Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero

On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.

Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:

The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community.

By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.

Don't be fooled.

You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.

Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:

From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am

Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.


Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.

but you miss the point, peter.

Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.

The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.

Look around you. It's crumbling now.


In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.

You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.


Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

Peter,

Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.

Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.

You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.

And the list of deceptions goes on and on.

Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.

I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.

Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?

In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.

From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am

This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?

Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?


Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:08 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.

How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.

And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.


In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.

I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.

What are you trusting in?

I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
have.

It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.


Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

Peter,

what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.

And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?

Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?

You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.

This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.


In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"

You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?


Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.

Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.

In other words, he fits in perfectly with the anti-gay industry.

Commentator on Pam's House Blend demonstrates a perfect smack down

I read something today on Pam's House Blend that was so awesome that I just have to spotlight it on this blog.

Apparently former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum wrote some ridiculous screed about Proposition 8 in California. Other than the usual tired "those who support traditional marriage will now be looked at as bigots" whine that Maggie Gallagher uses constantly, Santorum also said the following:

What happens if we permit this tiny minority to reshape marriage? The next step is to use the new law to suppress the liberties of Christians. Already:

* A Christian adoption agency--Catholic Charities!--has been shut down by the government because it will not do adoptions for gay married couples

* A volunteer fireman, who risked his life to rescue friends and neighbors in need, was told his services were no longer wanted--because he signed a petition supporting marriage as the union of husband and wife.

* A father was arrested for trying to prevent a public school from teaching his son that gay marriage is normal.

* In New Jersey, a Methodist organization just lost part of its state tax exemption because it refused to permit civil union ceremonies on church-owned property.

This is an old but effective anti-gay industry tactic: distort current events to demonstrate how the lgbt community wants to silence Christians.

Well a commentator on Pam's House Blend, cindik, took it upon herself to break down these stories. And in doing so, she demonstrates the correct way to fight the anti-gay industry. When they distort, show the truth and back it up. I hope Pam will forgive me but I want to post cindik's comment. It's too awesome for words:

* A Christian adoption agency--Catholic Charities!--has been shut down by the government because it will not do adoptions for gay married couples

At least he's specific about the charity, but which government? And how did they shut it down?

The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. - CBS news

That's right, Boston's Catholic Charities decided to end their services because of a state law that required organizations that received state funds to not discriminate against gay and lesbian people.

* A volunteer fireman, who risked his life to rescue friends and neighbors in need, was told his services were no longer wanted--because he signed a petition supporting marriage as the union of husband and wife.

This is very sketchy. Who is this guy? Where was he volunteering?

It turns out that volunteer fireman Leo ''Skip'' Childs was not chosen for a vacancy on the Truro, MA board of fire engineers and they instead chose one of the other candidates they interviewed, Jeff Perry. A former selectman for he town, Paul Asher-Best, apparently was against choosing Childs because Childs had signed a petition against same sex marriage in Massachusetts. Cape Cod Times

So the opinion of the selectmen was to choose another person for the board, perhaps in part due to the fireman's endorsement of a measure to go against the state's Supreme Court ruling on the rights of others.

* A father was arrested for trying to prevent a public school from teaching his son that gay marriage is normal.

Rick, Rick, Rick. Can you be more vague?

Parker and his wife, Tonia, 34, who was also in court yesterday, said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks.

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.- Boston Globe

And incorrect, it turns out. He wasn't arrested for trying to prevent his child from being taught that same-sex marriage is normal, he was arrested for refusing to leave the school.

* In New Jersey, a Methodist organization just lost part of its state tax exemption because it refused to permit civil union ceremonies on church-owned property.

Kudos, Mr. Santorum. You identified the state, the denomination, and the loss (partial tax exemption).

Of course, it wasn't a religious tax exemption, as one might have incorrectly inferred from Mr. Santorum's omission of detail. It was a tax from the New Jersey EPA for having a green space open to the public.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on Tuesday denied a Methodist organization's request to continue getting tax breaks for a public pavilion in Ocean Grove, N.J., where it allows weddings but not same-sex civil-union ceremonies.

The state ruled that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's space, formerly tax-exempt under New Jersey's Green Acres Program, is not eligible for tax breaks because it is no longer open to all members of the public.- Gay.Com

It also turns out that LGBT-owned businesses were a big part of the revival of the area, which is still owned by a Methodist organization. - New York Times

And the financial impact? About $175/year.

So these aren't outright lies, but they are vague, misleading anecdotes. Hey, I have an idea - what if we start a new trend? We could change "rickrolling" to mean a link to a video of Rick Santorum saying something misleading.

Alright cindik! You better work it, girl!!!

The difference between good news and propaganda

How sweet is this:

Openly gay Democrat Mike Colona won the Missouri State Democratic primary for St. Louis Tuesday night. With no Republican opponent to face in the fall he will head straight to the state House.

Naturally some folks aren't exactly happy about Colona's victory:

An openly homosexual attorney, who previously did legal work for a homosexual pornographer, has been elected to the Missouri legislature. - Homosexual politician running unopposed in Missouri

Believe it or not, One News Now is actually correct on this score. Colona does have ties to the adult industry via his law practice.

Of course One News Now didn't go into detail about this. Leave it to my favorite phony news site to not only miss the entire story, but use the opportunity to give our friend Peter LaBarbera room to gripe:

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, does not know which is worse -- the fact that Colona openly campaigned as a homosexual, or that Democrats knowingly supported a former attorney for a homosexual pornographer.

"[T]his guy got endorsed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, NARAL, the leading pro-abortion group in the country," says LaBarbera. "...I think the sad thing is the Democratic Party is becoming the home of the most immoral politicians and candidates in the country."

Colona defended his work as the "Custodian of Records" for a homosexual porn website during the campaign, claiming that he was "keeping kids safe." LaBarbera's response? "You've got to love a politician's ability to always put a friendly spin on something, even something as nasty as being the lawyer for a homosexual porn outfit."

This is the actual story:

When a porn producer contributed to his campaign, Colona admitted to advising him. His role, he said, was limited to ensuring no minors were used in any porn production.

Some voters felt Colona must have been hiding something when several adult websites removed his name as the holder of records. “Resource for parents, so that's the spin? He works with these companies as a social service? That is a pathetic justification for a whore for hire!!!” wrote an anonymous commenter who listed fifteen websites with Colona's name as evidence of his participation in the industry.

Colona, however, continued to win endorsements – including the State Police Association and St. Louis Police Officers Association – and ultimately the Democratic primary.

A lawyer advising a client? Someone call the U. S. Attorney General!!!

I don't know what I love the most: the fact that a gay man was elected to public office or the fact that it is driving the anti-gay industry nuts.

And speaking of gay folks winning elections, I would be remiss if I did not mention:

Internet businessman Jared Polis beat two opponents in the 2nd Congressional District Democratic primary after pouring a record amount of his own money into a bitter and hard-fought race.

If Polis, 33, wins in November he would become one of the richest members of Congress. And he would be among only a handful of openly gay members and the first from Colorado.

I can just imagine James Dobson shaking in his shoes. It must be my birthday.

It's Tuesday so forgive my tangent

I am enjoying the Olympics. In a perfect world, Michael Phelps would be one of my concubines.

Yeah, I know. I generally don't go for pretty boys but he is such a good son to his mother.

And you know us mama's boys have got to stick together.

One problem I do have with the Olympics are the damned swimsuits. What hell are those one-piece long things they are wearing now?

Whatever happened to the good old days when all male swimmers wore speedos? Hell, if the suits are going to be that long, can they at least be white?

I'm with Huffington Post writer Karen Tanabe on this one:

It's called the Speedo LZR Racer. Credited with dozens of world records, it's not sewn but welded together, was engineered by NASA, produces 38% less hydrodynamic drag than a normal bathing suit, covers from ankle to neck and has all but ruined my favorite spectator sport since I could say "libido": men's swimming.

You have to forgive me but I have special memories that I cherish from the 1984 Olympics. That was when I first began to realize my gay orientation and my gaydar at the same time via two words:

Greg Louganis.

Seriously though, I love how this country develops new sports heroes during the Olympic Games.

I had never heard of Michael Phelps before this week. Nor any of the other swimmers.

And when the track and field time rolls around, I know I will have new heroes.

The only one I am aware of now is Tyson Homosexual.

I mean Tyson Gay. Come on, you know I had to work in an anti-gay industry dig in there.

And speaking of my favorite phony news service, it seems that One News Now has eliminated its comments section.

Now some may say that us "radical gay activists" caused this to happen due to our "jamming" of the comments section, but I disagree.

My belief is that One News Now doesn't want anyone the mindsets of those who read and agree with their articles.

And based on some of their comments, I would be ashamed too.

I am upset though. Reading those comments was half the fun of the site.

Whatever shall I do for fun now?

I would join free republic and post some comments there except for one thing.

The folks on that site are nuts. They would scare Freddy Krueger.

How to connect gays and pedophilia without any proof

For the past few posts, I have been on a tear against AFA's One News Now.

But in my defense, the phony news site makes it so easy.

And before today, I feel safe in saying that One News Now has just posted the most outrageous article I have ever seen.

To give the full gist of what I am talking about, I am going to post the entire thing. (I would link it but the lovely folks at One News Now have now rickrolled all of my links from its site. The joke's on them though. Redhaired men are my weakness):

Is the U.N. advocating homosexuality and pedophilia?

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 8/11/2008 8:00:00 AM

The United Nations has granted consultative status to two homosexual activist groups.

For at least a decade now, activist groups have hammered away at the United Nations for recognition -- and they have finally won. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel finds that unacceptable. "They are associated with pedophile groups like NAMBLA and others, and have advocated lowering the age of consent to levels that would essentially foster pedophilia," he explains.

Barber believes it is wrong to equate homosexual behavior with the color of one's skin, or their gender, and give them special status. "For the U.N. to side with radical homosexual activists, in this case, has only served to further discredit the U.N., and I think it's problematic in further damaging their reputation," he contends.

Activists, according to Barber, will be trying to use the United Nations and the International Court to force their agenda on an international level, including imposing it on Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.

That's the entire article. No, I did not omit a thing.

The article has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia, save one ridiculous comment from Matt Barber.

Barber doesn't even make a strong connection between the alleged "homosexual activist groups" and pedophilia.

Hell, we don't even know the names of the two groups.

One News Now, in pursuit of its Bizarro world of credible journalism, is accusing the United Nations of advocating pedophilia just because it gave two gay groups consultative status.

And to compound its error, One News Now lodges the accusation without a: giving the names of the groups and b: showing how the groups advocate pedophilia.

It all goes to prove that if journalistic integrity was dynamite, One News Now wouldn't have enough to blow the wings off of a gnat.


Yeah, I am going to knock out that messenger

Last week, Peter LaBarbera posted more x-rated pictures from Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco (which I will not link to.)

Apparently he did so because a supposed ally called him the carpet for posting his first batch of pictures.

Well today, he claims that he got some positive responses:

While our pathetically predictable homosexual critics played their usual game of “Kill the Messenger” (us), even AFTAH readers — far better informed on the homosexual agenda and GLBT lifestyles than most Americans — were stunned by the public depravities.

I hope that comment was partly directed towards me. The Peter and I argued via email almost the entire weekend about his need demonize the lgbt community through dirty pictures.

I am sure that others gave him hell (as they should have) for his actions. But I am extremely proud of some of the things I wrote him:

The way you presented those pictures do give the connotation that all gays partake in that sort of thing. You NEVER made it clear that you were not talking about all lgbts.

You go to a subcultural festival that, from what I understand also includes heterosexuals, infer it is indicative of the gay entire community and then turn around and say that it was not your intent to do so?

And your words to me further prove how you lie. - "It's a part of your movement."

What is that supposed to mean?

If you want to see a part of MY movement (because you see, I have never been to Folsom), I suggest you spend time with a same-sex led family as they try raise their children in the face of lies like you perpetrate. See the love and support they give to their children.

Go to the streets and see those innocent lgbt children who have been kicked out of their homes because their so-called Christian families have mindsets like yours.

Or better yet, since you love "parades" so much, come down to South Carolina Gay Pride that will be happening on Sept. 20 and feel free to take pictures. I should warn you that we don't do any of that wild stuff you saw in San Francisco, so you probably won't have anything to post to your site.

But you won't do any of this stuff, will you Peter. Reality would ruin the image you are trying to create.

You are a sad messenger. And as a Christian, you are even worse.

If you just relied on Biblical interpretations regarding homosexuality, you would be safe in expressing your opinion. But like Paul Cameron, you add incorrect ugly details. Why? Because you don't trust your own Biblical beliefs regarding homosexuality.

I remember what you said in that "War on Christians and Values Voters" convention in 2006 when you told folks to "bring shame" to lgbts. In your view of a perfect world, when people think of homosexuality, you want them to connotate it with disease, wild sex, big men in leather looking to sneak into schools and rape children or classroom gerbils if the children aren't available, and women who place socks in their pants.

But I have news for you. Look around. No one is buying this image except maybe some of your hardcore supporters and white supremacy webpages (don't act shocked because I am sure you are aware of this)

I don't know you personally, but trust me when I say you really need to step back and look at yourself before you lose the little bit of credibility you do have.

As you can read, it was a really good weekend.

Gay genes and straw men - One News Now makes it so easy

A permissive tactic of the anti-gay industry is the straw man argument.

This is attributing a weak argument to the lgbt community so when said argument is refuted, they can point and say "see how the radical homosexuals can't give good arguments to justify their behavior."

For an example of this tactic, I turn to that "bastion of fairness," AFA's One News Now:

One of the untouchable dogmas of the homosexualist movement is the assertion of the existence of a "gay gene" -- or a genetic marker that causes same-sex attraction. The assertion of a genetic factor in homosexual preference has never been demonstrated by scientists, and now at least one prominent campaigner in the British homosexual movement has admitted this fact. - Homosexual activist admits there is no gay gene

No doubt, the anti-gay industry will be breaking out the champagne over this "discovery." I am sure that we will hear this "admittance" repeated as a talking point on anti-gay industry webpages, blogs, and by their spokespeople.

But there is one problem.

I love the clever way One News Now phrases the article's lead sentence: One of the untouchable dogmas of the homosexualist movement is the assertion of a "gay gene."

But who in our "movement" has ever said anything about a gay gene? Can One News Now be more specific about this?

Of course not. Per usual, they identify us as nameless, faceless hordes with nothing but mischeif on our minds:

Homosexual activists have adopted the "gay gene" theory to bolster their assertion that any objection on moral grounds to homosexual activity is akin to objecting to left-handedness or skin color. It has supported the accusation that Christians and others who object to the homosexual movement are racists and bigots.

There have been many studies on the root cause of homosexuality. Nothing concrete has ever been established, except for the fact that sexual orientation in general is too complex to be switched on and off like a light switch.

In fact, the "prominent campaigner" cited in the One News Now article, Peter Tatchell, even says this:

Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow. Examples of sexual flexibility...don't square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination."

But far be it from One News Now to not take a gay man's words out of context. The phony news site seems to less concerned with being accurate and more concerned with dehumanizing lgbts and attributing every action we make as a part of some huge nefarious plan:

The "gay gene" theory has been used by homosexual activists "to deny choice, to make it appear that homosexuals cannot help it, and to argue that any criticism of the gay lifestyle is as silly as criticism of being left-handed or red-haired," says (Bill) Muehlenberg. "And this has been a deliberate strategy by homosexual activists. They have done a very good job to convince a gullible public that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change."

Business as usual indeed.

A little more about the McDonalds boycott

It IS a slow news day. I apologize for not having anything of interest to post. But I do want to leave you with this one very funny item:

Comedy Central's Jon Stewart took time to make light of the American Family Association's recent boycott of fast food giant McDonald's over a decision "not to remain neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality."

Quipped Stewart: "This is the first time you realized McDonald's was gay? Do you have a TV? Have you ever seen their ads?!"

On May 22, 2008, American Family Association chairman Donald Wildmon wrote to McDonald's USA, threatening the boycott in protest of the seating of their Vice President of Communications, Richard Ellis, on the Board of Directors of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, along with a $20,000 corporate donation to the organization.

More here, including the very funny clip.

Hateful video on youtube

From goodasyou.org comes this:

This video is clearly going to be pulled within hours, if not minutes. And that being the case, there are some of you who surely think we should just ignore rather than highlight it. However, we think it's very important for people to realize just how heated anti-gay bias still is among some American teens. The sort of heat that literally suggests gay people should be killed:

Is it wrong to be Gay? HELL YES IT IS!!!

You read that right. It is a nasty, vile video that needs to be gotten rid of. Expressing an anti-gay view is one thing. Advocating violence against lgbts (or any group of people) is just wrong.

Since I am a youtube member, I flagged the video and sent the authors a message telling them so. This is what I received as an answer:

pathetic a%* p#%(y who cant stand the fact that we're right.

How I hate to be beaten down with "intelligent repartee."

UPDATE - The video is gone!! Way to go, youtube.


Give it up, girlfriend!!!!

Elaine Donnelly seems to enjoy embarrassing herself.

Fresh from her recent humiliating performance in front of the Congressional committee looking at allowing gays to openly serve in the military, Donnelly posted the following mind-boggling piece of wannabe logic via our friend Peter LaBarbera:

I was prepared for and would have welcomed questions on the issue itself, but the unprofessional behavior of some members made serious discussion impossible.
All of this hostility actually proved the point I was trying to make: If Congress repeals the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service, anyone who disagrees will face the presumption of “bigotry,” “homophobia,” or worse. Denied promotions will cause thousands of people to leave the volunteer force, or avoid it all together.

She is excluding a lot of her testimony, such as the part regarding gays and HIV or the alleged 1974 lesbian gang rape of a female soldier, or her claim about the transgender community.

Donnelly's attempts to play the victim can easily be refuted by anyone wanting to see the footage of her full testimony. She stunk, plain and simple.

I do like it when members of the anti-gay industry continuously run their heads into brick walls, but this is getting pathetic.

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for her.

Countdown to exploitation

Mondays suck on principle. And this news doesn't make things better:

H.I.V. Study Finds Rate 40% Higher Than Estimated

MEXICO CITY — The United States has significantly underreported the number of new H.I.V. infections occurring nationally each year, with a study released here on Saturday showing that the annual infection rate is 40 percent higher than previously estimated.

The study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that 56,300 people became newly infected with H.I.V in 2006, compared with the 40,000 figure the agency has cited as the recent annual incidence of the disease.

The findings confirm that H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, has its greatest effect among gay and bisexual men of all races (53 percent of all new infections) and among African-American men and women.

The new figures are likely to strongly influence a number of decisions about efforts to control the epidemic, said the disease centers’ director, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, and other AIDS experts. Timely data about trends in H.I.V. transmission, they said, is essential for planning and evaluating prevention efforts and the money spent on them.

Dr. Gerberding said the new findings were “unacceptable,” adding that new efforts must be made to lower the infection rates. “We are not effectively reaching men who have sex with men and African-Americans to lower their risk,” she said.

Now here is the interesting question: just how long will it take before One News Now, Americans for Truth (in name only) and other so-called pro-family groups take the headline and add their own interesting details to the mix?

How long before we are inudated by comments about the "dangers of homosexual sex." Never mind that such stigmatizing comments contribute to the ignorance of and spread of AIDS. Far be it from our "worthy" opponents to miss an opportunity the demonize the lgbt community.

I say it won't take a day. Probably even as I speak, Peter and company are thinking of ways to spin this bad news for their own purposes.

I found that last sentence of the article (involving African-Americans) interesting in light of the fact that the African-American community in my state of South Carolina are in severe jeopardy due to the disease.

We have people in the trenches fighting hard to alleviate this problem. As a matter of fact, Dr. Bambi Gaddist (a tireless worker and educator) of the South Carolina HIV/AIDS Council was just featured as a CNN hero .

One News Now and their cohorts like to brag about their so-called Christian principles.

Bambi doesn't brag. She just does the work that needs to be done.

Matt Barber's crazy semantics

Try as I might, I cannot ignore Matt Barber's mean bleatings against McDonalds.

I really tried to ignore his latest hysterics masquerading as a reasonable column. That is until this part:

Unfortunately, the radical San Francisco-style policies both the NGLCC and McDonald's advocate run directly counter to the best interests of the vast majority of Americans outside California's "Sodom on the Bay." For example, under communist-tested, McDonald's-approved "hate speech" legislation, such as the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Christians and other business owners with traditional values would be forced – under penalty of law – to abandon sincerely held religious beliefs and adopt McDonald's own secular-humanist, moral-relativist view of right and wrong.

Why is it so hard for Barber to simply say, "yes, I believe that someone should be fired or be kept from getting a job because they are gay or lesbian."

But no. He doesn't want to say what he really believes. He wants to string words together in a ploy to hide what he really thinks.

From political perspective, it's a good idea. But from a moral perspective, it comes across like a something out of The Manchurian Candidate.

The phrase reveals the duplicity of the anti-gay industry. As much as they try to push the notion that they are the bastions of truth and morality, they have to rely on cynical political wordings to try and sway the population.

If they tried truth for a change, they would probably get laughed out of the country (i.e. Elaine Donnelly).

And by the way, Barber's assertions that the boycott is growing is wrong. At the very least, in my city, McDonalds continues to do excellent business.

In fact, I am beginning to think that maybe McDonalds manufactured this boycott to create a jump in business.

Peter LaBarbera is naaaaasty - the remix

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan:

there he goes again.

Our friend Peter LaBarbera has posted pictures of yet another subcultural event in California in an attempt to demonize the entire lgbt community.

You can see them if you want by going here but if you know Peter, you know what to expect - a bunch of nasty pictures with cutlines feigning shock and disgust over the events happening in said pictures.

And commentary along with the pictures and cutlines detailing just how the lgbt community are so hedonistic and nasty.

In this round of pictures, Peter outdoes his past attempts. One wonders if he asked the participants to pose.

I am beginning to think that perhaps Peter is taking too much pleasure in not only taking these pictures, but making sure that his readers get "full details" as the actions perpetrated in the pictures.

Of course he will probably say he is being "thorough."

Suuure you are, Peter. But is it really necessary to have a "click picture to enlarge" function?

Personally, I have never been to any of these events that Peter attends. Nor do I plan to.

But here in South Carolina, I have proudly participated in five gay pride parades. Our events are orderly and decent as well as family-oriented. Families join together hand-in-hand and mothers either carry their children in their arms or push strollers in our parades.

And on the sidelines, we get lots of cheers, especially from young children, teenagers, and adults who are not marching.

And I KNOW that South Carolina's parade isn't an anamoly, but a true picture of American lgbts.

But you will never see Peter at parades like these. And as much as I try, I can't get alarmed at his actions anymore.

I feel sorry for him.

Peter LaBarbera is as much of an exhibitionist as those folks in the pictures featured on his page.


PFOX continues to wallow in mess

What is the deal with PFOX?

One would think the group would give it a little rest after being embarrassed last week for not only distorting a legitimate study but trying to pass it off as recent.

No such luck. Apparently the group and its leader, Regina Griggs, are gluttons for punishment:

Regina Griggs of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays) continues to tell whoppers. In this article at OneNewsNow she tells a huge lie:

"Why are we allowing people to tell them, 'Try it -- you might like it?' Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive," Griggs notes.

Over 70% of 13 to 24 year olds who are men having sex with men (MSM) are HIV-positive? That's absolutely ridiculous, not even in the ballpark. Here's the most recent CDC report, which does in fact note that HIV infections have increased among MSM between 13 and 24. But 70%? Not even close.

The new CDC study found a total of 214,379 people of both genders testing positive for HIV between 2001 and 2006. 46% of them were among MSM, or about 98,000 of them. And of that total, 13,584 of them were between 13 and 24. That's up 12.4% from previous figures, so it's certainly troubling and needs to be addressed. But that sure as hell doesn't constitute 70% of all gay men between 13 and 24, folks. Not even close.

And according Emproph of Genocide for Jesus, even though Dr. Gary Remafedi, the author of the study PFOX distorted last week, has formally asked the group to remove it from its webpage, the study remains there.

Well as long as PFOX wants the punishment for lying, I say we should dispense it with vigor.

Whooo weeeee! Somebody gonna pay!!!

There are several things going on today around the country.

First of all, my prayers are with those who caught up in that recent awful incident in Tennessee.

As many of you know, I lost my father almost eight years ago via a violent act by a group of ignorant men so my first thoughts are with the relatives of those who lost their lives. I pray for closure and the ability to eventually deal with having a loved one taken away.

(PAUSE)

Elaine Donnelly continues to provide us all with many moments of fun. Everyone is taking their shots at her. Now it's John Stewart and the Daily Show's turn.

I'm soooo ashamed. I watched the clip twice and laughed my ass off.

Meanwhile, Donnelly is upset as to how she was treated during the hearing and she made her thoughts known via One News Now:

Donnelly says the way she was treated during the hearing -- treatment she says included "personal insults and diversionary insinuations" -- actually demonstrated the kind of intolerance the military can expect if the new policy goes into affect. If it does, she believes it will no longer be an option to oppose any portion of the homosexual agenda -- something Donnelly calls "truly radical." - 'Deck stacked' against pro-family representatives

Never minding the stupidly offensive headline, Donnelly was not personally attacked. If she viewed anything as a personal insult, that's too bad.

The fact of the matter is that she came to the hearing unprepared and revealed herself to be way in over her head. To wit, she was appropriately dressed down.

Donnelly was so embarrassing that it ceased to become a hearing and began to resemble an episode of American Idol.

Other items - LGBTS won a huge victory in Massachusetts (that is going to make the anti-gay group Mass Resistance piss out of their noses ) and Buffalo.

And now to the crux of my post - an incident that hasn't gotten that much press as of yet, but is nonetheless very satisfying:

A federal judge scolded a Panhandle school principal, saying the administrator led a "relentless crusade" against gay and lesbian students at Ponce de Leon High School and violated their First Amendment rights.

Student Heather Gillman and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Holmes County School District, saying that the principal prohibited the teen from wearing gay pride clothing, stickers and buttons in 2007.

Students, including Gillman, had begun showing support after the taunting of a gay student at school. In response to the taunting incident, David Davis told the gay student it wasn't right for her to be homosexual and held a morality assembly, according to testimony.

He also suspended several students for supporting Gillman, court records show.

A two-day trial was held in May, but U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak's 36-page opinion wasn't released until last week.

And I happen to have looked at the decision. Based on what I read, Davis needs to be . . . well you understand the crux of my anger when you see how this entire thing started:

This case arose from events involving a homosexual student at Ponce de Leon High School on Friday, September 7, 2007. The twelfth-grade student, Jane Doe, reported to a teacher’s aide that she had been taunted by a group of approximately five middle school students because of her sexual orientation. The middle school students allegedly told Jane that “dykes,” such as herself, were nasty,” “gross,” and “sick.” The teacher’s aide reported the incident to Principal
David Davis.

At the end of the school day on the following Monday, September 10, 2007, Davis called Jane into his office. Davis asked Jane if she had told the teacher’s aide that she identified herself as a lesbian. Jane answered, “Yes.” Davis then asked,“Are you a lesbian?” Jane again answered, “Yes.” Davis counseled Jane that it was not “right” to be homosexual.

He then questioned Jane about whether her parents were aware of her sexual orientation. When Jane answered in the negative, Davis asked Jane for her parents’ telephone number so that he could call them and inform them of her sexual orientation. Davis also instructed Jane to “stay away” from the middle school students or that he would suspend her. Jane left Davis’s office in tears.

Also, according to the judge's opinion:

Testimony at trial revealed that Jane’s father threatened to kick Jane out of the house upon learning of his daughter’s sexual orientation.

Judge Smoak didn't cut the former principal (he was removed from his job because of the incident) any slack:

Principal David Davis responded to Jane Doe’s complaints of harassment by other students, not by consoling her, but by shaming her. Davis interrogated Jane about her sexual orientation, informed her parents that she identified as homosexual, warned her to stay away from other students because of her sexual orientation, preached to her that being homosexual was not “right,” and ultimately suspended her for expressing her support for herself and for other homosexual students.

Regrettably, Jane’s contact with Davis during her senior year may well have been her last interaction with a school administrator before her graduation. Instead of providing Jane with a positive experience in the public school system during her final year, Davis crushed her and brought her to tears. Davis’s conduct, in the capacity of a role model and authority figure, is particularly deplorable in light of studies which confirm the vulnerability of gay and lesbian students . . .

The next time some idiot (hello PFOX) ruminates as to the supposed harm of GSAs, please remind them of this incident.

It's not the GSAs harming our children. It's the so-called doyennes of morality.

Bad Monday made worse

Some trifling ass individual took it upon himself to open fire on a church in Knoxville, Tenn.

The church was gay-friendly and the shooter supposedly hated "liberals," "blacks," "gays," and folks who were different from him.

Things have become so damned ugly when it comes to polarization in America.

When Bush was elected, I never thought it was the end of the world. I certainly didn't vote for him but when he was sworn it, I never felt the need to stand on South Carolina highways wailing like a banshee and tearing my clothing.

It's sad that we have gotten to the point where people are marked as the "enemy" in society.

Now at this point, I could go on a tangent about One News Now. All one has to do is read the comments on that "news site" to get the gist of what I am talking about.

However, I won't because it would make me sound a bit hypocritical, especially when one takes into account how I have talked about the lies of the "anti-gay industry."

I will say that I have never advocated violence. I have always advocated fighting lies against the lgbt community by spreading truth and letting people know the distortions told about us.

And I have said on many occasions that there is nothing wrong with someone believing that homosexuality is a sin.

My problem is when organizations are knowingly spreading false and discredited data while at the same time embracing principles like God and country.

In the long run, I don't believe that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is inherently evil or intolerant. And I certainly don't believe that they deserve to be executed

When it's all said and done, this situation will be remembered as one of a coward who, instead of taking care of business, blamed other people for his problems and took it upon himself to hurt innocents; some who probably didn't know him from Adam and others who would have probably helped him if he talked to them rather than shoot them.

But we can all learn from this incident. We do need to watch our words and pull back from our pronouncements of doom.

You never know who we may be giving perfect excuses to.

Is anyone keeping score?

In light of the one-two punch given to PFOX and Elaine Donnelly this week regarding their distortion of legtimate studies, I would like to create a new timeline of past complaints:

1994 - Joanne Hall, Ph.D. of the University of Tennessee’s College of Nursing publishes a study looking at the patterns of behavior for 35 lesbians who had self-identified alcohol problems. Her study is later used by various anti-gay industry groups to claim that lesbians in general have a problem with alcohol abuse and that gay adoption is not a good idea. Hall later writes a letter of complaint to one of the groups distorting her study (the Family Research Council). Her complaint is ignored.


1998 - Pediatrician Robert Garafalo complains that the anti-gay industry distorted his study regarding at-risk behavior amongst gay youth. He said the groups omitted the part of his study that said the at-risk behavior is the result of a homophobic society.

Assistant Professor of Sociology Lisa Waldner tells Frank Rich of the New York Times that the anti-gay industry is distorting a study she wrote while in 1992 in order to claim that lesbians relationships have a high rate of domestic violence.


2001 - Six researchers (Robert S Hogg, Stefan A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V. O’ Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T Schechter) write a letter to the editor to the International Journal of Epidemiology accusing the anti-gay industry of distorting a study they published in 1997 in order to claim that gay men have a short life span. They said they were speaking of a hypothetical outcome that would take place if there were not better practices regarding safe sex in that particular area. They also said that conditions have improved; therefore the outcome they predicted (i.e. gay men not reaching their sixty-fifth birthday) had been averted.

Patrick Letellier complains that Gary Glenn of the American Family Association cherry picked passages from his book (Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them) in order to assert that domestic violence is high in gay relationships. Years after this, the book continues to be cited by the anti-gay industry in the same way Glenn cited it.

Robert Spitzer publishes a study that says a small number of people can change their sexual orientation. The anti-gay industry cites the study as proof that homosexuality is a choice. Spitzer complains as to how his work was being used, even publishing a piece in the Wall Street Journal complaining about how his work was being distorted. In 2006, he gives an interview with the Los Angeles Times in which he says he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his 2001 study may have been either lying to him or themselves.


2002 - A. Nicholas Groth writes a letter to the Family Research Council claiming that the group distorted his work in a study to prove that gays molest children at a high level. Groth, in 1983, complained that discredited researcher Paul Cameron had done the same thing. The study published by the Family Research Council is almost similar to the one published by Cameron.


2006 - Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc of the University of British Columbia complains that Focus on the Family distorted her study on lesbian teen suicide.

Dr. Kyle Pruett, a clinical professor of psychiatry in the Yale Child Study Center and School of Nursing accuses Focus on the Family head James Dobson of distorting his work.

New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. writes Focus on the Family head James Dobson a blistering letter accusing him of distorting her work.


2008 - Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, claims the “ex-gay” organization PFOX distorted his research findings.

The Palm Center announces that a Duke University law review will be publishing a critique of a 2007 article by Elaine Donnelly. Donnelly is the president of the Center for Military Readiness, a traditional values interest group with no military or academic affiliation. According to Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin, Donelly's article is riddled with mistakes and misreadings of both Palm Center work and the "don't ask, don't tell" law and policy that governs gay service.

I repeat my question: Is anyone keeping score?

Combating the creators of lgbt lies

There continues to be a degree of fallout from Elaine Donnelly's testimony at yesterday's House Armed Services personnel subcommittee regarding the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Washington Post's Dana Milbank practically skewers Donnelly. And I enjoyed reading every bit of it:

Inadvertently, Donnelly achieved the opposite of her intended effect. Though there's no expectation that Congress will repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve openly in the military, the display had the effect of increasing bipartisan sympathy for the cause.

The question in my mind is just who invited Donnelly to testify. This woman has never served in the Armed Forces and her organization, the Center for Military Readiness, does no studies.

I wouldn't mind knowing just who is funding this woman's mess.

Another good thing about Donnelly's testimony is that it brings to light the anti-gay industry practice of creating "phony experts."

Donnelly is not an anamoly. She is just the latest in a long line of anti-gay industry "experts" who try to pass either distortions of legitimate studies or discredited studies as proof of an alleged "homosexual agenda."

Linda (gays should never be around children nor should anyone supporting gay rights be around children) Harvey comes to mind. Robert Knight, who has testified in front of Congress using Paul Cameron's work, also comes to mind.

There is also Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey are two others who come to mind. I know there are many others who look good on camera with nicely coiffed hair, precise speech, and smart clothing. After all, that is what they are paid.

You see there is a difference between these folks and Peter LaBarbera. For whatever reason, LaBarbera is consumed with the "homosexual agenda" that he gets carried away to the point of lunacy. And he is good for a laugh. On the odd occasion, he does something that we take seriously

But in the long run, he is merely a tool; a funneler of information.

Folks like Donnelly, Knight, Harvey, Sprigg, and Dailey create the information. They cut and paste, disseminate and distort, analyze and omit.

They have to know that some of the things they are saying are incorrect, but they say them with a straight face, as if they believe that lies in the name of God will work out to be truth.

In the past, they were able to get away with it. But now the lgbt community are more savvy. We question everything that comes out of the mouth of the anti-gay industry.

And we are quick to point out their lies, as well we should.

Not just for ourselves but for the sake of history. When it is all said and done and lgbts are at the point where we should be, someone will look back on this so-called culture war.

And I want them to know every lie the anti-gay industry told on us.

This weekend, I will be updating my other blog, Anti-Gay Lies and Liars. I will include this week's events as well as new developments regarding Paul Cameron.

Phony expert gets owned!!

Another annoying characteristics of the anti-gay industry is how they characterize their spokespeople as experts on homosexuality.

The anti-gay industry generally don’t recruit unbiased third parties in their information gathering. They create their own experts on the subject of homosexuality. And these phony experts are usually in-house employees or members of affiliated groups who already have anti-gay biases.

They also have no training or background in what they claim to have expert opinions on. It
seems that their titles are dependent on how well they look in the media, or how adept they can apply spin.

Elaine Donnelly is one of these experts. Despite the fact that she has never served in the military, she is president of the Center for Military Readiness.

This is a fancy way of saying that Donnelly's sole responsibility seems to be speaking out against allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

And she was on Capitol Hill today during a Congressional hearing regarding gays in the military.

From what I hear, she got her butt handed to her.

Or a better way of putting it is that she giftwrapped her ass and handed it to the committee:

The live feed from today's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hearing just ended. The curious can watch it here. (Warning, this thing went on forever: 2h35.)

The hearing went better than I expected, insofar as the Democratic witnesses, Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, and Marine Staff Serg. Eric Alva utterly outspoke Army Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones and Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, both of whom testitified (poorly, and in some places, damn near incoherently) on behalf of Republicans.

Donnelly managed, somehow, to answer every question from both the right and the left with, "Sexual urges would prevent unit cohesion." Jones, when asked whether or not he thought homoesexuality was immoral, replied, "No, but if I'm 6'8" and I want to be a fighter pilot, I can't." Both think a gay-friendly military would bring on the end of the world.

As this hearing evidenced, the social conservative arguments for preserving DADT, letting the Department of Defense write its own policy, or banning gay service, range from paper-thin to non-existent. The only obstacle I see to passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act—the bill that would repeal DADT and implement a non-discrimination policy—is good ole' fashion homophobia.

What a difference 15 years make. When hearings about gays in the military began in 1993, we got inudated with Paul Cameronesque rhetoric about sex-crazed gay men and fisting.

Now, folks seemed to have attained a degree of sense and intelligence.

Progress is good.

And Donnelly distorts legitimate work too

Law Review Questions Expertise of Congressional Witness; Misstatements and Sloppy Use of Evidence Subject of New Publication

SANTA BARBARA, Calif., July 23 (AScribe Newswire) -- The Palm Center announced today that a Duke University law review is publishing a critique of a chief Congressional witness who is testifying at today's hearings on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a research organization which studies gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said the study is to appear in the forthcoming issue of the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy.

The article, "The Importance of Objective Analysis: A Response to Elaine Donnelly's Constructing the Co-Ed Military," is a reply to a 2007 article by Elaine Donnelly in the same journal. Donnelly, who is president of the Center for Military Readiness, a traditional values interest group with no military or academic affiliation, is one of two witnesses testifying against the right of gays to serve at today's hearings.

Donnelly's testimony is largely drawn from her 2007 article, also published in the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. The Palm Center study is a response to her article, which, according to Belkin, is riddled with mistakes and misreadings of both Palm Center work and the "don't ask, don't tell" law and policy that governs gay service.

"It's unclear why Elaine Donnelly has a platform at all on this issue," Belkin said. "She and her organization do no research." Belkin noted, for example, that to bolster her point that the British military has been undermined by allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, her article cites a single footnote which refers to five newspaper and radio stories, none of which have anything to do with gays in the military.

My sentiments exactly, Mr. Belkin. More of the article is here.

Another update from yesterday's post: PFOX caught distorting study

This just keeps getting better and better. The author of the study PFOX cited (see yesterday's post) has now gone on record.

And he is pissed:

Dr. Gary Remafedi Says ‘Ex-Gay’ Group Manipulated His Study And Should Immediately Take The Distortions Off Its Website

NEW YORK – TruthWinsOut.org published exclusive comments today by Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, who claimed the “ex-gay” organization PFOX distorted his research findings.

On its website, PFOX expressed its displeasure with The Washington Post for publishing what it called “a sympathetic article about a 15-year-old boy named Saro who described his homosexual feelings and how Gay Straight Alliance student clubs help such gay teens to deal with discrimination and bullying in high school and middle school.”

“What the article failed to describe,” said PFOX Executive Director Regina Griggs, “is the danger of young sexually confused teens self-identifying as gays at an early age. Research has shown that the risk of suicide decreases by 20% each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling.* Early self-identification is dangerous to kids.”

Dr. Remafedi’s study was the one cited by PFOX to back their unfounded conclusions. Today, Dr. Reamafedi released the following comments to Truth Wins Out:

“My work has been cited by PFOX in response to a Washington Post article on gay-straight alliances (GSA),” wrote Dr. Remafedi. “PFOX misuses one of my studies on suicide attempts in gay youth to argue that people should not identify their sexual orientation at young ages. Our findings do not support the contention that young people choose their identity or the timing of events in identity formation. Nor is there any evidence that the availability of GSAs influences those developmental processes.”

Remafedi’s report was published in Pediatrics in 1992. The study explored patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of more than 34,000 Minnesota students in grades 7 to 12. PFOX, as well as Focus on the Family, distorted his findings to make the case that young people should not learn about homosexuality because they were sexually confused, and could thus be influenced by educational material.

Last year, several researchers held Dobson accountable for misrepresenting their work. Letters and videos from these scientists can be viewed at www.RespectMyResearch.org.

“We thank Dr. Remafedi for stepping forward and not allowing his research to be manipulated for political gain,” said Truth Wins Out Executive Director Wayne Besen. “The right wing thrives on twisting legitimate research in its efforts to confuse people. We are doing everything in our power to stop this insidious practice.”

TruthWinsOut.org is currently working to find examples where right wing organizations have twisted scientific work. If you have a case that is worthy of investigation, please contact TWO’s Director of Research, Peter Cabrera, at petercabrera74@yahoo.com.

(Hat tip to my online buddy Emproph for alerting me to this.)

And now something that is totally unbelievable. But then again, knowing my elected officials . .

‘Knowingly incorrect info’ from S.C. officials, say Brit ‘So Gay’ ad execs

COLUMBIA — Pursuing a deal to advertise South Carolina as “so gay,” tourism officials in the state hosted a visit to showcase gay-friendly hotels, bars, and beaches, two European executives told Q-Notes.

“A three-day visit was arranged for me,” said Andrew Roberts, CEO of the gay travel agency Amro Worldwide. The visit included free hotel stays and escorting by tourism representatives, at least one of whom was reimbursed for mileage.

Impressed by what he experienced during his April trip, Roberts gave the go-ahead to Out Now Consulting, the gay marketing agency selected to execute the ads.

South Carolina’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT) initiated and approved the campaign at every step, according to Roberts and Out Now CEO Ian Johnson.

But SCPRT refused to pay its bill for the campaign after Gov. Mark Sanford and other state politicians reacted to a post on “The Palmetto Scoop,” a conservative blog.

‘This guy was right up there’

“Out Now certainly had no indication prior to July 10 that anyone at SCPRT was in the slightest way at all uncomfortable with our strategic gay marketing approach in this particular ad campaign,” Johnson told Q-Notes. “Which makes sense — since they were aware of it, and had approved it, at a high level, long before the campaign began. They signed off on it all the way through the launch process.”

More here

Geez, it is getting more and more difficult to defend my state.

UPDATE - PFOX answers my question. And someone is still distorting the issue

I received an email from PFOX regarding my question about the study PFOX head Regina Griggs cited in a recent One News Now article.

In my post below, I talked about how Griggs was claiming that GSAs actually led to lgbt children attempting suicide. According to the article:

Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity -- a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs.

The name of the study was not mentioned in the article. I had a suspicion that PFOX was referring to the 1996 Elizabeth Saewyc study that looked at lesbian teen suicides. If it was, then PFOX would have been in error.

A controversy had come up concerning the study when Focus on the Family's spokesperson Melissa Fryrear used it to claim that teen lesbians are having problems with suicide because they are "encouraged by gay activists to come out" (I am paraphrasing here).

Dr. Saewyc said Fryrear's comments was a distortion of her research.

I was concerned that PFOX was still using the Saewyc study to reach the same conclusion that Fryrear did.

This is the email I received from PFOX:

The source is listed at www.pfox.org under Press Releases.

The press release, PFOX Exposes Dangers Of Self-Identifying As ‘Gay’ Before Maturity, is where the name of the study is mentioned.

And Griggs was right. PFOX did not cite the Saewyc study. It cited:

Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth by Remafedi, Farrow, and Deisher, in Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics 87: 869-875 June 1991

Now here is the problem. The first sentence of the One News Now article says:

Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity -- a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs.

A recent study? Hardly. Who considers a 17-year-old study to be recent? Apparently members of the anti-gay industry if the study can be used to demonize lgbts.

There is still a deception here but I don't know who is guilty of it; PFOX, One News Now, or LifeSiteNews.com (the place where the article originated from).

I emailed Griggs again asking for clarification. Was it she who described the 1991 study as a recent one or did One News Now and LifeSiteNews.com use bad dramatic license?

This is getting good.


They just can't stop lying: PFOX tries to slip one by and Peter LaBarbera's friend cites Paul Cameron

One of the most annoying characteristics about the anti-gay industry is their tendency to repeat distortions even after the said distortions have been refuted.

A perfect example are two that I found today:

PFOX tries to distort work on gay teen suicide

I read this today in One News Now:

Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity -- a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs - PFOX: Homosexual high school clubs increase risk of suicide

Interestingly enough, the study PFOX is referring to is not mentioned anywhere in the article.

But PFOX head Regina Griggs gives a clue as to the nature of the study:

. . ."Research has shown that the risk of suicide decreases by 20 percent each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling. Early self-identification is dangerous to kids."

That quote looked familiar to me so I did a little research and found the following:

Going far beyond the research results, Focus on the Family claims a recent study presented at a Canadian public health conference links "pro-gay advocates" to increased rates of lesbian teen suicide attempts, a claim that has baffled the scientist who conducted the study.

"Nothing in the brief results we presented or in our overall study could lead to such conclusions," said Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, and research director of the McCreary Centre Society.

Reacting to survey results that showed higher rates of suicide attempts among lesbian high school students vs. heterosexual teens, Focus on the Family blamed the very people trying to help teens enter a more accepting society.

"Regrettably, they think they have to embrace homosexuality because pro-gay advocates told them that they were born gay," claimed Melissa Fryrear, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, on their website.

This was from a June 16, 2006 article in which University of British Columbia Professor Elizabeth Saewyc accused Focus on the Family of distorting her study about lesbian teen suicide.

Focus on the Family spokeswoman Melissa Fryrear claimed that lesbian teens are committing sucide because they are encouraged to "identify as lesbians" by "pro-gay advocates."

Saewyc said Fryrear's conclusion was a distortion of her study. She said:

What we have found is that sexual, racial, or anti-gay harassment, discrimination, and violence are strongly associated with suicidal attempts among young people -- and that includes heterosexual teens too." She noted her previous study of Seattle high school students, which found 4 out of 5 students experiencing anti-gay harassment identified as heterosexual, and harassed students were significantly more likely to report suicide attempts regardless of their orientation.

So now in 2008, is PFOX and Griggs trying to incorrectly interpret the study even after Saewyc cried foul?

I think so.

Of course some may say that I am engaging in pure conjecture. Fair enough. I have drafted a letter that I will email to Griggs and PFOX asking for the name of the study she referred to in the One News Now article. I will send the letter today.

I will also keep you posted on whether or not I receive an answer.


Peter LaBarbera's 'Christian friend' and Paul Cameron

On his webpage, Peter LaBarbera has endorsed a report written by Phil Magnan of the Family Bible Advocates:

Meanwhile, take a read of Phil Magnan’s report, “15 Reasons Why Homosexuality is Wrong and Hurts Society.” Phil is the founder of Biblical Family Advocates, based in San Diego. I just met him in person for the first time and came away impressed by his love for people, including those practicing homosexuality, and his love for God’s truth and His heart on this issue.

By all means, please do read the "report." Magnan's essay comes across as the standard anti-gay industry tripe which recycles the discredited studies and other distortions that have made our lives just a little bit harder.

Interestingly enough, I emailed Magnan about several errors in his work last weekend. Of course I did not get an answer back.

The following are just a few of his errors:

Magnan - The book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence by two homosexual researchers “estimated that 650,000 homosexual men are victims of domestic violence each year, compared to figures from the FBI which showed that last year 1,300 hate crimes were reported.”

Truth - Patrick Letellier complained that Gary Glenn of the American Family Association cherry picked passages from his book (Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them) in order to assert that domestic violence is high in gay relationships. Years after this, the book continues to be cited by the anti-gay industry in the same way Glenn cited it. (in the same manner Magnan did)

Magnan - Defining a Homosexual relationship as loving and monogamous ignores the reality of same sex relationships. Many say that the premise on which we should accept same sex unions is that some of them are "loving, monogamous relationships." Same sex unions may be loving and monogamous from a worldly viewpoint, but if they had “real godly love” they would not subject each other to unnatural sexual activity that leads each other into sin. When we lead others into sin, we are no longer walking in love. In regards to homosexual monogamy, homosexuals remain faithful to one partner about 25% of the time. This is a much lower fidelity rate, than their heterosexual counterparts, which is 80%. It is not unusual for homosexuals to have hundreds of sexual partners in a life time.

Truth - Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service completes a study which objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).” Despite the fact that this study was situated in a foreign city, only looked at casual relationships, was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands, had nothing to do with lesbian relationships or children in same-sex households, it will be cited by the anti-gay industry to speak against gay relationships, same-sex marriage, lesbian relationships, gay adoption, etc. etc. (FOOTNOTE - Box Turtle Bulletin published a excellent report today accusing the Family Research Council of distorting the study in the same manner as Magnan.)

And the piece de resistance: Magnan freely cites discredited researcher Paul Cameron:

Magnan - There is less likelihood that a same sex couple will even be alive to care for their child. One of the reasons that Homosexual couples should not be able to adopt children or take in foster children is that according to many studies, the life span of homosexuals is much lower than that of heterosexuals. These tragic conditions create a much less stable home life for that child. Giving a foster or adopted child to homosexual parents is a form of relational child abuse. The child has been placed in a home in which the parents have an inherent shorter life span.

Truth - The study mentioned was created by Paul Cameron .

* On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

* At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."6

* In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron."

At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."

And of course those errors merely scratch the surface when it comes to Magnan's report. On my other blog, Anti-Gay Lies and Liars, I list 17 lies that the anti-gay industry spread about gays and lesbians.

Magnan seems to be trying to validate them all, even the one about gay men allegedly molesting children at a high rate.

I guess Magnan's version of Christian love doesn't involve truth.

Why is it that those who look to get into Heaven seem to be causing the most hell on earth for the rest of us?

You see this is why it is important to keep up with anti-gay industry lies and be ready to refute at almost every turn.

They keep coming up.

South Carolina is an excellent place to live, but we really need to elect better public officials

First Governor Mark Sanford, now Senator Jim DeMint:

The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly defeated Sen. Jim DeMint's bid to cut the $48 billion cost of expanding President Bush's global AIDS initiative to dozens of countries beyond Africa.

DeMint's amendment to a five-year reauthorization of Bush's signature program lowered the price tag to $35 billion and removed funding for new efforts to fight malaria and tuberculosis.

"What we're doing here this week I consider obscene -- completely unacceptable," DeMint said in an angry Senate floor address before the vote. "We're talking about creating the largest foreign aid program in the history of our country, with no thought."

The Senate's 64-31 vote against the DeMint measure indicated strong bipartisan support for Bush's heralded 2003 campaign targeting AIDS in Africa, which supporters say has saved 2 million lives.

Two hours after defeating DeMint's amendment, the Senate voted 80-16 to pass the AIDS bill. Its total cost is $50 billion, with senators voting earlier in the day to divert $2 billion to domestic benefits for Native Americans.

Meanwhile, the tourism controvery heats up. Some lgbts (who don't live in South Carolina) aresaying that SC Pride is in the wrong for offering to raise money to pay for the ad.

I totally disagree. I have been a board member of SC Pride for over five years and I want to commend my fellow board members for their initiative in this matter.

You see, some of us do think that despite the attitudes of some, South Carolina is an excellent place for lgbts.

I love this state and I am tired of the stereotype that it is backwards and homophobic. One of the reasons why the stereotype is so prevalent is because very few take the initiative to affect change.

We didn't start this controversy, our Governor did. And now that it is started, we will use it to our advantage; to shine a light on this sate.

We will not sit on our asses, twiddle our thumbs, and whine about discrimination. Nor will we ruminate about how "homophobic" South Carolina is.

You see we believe that the state belongs to us also and we will not surrender our rightful place as South Carolinians to ignorant people.

Sometimes fighting battles involve thinking out of the box .

South Carolina “so gay” ad controversy - See this is what we mean when we say homophobia

Maybe I am wrong, but I am getting a huge kick out of this controversy regarding my state and the gay tourism ad.

On Friday it was learned that a London company was working on an ad campaign that would attract gay tourists to South Carolina. South Carolina tourism officials said they would not pay for the ad campaign because it was not agreed upon in the right manner.

Governor Mark Sanford and Greenville State Senator David Thomas objected strongly to the ad campaign. Senator Thomas demanded an investigation.

Since that time, much has taken place.

The person who was responsible for the ad campaign is said to have resigned. However, my paranoid Southern intuition tells me that maybe he was helped in that direction.

We don’t know for sure because no one is talking.

Meanwhile our esteemed Governor and Senator have removed themselves from their soapboxes of righteous indignation and onto the tables of conciliatory gestures. Both are trying to backtrack from their earlier comments

You think it has something to do with the fact that their overly aggressive condemnation of the ad campaign sends the message that lgbts aren’t welcomed in South Carolina?

Perhaps. And now the word is coming down that the state’s tourism industry could be harmed from all of their political posturing.

We will see what happens. All I know is that the more our representatives talk, the more they seem to wallow in the mess they put themselves in:

Governor Mark Sanford’s spokesman - “We welcome anyone to visit our state, but we agree with Sen. Thomas about using tax money to promote any group with a particular social or political agenda.”

Social or political agenda? We are talking about tourists here, not the Chicago Seven. The only agenda tourists have is getting a tan and lots of pictures so that they can make their friends back home jealous.

Greenville Senator David Thomas - “If the ad had said, ‘You will love the Southern Baptist beaches,’ I would also be offended. If a homosexual is attracted here, that’s great. But I have a problem with tax money being spent on ads with a social viewpoint, particularly with sexual orientation.”

Thomas is obviously tap dancing to the same tune the Governor’s office is listening to. And he is dancing as badly as the Governor.

I’m still stuck on the part about Southern Baptist beaches though. But I think I will leave that alone. No sense in causing a new controversy.

I want to say something stark and bold but modesty prevents me from being as rude as I want to be.

I hope that our representatives learn something from this. Our state has been laughed at on television and in the newspapers because of this controversy and frankly, we deserve it.

Don’t even try to sell me on the notions of Southern values and how South Carolina is entrenched in the old ways and traditional morality.

Our representatives acted liked damned fools (well, there goes the modesty).

They heard the word “gay” and conjured up images of half-naked men cavorting shamelessly on beaches complete with whips, chains, and leather chaps. Their minds spun visions so nasty and vile that they forgot that they were adults chosen by their peers to conduct business at a higher standard than that of ugly rumors and preconceived notions of sex and mindless bacchanalia.

Instead of using their heads, they acted with their emotions. They were so quick to take part in a gay version of the ‘War of the Worlds’ paranoia that they did more damage to South Carolina than any invading army, gay or otherwise.

You see when gay people talk about homophobia, this controversy is a perfect example of we mean.

This state is already in the middle of another controversy involving a high school principal who thinks that a gay/straight alliance in his school is the same as a sex club. It is obvious that the actions of Governor Sanford and Sen. Thomas aren’t isolated incidents, but patterns in a huge tapestry of ignorance.

What is that scares people so much about gays and lesbians in this state anyway? We all have gay relatives and we are all privy to occasional rumors about gay public officials. Whether we want to admit it or not, we interact with gays and lesbians almost every day.

So why does it scare people to realize that there are gays among them who lead normal, boring lives; who work, pay taxes, and even go on vacations.

Why is there this need to make gays the natural enemy of South Carolina families when many of them are the heads of those families?

Whatever the case may be, it goes way beyond believing that homosexuality is a sin. But I am not a psychiatrist so I am not going to try and analyze it from that standpoint.

I just hope that Governor Sanford, Sen. Thomas, and everyone in general learn something from this about gay South Carolinians and, most of all, themselves.

UPDATE - It has now been discovered by Q-Notes that the Governor's Office was personally involved in stopping the tourism campaign. The article is here.

Also, the Board of the SC Pride Movement has decided to raise the $5,000 necessary to pay the debt owed by the state for the "South Carolina is so gay" ads created for London Pride Week.

They will launch the campaign using the attached "South Carolina WILL BE 'So Gay'" ad on Thursday from the SC Pride website with PayPal as a way to donate. They will also accept donations mailed to them (Payable to SC Pride, PO Box 12648, Columbia, SC 29211).

Once they repay the state's debt to the UK company, all other proceeds will benefit the SC Pride 2008 Festival and Parade featuring RuPaul to ensure that South Carolina will be "SO GAY" on September 20, 2008 in Columbia, SC.

Anyone interested in donating should contact Ryan Wilson , call the Harriet Hancock Community Center (803) 771-7713, or visit www.scpride.org for more info.



Robert Knight returns and reminds me the nature of not being truthful

Those who have read this blog or my book know that I don't particularly care for anti-gay industry talking head Robert Knight.

He was the only major anti-gay industry talking head whom I had the displeasure of meeting and I have never met anyone whom I would probably dislike more.

Some of you may accuse me of making hasty judgements, but I assure you that I am not. There is simply no other way that I can describe somone who talks about values and morality while at the same time repeating information that he knows is false.

For those who have not read my book, Knight and I met at the University of South Carolina a number of years ago when he was affiliated with Concerned Women for America. Before then he was with the Family Research Council. During his sojourn with these two groups, he freely cited the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. He even did so in front of a Congressional committee.

On the night that he and I met, I was able to ask about his usage of Cameron's work. His answer to me was "we have used his work. So what?"

And that my friends (and forgive me for my use of hyperbole) is when I came to a true understanding of the nature of evil.

Sometimes evil has nothing to do with monsters that we see in horror movies like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger. The true and insidious nature of evil is the ability to give deceptive information with a straight face even though you most likely know that the information will lead to broken families, lgbt children being kicked out of their homes, elderly lgbts losing everything at the death of their partners, and the eventual psychological boxing in of the lgbt community in general.

That is the essence of Robert Knight. Dr. Martin Luther King once said he wanted to be remembered as a drum major for justice. Knight will be remembered as a drum major for lies.

What got me so philosophical about Knight was reading a piece he wrote in One News Now today entitled Washington Post tells kids that homosexuality is fine.

Actually the article does not takes sides. But to Knight and those like him, any article that does not include lies about the "health risks of being gay" is one sided.

Of course one good thing about his column is that while Knight gives the spiel about "gay health risks," he does not go into the lies about "gay domestic violence" and "gays having a short life span."

In the past, he would have. The fact that he cannot now is to the credit of intelligent lgbts and bloggers who have destroyed those patterns of lies.

But this is not to say that Knight doesn't try to do damage. Especially when he talks about the murder of Matthew Shepard:

(Washington Post writer Theresa) Vargas pulled out all the stops, even repeating the gay-activist-created myth that Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard "was killed for being gay." Shepard, as revealed in an ABC News investigation on 20/20 on Nov. 26, 2004, was tied to a fence and left to die after a drug deal turned into a robbery in 1998. The assailants, who were convicted of murder and given life terms, picked out Shepard not to make a savage point about hating gays but because he was carrying cash and looked like an easy mark. Nonetheless, the media have continued to follow the "killed for being gay" script written for them by homosexual activists who flooded into Wyoming and made Matthew the martyr for their cause.

Knight is referring to a 20/20 special that made the claim that Shepard was not murdered because he was gay. In all honesty, the investigation brought up points of hearsay that were never proven. According to wikipedia:

Commander Dave O'Malley — who was also interviewed by ABC and criticized the 20/20 report — pointed out that the drug motive does not necessarily disqualify the anti-gay motive: “My feelings have been that the initial contact was probably motivated by robbery because they needed money. What they got was $20 and a pair of shoes ... then something changed and changed profoundly... But, we will never, ever know because Matt’s dead and I don’t trust what [McKinney and Henderson] said.

You see, before the report, McKinney and Henderson did say that they targeted Shepard because he was gay. In addition, their girlfriends testified under oath that the two had planned to rob a gay man.

So to Knight, in the case of an anti-gay murder, a convicted murderer has more credibility than a man on trial for murder.

But such is Robert Knight, the drummer major for lies.

By the way, this link is the original Washington Post article that got Knight all up in arms. It's good journalism; something Knight knows nothing about.