Box Turtle Bulletin nails Holsinger paper

Just as I knew they would, Jim Burroway and Box Turtle Bulletin revealed James Holsinger's paper on homosexuality for the farce that it is.

Burroway reveals things about the paper that I didn't even notice:

The whole point of Holsinger’s paper is to draw a sharp contrast between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships.

But to do so, he he culls his evidence largely from papers which describe injuries from nonconsensual intercourse to denigrate consensual relationships, he describes odd sexual practices that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples to denigrate the minority of gay couples who indulge in those same practices, and he misleads his readers by padding his bibliography with more references to papers explicitly describing injuries experienced by heterosexual men and women to imply that they describe gay men instead.
In other words, to describe gay sexual acts, more often than not he turned to papers which describe injuries sustained through heterosexual activity.

And then he used this evidence from heterosexual activity to say that “when the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.” But what does this evidence suggest about “complementarity” in heterosexual relationships? Holsinger doesn’t answer.

Now some folks have continued to try and make the case one of Holsinger's religious beliefs but don't be fooled by such platitudes.

Holsinger manipulated credible scientific work to denigrate gay males. His paper appealed to bad stereotypes and urban legends about gay men and anal sex. I'm surprised he didn't try to prove the notorious "gerbil" story.

Is this the man we want as surgeon general?

And speaking of Holsinger's defenders, I noticed that One News Now hasn't said a thing about the story.

In that past when the news service was Agape Press, it freely reported Paul Cameron's studies and other notorious bits of junk science regarding the lgbt community.

For that matter, has the Family Research Council made a statement about Holsinger? I don't see why the group shouldn't. In the past, members such as Robert Knight and Timothy Dailey published a bunch of studies about the lgbt community.

Some of these studies still exist on the FRC web page.

Why so silent, boys?

James Holsinger has some explaining to do

It seems that the controversy over Bush's surgeon general nominee, James Holsinger, continues unabated.

And the issue is getting more cloudy.

Several of his defenders are coming out of the woodwork defending Holsinger, making it seem that he is a latter-day Mother Teresa. These defenders include a lesbian:

Maria Kemplin, a former colleague of Dr. Holsinger’s who is a lesbian, is familiar with the 1991 report. But in a letter she sent to Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, she wrote of Dr. Holsinger as a friend who helped without judging her.

“I am a liberal Democrat and a member of gay and women’s rights organizations,” Ms. Kemplin wrote. “Still, I strongly support Dr. Jim Holsinger as a leader and administrator who is able to see across divisive issues and relate with integrity to people, no matter their life circumstance.”

Good, then Holsinger won't have any problems answering questions about that paper he wrote demonizing gay men.

One of the biggest calamities of the American media is the abject laziness of our journalists. Sometimes in pursuit of "popular" stories, they miss the stories that, with a little time and effort given to them, can bring much needed attention to important issues.

And to me, one of the biggest underreported stories have been how the anti-gay create phony scientific studies to push forth a religious point of view, much like Holsinger did in 1991.

The lgbt community has had to deal with "scientific papers" put out by groups like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc. accusing us of molesting children, having a short life span, and other assorted ills.

These papers either use bad sources or cherry pick credible information to reach a conclusion already frought in the author's mind - that gays and lesbians are sick people and anything that protects us is a bad thing.

Case in point is a recent article talking about gays adopting children:

Judith Stacey, a sociology professor at New York University and co-author with Tim Biblarz of "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" in the American Sociological Review, says conservative groups distorted the findings of her 2001 study, which found some slight differences in children of lesbian mothers in terms of career choices and sexual experimentation. And while some of her ongoing work is finding "minor differences in sexuality and possibly in the range of comfort, but just barely, with non heterosexual behavior," a European study of daughters of lesbians has found a skew toward more heterosexual partners. . .

When Dr. (James) Dobson, in his Time magazine essay criticizing Ms. Cheney, cited research from Kyle Pruett at Yale University to state that children need fathers, Dr. Pruett, author of "Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child," was furious, claiming Dr. Dobson had misrepresented his findings to suggest that children of gay parents would somehow suffer developmentally. After attempts to contact Dr. Dobson proved fruitless, he taped an interview and posted it on YouTube.com excoriating the conservative leader.

. . . Mr. (Peter) Spriggs (from the Family Research Council) remains unrepentant about his and Dr. Dobson's use of research to bolster their contention that children do best with a mother and a father.

"No scholar has the right to dictate how another person will use his data, just because he happens to disagree from a political point of view," he said.

On the contrary Mr. Spriggs. If a scholar's work is being used incorrectly, he or she has a right to call foul.

And a community who has been maligned by usage of said work has a right to complain and demand answers, particularly if the alleged perpetrator is vying for a position to represent this community.

So Holsinger's defenders can trot as many lesbians as they want out of the woodwork. And I don't even care if it's discovered that Holsinger was the one who really parted the Red Sea and performed the miracle of the loaves and the fishes.

If he wants to be my surgeon general, he needs to answer for his attempts to call me and mine sick people.

Anything you don't want to do, let the black folks do it for you

(Sidebar - If you haven't already, please read yesterday's post on Bush's surgeon general nominee)

I guess Kenneth Blackwell considers himself a lone wolf. No doubt it's not easy being a black conservative in today's environment.

But I am sure it can get quite lucrative when it comes to what you can get away with.

His column in Townhall is a good example of what I am talking about. It is yet another diatribe filled with lies about hate crimes legislation:

A bill making it illegal for people of various faiths to freely hold and profess their respective religion's teaching on sexual morality is working its way through Congress. Regardless of your politics, every American who cares about free speech and religious liberty should tell their U.S. senators to oppose this legislation. This bill has already passed the House of Representatives on a largely party-line vote with a Democrat majority. It is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is expected to be voted on by the entire Senate in a month.

This bill would criminalize beliefs. If signed into law, H.R. 1592 would create a new class of crimes.

He also says the following:

As a country, do we want to be in the business of "proving" what someone thinks or denying them freedom of conscience? Do we want to rip the heart out of the First Amendment of our Constitution? Do we want to deconstruct our public square where progress has been advanced by a dialogue between faith and reason? Do we really want to embolden a 21st century secular fundamentalism by forcing religious expression from the public square?

The answer to these questions is a simple and emphatic no! What is driving the controversy associated with this bill ultimately comes down to one issue: Can the government punish a person for a "thought crime" whose religious faith includes the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral, and same sex marriage is morally objectionable?

Hate crimes legislation covers violent action not thought, as I am sure Blackwell knows. Also bear in mind that hate crimes legislation already exists in cases of race and religion. Nothing in Blackwell's column talks about those two distinctions. He only talks about hate crimes legislation being wrong when it comes to sexual orientation.

How dare lgbts want the protections that African-Americans enjoy!

Blackwell's being duplicitious. But it seems to be the role that some black conservatives want. They allow their heritage to be exploited for the status quo. They seem to be saying "we got our rights, now we will use the same prejudices, duplicitious arguments and lies that held us down to hold others down."

"And if we do it well enough, the white conservatives will give us status."

First you have Harry Jackson raging against hate crimes legislation in four or five consecutive columns. Now Blackwell is into the act as the designated black man out to put gays in their place for daring to compare themselves to black folks. Who is next to talk about it? Alan Keyes? LaShawn Barber?

With Jackson's recent columns comes the advertisement to buy his book, Black Contract with America. By accident? I don't think so.

Blackwell and Jackson may seem like men standing up for what they believe in. But I disagree.

Sounds like two guys who found a nice racket.

Does the surgeon general nominee channel willful prejudice?

It turns out that President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, James Holinger, seems to have more of an anti-gay history than first thought.

Original objections mostly dealt with him being affiliated with an ex-gay ministry.

That in itself is bad enough, but the following is worse:

In 1991, Dr. James W. Holsinger -- a University of Kentucky professor who is President Bush's nominee for U.S. surgeon general -- wrote a paper arguing that gay sex is biologically unnatural and unhealthy.

Like male and female pipe fittings, certain male and female body parts are designed for each other, Holsinger wrote in a paper prepared for a United Methodist Church committee studying homosexuality. "When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur," Holsinger wrote in the paper, titled Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality.

You can read the study at this link.

For the benefit of those wondering, the study does not cite data from our friend Paul Cameron. And it does not seem to have any of the distorted studies (i.e. the 1997 Oxford study) that I have found in several religous right papers supposedly critiquing gay sex habits.

No doubt my friend Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin will break down Holsinger's paper better than I ever could.

However, I did notice a central theme about Holsinger's paper that I found disturbing.

Check out this part on page four:

Consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely provided there is adequate lubrication. Few anorectal problems and no evidence of anal-sphincter dysfunction are found in heterosexual women who have anal-receptive intercourse. However, forceful anal penetration without lubrication against a resistant sphincter will result in abrasive trauma, causing fissures, contusions, thrombosed hemorrhoids, lacerations with bleeding, pain, and psychic trauma (Bush, 1986). The most severe type of anorectal trauma follows fist fornication which during the 1970s was practiced by approximately 5% of the male homosexual population (Geist, 1988). It should be noted that this activity is occasionally practiced by heterosexual and lesbian couples.

So in other words, heterosexuals have anal sex also. Hmmmm.

Then there is this passage I found on page five:

In addition to infections and trauma, tumors are a definite risk for homosexual men. Homosexual behavior in men is a risk factor for anal cancer. Squamous-cell anal cancer is also associated with a history of genital warts, an association suggesting that papillomavirus infection is a cause of anal cancer. (Daling, 1987). Anal warts are commonly found among individuals who practice anal intercourse and only rarely found among heterosexuals practicing vaginal intercourse.

But how do anal warts affect those heterosexual engaging in anal sex? Holsinger does not talk about this.

These are just two passages in Holsinger's paper but they seem to reveal that he is practicing willful prejudice, especially when one reads the following passage found on page six:

. . . it is clear that even primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual intercourse, and the birth of children. Indeed our own children appear to intutitvely understand these facts. I think we should note that these simple "scientific facts are the same in any culture - patriarchal or matriarchal, modern or primitive, Jewish or gentile, etc. The anatomic and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.

But isn't that passage contradicting his admittance that heterosexuals engage in anal sex?

How can he criticize gay men for having anal sex because the "parts don't fit" but then not do the same for heterosexuals, who he admits also engage in anal sex?

On that same note, how can he talk about about the "health risks" of gay men having anal sex (i.e. anal warts) while at the same time sidestepping any discussion of the health risks of heterosexual having anal sex?

Whether intentional or not, Holsinger's paper does nothing more than enhance prejudices about gay men, even in at the expense of contradicting itself.

No doubt, the anti-gay industry will try to frame this argument as one of us attacking a man because of his religious beliefs.

But this is not a case of religious persecution. It's a trust issue.

How can Holsinger be counted on to fairly address the health issues of the lgbt community when it has been shown that his religious objection to homosexuality led him to write an irresponsible piece of work?

Let's not get distracted by the pawns

As fun as it is to expose and malign Peter LaBarbarbera and Americans for Truth (in name only) for their supposed "hard-hitting" exposes on leather conventions, let's not lose perspective.

While it is important to focus on LaBarbera's nonsense, we shouldn't take out attention away from the larger issue.

Which is the constant attempts by the anti-gay industry as a whole to define our lives based on not who we actually are, but what they think we are.

Peter makes himself an easy and fun target, but while attention is focused on him:

President Bush is attempting to push through a candidate for Surgeon General, John Holsinger, who seems to have an anti-gay bias. Let's not allow the anti-gay industry to define the debate as one of religious persecution.

Mr. Holsinger can believe whatever he wants but as Surgeon General he is supposed to representate all of us fairly. If his religious beliefs preclude him from doing this then he has no business even being considered for the position.

LGBTs are taxpayers also, thank you very much. We don't need acceptance but we will not take disrespect.

Also:

The city of Kalamazoo became the first public employer in the state to strip health benefits from the domestic partners of its gay and lesbian employees.

City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.
The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

So much for these amendments being created to solely "protect marriage."

Just remember not to laugh at the clown so much that you don't notice when his cohorts try to rob you blind.

One more thing: I see that the Advocate magazine is seeking responses for its annual sex survey.

This means, of course, that we can expect to see our friend Peter and others in the anti-gay industry skewer the responses to fit their fictional worldview of the "perverted homosexual."

In the past, the anti-gay industry have used magazine sex surveys to malign our community. I cover this fact in my book.

This is just a heads up to look out for how they will distort this year's survey.

Meanwhile, over at Wayne's

It's Monday so I see my friend Harry Jackson has written yet another column denouncing hate crimes legislation on the conservative site Townhall.

Is this his fourth or fifth column? I lose count. Broken records have that effect on me.

The longer Jackson harps on the issue (and telling the lie that the bill punishes speech rather than violent action), the more integrity he loses. Jackson is only solidying himself as a phony pastor attempting to demonize the gay community for political purposes.

As much as I would like to devote time to him, a more pressing incident caught my attention today.

Wayne Besen wrote a very humorous column on Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth (in name only) supposed expose of International Mr. Leather 2007.

Apparently he struck a serious nerve.

Not only did Peter make a poor attempt to lambast Wayne on his page, but certain people have been writing interesting comments on Wayne's blog.

The persons listed themselves as anonymous, so I won't make any guesses as to who they are. I have my guesses but I will keep them to myself.

But the comments do more than accentuate the point of my blog better than anything I could ever say:

When you meet God, you will have to account for every child who got involved with sodomy and/or other sexual perversions and ended up with AIDs, for every homosexual who ended up with Hepatitis C, distension of the anus - for every kid who was lured down the path of sodomy and sexual perversion and compulsion - for every girl who was told that playing around with the reproductive organs of other girls is what womanhood is about, for every kid who was taught that his/her body is to be used just to satisfy itself in whatever way - for every kid who was told that male and female do not mean anything at all - for every kid who bought the big, fat evil lies of the homosexual movement.

And that was a light comment. There were others about "fecal matter" and such.

While I think it is important to always refute ridiculous claims, sometimes I just can't help but laugh at them.

And wonder about those willing to repeat and believe them.

Just what is in the mind of someone who would write such filth and lies? Do he or she really think that they are speaking the truth?

Or is it a manifestation of something dark inside themselves that they refuse to acknowledge?

It's sad that these people continuously try to turn the argument of lgbt civil liberties into one of alleged gay male sexual acts.

In any case, as long as the lies are set up, let's be sure to knock them down.

And pray for those willing to speak and believe these lies because they surely need it.

The Depths of One Man's Homophobia

Before I start, I would just like to say that the anti-gay industry's nastiness to Mary Cheney and her partner Heather Poe over the birth their son just goes to prove that these groups are solely interested in forcing us to acknowledge the lie that the only family unit that counts is the one they advocate. No one is immune to their mania.

Peter LaBarbera has made a name for himself by attending gay subcultural events and reporting on the alleged sexual activities he sees there.

Today he and his group, Americans for Truth (in name only) posted pictures from the International Mr. Leather convention.

The pictures are very interesting to say the least. But something else Peter said when he was describing the events caught my eye:

International Mr. Leather (IML) serves as an annual excuse for “leathermen” — mostly homosexual men but some “straight” SM couples — to engage in vile orgies that would make Sodom blush.

So where are the pictures of these "straight" couples? They aren't anywhere to be seen.

Peter tries to link International Mr. Leather to other gay events such as the Gay Games in an attempt to cast an image the "depraved homosexual" attempting to destroy American society but he seems to have listed the fact that heterosexual couples are as "depraved" as a mere afterthought.

And that is the best way to describe LaBarbera's prejudice.

He and others like him are always whining that they don't hate gay people and they are unfairly called homophobic for allegedly speaking the truth.

But what do you call denigrating gays for an interest in a sexual behavior (SM/bondage) while making light of the fact that heterosexuals are interested in the same sexual behavior.

Just where is the truth in that?

And for that matter, where are Peter's exposes on heterosexual events such as swinging conventions? Or how about SM and bondage clubs and conventions attended by heterosexuals.

Peter won't take up this challenge. No one in his group will.

And why?

Because they are homophobes. Pure and simple.


Misrepresentation: It's not just Janet Folgers' job

I joyfully give Janet Folger hell for misrepresenting current events in order to demonize the lgbt community.

But I am wrong if I inferred in any way that she is the only one in the anti-gay industry who engages in this type of behavior.

Case in point is a column today by Ed Vitagliano of the American Family Assocation.

It is the same nonsensical mantra about how the lgbt community is trying to keep Christians from speaking out against homosexuality.

Vitagliano engages in the standard anti-gay industry tactic in his column: distorting examples of incidents that allegedly prove his point. Many of his examples happen in foreign countries and therefore have nothing to do with the laws of this country. In one American example, he infers that the Repent America situation in Philadelphia was a case of Christians arrested merely for handing out pamphlets which call homosexuality a sin?

This is a lie that has been refuted time and time again. I cannot believe that it is accidental that Vitagliano, who has access to much information on the matter, continues to lie about this matter.

Another example he lists from this country is the following:

Regina Rederford and fellow city employee Robin Christy posted the announcement after a general e-mail to city employees publicizing the formation of a pro-homosexual employee association. But in a world where one view is promoted and another condemned, Rederford and Christy were told by city officials that the flyer announcing the forum was "homophobic speech" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment," even though homosexuality was never specifically mentioned.

As to be expected, Vitagliano omits several details. Here is the true story. You can link to the other site and read the entire article. I bolded points that I felt were important:

Promoting their Good News Employee Association, the flier urged people to "preserve our workplace with integrity" and said their association "is a forum for people of faith to express their views on contemporary issues of the day with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values."

Another CEDA worker who is a lesbian complained to supervisors that the flier made her feel targeted and excluded; supervisors reviewed the flier and removed it, encouraging Rederford and Christy to revise and repost it.

Rederford and Christy sued, claiming their rights were violated by an Oakland anti discrimination policy that promotes homosexuality and denounces Christian values. A federal judge dismissed the city as a defendant in March 2004, and in February 2005 granted summary judgment in favor of then-City Manager Robert Bobb and CEDA Deputy Executive Director Joyce Hicks. Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher on Thursday asked Lively whether his clients realize they have "a rather low level of protection" on potentially incendiary or discriminatory language in the workplace, and should "keep away from words that'll rile people up."

"But shouldn't that go both ways?" Lively replied, noting his clients hadn't complained about the National Coming Out Day e-mail.

Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta noted that e-mail had invited readers to "a rally against hatred and bigotry -- is that disparaging to your clients?"

Circuit Judge Richard Clifton said he believes "there are eggshells on both sides" of this argument, yet he doesn't see what the e-mail had done to vilify Rederford and Christy while it's not hard to see how their flier vilified gays and lesbians. "It's hard to avoid the inference, 'We lack ethics, we lack integrity because these people are here.'"

So was this a case of women getting into trouble for speaking out against homosexuality?

No. It was not the words but the context of the words that got these two women into trouble.

They had a right to form their group and put a flyer out. But in their choice of words, they attacked the company's gay and lesbian employees. They were told that they could revise the flyer but apparently chose not to.

These women should not be able to encourage a hostile work environment simply because of their Christian beliefs. Sorry, it's not fair.

But even more to the point, how Vitagliano listed this example proves yet again that members of the anti-gay industry will lie and misrepresent to get their agenda served.