PFOX gets into the act. Does Holsinger really need this group as an ally?

Apparently James Holsinger has allies that maybe he does not need.

PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) have gotten into knee deep into the argument, issuing a press release claiming that Holsinger and ex-gays in general are being discriminated against:

Ex-gays and Americans who support the right to self-determination of same-sex attraction are routinely ridiculed by the very people who claim to be victims themselves. “Gay activists lobby to be included in tolerance policies, hate crimes and employment non-discrimination legislation, but work hard to deny ex-gays the right to the same treatment,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX.

. . . “Americans need to face the growing issue of bigotry perpetrated upon ex-gays and their supporters. Gay activists cannot claim sympathy as victims when they attack ex-gays for political purposes of their own,” said Griggs. “Tolerance is not a one-way street. All individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions deserve the right to self-determination and happiness based on their own needs, and not the political inconvenience of others.”

Oh really?

Before PFOX contends itself to play Joan of Arc, I want to remind it of this press release from 1996:

FRC Creates PFOX To Counter PFLAG (fwd) WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 /PRNewswire/ --

"For too long, many people have come to believe that people with homosexual desires cannot change. The `once gay, always gay' fiction has persuaded more than a few Americans to support so- called `gay rights' out of a misdirected sense of compassion. But it is anything but compassionate to tell someone that have no hope of change and that they might as well indulge in sexual behavior that is unhealthy, immoral and in many cases, even fatal," Bob Knight said Thursday during a ground breaking news conference.

Knight, Family Research Council Director of Cultural Studies, participated in a 9:30 a.m. news event to unveil PFOX -- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (Contact: Anthony Falzarano) -- a new, national parents group that will counter the pro-homosexual PFLAG. The news event, which included former homosexuals and lesbians, also highlighted the Second Annual National Coming OUT OF Homosexuality Day. (Contact: Michael Johnston)

Knight made the following comments during the news event at the National Press Club: "Over on the mall this week, the AIDS quilt is a silent and wrenching testimony to the hundreds of thousands of people struck down with premature death. The quilt also symbolizes tragic choices made by many people who were misled into believing they had no other option. How many of these sons, daughters, fathers, brothers or sisters would be alive today if they had had access to compassionate people like these around me who have been caught up in sexual or drug addiction but have broken the deadly pattern?

"Today's message is very simple: No one has to be `gay.' No one should reject a family member because that family member is `gay.' But love does not require accepting behavior that is harmful. In fact, real love in action is a conscious effort to steer someone away from behavior that can hurt or even kill. It isn't always easy, but it can be done, as evidenced by the many who have. "

Parents, Family and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), which is being introduced today, has been formed to aid people who have family members struggling with homosexuality. PFOX is dedicated to correcting the many distortions and increasingly abusive assertions made by homosexual activist groups against those with whom they disagree.

The homosexual activist movement despises and attacks the ex-gay movement out of fear that these people are exactly who they say they are: people once in bondage to homosexuality but now freed to pursue a fuller life. But their lives are evidence of options rarely discussed by very real."

Let's look at the cast of characters mentioned in the 1996 press release:

Family Research Council - on more than one occasion cites bad studies and cherry picked research to demonize the gay community.

Robert Knight - freely used Paul Cameron's work as well as other cherry picked work to demonize the gay and lesbian community. He has also been known to verbally attack physicians who complain about the distortion of their work (i.e. Dr. Robert Garafalo - as mentioned in my upcoming book)

Michael Johnston - traveled the country talking about how he was delivered from the "evils of homosexuality" while at the same time having clandestine hotel encounters with gay men and exposing them to the HIV virus.

PFOX was created not to preserve the right of self-determination of ex-gays, but to act as a stumbling block for those of us who are comfortable with our lgbt orientation.

For the group to try and claim victimhood status in the case of James Holsinger defies all logic.

And the fact that the group got involved in this matter demonstrates why gay community's concerns about Holsinger are valid.

You can't run away from your past, no matter how you try to pretty yourself up.

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.