Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters featured in Carolina lgbt publication
Q-Notes, a newsmonthly dealing with lgbt issues in the Carolinas, ran an article about my book. .
Click here if you are curious as to what I look like.
Don't laugh too long.
S.C. author takes on the anti-gay industry
Alvin McEwen’s new book details the Religious Right’s distortion tactics
by Jack Kirven . Q-Notes staff
Alvin McEwen put years of research into the tactics and strategies employed by the anti-gay industry to exploit misinformed and religion-based stereotypes about LGBT people.
There is a distinction between spirituality and bigotry based on “sacred” prejudices. This point is the focus of author Alvin McEwen’s new book, “Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: Exposing the Lies of the Anti-Gay Industry.”
Boiling the work down to a central thesis, McEwen says “there has been a consistent war waged on the gay community by people who hide behind their pseudo-religious beliefs.”McEwen posits that because it is not possible in this country to create laws that purely further religious thought, opponents of LGBT equality seek other means to demonize our community.
“Once these groups dehumanize LGBT people it then becomes easier to create a sense of need for regulations based on assumed religious justifications.”
In other words, by creating a notion that there is a “dangerous lifestyle” present, a need is then created to suppress that “danger.”McEwen does not use the term Religious Right. He prefers “anti-gay industry.” For good reason, too. The people and organizations who campaign the most furiously against LGBT equality make large amounts of money doing it. It is an industry, one that caters to fear and sells discredited research to people of faith who often do not have a chance to put a human face on LGBT family, friends and colleagues. Professional gay-bashers generate enormous amounts of cash to repay their efforts at fostering hate.
McEwen decided to examine the issue of institutionalized homophobia after he read a magazine article that quoted an hysterical mother who expressed concern for her children’s safety. In the middle of his own coming out process, McEwen was “upset that a woman whom I didn’t know would spout that kind of hate about me. She was telling lies about me. I was vulnerable at that time and I thought about it a lot. I realized how dangerous misinformation can be to LGBT people.”
After following stories in such publications as The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, and various medical and scientific journals reporting that researchers are upset by the ways their studies are misused by hate mongers, McEwen realized that the anti-gay industry employs six primary distortion tactics. As detailed in his book, these deception tactics include: misinformation, repetition, conspiracy theories, dire consequences, phony experts and dehumanizing semantics.
“Understanding how the industry deceives people gives us a means to counter their tactics,” he says.
Misinformation
This includes taking studies out of context, purposefully misreading information, applying data to unrelated topics and other forms of abusing reputable studies by respected scientists.
One example that employs all of these strategies concerns a study that focused on approximately 35 lesbians with pre-existing alcoholism. The findings were misused by the anti-gay industry to argue that lesbians are more likely to develop addictions and express violent behaviors. This was, in turn, used to argue that lesbians should not be allowed to care for children.
Repetition
This tactic requires little explanation. As George W. Bush said in Greece on May 24, 2005, “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
Conspiracy theories
This tactic is commonly used as the dreaded “Gay Agenda.” “By telling people that our country is a Christian country, and telling them what good Christians believe, it then becomes possible to say that someone who does not believe as you do is trying to take all that away from you,” says McEwen.
This tactic plays on social and political fears and usually focuses on extrapolations with no basis in reason or fact (i.e., the argument against same-sex marriage that says people will then be able to marry their dogs).
Dire consequences
This is a strategy that seeks to predict a terrible outcome after a chain of cataclysmic events arise from some undesirable change. An example might include the claim that the Roman Empire collapsed because homosexuality became universally practiced and accepted. To further the distortion, homophobes would equate current problems in the U.S. with that completely unrelated historical situation.
Phony experts
This tactic is exactly what it sounds like. Discredited researchers, outdated studies and disgraced leaders are quoted incessantly, despite the fact that they have no authority or credibility. An example is Michael Johnston’s continued appearance on the cover of the American Family Association’s (AFA) “ex-gay” video “It’s Not Gay.” In 2003, after the video’s release, Johnston was revealed to be participating in unsafe sex at drug-fueled, same-sex orgies without disclosing his HIV-positive status. He is still the “ex-gay” face used to sell the AFA video.
Dehumanizing semantics
The anti-gay industry’s use of language plays on assumptions and is tailored to exploit ignorance concerning the LGBT community. “If someone says, ‘…and this is because gay men live a destructive life,’ it is based on the assumed notion that God created heterosexuality, He disapproves of homosexuality, homosexuality is evil and therefore gay men are destructive,” explains McEwen.
In his book, McEwen highlights quotes from religious leaders that utilize dehumanizing semantics. Such as one evangelist who claims that Christians have been “bullied into submission” by the “aggressive homosexual agenda” that’s taking over public schools.
“Ultimately,” says McEwen, “as a person of faith I would tell people to not take the word of an outsider. Pray, talk directly to God yourself to find out what He has to say about your sexuality. We can’t dialogue with the anti-gay industry, but we can talk to other people of faith. The bigots will expose themselves soon enough. People can hear a lie only so many times before it begins to sound untenable to them. We need to educate ourselves and be informed about our enemies.
“For my part, I am documenting our history so that one day a young person can pick up from our first steps and go even further.”
info: For more information, visit http://www.holybullies.com/,
http://www.holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/
AntiGayLiesAndLiars.blogspot.com
“Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters” is available for purchase at http://www.amazon.com/.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Why can't Peter LaBarbera stop misrepresenting
I have talked to Peter LaBarbera via email and I can tell you this: he truly believes that homosexuality is a sin.
And there is nothing wrong with believing this.
However, Peter crosses the line when he stoops to misrepresentations to further his beliefs.
Today's post on his Americans for Truth (in name only) page further accentuates this point.
Peter takes a bunch of quotes from gay authors and columnists (many over 10 years old) to further the lie that lgbts on the whole are promiscuous and that we want to destroy the institute of marriage.
First of all, the opinions of a few lgbts do not speak for the entire community. Anyone with a small shred of common sense knows this.
But I guess Peter thinks that common sense don't matter when one is fighting a "holy war."
And to make matters worse, he misrepresents big time. I want to talk about two.
The first is when he pulls a quote from noted gay author Micheangelo Signorile:
“[Legalizing “same-sex marriage”] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”–Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
The misrepresentation of this quote is nothing new and Peter is not the first to do it. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition used the same quote to claim that lgbts want to destroy marriage:
“Traditional marriage is under attack. Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! in its Dec./Jan. 1994 issue, says that homosexuals should ‘fi ght for same-sex marriage
and its benefits and then, once granted, redefi ne the institution of marriage completely to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.’”—Lou Sheldon, Traditional Marriage Is Worth Protecting!, The Traditional Values Coalition
Signorile was quick to cry foul. The following passage is from my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters:
As it turns out, Sheldon’s usage of Signorile’s quote is a distortion. Signorile complained about it in a column entitled Opponents Peddling Selective, Defective Readings. He said the quote in question was written about a same-sex marriage controversy in Hawaii in 1993.
Signorile said he had interviewed people in the gay community with different opinions on same-sex marriage. He also said he quoted those who said same-sex marriage was oppressive and that gays should not attempt to partake in it. Others he talked to said marriage is a good way for gays to civilize and assimilate themselves.
He further said:
“Both of these positions, I found were pretty extreme. I looked at still other points of view and I also proposed what ‘might’ be a compromise— I didn’t even say whether or not I agreed with it or not—stating that redefining the institution of marriage to change its negative aspects while demanding full marriage rights was one way to go.”
In other words, Sheldon (and LaBarbera) took Signorile's comments out of context.
Now let's look at this second misrepresentation:
“Take sex. Traditionally, a commitment to monogamy — to the extent that it was not simply an adjunct of property law, a vehicle for guaranteeing property rights and succession — was the chief mode of sacrifice imposed upon or adopted by married couples as a means of showing their sacred valuing of their relation. But gay men have realized that while couples may choose to restrict sexual activity in order to show their love for each other, it is not necessary for this purpose; there are many other ways to manifest and ritualize commitment. And so monogamy (it appears) is not an essential component of love and marriage. The authors of “The Male Couple” found that:
[T]he majority of [gay male] couples, and all of the couples together for longer than five years, were not continuously sexually exclusive with each other. Although many had long periods of sexual exclusivity, it was not the ongoing expectation for most. We found that gay men expect mutual emotional dependability with their partners [but also believe] that relationship fidelity transcends concerns about sexuality and exclusivity.
The big question here is what exactly is The Male Couple and why didn't Peter give more information regarding the book.
Probably because The Male Couple was published in 1984 (over 20 years ago), which would make it an out-of-date source.
Also, the authors of The Male Couple, McWhirter and Mattison, said that their book should not be generalized to represent the entire gay community:
“We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location, and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay
male community.”
Maybe Peter missed that part.
Or maybe he just doesn't give a damn. You tell me.
Now his last quote is a hoot:
Make Anti-Gays Look Nasty
“We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types.”–Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” The Guide (homosexual) magazine, November 1987.
Well Peter, when you lie as pathetically as you did in this column, you make our jobs easier.
I have talked to Peter LaBarbera via email and I can tell you this: he truly believes that homosexuality is a sin.
And there is nothing wrong with believing this.
However, Peter crosses the line when he stoops to misrepresentations to further his beliefs.
Today's post on his Americans for Truth (in name only) page further accentuates this point.
Peter takes a bunch of quotes from gay authors and columnists (many over 10 years old) to further the lie that lgbts on the whole are promiscuous and that we want to destroy the institute of marriage.
First of all, the opinions of a few lgbts do not speak for the entire community. Anyone with a small shred of common sense knows this.
But I guess Peter thinks that common sense don't matter when one is fighting a "holy war."
And to make matters worse, he misrepresents big time. I want to talk about two.
The first is when he pulls a quote from noted gay author Micheangelo Signorile:
“[Legalizing “same-sex marriage”] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”–Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
The misrepresentation of this quote is nothing new and Peter is not the first to do it. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition used the same quote to claim that lgbts want to destroy marriage:
“Traditional marriage is under attack. Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! in its Dec./Jan. 1994 issue, says that homosexuals should ‘fi ght for same-sex marriage
and its benefits and then, once granted, redefi ne the institution of marriage completely to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.’”—Lou Sheldon, Traditional Marriage Is Worth Protecting!, The Traditional Values Coalition
Signorile was quick to cry foul. The following passage is from my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters:
As it turns out, Sheldon’s usage of Signorile’s quote is a distortion. Signorile complained about it in a column entitled Opponents Peddling Selective, Defective Readings. He said the quote in question was written about a same-sex marriage controversy in Hawaii in 1993.
Signorile said he had interviewed people in the gay community with different opinions on same-sex marriage. He also said he quoted those who said same-sex marriage was oppressive and that gays should not attempt to partake in it. Others he talked to said marriage is a good way for gays to civilize and assimilate themselves.
He further said:
“Both of these positions, I found were pretty extreme. I looked at still other points of view and I also proposed what ‘might’ be a compromise— I didn’t even say whether or not I agreed with it or not—stating that redefining the institution of marriage to change its negative aspects while demanding full marriage rights was one way to go.”
In other words, Sheldon (and LaBarbera) took Signorile's comments out of context.
Now let's look at this second misrepresentation:
“Take sex. Traditionally, a commitment to monogamy — to the extent that it was not simply an adjunct of property law, a vehicle for guaranteeing property rights and succession — was the chief mode of sacrifice imposed upon or adopted by married couples as a means of showing their sacred valuing of their relation. But gay men have realized that while couples may choose to restrict sexual activity in order to show their love for each other, it is not necessary for this purpose; there are many other ways to manifest and ritualize commitment. And so monogamy (it appears) is not an essential component of love and marriage. The authors of “The Male Couple” found that:
[T]he majority of [gay male] couples, and all of the couples together for longer than five years, were not continuously sexually exclusive with each other. Although many had long periods of sexual exclusivity, it was not the ongoing expectation for most. We found that gay men expect mutual emotional dependability with their partners [but also believe] that relationship fidelity transcends concerns about sexuality and exclusivity.
The big question here is what exactly is The Male Couple and why didn't Peter give more information regarding the book.
Probably because The Male Couple was published in 1984 (over 20 years ago), which would make it an out-of-date source.
Also, the authors of The Male Couple, McWhirter and Mattison, said that their book should not be generalized to represent the entire gay community:
“We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location, and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay
male community.”
Maybe Peter missed that part.
Or maybe he just doesn't give a damn. You tell me.
Now his last quote is a hoot:
Make Anti-Gays Look Nasty
“We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types.”–Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” The Guide (homosexual) magazine, November 1987.
Well Peter, when you lie as pathetically as you did in this column, you make our jobs easier.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Oh Lawd, not again!
No this column isn't about Ken Hutcherson.
Some may think that in light of the election primaries, what I am about to say is trite, but I disagree.
This Friday, there will a movie starring rapper Ice Cube and comedian Tracy Morgan entitled First Sunday.
It is a comedy about two men who decide to rob a church. It looked interesting.
And that is saying a lot from a person who has seen his share of African-American comedies.
But then comes the "required scene."
Not too many folks are aware of this but there seems to be an ugly standard of operation in many African-American oriented comedies to make fun of lgbts.
If the character is a gay man, then he is usually an oversexed man with a name like "Flame" or "Peaches" and he is portrayed as a nonthreatening flamboyant entity who is a part of the congregation of women gathered at either the hair saloon or other places that black women hang out.
If the character is a lesbian, she is portrayed a threatening figure who cannot figure out that she is a woman and therefore is required to wear something flimsy that highlights her tits or ass. In other words, she is a "threat" to "true black men."
But the worse stereotypes are reserved for our transgender sisters.
They are portrayed as deceivers who are always trying to "trick" black men into being intimate with them. The joke is that when the "luckless victim" discovers the ruse, he rushes out in disgust, eliciting extreme laughter from the audience.
This last degree of disrespect features prominently in the previews of First Sunday.
Now I could say something that is long, thoughtful, but I am too tired.
I am too tired from work and am especially tired of being asked to support movies that make fun of my orientation.
I don't care if the screenplay writer is black, the director is black, the majority of stars is black, etc. etc.
As I am concerned, First Sunday will never be on my menu.
And I sincerely hope that one day, more lgbts of color will feel the same way I do.
No this column isn't about Ken Hutcherson.
Some may think that in light of the election primaries, what I am about to say is trite, but I disagree.
This Friday, there will a movie starring rapper Ice Cube and comedian Tracy Morgan entitled First Sunday.
It is a comedy about two men who decide to rob a church. It looked interesting.
And that is saying a lot from a person who has seen his share of African-American comedies.
But then comes the "required scene."
Not too many folks are aware of this but there seems to be an ugly standard of operation in many African-American oriented comedies to make fun of lgbts.
If the character is a gay man, then he is usually an oversexed man with a name like "Flame" or "Peaches" and he is portrayed as a nonthreatening flamboyant entity who is a part of the congregation of women gathered at either the hair saloon or other places that black women hang out.
If the character is a lesbian, she is portrayed a threatening figure who cannot figure out that she is a woman and therefore is required to wear something flimsy that highlights her tits or ass. In other words, she is a "threat" to "true black men."
But the worse stereotypes are reserved for our transgender sisters.
They are portrayed as deceivers who are always trying to "trick" black men into being intimate with them. The joke is that when the "luckless victim" discovers the ruse, he rushes out in disgust, eliciting extreme laughter from the audience.
This last degree of disrespect features prominently in the previews of First Sunday.
Now I could say something that is long, thoughtful, but I am too tired.
I am too tired from work and am especially tired of being asked to support movies that make fun of my orientation.
I don't care if the screenplay writer is black, the director is black, the majority of stars is black, etc. etc.
As I am concerned, First Sunday will never be on my menu.
And I sincerely hope that one day, more lgbts of color will feel the same way I do.
Monday, January 07, 2008
That "sweet" smell of politics in the air
Even Robet Duvall would probably gag if he ever took a whiff of the air when an election season rolls around.
Even though it's only the primaries, the 2008 election promises to be very interesting.
I am taking a sort of Machiavellian outlook on the entire process. I won't say who I am supporting.
But if you think I am support anyone Republican, you are insane.
After eight years of Super Shrub, I echo the tone of the Obama campaign (which when you really think about it, is rather smart) - change.
I will, however, admit that it is fun to watch the Republican candidates cannibalize each other. Teflon Rom and Bibleman Huckabee seems to be an excellent match.
But seriously, unless something serious happens, I am going to post as I always do on this site, but the majority of my energy will be devoted to updating my other webpage.
I will be updating that page at least once a week. And news of updates will on this blog as well as on the other page.
Look for a big update to come this weekend.
I tend to think that the Republican candidates are too busy attacking each other to focus on any interesting attacks on us.
By the time they put it in their heads to amass their base by telling lies on lgbts, I should have a good time line ready to throw truth on their claims.
Even Robet Duvall would probably gag if he ever took a whiff of the air when an election season rolls around.
Even though it's only the primaries, the 2008 election promises to be very interesting.
I am taking a sort of Machiavellian outlook on the entire process. I won't say who I am supporting.
But if you think I am support anyone Republican, you are insane.
After eight years of Super Shrub, I echo the tone of the Obama campaign (which when you really think about it, is rather smart) - change.
I will, however, admit that it is fun to watch the Republican candidates cannibalize each other. Teflon Rom and Bibleman Huckabee seems to be an excellent match.
But seriously, unless something serious happens, I am going to post as I always do on this site, but the majority of my energy will be devoted to updating my other webpage.
I will be updating that page at least once a week. And news of updates will on this blog as well as on the other page.
Look for a big update to come this weekend.
I tend to think that the Republican candidates are too busy attacking each other to focus on any interesting attacks on us.
By the time they put it in their heads to amass their base by telling lies on lgbts, I should have a good time line ready to throw truth on their claims.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
The day after . . .
Thanks to everyone who made my new webpage a success.
But apparently not everyone is happy. Our friend Peter LaBarbera (who swore up and down that he would not read my "silly" page) is high HIGHLY upset over the comparison I included of Anti-Semitic speech and homophobic speech.
Get over it, Peter. No matter how angry you get, it still holds up.
(UPDATE - My bad! Apparently Peter is not mad at the comparison on my webpage. He is upset over what I said to him via email. You see, Peter and I had been emailing each other last night concerning my page. I wasn't about to give him the last word. He got angry about my following statement:
That truth will come out and nothing will ever change that. You made mention to Nazis in your response. When it is all said in done, in the eyes of many, people won't know the difference between you, your cohorts and them. Because really there is no difference, is there?
Well I stand by that comment. And looking at the rhetoric that Peter and his side uses, I can back it up.
And speaking of our friend Peter, apparently he is not done exploiting that 14-year-old who wrote him recently. Another pal of Peter, Laurie Higgins, wrote the child a letter.
Naturally Peter prints it on his site.
She repeats the usual nonsense about homosexuality. But there is one thing she said that I found hilarious:
Our bodies are not designed for homosexual sex. They are exquisitely designed for heterosex.
Apparently Higgins is channeling that same nonsense that is repeated constantly in anti-gay language (and I make reference to it on my other page):
That anal sex is "homosexual behavior." That train of thought is a serious lie.
All gay men do not have anal sex. But some heterosexuals do.
Does that make those heterosexuals gay?
And Higgins claims that she cares that others are teaching children lies.
Apparently she is not above telling a few herself.
Thanks to everyone who made my new webpage a success.
But apparently not everyone is happy. Our friend Peter LaBarbera (who swore up and down that he would not read my "silly" page) is high HIGHLY upset over the comparison I included of Anti-Semitic speech and homophobic speech.
Get over it, Peter. No matter how angry you get, it still holds up.
(UPDATE - My bad! Apparently Peter is not mad at the comparison on my webpage. He is upset over what I said to him via email. You see, Peter and I had been emailing each other last night concerning my page. I wasn't about to give him the last word. He got angry about my following statement:
That truth will come out and nothing will ever change that. You made mention to Nazis in your response. When it is all said in done, in the eyes of many, people won't know the difference between you, your cohorts and them. Because really there is no difference, is there?
Well I stand by that comment. And looking at the rhetoric that Peter and his side uses, I can back it up.
And speaking of our friend Peter, apparently he is not done exploiting that 14-year-old who wrote him recently. Another pal of Peter, Laurie Higgins, wrote the child a letter.
Naturally Peter prints it on his site.
She repeats the usual nonsense about homosexuality. But there is one thing she said that I found hilarious:
Our bodies are not designed for homosexual sex. They are exquisitely designed for heterosex.
Apparently Higgins is channeling that same nonsense that is repeated constantly in anti-gay language (and I make reference to it on my other page):
That anal sex is "homosexual behavior." That train of thought is a serious lie.
All gay men do not have anal sex. But some heterosexuals do.
Does that make those heterosexuals gay?
And Higgins claims that she cares that others are teaching children lies.
Apparently she is not above telling a few herself.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
I now present:
‘Holy Bullies’ author expands fight against anti-gay lies
New webpage will include a time line of distortions
January 2, 2008—South Carolina author Alvin McEwen is taking his fight against anti-gay rhetoric to another level with the launching of a new webpage.
In August 2007, McEwen published Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: Exposing the Lies of the Anti-Gay Industry. The book chronicled how the religious right, or anti-gay industry as McEwen refers to them, distorts studies and semantics to demonize the gay community.
"I have had tremendous success with my book," McEwen said. "But I want to create a wider understanding of the tactics of the anti-gay industry and their history of distortions.
The webpage page, Anti-Gay Lies and Liars, spotlights six distortion techniques of the anti-gay industry, the top lies they use against gays and lesbians, as well as a comparison between Anti-Semitic and homophobic language.
Central to the webpage is a historical time line of distortions, scientific complaints about religious right data, faulty media campaigns, and other things that McEwen say is crucial to the religious right’s war on gay America.
"And the time line isn’t done yet," he said. "It will be a continued work-in-progress. I want to include every lie and every distortion the anti-gay industry commits. I want to include information about Anita Bryant , Paul Cameron, every distorted study, every discredited study. If the anti-gay industry has lied about it, I want to include it."
McEwen calls the webpage a handy guide for anyone looking to disseminate religious right propaganda.
"The next time a press release or statement comes from these phony pro-family groups, I challenge anyone to not find at least two points of propaganda from my list," McEwen said.
He also said knowing religion right propaganda techniques are crucial if the gay community wants to win this so-called culture war.
"Simple functions like an office worker putting a up picture of his significant gay other or a child reared in a same-sex household writing a report about her family take on sinister undertones of an alleged conspiracy to shut down values," McEwen said. "And that is the big lie the anti-gay industry tries to sell to America. That ordinary things gays and lesbians do, things which make us no different than anyone else, are somehow insidious points of attack in a huge plan of invasion.If we are to refute this lie, then we need to educate ourselves on their tactics."
The address of McEwen’s new webpage is http://antigayliesandliars.blogspot.com/
Anyone wanting to reach McEwen can email him at CharleKenghis@aol.com
‘Holy Bullies’ author expands fight against anti-gay lies
New webpage will include a time line of distortions
January 2, 2008—South Carolina author Alvin McEwen is taking his fight against anti-gay rhetoric to another level with the launching of a new webpage.
In August 2007, McEwen published Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: Exposing the Lies of the Anti-Gay Industry. The book chronicled how the religious right, or anti-gay industry as McEwen refers to them, distorts studies and semantics to demonize the gay community.
"I have had tremendous success with my book," McEwen said. "But I want to create a wider understanding of the tactics of the anti-gay industry and their history of distortions.
The webpage page, Anti-Gay Lies and Liars, spotlights six distortion techniques of the anti-gay industry, the top lies they use against gays and lesbians, as well as a comparison between Anti-Semitic and homophobic language.
Central to the webpage is a historical time line of distortions, scientific complaints about religious right data, faulty media campaigns, and other things that McEwen say is crucial to the religious right’s war on gay America.
"And the time line isn’t done yet," he said. "It will be a continued work-in-progress. I want to include every lie and every distortion the anti-gay industry commits. I want to include information about Anita Bryant , Paul Cameron, every distorted study, every discredited study. If the anti-gay industry has lied about it, I want to include it."
McEwen calls the webpage a handy guide for anyone looking to disseminate religious right propaganda.
"The next time a press release or statement comes from these phony pro-family groups, I challenge anyone to not find at least two points of propaganda from my list," McEwen said.
He also said knowing religion right propaganda techniques are crucial if the gay community wants to win this so-called culture war.
"Simple functions like an office worker putting a up picture of his significant gay other or a child reared in a same-sex household writing a report about her family take on sinister undertones of an alleged conspiracy to shut down values," McEwen said. "And that is the big lie the anti-gay industry tries to sell to America. That ordinary things gays and lesbians do, things which make us no different than anyone else, are somehow insidious points of attack in a huge plan of invasion.If we are to refute this lie, then we need to educate ourselves on their tactics."
The address of McEwen’s new webpage is http://antigayliesandliars.blogspot.com/
Anyone wanting to reach McEwen can email him at CharleKenghis@aol.com
(Bear with my page guys because it is a work-in-progress which I hope can be used to educate and inform. By all means look it over, take the information in, and spread the word. Thanks!)
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
From the department of stupidity . . .
Still working on my project. Hope to have it finished by tomorrow evening.
But something I noticed today, that I have to put down something on.
Our friend Peter has reprinted a letter sent to him by a 14-year-old:
Please read the letter below, which we received Saturday from a 14-year-old atheist boy who hates Americans For Truth. Nothing makes my heart grieve more than a confused young person rejecting God and embracing an unnatural sexual identity (”gayness”) built around ungodly behavior that up until a few decades ago was viewed as so immoral that it wasn’t even discussed in public. I don’t know Joe, but I can safely say that his tragic life choice was made easier by the organized homosexual movement. This is the saddest end result of “gay pride” — corrupting the hearts and minds of young people and helping to put them in grave physical, emotional and spiritual danger:
To put it bluntly, I probably hate you more than anything else in the world. Like many others, I believe you have the moral equivalent of a modern-day KKK: hating people for being different and having opposing beliefs. I am a liberal, gay, atheistic 14 year old boy, and I believe I have more morals than you. You are a disgrace to humanity. I’m sorry that I am being so childish in my "argument” which is turning out like hate mail, but I just cannot put in words how much I disagree with you. Homosexuals should have rights because they are humans, capable of thinking logically and making decisions, just like you and me. And why does what other people do sexually concern you at all? I want you to tell me, from a non-religious standpoint, exactly how homosexuals are hurting you? Because if they are not negatively affecting you in any way (which is what a suspect) then you should have no problem with them. Most of America knows the truth about homosexuality, which is that it is a preference, not a choice, just like a favorite food to put it in simple terms. You like it, because it pleases you, not because you choose to like a certain food. I’m sorry that this message has stretched so long, and I would like a reply and a rebuttal to my claims. USING LOGIC, not religion. -Joe [————-]
The letter is not as dramatic as Peter makes it out to be. Seems to me that the child is just venting, as all children do.
I do kind of feel sorry for the child because I recognize a little of myself in him. When I was just coming out, I used to call the 700 Club, yell at the person on the other line and then hang up.
Such behavior is juvenile. This is not to say that the letter was inconsiderate. I am sure that it is more polite than some of the other letters Peter has been sent.
My point is that Peter refuses to recognize the fact that his rhetoric and lies created this situation. Don't blame gay pride or the "homosexual movement."
It isn't gay pride or the "homosexual movement" that dehumanizes and attacks the lives of lgbts on daily basis.
That's you, Peter. And that young boy's anger is your fault.
Still working on my project. Hope to have it finished by tomorrow evening.
But something I noticed today, that I have to put down something on.
Our friend Peter has reprinted a letter sent to him by a 14-year-old:
Please read the letter below, which we received Saturday from a 14-year-old atheist boy who hates Americans For Truth. Nothing makes my heart grieve more than a confused young person rejecting God and embracing an unnatural sexual identity (”gayness”) built around ungodly behavior that up until a few decades ago was viewed as so immoral that it wasn’t even discussed in public. I don’t know Joe, but I can safely say that his tragic life choice was made easier by the organized homosexual movement. This is the saddest end result of “gay pride” — corrupting the hearts and minds of young people and helping to put them in grave physical, emotional and spiritual danger:
To put it bluntly, I probably hate you more than anything else in the world. Like many others, I believe you have the moral equivalent of a modern-day KKK: hating people for being different and having opposing beliefs. I am a liberal, gay, atheistic 14 year old boy, and I believe I have more morals than you. You are a disgrace to humanity. I’m sorry that I am being so childish in my "argument” which is turning out like hate mail, but I just cannot put in words how much I disagree with you. Homosexuals should have rights because they are humans, capable of thinking logically and making decisions, just like you and me. And why does what other people do sexually concern you at all? I want you to tell me, from a non-religious standpoint, exactly how homosexuals are hurting you? Because if they are not negatively affecting you in any way (which is what a suspect) then you should have no problem with them. Most of America knows the truth about homosexuality, which is that it is a preference, not a choice, just like a favorite food to put it in simple terms. You like it, because it pleases you, not because you choose to like a certain food. I’m sorry that this message has stretched so long, and I would like a reply and a rebuttal to my claims. USING LOGIC, not religion. -Joe [————-]
The letter is not as dramatic as Peter makes it out to be. Seems to me that the child is just venting, as all children do.
I do kind of feel sorry for the child because I recognize a little of myself in him. When I was just coming out, I used to call the 700 Club, yell at the person on the other line and then hang up.
Such behavior is juvenile. This is not to say that the letter was inconsiderate. I am sure that it is more polite than some of the other letters Peter has been sent.
My point is that Peter refuses to recognize the fact that his rhetoric and lies created this situation. Don't blame gay pride or the "homosexual movement."
It isn't gay pride or the "homosexual movement" that dehumanizes and attacks the lives of lgbts on daily basis.
That's you, Peter. And that young boy's anger is your fault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)