Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
From the United Kingdom comes a situation regarding gay adoption which I am sure the religious right in this country will try to exploit for its own purposes:
Dr Sheila Matthews, who has been a medical adviser to the Council’s adoption panel for five years, said she believed it would be “inappropriate” to place children in a household with same sex parents.
“Using my professional judgement and having done a lot of reading around the subject, I am satisfied that there are research findings which support my position that a same sex partnership is not the best family setting to bring up children,” she said. . . . "This conflicts with my professional, religious and personal integrity.”
Dr Matthews was told in April by the Council’s Head of Services for Children, Young People and Families, Martin Pratt, that she could no longer be on the panel and that another medical adviser would be found to replace her.
She has sought advice from the Christian Legal Centre. Its director Andrea Minichiello Williams said her case was another example of “how a well respected professional who holds conscientious views on sexual practice, informed by Christian faith, is being asked to choose between her faith and her job."
. . . “And devout Christians are suffering the consequences,” she said. “This is not the mark of a free and civilised society where freedom of speech and religion is carefully guarded.”
This isn't anything new. In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston in Massachusetts announced that the agency would end its adoption work rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.
So this case may give the religious right more proof that the "gay agenda forces people to choose between their jobs and beliefs."
Therefore, if the lgbt community takes on the religious right in this situation without flipping the script a bit, we are walking into their trap.
You see, adoption is not about the lgbt community nor about the beliefs of those who would place these children. Ultimately, adoption is about giving children good homes.
Now I don't know what Dr. Matthews has been reading (I think I have a good idea, unfortunately), but the vast amount of research out there says no child suffers adverse affects from being placed in a same-sex household.
Regardless of how she spins it, Dr. Matthews is placing her personal beliefs above the needs of the child.
If someone on any adoption board does this, then he or she needs to be removed, point blank.
Also, how far does this "my personal beliefs won't allow it," nonsense go? Will the "personal beliefs" card be allowed when it comes placing children in households of different ethnic origins.
You see how complicated this thing gets when people on these boards start deviating from their actual mission - that mission being to find a child a good home.
Removing Dr. Matthews was the right thing to do. In the cases of adoptions, the needs of the children should always come first. Everything else, especially the personal religious beliefs (however deeply held) of those choosing the homes, is incidental.
On the edge: Religious militancy in the Queen City - For years, Charlotte Pride has been besieged with very vocal anti-gay protesters. This year may be a bit more troubling than most as Matt Comer shows in this special report.
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm . . . Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.” - Paul Cameron, Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999
Not many people in the lgbt community or the world know who Paul Cameron is.
But we all should.
Paul Cameron is the grandfather of all anti-gay junk science.
When the religious right compares us to pedophiles, when they claim that we have a short life span, when they talk about how "how homosexuality has dangerous physical and medical consequences," it's his discredited "data" that they are inferring.
Paul Cameron is probably singlehandedly responsible for every lie, every distortion, every bastardization of science that has plagued the lgbt community since the onset of the AIDS crisis.
His bad research techniques and tactics has led him to be dismissed from major scientific groups, as well as censured by conservatives and liberals alike.
Unfortunately these techniques and tactics also gave the religious right a "scientific component" to attack the lgbt community. If there was no Paul Cameron, there would be no Peter LaBarbera, no Matt Barber, no Linda Harvey, etc., etc.
The following clips are of Paul Cameron in Poland this year, where he was barred from speaking at a university after his dubious history was made known.
I think you can see the ugly homophobia that has tainted his research from the beginning, especially with his fascination with anal sex in the gay community (of course he omits how heterosexuals also participate in this activity), and his claim that he has been the victim of a conspiracy of "ad hominem" attacks.
The "real fun" starts at 2:45 in this clip when he begins talking about how gays have a supposedly high rate of molesting children.
Now in second this clip, he goes into full detail about anal sex, making sure to imply that it is solely "gay behavior." He also talks about how the attacks against him have been unfair because all he is doing is presenting data that the gay community also presents. He also tells a huge bold-faced lie (as if his entire presentation isn't a lie) when he says that gays aren't showing any evidence that his work is inaccurate.
Of course Cameron omits several things. There is a reason why he has to go to foreign countries to present his "studies." He is a laughing stock in the United States. While religious right groups fully exploit the so-called results behind his studies, they are careful not to call him by name. There is a reason for that.
Let's take a quick look at his history:
"Right now, here in Lincoln, there is a 4-year-old boy who has had his genitals almost severed from his body at Gateway in the rest room with a homosexual act… It’s really awkward. I could see where Gateway would want to suppress this. I could see where the parents would want to suppress it. It could be just a rumor. But enough things have happened recently so that such a thing doesn’t have to be invented.” - Paul Cameron told this story to a group in 1982 in Lincoln, NB in an attempt to kill a human rightsordinance. The police discovered the story to be false but the ordinance was defeated.
And let's not forget the condemnations rained down on him by the medical community:
“(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” - Dr. A. Nicholas Groth in 1984 after discovering that Cameron distorted his work.
"Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - American Psychological Association, 1983
The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - Nebraska Psychological Association, 1984
Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" - American Sociological Association, 1985
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. - Canadian Psychological Association, 1996
And while we are at it, let's not forget those on the right who dismiss Cameron's work:
"Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron's study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years." - former Ronald Regan Cabinet member William Bennett criticizing Cameron's "gay lifespan study." - New Republic (1998, February 23, page 4)
Paul Cameron has been censured and attacked not because his "research" is controversial, but because it is wrong. He ranks right up there with folks who think that the Earth is flat. His organization, the Family Research Institute, has been declared an official hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
And not because it embraces the belief that homosexuality is a sin. According to Mark Potok, the director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Cameron's group has that designation because Cameron consciously lies about the lgbt community.
The sad fact that Cameron has credibility anywhere (not matter where it is) is testament to people's need to believe that their beliefs are somehow superior to others' beliefs.
This unfortunate need to feel superior has plagued mankind from the beginning of time. And, as in the beginning of time, there will always be people like Paul Cameron to exploit it.
And despite all that has been said about Cameron's lies, this link shows that he still has a degree of credibility with some people, including Peter LaBarbera, Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research Council.
One of our favorite anti-gay spokespeople, Peter LaBarbera, responded today to a letter sent to him by a young man accusing him of hate. This is the young man's letter:
Yes Peter, AFTAH and all other hate groups in America have complete freedom to publish, preach, and teach all the hate they choose to publish, preach, and teach. The Constitution holds for all. What hates [sic] groups such as AFTAH can not do is discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender expression, sex, race, or religion in public accomodations, employment, and other areas of public life. It is really rather simple: in public act civilized, in private hate anyone you wish as hatefully as you wish. I note you never publish nor reply to my rational and truthful letters. Odd, that is.
Naturally Peter pushes a long answer that evades the question. He brings up the usual ridiculous talking points and phrases such as about "intolerant gays," "how dare you attack me when I only trying to uphold Judeo-Christian values," and my favorite, "there are no ex-blacks, but thousands of ex-gays."
Then LaBarbera has the temerity to say this:
Let me leave you with this plea: repent of your sins and follow God. He will wipe your slate clean. Jesus Christ loves sinners, but He does “hate” sin, and died in our place so that we could spend eternity with God, and not face the judgment we surely deserve as sinners who constantly fall short of His righteous and holy standard. I will ask AFTAH readers to pray for you.
Coming from Peter, that has to be the oddest thing I have ever read. I simply had to write him the following:
Dear Peter,
I read your letter to Richard and I find it so hypocrtical on so many levels.
But the main level is how can you tell Richard to repent of HIS sins when you have sinned so many times when you tell lies on gays and lesbians. Just because you don't bring up what you have done doesn't mean God does not see it. To demonize an entire community (and knowingly relying on distorted or bad studies) is tantamount to lying. That makes you a liar. And it also makes you a sinner. The fact that you refuse to address your own sins while judging someone else on their supposed sins makes you a hypocrite.
Face it. You have no moral authority to talk about anyone's sins when you don't address your own.
In other words, before Peter starts praying about someone else's supposed sins, he needs to pray about his own.
What if two women in a relationship agreed that one would be artificially inseminated with a child.
What if the woman who did not carry the child signed co-parenting and co-guardianship agreements near the time the baby was born.
What if after the baby was born, the two women had a fight which ended up in a court case where the one who did not carry the child wanted the other to abide by the agreements?
A 3rd District judge, citing a 2008 Utah law, upheld Dickson's "fundamental" right, as the biological parent, to refuse visitation.
"I never want him to think I gave him up voluntarily. I never abandoned him," Edvalson wrote on her blog. "I loved him, and I love him still."
The case highlights the predicament of same-sex parents in Utah, a state where gay and lesbian couples cannot marry, adopt children or even expect their own contracts for shared parenting and guardianship to stand in court.
Dickson, who has termed herself bisexual, has moved on and married a man. Evaldson is trying to pick up the pieces.
You want to know the ugly irony of the entire thing?:
As her lawyer, Dickson hired Frank Mylar. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:
Mylar, a former Utah attorney general candidate, belongs to a conservative alliance of "Christian attorneys," the Alliance Defense Fund, and regularly fights against the extension of rights for gay and lesbian couples. He did just that in pushing changes to the 2008 law that severely limited Edvalson's ability to press for visitation in court.
That's the same law which led to Evaldson losing the case.
Just something to remember the next time we slash each other to death in the blogs and in our individual little groups. While we are directing venom towards ourselves, the other side is creating intricate interlocking tunnels to quantify their bullshit.
Tonight, one of our favorite anti-gay spokespeople, Peter LaBarbera, and his group Americans for Truth will have a dinner lecture featuring Arthur Goldberg, Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality).
In "celebration" of that dinner lecture, I think it's appropriate to bring some truth to a JONAH piece LaBarbera has on his webpage, Gay ‘Marriage’: Bad Science, Bad Politics:
The group JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) is another one of those annoying ex-gay groups.
This one however is centered on the Jewish community. But that is the only difference is has from the other ex-gay groups.
The similarities as seen in the piece Gay ‘Marriage’: Bad Science, Bad Politics is how they incorporate religious right distortions in their claims about homosexuality.
Rather than break it down for you (you can read the piece if you want), I decided to show you the letter I emailed to Arthur Goldberg and Michelle Cretella, the authors of the piece:
Dear Arthur Goldberg and Michelle Cretella,
I read your piece, Gay marriage: Bad science, bad politics. I want to make you aware of the fact that it contained a huge amount of errors. Allow me to go through them one by one:
1. You said:
Dr. Robert Spitzer, changed his own lifetime view. He published a study in 2003 confirming that many dissatisfied homosexuals are able to make substantial long-term changes in orientation.
However, in a 2006 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Spitzer said that he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his study may have been either lying to him or themselves. - Ex-Gays Seek a Say in Schools, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2006
2. You said:
Drs. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, both openly homosexual, studied 156 male couples who had lived together for 20 years or more. To their dismay, they found that the longest period of sexual monogamy for those couples was five years; the average was under two years.
You omitted the fact that McWhirter and Mattison in their book (published in 1984) said their research could not be used to generalize about 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.”
3. You said:
"During the 1990s many gay-affirming countries legalized same-sex marriage. The instability of homosexual relationships, however, remained unchanged. For example, a 2003 Dutch study found the average male homosexual partnership lasted only 1.5 years "
While you did not indicate where you got this information from, I suspect you took it from a study conducted by one Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service.
If this is true, then again you are inaccurate. You see, Dr. Xiridou received her information from the Amsterdam Cohort Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and AIDS Among Homosexual Men. To gain this information, researchers studied 1,800 gay men between the years of 1984- 2001.
Same sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001, thus making the information irrelevant to your points about gay marriage. - Overview of the Amsterdam cohort studies among homosexual men and drug users, www.amsterdamcohortstudies.org/menu/acsoverview.htm
4. You said:
Inherent health risks of the gay lifestyle present another issue. Life expectancy for men who have sex with men, according to a 1997 International Journal of Epidemiology study is eight to 20 years less than that of heterosexual men.
You omitted the fact that in 2001, the six authors of that study went on record complaining about how their work was being distorted by folks like yourself - Gay Life Expectancy Revisited, International Journal of Epidemiology, http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
Basically what I am trying to say is that your work is shoddy. Might I suggest that in the future, you do the actual work and not plagiarize from religoius right studies. They tend to be very phony.
By the way, I emailed this to Goldberg and company. Naturally I have yet to receive a response.
I've been having a very interesting email exchange with Peter LaBarbera regarding his stigmatization of the lgbt community.
For LaBarbera, every lie he tells is justifiable because of his belief that gay men have "health risks" greater than that of heterosexuals. In fact, it's something he likes to highlight every chance he gets:
“Barack Obama’s homosexual agenda is beginning to take shape – but he has no election mandate to impose GLSEN’s radical vision of celebrating homosexuality, bisexuality and gender confusion (transsexuality) in U.S. schools,” LaBarbera said. “Anti-religious bigots should not be setting policy for schools — and promoting dangerous sex and gender identities to youth is the antithesis of ‘safety.’ (Men who have sex with other men (MSM) suffer from much higher rates of sexual diseases – including anal cancer, HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea — than non-MSMs.)
LaBarbera also argues that many liberal school districts teach false facts about AIDS. He says they imply that everyone is at equal risk for contracting the disease -- even though in 2005 71 percent of U.S. male AIDS cases involved homosexuals. He contends that many American young people are not being informed about other health risks associated with homosexuality either -- such as increased infections of the Hepatitis B or C virus and the herpes virus. "We have all this evidence out there that homosexual behavior is dangerous," the activist point out, "and yet our politically correct elites are promoting gay identity" to teens and children.
And he is not the only one to assert this "gays are dangerous because of their behavior" claim:
If there was ever a clarion call for our entire society to say with one united voice that homosexual behavior is a danger to health and should be discouraged at all costs, this is it. We've found one voice as a society with regard to drug use and drunk driving; it's time we find it with regard to homosexual behavior. - Bryan Fischer
In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one’s health than a lifetime of chain smoking. - Matt Barber
The "homosexuality is a health risk" factoid is a popular talking point in religious right circles. It stems from manipulating legitimate medical information regarding disease and the lgbt community. Rather than go into detail about just how this information is manipulated, I'm going to take another route.
I found this video on youtube. I dare anyone to tell me the difference between it and the nonsense about the supposed "health risks of homosexuality" factoid pushed by the religious right:
