Sally Kern cites Paul Cameron - it was bound to happen
It was just a matter of time.
Besides her Biblical admonitions about homosexuality, Sally Kern said there were studies as to the so-called "danger of homosexuality."
In the past, she hinted about the studies, focusing on the religious side of the argument. But in a recent letter to the editor, she sent out what she feels are proof of her claims.
She really should have stuck to the religious side of the argument.
Two things stood out in Kern's letter to the editor:
The study “The Longevity of Homosexuals” found that the average lifespan for lesbians is only slightly higher than that of homosexual men.
I looked it up. And that is a study conducted by our friend Paul Cameron. The entire piece is called The longevity of homosexuals: Before and after the AIDS epidemic
If you aren't familiar with Cameron, let me give you a few facts about him:
1982 - He invented a story about a child being mutilated in the bathroom by a gay man. When the police investigated and found the story to be false, he admitted to making it up.
1983 - He was kicked out the American Psychological Association after an investigation that he distorted the work of six researchers to prove negative theories about gay men.
1984 - A. Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, complained to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists about Paul Cameron’s usage of his work to make the claim that gays molest children at a high rate.
1985 - The Midwest Sociological Society censures Paul Cameron. Also, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems both pass resolutions against him.
Like pretty much all of Cameron's work, the study, The Longevitity of Homosexuals, derives from his infamous 1983 survey regarding gays and lesbians. The survey contained many errors. Of over 4,000 people asked questions regarding sexual behavior, only 65 claimed to be gay or lesbian. Also, even before the study was completed, Cameron had publicly said it will prove negatives about gays and lesbians.
To find a good chronology of Cameron's distortions and lies (and how he has been rebuked and laughed at by legitimate researchers and physicians), you can go here, here, or here (pan down to the time line).
Kern also says:
“The International Journal of Epidemiology” states that the mortality rate for those engaging in homosexual relations before age 20 have their life expectancy reduced by as much as 30 years."
What Kern does not tell readers is that in 2001, the authors of the study went on record with the International Journal of Epidemiology saying that the religious right was distorting their work:
Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.
The entire letter is here but I doubt Kern will want to read it.
Now I did not decipher the rest of Kern's letter, but it stands to reason that these two distorted pieces of work she cites negates her entire premise. And I'm sure anyone digging through her letter can find more distortions.
It's sad on so many levels. The saddest part is that Kern continues to mix distorted studies with Christian beliefs.
Sooner or later this thing is going to come to a point. But who is going to get stuck?
By the way, I wrote a nice, polite letter to the editor outlining the problems with Kern's sources. The address is tribune@bethanytribune.net
Hint, hint, hint.
The more Kern talks, the irresponsible she reveals herself to be.
But here is the rub. It doesn't matter as long as the truth doesn't come out. Someone has to make sure people know exactly what she is doing. Not the fact that she is a "bigot," or a "homophobe," but the fact that she is using bad studies from a man so filled with lies that he couldn't be truthful if his blood was replaced with truth serum.
That is the task that needs to be undertaken here.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Sally Kern tries to reverse her position on job discrimination.
Sally Kern has said she denies the PFLAG version of their meeting.
The PFLAG statement:
As PFLAG reported earlier today, Kern said she would consider meeting other families with GLBT loved ones in her district . . . and she told PFLAG representatives that “I agree with” the idea that gays and lesbians should not be fired from their jobs based on their sexual orientation.
Statement from Kern:
PFLAG has also spun my words to say that I am in favor of “sexual orientation” laws. I unequivocally do not support “sexual orientation” laws. While I do not advocate employers going on a witch hunt to fire homosexual employees who are performing their jobs in a manner just like any heterosexual employee, I do not support laws that would force employers to check their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, speech, and association at the workplace door.
PFLAG never said that Kern is in favor of "sexual orientation" laws. In fact, there is nothing in their statement regarding these laws.
She also said the following:
While I did meet with PFLAG in what was a cordial and polite meeting, they have taken my statements and have spun them to make it appear that I am backing off my comments that homosexuality is a sin.
But according to the PFLAG press release:
“We appreciate Representative Kern taking the time to meet with us and consider an important, ongoing dialogue about our families and loved ones,” said Rev. Newton-Edwards. “Representative Kern expressed a commendable desire to consider every family, every Oklahoman and every constituent. Today, she took an important first step forward that, we hope, will be the beginning of many conversations with our families and our community.”
Kern did not express an apology during today’s meeting, nor did she back away from any of her earlier comments.
That doesn't sound like PFLAG was misrepresenting her statements.
Not only did Kern lie but she used the opportunity to say that she will no longer meet with PFLAG:
Since PFLAG has shown their lack of integrity by misinterpreting my statements from our meeting to fit their agenda — thus revealing their purpose of open dialog to be just a means of seeking to weaken my position and strengthen theirs — I see no benefit in having future meetings with them.
How convenient to make this statement. According to the PFLAG press release, Kern agreed to possibly attend future PFLAG meetings. I guess she has an excuse to get out of that now.
Then Kern adds this:
God’s Word does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His Word expresses His moral character. Therefore, my opinion also will not change.
Funny. Kern claims that God's word doesn't change. But apparently hers does.
Just more proof to the fact that Kern has not been truthful throughout this entire situation. She claims to stand for moral values, but thinks nothing of falsely accusing PFLAG of misrepresenting her position.
Cowardly and very un-Christian. But not surprising.
Sally Kern has said she denies the PFLAG version of their meeting.
The PFLAG statement:
As PFLAG reported earlier today, Kern said she would consider meeting other families with GLBT loved ones in her district . . . and she told PFLAG representatives that “I agree with” the idea that gays and lesbians should not be fired from their jobs based on their sexual orientation.
Statement from Kern:
PFLAG has also spun my words to say that I am in favor of “sexual orientation” laws. I unequivocally do not support “sexual orientation” laws. While I do not advocate employers going on a witch hunt to fire homosexual employees who are performing their jobs in a manner just like any heterosexual employee, I do not support laws that would force employers to check their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, speech, and association at the workplace door.
PFLAG never said that Kern is in favor of "sexual orientation" laws. In fact, there is nothing in their statement regarding these laws.
She also said the following:
While I did meet with PFLAG in what was a cordial and polite meeting, they have taken my statements and have spun them to make it appear that I am backing off my comments that homosexuality is a sin.
But according to the PFLAG press release:
“We appreciate Representative Kern taking the time to meet with us and consider an important, ongoing dialogue about our families and loved ones,” said Rev. Newton-Edwards. “Representative Kern expressed a commendable desire to consider every family, every Oklahoman and every constituent. Today, she took an important first step forward that, we hope, will be the beginning of many conversations with our families and our community.”
Kern did not express an apology during today’s meeting, nor did she back away from any of her earlier comments.
That doesn't sound like PFLAG was misrepresenting her statements.
Not only did Kern lie but she used the opportunity to say that she will no longer meet with PFLAG:
Since PFLAG has shown their lack of integrity by misinterpreting my statements from our meeting to fit their agenda — thus revealing their purpose of open dialog to be just a means of seeking to weaken my position and strengthen theirs — I see no benefit in having future meetings with them.
How convenient to make this statement. According to the PFLAG press release, Kern agreed to possibly attend future PFLAG meetings. I guess she has an excuse to get out of that now.
Then Kern adds this:
God’s Word does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His Word expresses His moral character. Therefore, my opinion also will not change.
Funny. Kern claims that God's word doesn't change. But apparently hers does.
Just more proof to the fact that Kern has not been truthful throughout this entire situation. She claims to stand for moral values, but thinks nothing of falsely accusing PFLAG of misrepresenting her position.
Cowardly and very un-Christian. But not surprising.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A study ripe for the picking. How long will it take for the anti-gay industry to pick it
A study recently reported in Medical News Today said the following:
The odds of substance use for lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) youth are on average 190 percent higher than for heterosexual youth, according to a study by University of Pittsburgh researchers published in the current issue of Addiction. What's more, for some sub-populations of LGB youth, the odds were substantially higher, including 340 percent for bisexual youth and 400 percent for lesbians, researchers found.
Now the question I have is how long will it take for our friends Peter, Matt, Janet, and the rest of the anti-gay industry to use this study.
If they do, they will be forced to omit a crucial part:
"Homophobia, discrimination and victimization are largely what are responsible for these substance use disparities in young gay people," said Michael P. Marshal, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of UPMC, who led the study. "History shows that when marginalized groups are oppressed and do not have equal opportunities and equal rights, they suffer. Our results show that gay youth are clearly no exception."
If they were to do this, it wouldn't be anything new. In 1998 Boston pediatrician Robert Garafalo complained that his study was being distorted. Garafalo had said that there is a danger of at-risk behavior amongst gay youth.
Anti-gay industry groups cited that ad naseum. However, they omitted that Garafalo found that the homophobia these youths were facing was a reason for their at-risk behavior.
Ironically when Garafalo complained, he was attacked as a "thrall of political correctness."
So back to my original question. Just how long will a distorted version of this recent study appear on anti-gay industry webpages, propaganda films, or worse, be cited by well-meaning but ignorant legislators (i.e. Sally Kern)?
Stay tuned for further updates. I have a feeling that they will be coming soon.
How are they going to spin this one?
It's the story that continues to get interesting.
Sally Kern met with members of the local PFLAG in her area:
Kern did not express an apology during the meeting, nor did she back away from any of her earlier comments.
Nevertheless, PFLAG said it believed the meeting was the beginning of a dialogue. It was her first meeting ever with a group working within the LGBT community.
And she made a commitment about workplace rights. During the meeting she told the PFLAG group that "I agree with" the idea that gay and lesbian Americans should not be fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation.
Meeting with her constituents is the first thing Kern has done right in this situation. I'm curious to see how her comments about job discrimination will sit with members of the anti-gay industry.
Bear in mind, many of these groups think that protecting lgbts from job discrmination is a no-no, so I am anxious to see if they what they are going to do next.
Are they going to use what Kern said to show how much of a good legislator she is, turn their backs on her,
Or ignore her comments altogether.
My money is on the last option.
A study recently reported in Medical News Today said the following:
The odds of substance use for lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) youth are on average 190 percent higher than for heterosexual youth, according to a study by University of Pittsburgh researchers published in the current issue of Addiction. What's more, for some sub-populations of LGB youth, the odds were substantially higher, including 340 percent for bisexual youth and 400 percent for lesbians, researchers found.
Now the question I have is how long will it take for our friends Peter, Matt, Janet, and the rest of the anti-gay industry to use this study.
If they do, they will be forced to omit a crucial part:
"Homophobia, discrimination and victimization are largely what are responsible for these substance use disparities in young gay people," said Michael P. Marshal, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of UPMC, who led the study. "History shows that when marginalized groups are oppressed and do not have equal opportunities and equal rights, they suffer. Our results show that gay youth are clearly no exception."
If they were to do this, it wouldn't be anything new. In 1998 Boston pediatrician Robert Garafalo complained that his study was being distorted. Garafalo had said that there is a danger of at-risk behavior amongst gay youth.
Anti-gay industry groups cited that ad naseum. However, they omitted that Garafalo found that the homophobia these youths were facing was a reason for their at-risk behavior.
Ironically when Garafalo complained, he was attacked as a "thrall of political correctness."
So back to my original question. Just how long will a distorted version of this recent study appear on anti-gay industry webpages, propaganda films, or worse, be cited by well-meaning but ignorant legislators (i.e. Sally Kern)?
Stay tuned for further updates. I have a feeling that they will be coming soon.
How are they going to spin this one?
It's the story that continues to get interesting.
Sally Kern met with members of the local PFLAG in her area:
Kern did not express an apology during the meeting, nor did she back away from any of her earlier comments.
Nevertheless, PFLAG said it believed the meeting was the beginning of a dialogue. It was her first meeting ever with a group working within the LGBT community.
And she made a commitment about workplace rights. During the meeting she told the PFLAG group that "I agree with" the idea that gay and lesbian Americans should not be fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation.
Meeting with her constituents is the first thing Kern has done right in this situation. I'm curious to see how her comments about job discrimination will sit with members of the anti-gay industry.
Bear in mind, many of these groups think that protecting lgbts from job discrmination is a no-no, so I am anxious to see if they what they are going to do next.
Are they going to use what Kern said to show how much of a good legislator she is, turn their backs on her,
Or ignore her comments altogether.
My money is on the last option.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber lie about Joe Solmonese - perfect example of distortions and bigotry
Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America, Peter LaBarbera and the rest of the anti-gay industry like to constantly beat the same tired drum of lies, claiming that the gay community wants to endanger America and silence Christians.
They are telling blatant lies, of course. And today's posting on the Americans for Truth (in name only) site is a perfect example of this:
Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading homosexual pressure group, says the federal ban on accepting blood donations from “men who have sex with men” is “discriminatory
The entire article talks about comments Solmonese made regarding the CDC ban on accepting donations from men who have sex with men.
Its a well written piece, being sure to include all of the anti-gay industry talking points of so-called Biblical admonitions against homosexuality, distortions of old articles (an article from 2006 relating how gay activists in South Africa were allegedly trying to taint the blood supply there - having of course nothing to do with the United States), and even a little mention of our friend Sally Kern.
The article pretty much attacks Solmonese for comments he made regarding the CDC ban:
Solmonese recently placed politics over science, falsely declaring this commonsense public health precaution to be “discriminatory.” He has called for the ban to be lifted, with the wildly irresponsible claim that, “[T]here is no medical or scientific rationale for this discriminatory policy.”
But it omits something very important; something very crucial.
The entire controversy over Solmonese's comments came about last week, as this Concerned Women for America press release proves.
Solmonese's comments came about because of a hearing at the Food and Drug Administration in which the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers all said that the ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men since 1977 should be lifted.
Solmonese was merely commenting on this testimony.
Now the links to Solmonese's comments on the Americans for Truth (in name only) web page are to a January 2008 article regarding a Seattle blood bank.
It seemed that Barber knew about the testimony from the hearing and rather than being forced to mention the parts about the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and the America's Blood Centers, he decided to dig and find earlier comments from Solmonese about the CDC ban.
The following comment is on both the original CWA press release and the article on LaBarbera's web page:
Solmonese recently placed politics over science, falsely declaring this commonsense public health precaution to be “discriminatory.” He has called for the ban to be lifted, with the wildly irresponsible claim that, “[T]here is no medical or scientific rationale for this discriminatory policy.”
Now some may say big deal, this doesn't mean anything.
But that mindset is wrong.
The original press release by Barber and company had to do with Solmonese's comments about the hearing. But because Solmonese's comments were backed up by credible officials from the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and America's Blood Centers, attacking Solmonese over them would have been futile.
So Barber or his cohorts dug up comments by Solmonese from two months ago talking about the very same subject. That way, they didn't have to mention the hearing or the organizations whom Solmonese's comments were referring to. They could continue to push forth the false image of the "reckless homosexual who will endanger America while pursuing his agenda."
Some people may not see that there is anything wrong with what Barber and company did but I think there is.
It's unethical and highly irresponsible.
Attempting to distort someone's comments is bad but the fact that these folks are doing it in the name of Christian values goes beyond the pale.
You see this is a perfect example of the levels that some people will stoop to in order to demonize the lgbt community. They claim to have nothing but love in their hearts but with their poison pens filled with enough venom to kill a herd of elephants they work little by little to dehumanize the lgbt community.
My question is how low can they stoop after this?
Nothing will shock me anymore.
Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America, Peter LaBarbera and the rest of the anti-gay industry like to constantly beat the same tired drum of lies, claiming that the gay community wants to endanger America and silence Christians.
They are telling blatant lies, of course. And today's posting on the Americans for Truth (in name only) site is a perfect example of this:
Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading homosexual pressure group, says the federal ban on accepting blood donations from “men who have sex with men” is “discriminatory
The entire article talks about comments Solmonese made regarding the CDC ban on accepting donations from men who have sex with men.
Its a well written piece, being sure to include all of the anti-gay industry talking points of so-called Biblical admonitions against homosexuality, distortions of old articles (an article from 2006 relating how gay activists in South Africa were allegedly trying to taint the blood supply there - having of course nothing to do with the United States), and even a little mention of our friend Sally Kern.
The article pretty much attacks Solmonese for comments he made regarding the CDC ban:
Solmonese recently placed politics over science, falsely declaring this commonsense public health precaution to be “discriminatory.” He has called for the ban to be lifted, with the wildly irresponsible claim that, “[T]here is no medical or scientific rationale for this discriminatory policy.”
But it omits something very important; something very crucial.
The entire controversy over Solmonese's comments came about last week, as this Concerned Women for America press release proves.
Solmonese's comments came about because of a hearing at the Food and Drug Administration in which the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers all said that the ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men since 1977 should be lifted.
Solmonese was merely commenting on this testimony.
Now the links to Solmonese's comments on the Americans for Truth (in name only) web page are to a January 2008 article regarding a Seattle blood bank.
It seemed that Barber knew about the testimony from the hearing and rather than being forced to mention the parts about the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and the America's Blood Centers, he decided to dig and find earlier comments from Solmonese about the CDC ban.
The following comment is on both the original CWA press release and the article on LaBarbera's web page:
Solmonese recently placed politics over science, falsely declaring this commonsense public health precaution to be “discriminatory.” He has called for the ban to be lifted, with the wildly irresponsible claim that, “[T]here is no medical or scientific rationale for this discriminatory policy.”
Now some may say big deal, this doesn't mean anything.
But that mindset is wrong.
The original press release by Barber and company had to do with Solmonese's comments about the hearing. But because Solmonese's comments were backed up by credible officials from the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and America's Blood Centers, attacking Solmonese over them would have been futile.
So Barber or his cohorts dug up comments by Solmonese from two months ago talking about the very same subject. That way, they didn't have to mention the hearing or the organizations whom Solmonese's comments were referring to. They could continue to push forth the false image of the "reckless homosexual who will endanger America while pursuing his agenda."
Some people may not see that there is anything wrong with what Barber and company did but I think there is.
It's unethical and highly irresponsible.
Attempting to distort someone's comments is bad but the fact that these folks are doing it in the name of Christian values goes beyond the pale.
You see this is a perfect example of the levels that some people will stoop to in order to demonize the lgbt community. They claim to have nothing but love in their hearts but with their poison pens filled with enough venom to kill a herd of elephants they work little by little to dehumanize the lgbt community.
My question is how low can they stoop after this?
Nothing will shock me anymore.
What else can be said about you know who?
I've said pretty much all I could say about Ms. Kern. So barring something new happening, let me relate what will happen next:
She will probably get a rally. Peter LaBarbera and Janet Folger will attend and present her an award. She will be called a "defender of the American family." And she will probably say a speech or issue a statement on how "this time has been trying for her and her family but her faith in God has gotten her through."
Such is life.
But I think this story isn't over yet. Kern fears that gays will attain political power. Those supporting her, especially on the site One News Now, fear that we will continue to become a part of the mainstream of this country.
They are right and I think we should continue to give them more to fear about. Ultimately this fight over lgbt self-determination will come down to us being politically active and intelligently involved.
And despite all they do and say, all the times they pat themselves on the back, the anti-gay industry need to ask themselves just what their behavior is doing to the view of Christianity.
All actions have reactions. And sooner or later, all of the lies told about lgbts, all the dehumanizations, all of the distortions and discredited studies are going to add up.
And I don't think the anti-gay industry will be able to afford the bill.
I've said pretty much all I could say about Ms. Kern. So barring something new happening, let me relate what will happen next:
She will probably get a rally. Peter LaBarbera and Janet Folger will attend and present her an award. She will be called a "defender of the American family." And she will probably say a speech or issue a statement on how "this time has been trying for her and her family but her faith in God has gotten her through."
Such is life.
But I think this story isn't over yet. Kern fears that gays will attain political power. Those supporting her, especially on the site One News Now, fear that we will continue to become a part of the mainstream of this country.
They are right and I think we should continue to give them more to fear about. Ultimately this fight over lgbt self-determination will come down to us being politically active and intelligently involved.
And despite all they do and say, all the times they pat themselves on the back, the anti-gay industry need to ask themselves just what their behavior is doing to the view of Christianity.
All actions have reactions. And sooner or later, all of the lies told about lgbts, all the dehumanizations, all of the distortions and discredited studies are going to add up.
And I don't think the anti-gay industry will be able to afford the bill.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Janet Folger distorts studies to defend Sally Kern - should we be shocked?
Sally Kern was on a local program, KFOR TV's Flashpoint, talking about her comments.
Taking the other side of the debate was Scott Jones, an openly gay pastor at the Cathedral Of Hope in Oklahoma City.
I was very disappointed.
I understand the need to not shout and talk over each other during a debate but Mr. Jones was a little too milquetoast for my tastes. Kern talked over him and was able to go off on long monologues.
It wouldn't have hurt for him to say every now and then, "Excuse me ma'am but can I get a word in edgewise."
Really though, that sort of thing is a conundrum in our community. On one hand, we have people who want extreme action regarding Kern and folks like her. They have sent ugly emails to her expressing their objections to her comments.
And on the other, folks with access to television and the media seem to appeal to the victim mentality:
"Sally Kern's words are going to cause more hate to be thrown at the lgbt community. More gays may get beaten up because of her."
I don't like either voice. One is too ugly and the other makes lgbts look like victims.
There has to be a medium. And I have yet to see it played out.
A lot of what Kern said is incorrect on a scientific level. But she plays that Anita Bryant card. That is when someone says some of the most outrageous things about lgbts, but then claim that "love" caused them to say such things.
"I don't hate homosexuals," they would say, "I just hate their lifestyle."
Why is it so impossible for someone to say "Sally Kern, you have claimed that medical information says that homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle. Let's see you back it up."
Yes I have said this on more than one occasion. And I am saying it again because I have yet to see someone ask her about this.
And that debate was yet another way for her to hide her lies behind her religion.
Meanwhile, our friend Janet Folger has risen to defend Kern. And she distorts medical information:
The Canadian Medical Association Journal (Jan. 11, 2000) said, "Among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has reduced life expectancy by up to 20 years."
According to the New England Journal of Medicine (Feb. 12, 1998), smoking, on the other hand, reduces your life expectancy "7.3 years for men and 6.0 years for women."
Homosexuality is three times more dangerous than smoking. Think about that when they insist on teaching it to your children. And that doesn't even touch the other life-threatening risks ranging from hepatitis to fatal rectal cancer.
Folger omitted that in 2001, the authors of the Vancouver study went on record saying that their work was being distorted. They also said:
It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.
You see people like Folger is where Kern gets her information. And while we are focused on the religious aspect of what is said or how to be victims, Folger gets away with peddling her lies.
By concentrating on the ugly emails and then debating folks who seem to go overboard in being "polite," Kern and her defenders are slowly doing very well to turn the lgbt community into the aggressors and her as the innocent victim.
And whose fault is that?
Sally Kern was on a local program, KFOR TV's Flashpoint, talking about her comments.
Taking the other side of the debate was Scott Jones, an openly gay pastor at the Cathedral Of Hope in Oklahoma City.
I was very disappointed.
I understand the need to not shout and talk over each other during a debate but Mr. Jones was a little too milquetoast for my tastes. Kern talked over him and was able to go off on long monologues.
It wouldn't have hurt for him to say every now and then, "Excuse me ma'am but can I get a word in edgewise."
Really though, that sort of thing is a conundrum in our community. On one hand, we have people who want extreme action regarding Kern and folks like her. They have sent ugly emails to her expressing their objections to her comments.
And on the other, folks with access to television and the media seem to appeal to the victim mentality:
"Sally Kern's words are going to cause more hate to be thrown at the lgbt community. More gays may get beaten up because of her."
I don't like either voice. One is too ugly and the other makes lgbts look like victims.
There has to be a medium. And I have yet to see it played out.
A lot of what Kern said is incorrect on a scientific level. But she plays that Anita Bryant card. That is when someone says some of the most outrageous things about lgbts, but then claim that "love" caused them to say such things.
"I don't hate homosexuals," they would say, "I just hate their lifestyle."
Why is it so impossible for someone to say "Sally Kern, you have claimed that medical information says that homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle. Let's see you back it up."
Yes I have said this on more than one occasion. And I am saying it again because I have yet to see someone ask her about this.
And that debate was yet another way for her to hide her lies behind her religion.
Meanwhile, our friend Janet Folger has risen to defend Kern. And she distorts medical information:
The Canadian Medical Association Journal (Jan. 11, 2000) said, "Among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has reduced life expectancy by up to 20 years."
According to the New England Journal of Medicine (Feb. 12, 1998), smoking, on the other hand, reduces your life expectancy "7.3 years for men and 6.0 years for women."
Homosexuality is three times more dangerous than smoking. Think about that when they insist on teaching it to your children. And that doesn't even touch the other life-threatening risks ranging from hepatitis to fatal rectal cancer.
Folger omitted that in 2001, the authors of the Vancouver study went on record saying that their work was being distorted. They also said:
It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.
You see people like Folger is where Kern gets her information. And while we are focused on the religious aspect of what is said or how to be victims, Folger gets away with peddling her lies.
By concentrating on the ugly emails and then debating folks who seem to go overboard in being "polite," Kern and her defenders are slowly doing very well to turn the lgbt community into the aggressors and her as the innocent victim.
And whose fault is that?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Short post today
How is this for comedy: I received a check from AT&T for the grand total of . . . $.11.
That's not a typo. They sent me a check for eleven cents.
It just marks how strange and slow this day has been.
But check out these links:
A Boy the Bullies Love to Beat Up, Repeatedly
Apples vs. oranges; homosexuality vs. homicide
Exhibit A: Pat Buchanan - why we desperately need to discuss race
And don' think that I have forgotten about Ms. Sally Kern. This weekend, One News Now published a distorted article that claimed Kern was being sued for her comments.
Today, the story is gone from the front page. I'm sure that it is still in the archives, but I also noticed that the article isn't listed in One News Now's popular story archive.
Just more proof as to how reluctant the anti-gay industry is to defend Kern.
How is this for comedy: I received a check from AT&T for the grand total of . . . $.11.
That's not a typo. They sent me a check for eleven cents.
It just marks how strange and slow this day has been.
But check out these links:
A Boy the Bullies Love to Beat Up, Repeatedly
Apples vs. oranges; homosexuality vs. homicide
Exhibit A: Pat Buchanan - why we desperately need to discuss race
And don' think that I have forgotten about Ms. Sally Kern. This weekend, One News Now published a distorted article that claimed Kern was being sued for her comments.
Today, the story is gone from the front page. I'm sure that it is still in the archives, but I also noticed that the article isn't listed in One News Now's popular story archive.
Just more proof as to how reluctant the anti-gay industry is to defend Kern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)