected to vote on a new policy regarding school clubs. This comes as a result of the controversy involving a GSA at Irmo High School, which I have talked about on many occasions.
Rest assured that when word comes down as to what they do, I will have something to say about it.
Meanwhile, the same folks who wrote that book about John Kerry (remember the Swiftboaters) will be writing one on Barack Obama.
As if anyone is surprised. No doubt, the book will be a hit for people who read One News Now. That phony news site is getting highly shrill in their anti-Obama fervor.
From commentators, to columns, to "news" articles, not a day goes by where readers aren't seeing something new and very negative about Obama.
The last I checked, he has been confirmed as the anti-Christ.
And here I thought the anti-Christ was the person who invented cell phones.
But this day finds me waiting in anticipation.
On Wednesday, the opening ceremony of South Carolina Black Pride will take place.
To tell the truth, I am optimistic about the entire week.
This will mark the third occasion of black pride. The first black pride was mildly successful. We did a good job in many things but had a problem getting the lgbt community of color completely involved.
The second year was a hot mess which I will not speak of.
This year, we went all out. Making sure we learned lessons from the first two, the committee worked its ass off getting the community involved. Many of us went out on weekday nights to hand out flyers and network to the "children" despite the fact that we had to be at work early the next day.
We bent over backwards to involve all facets of the lgbt community of color (hence an excellent mini-ball will be taking place during the expo on Saturday) while at the same time getting press coverage and support from the lgbt community at large.
And we were highly successful. The word is definitely out.
Also, this year, I have not heard any complaints about black gays "segregating themselves" by having a black pride. Maybe I am being too optimistic, but I really think folks are starting to get where we are coming from. I think that people are understanding that black pride does not subtraction but addition.
So keep your fingers crossed because this week is going to be very interesting.
http://www.southcarolinablackpride.com/
Friday, June 20, 2008
Just do your damn job!!
I ran into the following disturbing news item yesterday:
They went to the doctor's office for an exam, but a same-sex couple said they got a lecture on lifestyle instead.
Ashleigh Haberman and Erica Schaub have made a life-long commitment to one another after getting married in Canada.
The openly lesbian couple has been together for nearly two years. They say their lifestyle and raising four children from previous relationships has its challenges, but they had never experienced discrimination, they say, until now.
"He asked who I was to her and I said, 'She's my partner,'" said Haberman.
The discussion took place at Spectrum Health South Pavilion Urgent Care Center in Grand Rapids. Schaub was there to get checked out for a lingering cold.
But instead of her symptoms, they say the doctor was more interested in the couple's relationship and how they felt about the recent California ruling allowing same-sex marriage.
"And he proceeded to give his opinion on how he felt that marriage, gay marriage, shouldn't be called a marriage because it's a religious based word, and he's a Christian, and there's no way that marriage could be considered legal in the gay sense," said Haberman.
While the couple's marriage is not legally recognized in Michigan, they say that's not the point, rather, the doctor's office is not the time nor place for a debate. They were there for an exam - not a lecture on lifestyle.
What's more disturbing were some of the comments on the page. Some have said that the doctor was in the right because of the alleged "health problems of homosexuality."
But no credible studies has ever said that the lgbt orientation is indicative of negative health problems.
Studies actually say that outside factors can lead to members of the lgbt community developing bad health choices. For instance, studies done by Drs. Elizabeth Saewyc and Robert Garafalo (talked about on this site at various times) blame homophobia for the rate of suicide amongst lgbt teens.
But more to the point of this article, the American Cancer Society have said that lesbians do have a greater risk of developing cancer. However, the group also says this is partly due to:
Many health insurance policies do not cover unmarried partners. This makes it harder for many lesbian and bisexual women to access quality health care.
Some women may not want to tell their health care providers that they are lesbian or bisexual because they don’t want discrimination to affect the quality of health care they receive.
Past negative experiences with providers may cause lesbians and bisexual women to wait too long before seeking health care. As a result, they may miss out on early detection tests and have cancers diagnosed at a later state, when the disease is more difficult to treat.
That last point is apropo to this situation.
Just like African-Americans who are less likely to trust physicians due to incidents in the past, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, members of the lgbt community face potential danger if they cannot trust members of the medical community to do their jobs.
I only hope that the physician in question receives a serious reprimand for his breach of ethics.
The sad thing is that members of the anti-gay industry will most likely come out on the side of the physician, while at the same time exploiting the possible negative consequences of his unprofessional behavior.
I ran into the following disturbing news item yesterday:
They went to the doctor's office for an exam, but a same-sex couple said they got a lecture on lifestyle instead.
Ashleigh Haberman and Erica Schaub have made a life-long commitment to one another after getting married in Canada.
The openly lesbian couple has been together for nearly two years. They say their lifestyle and raising four children from previous relationships has its challenges, but they had never experienced discrimination, they say, until now.
"He asked who I was to her and I said, 'She's my partner,'" said Haberman.
The discussion took place at Spectrum Health South Pavilion Urgent Care Center in Grand Rapids. Schaub was there to get checked out for a lingering cold.
But instead of her symptoms, they say the doctor was more interested in the couple's relationship and how they felt about the recent California ruling allowing same-sex marriage.
"And he proceeded to give his opinion on how he felt that marriage, gay marriage, shouldn't be called a marriage because it's a religious based word, and he's a Christian, and there's no way that marriage could be considered legal in the gay sense," said Haberman.
While the couple's marriage is not legally recognized in Michigan, they say that's not the point, rather, the doctor's office is not the time nor place for a debate. They were there for an exam - not a lecture on lifestyle.
What's more disturbing were some of the comments on the page. Some have said that the doctor was in the right because of the alleged "health problems of homosexuality."
But no credible studies has ever said that the lgbt orientation is indicative of negative health problems.
Studies actually say that outside factors can lead to members of the lgbt community developing bad health choices. For instance, studies done by Drs. Elizabeth Saewyc and Robert Garafalo (talked about on this site at various times) blame homophobia for the rate of suicide amongst lgbt teens.
But more to the point of this article, the American Cancer Society have said that lesbians do have a greater risk of developing cancer. However, the group also says this is partly due to:
Many health insurance policies do not cover unmarried partners. This makes it harder for many lesbian and bisexual women to access quality health care.
Some women may not want to tell their health care providers that they are lesbian or bisexual because they don’t want discrimination to affect the quality of health care they receive.
Past negative experiences with providers may cause lesbians and bisexual women to wait too long before seeking health care. As a result, they may miss out on early detection tests and have cancers diagnosed at a later state, when the disease is more difficult to treat.
That last point is apropo to this situation.
Just like African-Americans who are less likely to trust physicians due to incidents in the past, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, members of the lgbt community face potential danger if they cannot trust members of the medical community to do their jobs.
I only hope that the physician in question receives a serious reprimand for his breach of ethics.
The sad thing is that members of the anti-gay industry will most likely come out on the side of the physician, while at the same time exploiting the possible negative consequences of his unprofessional behavior.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Peter's friends
Peter LaBarbera is a huge hypocrite. We all know this. He is so wrapped up stopping the alleged "gay menace" that he, on occasion, makes a supreme ass of himself.
So why should today be any different:
Folks, in many ways I think Michael Savage is one of the freest voices in America. He talks boldly about things — like America’s moral rot — that even many “conservative talkers” avoid or sidestep with their calculated, politically correct, “I’m-not-intolerant” timidity on tough issues like homosexuality. (Some leading conservative talk show hosts refuse to confront the “gay” agenda or do so only on the margins — whatever happened to “conserving” our Judeo-Christian sexual ethic?)
The following are examples of Savage's free voice:
Savage's answer to homelessness: "Why not put them in work camps?" Monday, June 9, 2008
Savage plays Dead Kennedys song again after asserting he "is now being persecuted for refusing to take the party line" on Sen. Kennedy's illness Thursday, May 22, 2008
Michael Savage plays Dead Kennedys song "in some respect for" Sen. Kennedy Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Savage: "[L]oving, kind lesbian" is "the type that stuffed ovens in Hitler's concentration camps" Friday, November 9, 2007
Savage: "You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats" to cause Roberts' seizure? Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Savage: Madeleine Albright is a "traitor" who "should be hung" Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Savage lauds Wash. Times employee allegedly soliciting girl for sex as a "normal pervert" who "should get a reward that it wasn't a boy" Friday, September 29, 2006
Michael Savage is a loud mouth bully who mistakes hyperbole for intelligent conversation. He is the McDonalds of talk radio; cheap and fast, but having no substance and ultimately not good for you.
But to Peter, Michael Savage is a bold and free person, just like anti-Semitic author Ted Pike is a "pro-family" advocate.
Of course Peter swore up and down that he doesn't share the same beliefs as Pike , just like he will most likely disavow Savage's ramblings.
But birds of a feather do flock together.
Peter LaBarbera is a huge hypocrite. We all know this. He is so wrapped up stopping the alleged "gay menace" that he, on occasion, makes a supreme ass of himself.
So why should today be any different:
Folks, in many ways I think Michael Savage is one of the freest voices in America. He talks boldly about things — like America’s moral rot — that even many “conservative talkers” avoid or sidestep with their calculated, politically correct, “I’m-not-intolerant” timidity on tough issues like homosexuality. (Some leading conservative talk show hosts refuse to confront the “gay” agenda or do so only on the margins — whatever happened to “conserving” our Judeo-Christian sexual ethic?)
The following are examples of Savage's free voice:
Savage's answer to homelessness: "Why not put them in work camps?" Monday, June 9, 2008
Savage plays Dead Kennedys song again after asserting he "is now being persecuted for refusing to take the party line" on Sen. Kennedy's illness Thursday, May 22, 2008
Michael Savage plays Dead Kennedys song "in some respect for" Sen. Kennedy Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Savage: "[L]oving, kind lesbian" is "the type that stuffed ovens in Hitler's concentration camps" Friday, November 9, 2007
Savage: "You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats" to cause Roberts' seizure? Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Savage: Madeleine Albright is a "traitor" who "should be hung" Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Savage lauds Wash. Times employee allegedly soliciting girl for sex as a "normal pervert" who "should get a reward that it wasn't a boy" Friday, September 29, 2006
Michael Savage is a loud mouth bully who mistakes hyperbole for intelligent conversation. He is the McDonalds of talk radio; cheap and fast, but having no substance and ultimately not good for you.
But to Peter, Michael Savage is a bold and free person, just like anti-Semitic author Ted Pike is a "pro-family" advocate.
Of course Peter swore up and down that he doesn't share the same beliefs as Pike , just like he will most likely disavow Savage's ramblings.
But birds of a feather do flock together.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Evil never dies . . . but sometimes it goes to Russia
With all of the California euphoria in the air, let's not lose sight of the facets of anti-gay industry lies we have to fight on a daily basis.
Yesterday, I talked about Matt Barber leaving the Concerned Women for America.
Today, I want to talk about something I noticed at Box Turtle Bulletin:
Monday we warned that Paul Cameron was to speak yesterday before the sociology faculty of Moscow State University. Now we have a report of what he told that audience. Not surprisingly, it’s the same claptrap he’s been peddling here in the U.S.
In this glowing account of his talk (they describe him as a “famous” or “renowned” scientist three times), Cameron repeats the most chilling line of his standard stump speech. He contends that gays and lesbians don’t produce children and because they allegedly cost society more than they produce. In recent writings where he pursues this line of reasoning, he concludes that gays and lesbians lead parasitic lives — with all of its implications and deserved consequences. This poor translation doesn’t reveal that he actually repeated the term “parasitic lives”, but that is an integral part of his speech.
That's right. The super-nemesis of the lgbt community is peaking his head from out of his cave.
For the benefit of those who do not know, Cameron is the forefather of anti-gay propaganda. His "studies" formed the building blocks of almost every anti-gay industry lie told about the lgbt community.
And even though he has been censured, rebuked, and discredited, his work continues to be repeated as fact by so-called persons of faith eager to demonize the lgbt community.
Hell, I even devoted an entire chapter to him and his lies in my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
So now, he is in a foreign country, sowing his lies in new territory.
More members of our community as well as the heterosexual community should educate themselves on Cameron and his lies. I talk about him in detail in my book and my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars webpage.
But if you want a more complete picture, Box Turtle Bulletin is the definitive site on all things Cameronesque, including a list of groups and people who continue to use his work even after he has been exposed as a charlatan.
With all of the California euphoria in the air, let's not lose sight of the facets of anti-gay industry lies we have to fight on a daily basis.
Yesterday, I talked about Matt Barber leaving the Concerned Women for America.
Today, I want to talk about something I noticed at Box Turtle Bulletin:
Monday we warned that Paul Cameron was to speak yesterday before the sociology faculty of Moscow State University. Now we have a report of what he told that audience. Not surprisingly, it’s the same claptrap he’s been peddling here in the U.S.
In this glowing account of his talk (they describe him as a “famous” or “renowned” scientist three times), Cameron repeats the most chilling line of his standard stump speech. He contends that gays and lesbians don’t produce children and because they allegedly cost society more than they produce. In recent writings where he pursues this line of reasoning, he concludes that gays and lesbians lead parasitic lives — with all of its implications and deserved consequences. This poor translation doesn’t reveal that he actually repeated the term “parasitic lives”, but that is an integral part of his speech.
That's right. The super-nemesis of the lgbt community is peaking his head from out of his cave.
For the benefit of those who do not know, Cameron is the forefather of anti-gay propaganda. His "studies" formed the building blocks of almost every anti-gay industry lie told about the lgbt community.
And even though he has been censured, rebuked, and discredited, his work continues to be repeated as fact by so-called persons of faith eager to demonize the lgbt community.
Hell, I even devoted an entire chapter to him and his lies in my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
So now, he is in a foreign country, sowing his lies in new territory.
More members of our community as well as the heterosexual community should educate themselves on Cameron and his lies. I talk about him in detail in my book and my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars webpage.
But if you want a more complete picture, Box Turtle Bulletin is the definitive site on all things Cameronesque, including a list of groups and people who continue to use his work even after he has been exposed as a charlatan.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Matt Barber stretches out those 15 minutes
The picture that I will carry with me from all of this hullabalo about California and marriage equality is, of course, the one of the 80-year-old lesbians who have been together for 54 years. And they were the first to be married.
That's just too cool for words. And it proves the point that everything the anti-gay industry says about us are lies.
Tell me again how we don't care about family. Tell me again how hedonistic we are. Tell me again how we are evil sinners going to hell.
Give me more reasons to laugh in your face.
Speaking of which, we may have lost an opponent last week. Matt Barber has left Concerned Women for America:
Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), will be leaving his post with CWA and joining the staffs of Lynchburg, Virginia-based Liberty University School of Law and Liberty Counsel, two of the nation’s premier pro-family organizations. Barber will serve as Associate Dean for Career and Professional Development with Liberty Law School and will be Director for Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel.
Personally, I am going to miss Barber. Every time he opened his mouth, he moved the lgbt community closer to the doors of acceptance.
Initially Barber was an employee with Allstate Insurance. He also wrote Paul Cameronesque anti-gay screeds on the side. This led to him being fired because one of his columns invoked the name of his employer. Also, there were some claims that despite Barber writing the columns on his own time, he may have used company equipment to do so.
For a time, he allowed himself to be portrayed as a "martyr of the gay agenda," until his lawsuit against Allstate was settled out of court. The terms of the settlement were not publicized.
Then Barber took the job at CWA. And things got better for us.
Barber looked good on television and for a while, sounded like a good talking head. But as time went on, one could tell that he was way out of his league. The following are my favorite Matt Barber missteps. And all of them happened this year:
MRSA virus
Barber led the charge in claiming that a possible outbreak of staph infections amongst gay men in San Francisco was the result of a “politically correct” doctrine of not telling people about the so-called dangers of homosexuality. He even helped to infer that it was the new AIDS crisis.
However, the Centers for Disease Control quickly issued a statement contradicting this. Amongst other things, the statement said: The strains of MRSA described in the recent Annals of Internal Medicine have mostly been identified in certain groups of men who have sex with men (MSM), but have also been found in some persons who are not MSM. It is important to note that the groups of MSM in which these isolates have been described are not representative of all MSM, so conclusions can not be drawn about the prevalence of these strains among all MSM.
When confronted about this, Barber claimed that the gay community strong-armed the CDC into downplaying the MRSA virus. In addition, he denied that he linked the MRSA infection to the AIDS crisis. However, his original comments about the MRSA infection showed otherwise.
This was such a misstep that Barber's predecessor in the CWA, Robert Knight, jumped into the situation to downplay what Barber did.
The Gay Agenda claim again
Barber claimed to have revealed the "gay agenda." His "revelation" was an old one - the claim that the gay community is trying to take over America through points of attack from the book, After the Ball.
Barber's predecessor, Knight, once cited the book, as did Peter LaBarbera, as did Janet Folger, etc., etc. Pretty much every anti-gay "expert" on homosexuality has incorrectly cited this book as sort of a homosexual manifesto before Barber came on the scene.
The gay early death lie
Barber claimed that "multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking."
He also referred to the 1997 Canadian study to claim that gays have a short lifespan. Interestingly enough, he also addressed the 2001 complaint by the researchers of the study regarding the misusage of their work.
Barber tried to dismiss the complaint as "worthless fluff." He also claimed that the researchers were under "tremendous pressure" to refute their original study. But that is where Barber made two mistakes. Not only did he neglect to go into detail as to what pressure was "exerted" on the researchers, but his mention of the 2001 complaint led many to look it up.
Needless to say that Barber's claim of the complaint being "worthless fluff" didn't hold up in the eyes of many. And even on rightwing webpages, he got critcism for what he did.
Yes, with enemies like Barber, the lgbt community didn't exactly need friends. So with a tear in my eye, I say goodbye to the right-wing version of William Hung.
I am going to miss your stupidity Mr. Barber. She-bang! She-bang!
The picture that I will carry with me from all of this hullabalo about California and marriage equality is, of course, the one of the 80-year-old lesbians who have been together for 54 years. And they were the first to be married.
That's just too cool for words. And it proves the point that everything the anti-gay industry says about us are lies.
Tell me again how we don't care about family. Tell me again how hedonistic we are. Tell me again how we are evil sinners going to hell.
Give me more reasons to laugh in your face.
Speaking of which, we may have lost an opponent last week. Matt Barber has left Concerned Women for America:
Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), will be leaving his post with CWA and joining the staffs of Lynchburg, Virginia-based Liberty University School of Law and Liberty Counsel, two of the nation’s premier pro-family organizations. Barber will serve as Associate Dean for Career and Professional Development with Liberty Law School and will be Director for Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel.
Personally, I am going to miss Barber. Every time he opened his mouth, he moved the lgbt community closer to the doors of acceptance.
Initially Barber was an employee with Allstate Insurance. He also wrote Paul Cameronesque anti-gay screeds on the side. This led to him being fired because one of his columns invoked the name of his employer. Also, there were some claims that despite Barber writing the columns on his own time, he may have used company equipment to do so.
For a time, he allowed himself to be portrayed as a "martyr of the gay agenda," until his lawsuit against Allstate was settled out of court. The terms of the settlement were not publicized.
Then Barber took the job at CWA. And things got better for us.
Barber looked good on television and for a while, sounded like a good talking head. But as time went on, one could tell that he was way out of his league. The following are my favorite Matt Barber missteps. And all of them happened this year:
MRSA virus
Barber led the charge in claiming that a possible outbreak of staph infections amongst gay men in San Francisco was the result of a “politically correct” doctrine of not telling people about the so-called dangers of homosexuality. He even helped to infer that it was the new AIDS crisis.
However, the Centers for Disease Control quickly issued a statement contradicting this. Amongst other things, the statement said: The strains of MRSA described in the recent Annals of Internal Medicine have mostly been identified in certain groups of men who have sex with men (MSM), but have also been found in some persons who are not MSM. It is important to note that the groups of MSM in which these isolates have been described are not representative of all MSM, so conclusions can not be drawn about the prevalence of these strains among all MSM.
When confronted about this, Barber claimed that the gay community strong-armed the CDC into downplaying the MRSA virus. In addition, he denied that he linked the MRSA infection to the AIDS crisis. However, his original comments about the MRSA infection showed otherwise.
This was such a misstep that Barber's predecessor in the CWA, Robert Knight, jumped into the situation to downplay what Barber did.
The Gay Agenda claim again
Barber claimed to have revealed the "gay agenda." His "revelation" was an old one - the claim that the gay community is trying to take over America through points of attack from the book, After the Ball.
Barber's predecessor, Knight, once cited the book, as did Peter LaBarbera, as did Janet Folger, etc., etc. Pretty much every anti-gay "expert" on homosexuality has incorrectly cited this book as sort of a homosexual manifesto before Barber came on the scene.
The gay early death lie
Barber claimed that "multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking."
He also referred to the 1997 Canadian study to claim that gays have a short lifespan. Interestingly enough, he also addressed the 2001 complaint by the researchers of the study regarding the misusage of their work.
Barber tried to dismiss the complaint as "worthless fluff." He also claimed that the researchers were under "tremendous pressure" to refute their original study. But that is where Barber made two mistakes. Not only did he neglect to go into detail as to what pressure was "exerted" on the researchers, but his mention of the 2001 complaint led many to look it up.
Needless to say that Barber's claim of the complaint being "worthless fluff" didn't hold up in the eyes of many. And even on rightwing webpages, he got critcism for what he did.
Yes, with enemies like Barber, the lgbt community didn't exactly need friends. So with a tear in my eye, I say goodbye to the right-wing version of William Hung.
I am going to miss your stupidity Mr. Barber. She-bang! She-bang!
Monday, June 16, 2008
How dare a governor tries to protect his constituents!!
Things will be slow around here next week due to South Carolina Black Pride activities. I am heavily involved in the planning and shaping of events for the week. I hope to have a report on it after it's over.
Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear has gotten members of the anti-gay industry upset because he recently issued an executive order adding the phrase "sexual orientation or gender identity" to the non-discrimination policy for state employees.
The responses to his action by the anti-gay industry only serves to underline how selfish and ugly some can get when it comes to the subject of gay rights:
Beshear claimed that, before the policy change, "a gay person could be fired simply for being gay." But (Peter) LaBarbera says that is just not happening. "There's no rash of homosexual firings ... this is all a myth. And it's designed to propel homosexual power forward.
So according to our friend The Peter, unless there is a rash of lgbts applying for unemployment and welfare or in danger of losing their homes due to being unfairly fired, there should be no legislation to protect them.
By that same token, why should science seek a cure for cancer? After all, many folks have been able to beat the disease therefore it's not a problem.
But more to the point, Peter's nasty answer (and he is not the only religious conservative who has voiced this belief - paging Robert Knight) got me thinking.
There is a parable that Jesus told involving a lost sheep. A shepherd owned 100 sheep. One night, 99 was in the fold, but one was lost. Did the shepherd say " I have ninety-nine, so this one sheep doesn't matter."
No. The shepherd went looking for that sheep and found it. That one lost sheep mattered to the shepherd just as much as the others.
And apparently to Governor Beshear, the well-being of lgbts matters to him as much as the well-being of his other constituents.
It was not only the right thing to do, but it was also the Christian thing to do. Peter and everyone who criticize his actions would do themselves a service to hush up and pay attention.
Box Turtle Bulletin exposes a very interesting person
David Benkof claims to be a bisexual man who wants to "defend marriage." And when I say "defend marriage," I do mean the same semantic nonsense that the anti-gay industry foists on us.
Benkof claims that gays will ruin the concept of marriage. And he has written several columns defending that position.
Sounds like to me that Benkof watched the musical Gypsy and applied that song "You Gotta Have a Gimmick" to his career.
But according to Box Turtle Bulletin, Benkof is something of a fraud:
David Benkof has been getting a bit of attention lately. This year he’s written several articles which he has been able to get published in mainstream newspapers. Sadly, he’s used deception and dishonesty to do so.
It's a very excellent piece. You can read it here.
Things will be slow around here next week due to South Carolina Black Pride activities. I am heavily involved in the planning and shaping of events for the week. I hope to have a report on it after it's over.
Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear has gotten members of the anti-gay industry upset because he recently issued an executive order adding the phrase "sexual orientation or gender identity" to the non-discrimination policy for state employees.
The responses to his action by the anti-gay industry only serves to underline how selfish and ugly some can get when it comes to the subject of gay rights:
Beshear claimed that, before the policy change, "a gay person could be fired simply for being gay." But (Peter) LaBarbera says that is just not happening. "There's no rash of homosexual firings ... this is all a myth. And it's designed to propel homosexual power forward.
So according to our friend The Peter, unless there is a rash of lgbts applying for unemployment and welfare or in danger of losing their homes due to being unfairly fired, there should be no legislation to protect them.
By that same token, why should science seek a cure for cancer? After all, many folks have been able to beat the disease therefore it's not a problem.
But more to the point, Peter's nasty answer (and he is not the only religious conservative who has voiced this belief - paging Robert Knight) got me thinking.
There is a parable that Jesus told involving a lost sheep. A shepherd owned 100 sheep. One night, 99 was in the fold, but one was lost. Did the shepherd say " I have ninety-nine, so this one sheep doesn't matter."
No. The shepherd went looking for that sheep and found it. That one lost sheep mattered to the shepherd just as much as the others.
And apparently to Governor Beshear, the well-being of lgbts matters to him as much as the well-being of his other constituents.
It was not only the right thing to do, but it was also the Christian thing to do. Peter and everyone who criticize his actions would do themselves a service to hush up and pay attention.
Box Turtle Bulletin exposes a very interesting person
David Benkof claims to be a bisexual man who wants to "defend marriage." And when I say "defend marriage," I do mean the same semantic nonsense that the anti-gay industry foists on us.
Benkof claims that gays will ruin the concept of marriage. And he has written several columns defending that position.
Sounds like to me that Benkof watched the musical Gypsy and applied that song "You Gotta Have a Gimmick" to his career.
But according to Box Turtle Bulletin, Benkof is something of a fraud:
David Benkof has been getting a bit of attention lately. This year he’s written several articles which he has been able to get published in mainstream newspapers. Sadly, he’s used deception and dishonesty to do so.
It's a very excellent piece. You can read it here.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Just three years? That's some bull@*&$
Hate crime or not, this fool deserves to serve more than just three years:
The Taylors teenager who threw a single, fatal punch at Sean Kennedy outside an Eastside bar was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison after an impassioned argument about the role Kennedy’s sexual orientation may have played.
Stephen Andrew Moller pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, admitting he punched 20-year-old Kennedy in the face in the parking lot of the former Brew’s Pub on Pelham Road in May 2007 after a night of drinking.
Kennedy’s head hit the pavement, causing fatal brain damage.
Moller, who turns 20 on Friday, originally was charged with murder and faced the possibility of life in prison until Greenville County’s chief prosecutor offered the alternate involuntary manslaughter charge after a grand jury found "no malicious intent." The lesser charges carry a maximum sentence of five years.
In the year since Kennedy’s death, his mother, Elke Kennedy, has decried her son’s killing as a hate crime. Shortly after the death, a warrant alleged that the assault was motivated by the fact that Kennedy was gay.
However, in court Wednesday, prosecutor Mark Moyer read a statement Moller gave to an investigator in which he said he didn’t know Kennedy was gay until after he punched him and that he hit him because he was angry that Kennedy had inadvertently brushed his face with his hand.
No evidence was presented during the hearing that Moller acknowledged Kennedy’s homosexuality before the attack.
Shortly after Moller hit Kennedy, Moller called a girl that Kennedy was with outside the bar and left a voice message mixed with laughter, profanity and anti-homosexual epithets bragging about the assault, Moyer said.
The prosecutor read a transcript of the message in court, which Kennedy’s mother pleaded unsuccessfully with the judge to listen to the actual recording before sentencing Moller.
In his statement to the investigator, Moller said that he was sitting in the back seat of a car reaching to turn the radio station as Kennedy reached in with a cigarette and inadvertently brushed his face with his hand. Moyer said the car with Moller had driven over to some girls and that Kennedy came up and hugged one of the girls.
Moller’s attorney, Ryan Beasley, told Circuit Judge Ned Miller that Moller didn’t realize that Kennedy was gay until the driver of the car saw a bleeding cut on Moller’s hand and told him.
"You know that dude is gay," the driver said, according to Moller’s statement. "What are you going to do if you have AIDS now?"
"Everybody thought that this was maybe a hate crime, but it was not," Beasley told the judge. "Stephen had no idea that he was gay until afterwards."
Beasley called the killing a "tragic and freak incident with devastating results" and offered another possible explanation for the brain damage Kennedy suffered, telling the judge that a friend of Kennedy’s, who was drunk, dropped him after trying to lift him up.
"Oh, please!" a member of the crowd of Kennedy’s family and friends present in the courtroom said in response.
Before sentencing, Moller turned to apologize to Kennedy’s family.
"I live with it every day," Moller told the family. "I wish it had never happened. I never thought this would happen. I’m sorry."
In October, Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor Bob Ariail said that his office prepared the alternate charge of involuntary manslaughter after "realizing the possibility of no indictment on the murder charge ... would result in Moller’s release." Ariail said that while the charge would result in an inadequate punishment, it was the only charge that applied to the case.
Moller was later released on bond.
Judge Miller said that "the easy thing to do would be to give him five years and move on," but that he wanted to try to rehabilitate Moller with three years of probation after the sentence is served. Miller also ordered Moller to undergo anger management and substance abuse counseling, submit to random drug tests and perform 30 days of public service.
Miller gave Moller credit for the seven months he served in jail before he was released on bond in November.
Beasley told the judge that during his release Moller has been working and supporting a 9-month-old daughter.
Beasley told the judge that a prison sentence would "only hurt him" and that "there are some bad people in that place, and he’s going to be exposed to things he’s never seen."
Moller’s uncle, Steve Moller, spoke on his nephew’s behalf and said that "we wouldn’t be here today" if alcohol wasn’t involved, and he asked Kennedy’s family to work together with him to help curb underage drinking.
Hate crime or not, this fool deserves to serve more than just three years:
The Taylors teenager who threw a single, fatal punch at Sean Kennedy outside an Eastside bar was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison after an impassioned argument about the role Kennedy’s sexual orientation may have played.
Stephen Andrew Moller pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, admitting he punched 20-year-old Kennedy in the face in the parking lot of the former Brew’s Pub on Pelham Road in May 2007 after a night of drinking.
Kennedy’s head hit the pavement, causing fatal brain damage.
Moller, who turns 20 on Friday, originally was charged with murder and faced the possibility of life in prison until Greenville County’s chief prosecutor offered the alternate involuntary manslaughter charge after a grand jury found "no malicious intent." The lesser charges carry a maximum sentence of five years.
In the year since Kennedy’s death, his mother, Elke Kennedy, has decried her son’s killing as a hate crime. Shortly after the death, a warrant alleged that the assault was motivated by the fact that Kennedy was gay.
However, in court Wednesday, prosecutor Mark Moyer read a statement Moller gave to an investigator in which he said he didn’t know Kennedy was gay until after he punched him and that he hit him because he was angry that Kennedy had inadvertently brushed his face with his hand.
No evidence was presented during the hearing that Moller acknowledged Kennedy’s homosexuality before the attack.
Shortly after Moller hit Kennedy, Moller called a girl that Kennedy was with outside the bar and left a voice message mixed with laughter, profanity and anti-homosexual epithets bragging about the assault, Moyer said.
The prosecutor read a transcript of the message in court, which Kennedy’s mother pleaded unsuccessfully with the judge to listen to the actual recording before sentencing Moller.
In his statement to the investigator, Moller said that he was sitting in the back seat of a car reaching to turn the radio station as Kennedy reached in with a cigarette and inadvertently brushed his face with his hand. Moyer said the car with Moller had driven over to some girls and that Kennedy came up and hugged one of the girls.
Moller’s attorney, Ryan Beasley, told Circuit Judge Ned Miller that Moller didn’t realize that Kennedy was gay until the driver of the car saw a bleeding cut on Moller’s hand and told him.
"You know that dude is gay," the driver said, according to Moller’s statement. "What are you going to do if you have AIDS now?"
"Everybody thought that this was maybe a hate crime, but it was not," Beasley told the judge. "Stephen had no idea that he was gay until afterwards."
Beasley called the killing a "tragic and freak incident with devastating results" and offered another possible explanation for the brain damage Kennedy suffered, telling the judge that a friend of Kennedy’s, who was drunk, dropped him after trying to lift him up.
"Oh, please!" a member of the crowd of Kennedy’s family and friends present in the courtroom said in response.
Before sentencing, Moller turned to apologize to Kennedy’s family.
"I live with it every day," Moller told the family. "I wish it had never happened. I never thought this would happen. I’m sorry."
In October, Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor Bob Ariail said that his office prepared the alternate charge of involuntary manslaughter after "realizing the possibility of no indictment on the murder charge ... would result in Moller’s release." Ariail said that while the charge would result in an inadequate punishment, it was the only charge that applied to the case.
Moller was later released on bond.
Judge Miller said that "the easy thing to do would be to give him five years and move on," but that he wanted to try to rehabilitate Moller with three years of probation after the sentence is served. Miller also ordered Moller to undergo anger management and substance abuse counseling, submit to random drug tests and perform 30 days of public service.
Miller gave Moller credit for the seven months he served in jail before he was released on bond in November.
Beasley told the judge that during his release Moller has been working and supporting a 9-month-old daughter.
Beasley told the judge that a prison sentence would "only hurt him" and that "there are some bad people in that place, and he’s going to be exposed to things he’s never seen."
Moller’s uncle, Steve Moller, spoke on his nephew’s behalf and said that "we wouldn’t be here today" if alcohol wasn’t involved, and he asked Kennedy’s family to work together with him to help curb underage drinking.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The audacity of nonsense - The One News Now and The Peter version
From an online buddy, Pam Spaulding, I discovered something very interesting regarding One News Now.
The phony news source didn't exactly eliminate its comments section.
It has the comments section as a forum where you have to register to become a member.
Apparently allowing people to comment on articles backfired on One News Now because some folks (myself included) took it upon themselves to correct the inaccurate spin the phony news source placed on some articles.
I am undecided on whether or not I will register. I'm tempted because I know that the forum will be a mass of bad studies regarding the lgbt community.
But I am getting a kick out of just reading the comments.
One thing that I did notice: these so-called Christian folks are scared of Barack Obama.
I have never in my life seen so much homophobic, racist, and xenophobic language coming from a webpage outside those of white supremacists.
Really though, it's par for the course for these folks. They are so annoyingly manic about elections.
To them, every election is an episode of McGyver where they have to manipulate and finagle the outcomes because the "wrong" outcome will bring the United States closer to the lake of fire complete with monsters out of the Book of Revelations.
Talk about dramatic.
When Bush was elected, I didn't freak out (of course in hindsight maybe I should have). When the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 1994, I didn't run in the streets screaming and crying about the end of the world.
I made the best of it. Why do these folks who cater to One News Now and this entire bullshit about them being the "chosen people" and the United States being the "chosen country" flip out when elections don't go their way?
Why do they see every election as a make or break situation where if their choice don't win, God is going to part the skies and make the destruction of Sodom and Gommarah seem like a picnic on a sunny day?
Who knows with these folks?
And while I am on the subject of audacity, I have to talk about my friend Peter LaBarbera (i.e. Porno Pete, The Peter, He With the Chunky Butt and Disappearing Hairline - I know I am going to get it for that one.)
Peter seems to be on a tear with Soulforce because the group "dares" to want to have conversations with various churches regarding their positions on homosexuality.
And Peter seems to be upset at one church in particular:
Would Willow Creek have agreed to a (forced) meeting with activists claiming that using pornography is not a sin, or that the “swinging” lifestyle is OK with God? No way. I think they bowed to Soulforce’’s pressure to “dialogue” because this particular sin, as Greg aptly calls it, enjoys a certain worldly favor that most others do not. Christ said His followers would get persecuted for following Him, and these days that includes being smeared as a “bigot” or a “homophobe” — and being accused of “spiritual violence” by the savvy activists at Soulforce — merely for agreeing with God that homosexual behavior is a sin that can be overcome through Jesus Christ.
I'm not going to go into intricate details about this. If Willow Creek wants to have a discussion with Soulforce, that is their right.
As I understand it, Peter is not a member of the church. What right does he have to interfere with their Biblical interpretations? Granted he does have a First Amendment right to criticize but the fact that he would only reveals his ego trip.
Apparently it's not enough for Peter to believe that homosexuality is a sin. He feels that it is his place to make sure that all churches believe this way.
Tell me again, Peter. Just who is trying to force their beliefs on whom?
From an online buddy, Pam Spaulding, I discovered something very interesting regarding One News Now.
The phony news source didn't exactly eliminate its comments section.
It has the comments section as a forum where you have to register to become a member.
Apparently allowing people to comment on articles backfired on One News Now because some folks (myself included) took it upon themselves to correct the inaccurate spin the phony news source placed on some articles.
I am undecided on whether or not I will register. I'm tempted because I know that the forum will be a mass of bad studies regarding the lgbt community.
But I am getting a kick out of just reading the comments.
One thing that I did notice: these so-called Christian folks are scared of Barack Obama.
I have never in my life seen so much homophobic, racist, and xenophobic language coming from a webpage outside those of white supremacists.
Really though, it's par for the course for these folks. They are so annoyingly manic about elections.
To them, every election is an episode of McGyver where they have to manipulate and finagle the outcomes because the "wrong" outcome will bring the United States closer to the lake of fire complete with monsters out of the Book of Revelations.
Talk about dramatic.
When Bush was elected, I didn't freak out (of course in hindsight maybe I should have). When the Republicans won the House and the Senate in 1994, I didn't run in the streets screaming and crying about the end of the world.
I made the best of it. Why do these folks who cater to One News Now and this entire bullshit about them being the "chosen people" and the United States being the "chosen country" flip out when elections don't go their way?
Why do they see every election as a make or break situation where if their choice don't win, God is going to part the skies and make the destruction of Sodom and Gommarah seem like a picnic on a sunny day?
Who knows with these folks?
And while I am on the subject of audacity, I have to talk about my friend Peter LaBarbera (i.e. Porno Pete, The Peter, He With the Chunky Butt and Disappearing Hairline - I know I am going to get it for that one.)
Peter seems to be on a tear with Soulforce because the group "dares" to want to have conversations with various churches regarding their positions on homosexuality.
And Peter seems to be upset at one church in particular:
Would Willow Creek have agreed to a (forced) meeting with activists claiming that using pornography is not a sin, or that the “swinging” lifestyle is OK with God? No way. I think they bowed to Soulforce’’s pressure to “dialogue” because this particular sin, as Greg aptly calls it, enjoys a certain worldly favor that most others do not. Christ said His followers would get persecuted for following Him, and these days that includes being smeared as a “bigot” or a “homophobe” — and being accused of “spiritual violence” by the savvy activists at Soulforce — merely for agreeing with God that homosexual behavior is a sin that can be overcome through Jesus Christ.
I'm not going to go into intricate details about this. If Willow Creek wants to have a discussion with Soulforce, that is their right.
As I understand it, Peter is not a member of the church. What right does he have to interfere with their Biblical interpretations? Granted he does have a First Amendment right to criticize but the fact that he would only reveals his ego trip.
Apparently it's not enough for Peter to believe that homosexuality is a sin. He feels that it is his place to make sure that all churches believe this way.
Tell me again, Peter. Just who is trying to force their beliefs on whom?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
News from Irmo: School Board postpones decision regarding GSA
Yesterday, a commentator asked about the situation in Irmo regarding the GSA.
I have gotten news that the school board has postponed their decision regarding curricular and non-curricular clubs:
Lexington-Richland 5 trustees postponed a vote on a controversial plan to add more regulations to noncurricular student clubs.
The proposal would add stringent rules to such clubs, including requiring parental consent for participation, banning those clubs from fundraising on school campuses and prohibiting clubs from using the school’s name.
The board is expected to take up the measure again June 23.
Eddie Walker, principal of District 5’s Irmo High School, said last month he would step down at the end of the next school year because a planned Gay-Straight Alliance club conflicts with his beliefs and religious convictions.
Officials had said the district couldn’t stop the alliance from forming because federal law prohibits discriminating against a club based on its purpose.
At first glance, I don't think this is a bad thing. The postponement gives area lgbt groups more time to educate the community on the importance of GSAs.
And I have a feeling that they will take advantage of the opportunity.
The audacity of nonsense
Now that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president, all of the mess is coming out of the woodwork.
From emphasizing his middle name to calling him the Anti-Christ to overanalyzing his fistbump with wife Michelle, too many people are obviously demonstrating that they have too much time on their hands.
But this article from One News Now takes the cake:
Televangelist Bill Keller, founder of an interactive Christian website, says while only God knows the hearts of men, he has his doubts about Barack Obama's claims of being a Christian.
Keller is the founder of Liveprayer.com. Last year the evangelist challenged former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's claim to be a Christian, due to the fact that he was a member of the Mormon Church, which holds beliefs in opposition to orthodox Christianity. Now Keller is questioning Obama's Christian credentials, based on some statements the Illinois senator has made.
"A lot of the things that he is saying really call into question whether he really is a Christian," says Keller, offering up as an example Obama's statement that there are many roads that lead to God. "He has consistently been on record that he's willing to give away part of the land that God himself gave to the children of Israel directly to their enemies," he adds.
A campaign brochure titled "Faith. Hope. Change." describes Senator Obama as a "committed Christian" who visited a local church one Sunday, "felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life." But Keller says Obama has views on social issues that most evangelicals regard as unbiblical.
"He has consistently voted to uphold a woman's right to kill babies," Keller points out. "He has consistently voted to support the gay agenda, gay 'marriage,' gay adoption, special rights for gays."
So apparently to Keller, the only true Christianity is the one he pushes. No discussion, no nothing.
And so many Christians like Keller wonder why folks think of them as self-righteous and overreaching.
I keep hearing that there is a problem with the perception of Christianity in this country. If this is true, then people like Keller is the problem.
There seems to be more than a personal belief going on here. Too many Christians in this country have an incorrect sense of entitlement. Not only that, but this sense of entitlement seems to be consistently stroked by people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson and the last James Kennedy.
"This is a Christian nation," they say. "This country needs to get back to its Biblical foundation."
Translation - "This is our country. The rest of you Godless people, especially you homosexuals, are here because we let you be here. You exist at our pleasure and you are overstepping your bounds."
I never knew Christianity was about having power and a sense of entitlement.
I thought Christianity was a belief in the goodness and mercy of God.
Of course I'm probably going get responses about "loving the sin and hating the sinner," or "God has rules for us to follow."
That's all well and good. But historically when people took it upon themselves to "enforce God's rules," the world ended up with lots of chaos and death.
Christianity, like all religions in their true and uncorrupted forms, teaches us that no matter how bad things get, we are the children of a living God who will never leave us. Everything else, especially interpretations of Biblical verses, is ballast.
At least, that's what I believe. Apparently I was wrong.
Whatever you do, don't tell my mother. She would be crushed to know that what she taught me is incorrect.
Yesterday, a commentator asked about the situation in Irmo regarding the GSA.
I have gotten news that the school board has postponed their decision regarding curricular and non-curricular clubs:
Lexington-Richland 5 trustees postponed a vote on a controversial plan to add more regulations to noncurricular student clubs.
The proposal would add stringent rules to such clubs, including requiring parental consent for participation, banning those clubs from fundraising on school campuses and prohibiting clubs from using the school’s name.
The board is expected to take up the measure again June 23.
Eddie Walker, principal of District 5’s Irmo High School, said last month he would step down at the end of the next school year because a planned Gay-Straight Alliance club conflicts with his beliefs and religious convictions.
Officials had said the district couldn’t stop the alliance from forming because federal law prohibits discriminating against a club based on its purpose.
At first glance, I don't think this is a bad thing. The postponement gives area lgbt groups more time to educate the community on the importance of GSAs.
And I have a feeling that they will take advantage of the opportunity.
The audacity of nonsense
Now that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president, all of the mess is coming out of the woodwork.
From emphasizing his middle name to calling him the Anti-Christ to overanalyzing his fistbump with wife Michelle, too many people are obviously demonstrating that they have too much time on their hands.
But this article from One News Now takes the cake:
Televangelist Bill Keller, founder of an interactive Christian website, says while only God knows the hearts of men, he has his doubts about Barack Obama's claims of being a Christian.
Keller is the founder of Liveprayer.com. Last year the evangelist challenged former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's claim to be a Christian, due to the fact that he was a member of the Mormon Church, which holds beliefs in opposition to orthodox Christianity. Now Keller is questioning Obama's Christian credentials, based on some statements the Illinois senator has made.
"A lot of the things that he is saying really call into question whether he really is a Christian," says Keller, offering up as an example Obama's statement that there are many roads that lead to God. "He has consistently been on record that he's willing to give away part of the land that God himself gave to the children of Israel directly to their enemies," he adds.
A campaign brochure titled "Faith. Hope. Change." describes Senator Obama as a "committed Christian" who visited a local church one Sunday, "felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life." But Keller says Obama has views on social issues that most evangelicals regard as unbiblical.
"He has consistently voted to uphold a woman's right to kill babies," Keller points out. "He has consistently voted to support the gay agenda, gay 'marriage,' gay adoption, special rights for gays."
So apparently to Keller, the only true Christianity is the one he pushes. No discussion, no nothing.
And so many Christians like Keller wonder why folks think of them as self-righteous and overreaching.
I keep hearing that there is a problem with the perception of Christianity in this country. If this is true, then people like Keller is the problem.
There seems to be more than a personal belief going on here. Too many Christians in this country have an incorrect sense of entitlement. Not only that, but this sense of entitlement seems to be consistently stroked by people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson and the last James Kennedy.
"This is a Christian nation," they say. "This country needs to get back to its Biblical foundation."
Translation - "This is our country. The rest of you Godless people, especially you homosexuals, are here because we let you be here. You exist at our pleasure and you are overstepping your bounds."
I never knew Christianity was about having power and a sense of entitlement.
I thought Christianity was a belief in the goodness and mercy of God.
Of course I'm probably going get responses about "loving the sin and hating the sinner," or "God has rules for us to follow."
That's all well and good. But historically when people took it upon themselves to "enforce God's rules," the world ended up with lots of chaos and death.
Christianity, like all religions in their true and uncorrupted forms, teaches us that no matter how bad things get, we are the children of a living God who will never leave us. Everything else, especially interpretations of Biblical verses, is ballast.
At least, that's what I believe. Apparently I was wrong.
Whatever you do, don't tell my mother. She would be crushed to know that what she taught me is incorrect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)