The Depths of One Man's Homophobia
Before I start, I would just like to say that the anti-gay industry's nastiness to Mary Cheney and her partner Heather Poe over the birth their son just goes to prove that these groups are solely interested in forcing us to acknowledge the lie that the only family unit that counts is the one they advocate. No one is immune to their mania.
Peter LaBarbera has made a name for himself by attending gay subcultural events and reporting on the alleged sexual activities he sees there.
Today he and his group, Americans for Truth (in name only) posted pictures from the International Mr. Leather convention.
The pictures are very interesting to say the least. But something else Peter said when he was describing the events caught my eye:
International Mr. Leather (IML) serves as an annual excuse for “leathermen” — mostly homosexual men but some “straight” SM couples — to engage in vile orgies that would make Sodom blush.
So where are the pictures of these "straight" couples? They aren't anywhere to be seen.
Peter tries to link International Mr. Leather to other gay events such as the Gay Games in an attempt to cast an image the "depraved homosexual" attempting to destroy American society but he seems to have listed the fact that heterosexual couples are as "depraved" as a mere afterthought.
And that is the best way to describe LaBarbera's prejudice.
He and others like him are always whining that they don't hate gay people and they are unfairly called homophobic for allegedly speaking the truth.
But what do you call denigrating gays for an interest in a sexual behavior (SM/bondage) while making light of the fact that heterosexuals are interested in the same sexual behavior.
Just where is the truth in that?
And for that matter, where are Peter's exposes on heterosexual events such as swinging conventions? Or how about SM and bondage clubs and conventions attended by heterosexuals.
Peter won't take up this challenge. No one in his group will.
And why?
Because they are homophobes. Pure and simple.
Misrepresentation: It's not just Janet Folgers' job
I joyfully give Janet Folger hell for misrepresenting current events in order to demonize the lgbt community.
But I am wrong if I inferred in any way that she is the only one in the anti-gay industry who engages in this type of behavior.
Case in point is a column today by Ed Vitagliano of the American Family Assocation.
It is the same nonsensical mantra about how the lgbt community is trying to keep Christians from speaking out against homosexuality.
Vitagliano engages in the standard anti-gay industry tactic in his column: distorting examples of incidents that allegedly prove his point. Many of his examples happen in foreign countries and therefore have nothing to do with the laws of this country. In one American example, he infers that the Repent America situation in Philadelphia was a case of Christians arrested merely for handing out pamphlets which call homosexuality a sin?
This is a lie that has been refuted time and time again. I cannot believe that it is accidental that Vitagliano, who has access to much information on the matter, continues to lie about this matter.
Another example he lists from this country is the following:
Regina Rederford and fellow city employee Robin Christy posted the announcement after a general e-mail to city employees publicizing the formation of a pro-homosexual employee association. But in a world where one view is promoted and another condemned, Rederford and Christy were told by city officials that the flyer announcing the forum was "homophobic speech" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment," even though homosexuality was never specifically mentioned.
As to be expected, Vitagliano omits several details. Here is the true story. You can link to the other site and read the entire article. I bolded points that I felt were important:
Promoting their Good News Employee Association, the flier urged people to "preserve our workplace with integrity" and said their association "is a forum for people of faith to express their views on contemporary issues of the day with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values."
Another CEDA worker who is a lesbian complained to supervisors that the flier made her feel targeted and excluded; supervisors reviewed the flier and removed it, encouraging Rederford and Christy to revise and repost it.
Rederford and Christy sued, claiming their rights were violated by an Oakland anti discrimination policy that promotes homosexuality and denounces Christian values. A federal judge dismissed the city as a defendant in March 2004, and in February 2005 granted summary judgment in favor of then-City Manager Robert Bobb and CEDA Deputy Executive Director Joyce Hicks. Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher on Thursday asked Lively whether his clients realize they have "a rather low level of protection" on potentially incendiary or discriminatory language in the workplace, and should "keep away from words that'll rile people up."
"But shouldn't that go both ways?" Lively replied, noting his clients hadn't complained about the National Coming Out Day e-mail.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta noted that e-mail had invited readers to "a rally against hatred and bigotry -- is that disparaging to your clients?"
Circuit Judge Richard Clifton said he believes "there are eggshells on both sides" of this argument, yet he doesn't see what the e-mail had done to vilify Rederford and Christy while it's not hard to see how their flier vilified gays and lesbians. "It's hard to avoid the inference, 'We lack ethics, we lack integrity because these people are here.'"
So was this a case of women getting into trouble for speaking out against homosexuality?
No. It was not the words but the context of the words that got these two women into trouble.
They had a right to form their group and put a flyer out. But in their choice of words, they attacked the company's gay and lesbian employees. They were told that they could revise the flyer but apparently chose not to.
These women should not be able to encourage a hostile work environment simply because of their Christian beliefs. Sorry, it's not fair.
But even more to the point, how Vitagliano listed this example proves yet again that members of the anti-gay industry will lie and misrepresent to get their agenda served.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Shrek is a radical gay activist!
Sometimes I wonder about the so-called "pro-family" forces.
No matter how much benefit of the doubt I try to give them, some are determined to make themselves look like people obsessed with the lgbt community.
Case in point, this new bit by Fran Eaton of the Illinois Review, and picked up by our friends at Americans for Truth (in name only) :
Shrek's not the problem. It's the awkward inclusion of a transvestite and the uselessness of the character himself (herself?) in the story that is troubling.
Right in the midst of a warm "traditional family" setting, the film writers place a man dressed as a woman in with Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White (the good gals). The crossdressing character simply doesn't make sense, except as a ploy to desensitize children and parents to transgenders.
Homosexual activists now are careful to not only use the term "LGBTs" as a unit, they are more boldly now declaring lesbians-gays-bisexuals-transgenders as a unit pushing together as one for civil rights. Those confused about their sexual roles are pushing for equal rights to be free to publicly demonstrate their odd sexual behavior. For transgenders, appearing to be a different sex in public is their particular turn on. We need to understand that acceptance of this sexual behavior is just another step moving our world toward sexual chaos.
You read it right. She is attacking the movie Shrek 3 for including a "man dressed as a woman" as one of the characters.
Now at first I thought she was talking about the crossdressing Big Bad Wolf, but apparently she was describing one of Cinderella's ugly stepsisters.
I swear I don't know how she missed the Big Bad Wolf.
Anyway, I will ignore her blatant ignorance regarding our transgender brothers and sisters. Eaton's nasty comment is yet another attempt of the anti-gay industry to portray our lives as that of irreverent sexual pursuits.
She does have a "point" about the attempts to "sneak" homosexuality in popular culture. Cases in point:
Batman and Robin - Now this is a no-brainer. I always wondered why Batman made Robin dress in those tight green shorts, short shirt and cute green booties. Doesn't he know it ain't easy fighting crime when you are getting a perpetual wedgie.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Snow White was nothing but a big ole "fag hag." Remember, those dwarfs lived together in that cottage in the woods before she showed up. Sounds kinda butch to me.
The Smurfs - Same case as Snow White. And didn't you wonder about that close relationship between Brainy and Clumsy Smurf? In their defense, we know that at least one of the Smurfs was bisexual. A year after Smurfette showed up, Baby Smurf mysteriously appeared.
Huckleberry Finn - Come on now. A big black guy and a little white twink alone on the raft in the middle of the Mississippi River? Now we know the real reason why Huck didn't want to turn Jim in.
Pinocchio - The story of a fairy, an old man who wants a "real boy," and a nose that grows and recedes like a penis. Somebody call Peter LaBarbera!!!!!
Sometimes I wonder about the so-called "pro-family" forces.
No matter how much benefit of the doubt I try to give them, some are determined to make themselves look like people obsessed with the lgbt community.
Case in point, this new bit by Fran Eaton of the Illinois Review, and picked up by our friends at Americans for Truth (in name only) :
Shrek's not the problem. It's the awkward inclusion of a transvestite and the uselessness of the character himself (herself?) in the story that is troubling.
Right in the midst of a warm "traditional family" setting, the film writers place a man dressed as a woman in with Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White (the good gals). The crossdressing character simply doesn't make sense, except as a ploy to desensitize children and parents to transgenders.
Homosexual activists now are careful to not only use the term "LGBTs" as a unit, they are more boldly now declaring lesbians-gays-bisexuals-transgenders as a unit pushing together as one for civil rights. Those confused about their sexual roles are pushing for equal rights to be free to publicly demonstrate their odd sexual behavior. For transgenders, appearing to be a different sex in public is their particular turn on. We need to understand that acceptance of this sexual behavior is just another step moving our world toward sexual chaos.
You read it right. She is attacking the movie Shrek 3 for including a "man dressed as a woman" as one of the characters.
Now at first I thought she was talking about the crossdressing Big Bad Wolf, but apparently she was describing one of Cinderella's ugly stepsisters.
I swear I don't know how she missed the Big Bad Wolf.
Anyway, I will ignore her blatant ignorance regarding our transgender brothers and sisters. Eaton's nasty comment is yet another attempt of the anti-gay industry to portray our lives as that of irreverent sexual pursuits.
She does have a "point" about the attempts to "sneak" homosexuality in popular culture. Cases in point:
Batman and Robin - Now this is a no-brainer. I always wondered why Batman made Robin dress in those tight green shorts, short shirt and cute green booties. Doesn't he know it ain't easy fighting crime when you are getting a perpetual wedgie.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Snow White was nothing but a big ole "fag hag." Remember, those dwarfs lived together in that cottage in the woods before she showed up. Sounds kinda butch to me.
The Smurfs - Same case as Snow White. And didn't you wonder about that close relationship between Brainy and Clumsy Smurf? In their defense, we know that at least one of the Smurfs was bisexual. A year after Smurfette showed up, Baby Smurf mysteriously appeared.
Huckleberry Finn - Come on now. A big black guy and a little white twink alone on the raft in the middle of the Mississippi River? Now we know the real reason why Huck didn't want to turn Jim in.
Pinocchio - The story of a fairy, an old man who wants a "real boy," and a nose that grows and recedes like a penis. Somebody call Peter LaBarbera!!!!!
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Janet Folger distorts yet again: It's getting to be a habit for her
And I thought Harry Jackson was bad.
Unlike Jackson, who is content with exploiting his racial heritage to attack hate crimes legislation, Janet Folger and her group, Faith2Action, has a more sophisticated method attacking the legislation.
Folger takes current events and manipulates them to make it seem that people are being criminalized for merely speaking out against homosexuality. This manipulation involves omitting certain key facts.
Case in point, her new screed that attacks gays and lesbians because a few of us had ugly things to say to commemorate Jerry Falwell's passing. I do not condone what was said, but there is also no excuse for Folger's following deception:
Those kind of hateful statements are perfectly acceptable, free from any repercussions of any kind. They get their own forum at the ACLU. However, if two 16-year-old Crystal Lake girls say an unkind word about homosexuals and pass out a few flyers to their classmates, they are in "violation of an Illinois state hate crime statute." They face felony charges and are locked up in juvenile detention while bail is denied.
But here is the true story:
Two female 16-year-old Crystal Lake South High School students face hate-crime charges after allegedly plastering their high school’s halls and distributing anti-gay fliers directed towards a fellow student in the school’s parking lot.
The actions against their former male friend landed the two girls in juvenile court on May 15, after being arrested by Crystal Lake police on May 11. Both, unnamed due to their ages, also face charges of obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct, and one teen faces an additional charge of resisting a police officer.
McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi told Windy City Times that despite arguments being made by many locals about the right to free speech, what the two girls did is clearly a hate crime.
“They had the intent to alarm and disturb another, and they were successful in that,” Bianchi said. “In alarming and disturbing, they also committed a hate crime. Their words ... were directed against a specific individual of a certain sexual orientation.”
Now there have been some disagreement whether or not what these two young ladies allegedly did constitutes a hate crime. Some gay blogs have taken opposing views of the situation.
I am of the opinion that if these two young ladies passed out the flyers in hopes of causing harm to the young man on the perceived notion that he was gay, then it can constitute a hate crime.
But one thing we can all agree on is the fact that Janet Folger distorted the situation.
Apparently in her world, who care about facts when your eyes are on the kingdom of Jesus.
And I thought Harry Jackson was bad.
Unlike Jackson, who is content with exploiting his racial heritage to attack hate crimes legislation, Janet Folger and her group, Faith2Action, has a more sophisticated method attacking the legislation.
Folger takes current events and manipulates them to make it seem that people are being criminalized for merely speaking out against homosexuality. This manipulation involves omitting certain key facts.
Case in point, her new screed that attacks gays and lesbians because a few of us had ugly things to say to commemorate Jerry Falwell's passing. I do not condone what was said, but there is also no excuse for Folger's following deception:
Those kind of hateful statements are perfectly acceptable, free from any repercussions of any kind. They get their own forum at the ACLU. However, if two 16-year-old Crystal Lake girls say an unkind word about homosexuals and pass out a few flyers to their classmates, they are in "violation of an Illinois state hate crime statute." They face felony charges and are locked up in juvenile detention while bail is denied.
But here is the true story:
Two female 16-year-old Crystal Lake South High School students face hate-crime charges after allegedly plastering their high school’s halls and distributing anti-gay fliers directed towards a fellow student in the school’s parking lot.
The actions against their former male friend landed the two girls in juvenile court on May 15, after being arrested by Crystal Lake police on May 11. Both, unnamed due to their ages, also face charges of obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct, and one teen faces an additional charge of resisting a police officer.
McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi told Windy City Times that despite arguments being made by many locals about the right to free speech, what the two girls did is clearly a hate crime.
“They had the intent to alarm and disturb another, and they were successful in that,” Bianchi said. “In alarming and disturbing, they also committed a hate crime. Their words ... were directed against a specific individual of a certain sexual orientation.”
Now there have been some disagreement whether or not what these two young ladies allegedly did constitutes a hate crime. Some gay blogs have taken opposing views of the situation.
I am of the opinion that if these two young ladies passed out the flyers in hopes of causing harm to the young man on the perceived notion that he was gay, then it can constitute a hate crime.
But one thing we can all agree on is the fact that Janet Folger distorted the situation.
Apparently in her world, who care about facts when your eyes are on the kingdom of Jesus.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Telling silence
Throughout last week's ado about Paul Cameron, there was a voice missing.
That of Paul Cameron's.
Other than a throw away comment from someone on Think Progress (comment 112), Cameron was conspicuously absent. And I was disappointed.
I was expecting him to make a comment about how the American Psychological Association did not dismiss him for bad research. For years, Cameron had asserted that he resigned from the group before being kicked out.
Of course this is another lie on his part. When Cameron supposedly resigned, he was under investigation and APA bylaws said that members under investigation were not allowed to resign.
Still, this lie gave Cameron a bit of legitimacy on sites like Free Republic when his research was challenged.
Not this time though.
And another telling thing about the situation was that no so-called "pro-family" group went public to defend Cameron.
Many of them, including Americans for Truth (in name only) published the press release announcing his "recent" study earlier this year but in this matter, they were silent.
Supposedly the San Francisco Chronicle unfairly linked Focus on the Family to Cameron's studies but this assertion didn't come from Focus on the Family. It came from Ex Gay Watch and Box Turtle Bulletin; two groups who don't exactly regard Focus on the Family as credible.
As admirable as it was for these groups to defend Focus on the Family, the fact that Dobson's group did not defend itself speaks volumes. Not because of the validity or non-validity of the claim, but because it seems that FOF choose to not get into a situation in which Cameron was involved.
It seems to me that so-called "pro-family" groups are slyly trying to divest themselves from Cameron and his studies.
In the late 80s and early 90s when the internet had not come into fashion, he was useful to them. They could use his work, despite the questions about it. There was very little work done to track Cameron
Now in the era of blogs, they can't get away with uncritically citing Cameron's research. So now, many so-called "pro family" groups are refusing to acknowledge him, pretending that they never used Cameron's work in the first place, and crossing their fingers in hopes that no one ever brings up the time when they did use Cameron's work.
I say we don't give them that luxury. The anti-gay industry house, if you will, is built on foundation of lies and bad studies.
And sooner or later, what happens to a house built on a bad foundation?
Harry Jackson and number four
For the fourth time in as many columns in conservative Townhall, black minister Harry Jackson has chosen to yet again attack adding lgbts to hate crime legislation.
This column in particular attack the recent polls that showed Americans approve of adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation.
I think the fact that in four consecutive columns, Jackson has chosen to attack hate crimes legislation underscores something.
He is trying to find a niche.
Unfortunately a bad side effect courtesy of Bush's re-election is the sideshow of black ministers jockeying for position in the Republican and conservative movement by attacking rights for gays and lesbians.
From Ken Hutcherson to Eddie Long to Harry Jackson, these ministers take it upon themselves to hold press conferences and rallies attacking gays and lesbians while at the same time holding their hands out for more "faith-based" initiative money and ignoring the needs of their lgbt church members.
Jackson's tear on hate crimes legislation is no doubt an attempt to put himself in the number one position.
Let's be real with the situation. Homosexuality in the black community is a divisive subject. And there will probably never be a concensus on the matter, despite the fact that many lgbts of color are present in the black community, including churches.
There needs to be a dialogue in the community about the issue.
But as long as those who are the leaders and who can start the dialogue (i.e. Jackson, Long, Hutcherson, etc.) take it upon themselves to shirk their duties and exploit the issue for maximum media saturation, there will never be any type of solution.
Throughout last week's ado about Paul Cameron, there was a voice missing.
That of Paul Cameron's.
Other than a throw away comment from someone on Think Progress (comment 112), Cameron was conspicuously absent. And I was disappointed.
I was expecting him to make a comment about how the American Psychological Association did not dismiss him for bad research. For years, Cameron had asserted that he resigned from the group before being kicked out.
Of course this is another lie on his part. When Cameron supposedly resigned, he was under investigation and APA bylaws said that members under investigation were not allowed to resign.
Still, this lie gave Cameron a bit of legitimacy on sites like Free Republic when his research was challenged.
Not this time though.
And another telling thing about the situation was that no so-called "pro-family" group went public to defend Cameron.
Many of them, including Americans for Truth (in name only) published the press release announcing his "recent" study earlier this year but in this matter, they were silent.
Supposedly the San Francisco Chronicle unfairly linked Focus on the Family to Cameron's studies but this assertion didn't come from Focus on the Family. It came from Ex Gay Watch and Box Turtle Bulletin; two groups who don't exactly regard Focus on the Family as credible.
As admirable as it was for these groups to defend Focus on the Family, the fact that Dobson's group did not defend itself speaks volumes. Not because of the validity or non-validity of the claim, but because it seems that FOF choose to not get into a situation in which Cameron was involved.
It seems to me that so-called "pro-family" groups are slyly trying to divest themselves from Cameron and his studies.
In the late 80s and early 90s when the internet had not come into fashion, he was useful to them. They could use his work, despite the questions about it. There was very little work done to track Cameron
Now in the era of blogs, they can't get away with uncritically citing Cameron's research. So now, many so-called "pro family" groups are refusing to acknowledge him, pretending that they never used Cameron's work in the first place, and crossing their fingers in hopes that no one ever brings up the time when they did use Cameron's work.
I say we don't give them that luxury. The anti-gay industry house, if you will, is built on foundation of lies and bad studies.
And sooner or later, what happens to a house built on a bad foundation?
Harry Jackson and number four
For the fourth time in as many columns in conservative Townhall, black minister Harry Jackson has chosen to yet again attack adding lgbts to hate crime legislation.
This column in particular attack the recent polls that showed Americans approve of adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation.
I think the fact that in four consecutive columns, Jackson has chosen to attack hate crimes legislation underscores something.
He is trying to find a niche.
Unfortunately a bad side effect courtesy of Bush's re-election is the sideshow of black ministers jockeying for position in the Republican and conservative movement by attacking rights for gays and lesbians.
From Ken Hutcherson to Eddie Long to Harry Jackson, these ministers take it upon themselves to hold press conferences and rallies attacking gays and lesbians while at the same time holding their hands out for more "faith-based" initiative money and ignoring the needs of their lgbt church members.
Jackson's tear on hate crimes legislation is no doubt an attempt to put himself in the number one position.
Let's be real with the situation. Homosexuality in the black community is a divisive subject. And there will probably never be a concensus on the matter, despite the fact that many lgbts of color are present in the black community, including churches.
There needs to be a dialogue in the community about the issue.
But as long as those who are the leaders and who can start the dialogue (i.e. Jackson, Long, Hutcherson, etc.) take it upon themselves to shirk their duties and exploit the issue for maximum media saturation, there will never be any type of solution.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Reiteration of the purpose of my book
Someone from another site asked a very good question about my upcoming book, so I feel the need to reiterate the purpose of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
My book is not out to attack anyone or demonize anyone. I do not criticize Christians or any other people of faith for believing that homosexuality is a sin. It is their God-given right to have such a belief.
Nor is my book a plea for "tolerance." I will not adopt the anti-gay industry's language, especially language that portrays me or any other lgbt as an outsider wanting someone to "accept" us. I don't need anyone's "tolerance" or "acceptance."
My book addresses the tactics of so-called "pro-family" groups in their efforts to hinder the passage of pro-lgbt laws and to portray us as outsiders of the American experience.
My book will cover the following points:
1. Using nonrepresentative or out of date studies to make generalizations, or
distorting legitimate studies to give misleading conclusions
2. Repetition
3. Conspiracy Theory
4. Dire Consequences
5. Phony Experts
6. Dehumanizing Semantics
Top Anti-Gay Industry Lies
1. Homosexuality is a lifestyle more harmful than cigarette smoking
2. Gay men have a short life span
3. The gay and lesbian community have a high rate of domestic violence
4. Unhealthy behaviors (i.e. substance abuse, promiscuous sexual behavior) is
indicative of the gay or lesbian orientation.
5. Gay men molest children at a high rate.
6. Gays and lesbians want to silence Christians
7. Gays and lesbians recruit people, particularly children, to their “life style.”
8. Gays and lesbians are following a six-point plan to take over America.
9. Any judge who rules in favor of the gay and lesbian community in a case is
an “activist judge.”
10. Anal sex is “homosexual behavior.”
11. Robert Spitzer’s study confi rms that gays and lesbians can change their
orientation.
12. Gays and lesbians want to force acceptance.
13. Gay bowel syndrome is a legitimate medical term.
14. A man who molests a boy or a woman who molests a girl is automatically homosexual.
15. A convenience sample or out-of-date study can be used to generalize about
an entire community.
Someone from another site asked a very good question about my upcoming book, so I feel the need to reiterate the purpose of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
My book is not out to attack anyone or demonize anyone. I do not criticize Christians or any other people of faith for believing that homosexuality is a sin. It is their God-given right to have such a belief.
Nor is my book a plea for "tolerance." I will not adopt the anti-gay industry's language, especially language that portrays me or any other lgbt as an outsider wanting someone to "accept" us. I don't need anyone's "tolerance" or "acceptance."
My book addresses the tactics of so-called "pro-family" groups in their efforts to hinder the passage of pro-lgbt laws and to portray us as outsiders of the American experience.
My book will cover the following points:
Six Distortion Techniques of the Anti-Gay Industry
1. Using nonrepresentative or out of date studies to make generalizations, or
distorting legitimate studies to give misleading conclusions
2. Repetition
3. Conspiracy Theory
4. Dire Consequences
5. Phony Experts
6. Dehumanizing Semantics
Top Anti-Gay Industry Lies
1. Homosexuality is a lifestyle more harmful than cigarette smoking
2. Gay men have a short life span
3. The gay and lesbian community have a high rate of domestic violence
4. Unhealthy behaviors (i.e. substance abuse, promiscuous sexual behavior) is
indicative of the gay or lesbian orientation.
5. Gay men molest children at a high rate.
6. Gays and lesbians want to silence Christians
7. Gays and lesbians recruit people, particularly children, to their “life style.”
8. Gays and lesbians are following a six-point plan to take over America.
9. Any judge who rules in favor of the gay and lesbian community in a case is
an “activist judge.”
10. Anal sex is “homosexual behavior.”
11. Robert Spitzer’s study confi rms that gays and lesbians can change their
orientation.
12. Gays and lesbians want to force acceptance.
13. Gay bowel syndrome is a legitimate medical term.
14. A man who molests a boy or a woman who molests a girl is automatically homosexual.
15. A convenience sample or out-of-date study can be used to generalize about
an entire community.
For more information about my upcoming book and myself, log on to this link.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Parallel Lies from our friend Peter LaBarbera
In keeping with the steady drumbeat of claiming that legislation protecting lgbts from discrimination would lead to the "attack of the she-males" in our nation's showers and bathrooms comes this tale from our friend Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth (in name only) :
The Transg-ENDA Agenda: Man in a Purple Pants Suit Invades the Ladies Room in Md
By Bunny Galladora
The hearing room of the Judicial Committee in Annapolis, Maryland, was overflowing with all sorts of unusual looking people hours before the hearing on a bill to add “sexual orientation” to the list of protected categories was to begin. It would be a very long day. After many people had testified giving their various positions on the issue, the Judicial Committee took a break.
Conrae Fortlage and I left the hearing room to “freshen up” in the ladies’ restroom. When it came time to wash our hands, I finished quickly and waited for Conrae inside the bathroom by the door, a few steps away. Conrae lingered slowly, applying lipstick and fiddling with her hair. She seemed to be staring in the mirror for an unusual amount of time. I paid little attention to the person dressed in a purple ladies pants suit with a white blouse standing next to Conrae — or to Conrae’s behavior which was out of character for her, but instead my thoughts were on the testimony I would be giving soon.
As we left the ladies’ room, the door shutting behind us, Conrae began to tell me that the person standing beside her in the bathroom was actually a man. Conrae said she first noticed that the person was unusually tall for a woman, then, while looking in the mirror, she had focused on his unusually large Adam’s apple — and other features normally found in a male. She noticed that the person was wearing a woman’s wig.
Sounds spooky, don't it.
Well there are a few things about this story that just don't sound right to me.
The alleged incident seems to have taken place in Maryland during a judicial hearing about anti-discrimination protection for gays and lesbians but author, Bunny Galladora, cannot remember the exact year:
Neither Galladora nor Fortlage can recall the year of the incident, but it was between 1999 and 2001, when Maryland’s legislature passed a “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination bill, later signed into law by the state’s Democratic governor, Parris Glendening.
The only thing I can think of is how "very appropriate" for this incident to be recounted during the time in which Congress will be talking about ENDA. Indeed, LaBarbera prefaces the story with the following:
When a society raises gender confusion (men in dresses) and its cousin, homosexuality, to the level of “civil rights,” it’s time to recognize that this nation is in a state of moral decline unheard of in our history.
So did this incident take place? Maybe, but until I see further proof, I will doubt its validity. The story reminds me of tactics done in the past.
Remember when Anita Bryant was attempting to repeal a gay rights ordinance in the 1970s This is what she said:
“homosexuals cannot reproduce—so they must recruit . . . the youth of America.”
Or how about when Paul Cameron was working against a gay rights ordinance in Nebraska in 1982. He told the tale of a four-year-old getting castrated in a bathroom attack by a gay man. When the police investigated and found the story to be false, Cameron said that a "friend" told him the story.
Back then, people did have a fear that gay men would try to harm children. It's safe to say that many Americans are less ignorant about gays and children.
But visibility in the transgender community is relatively new. So telling that story of a man in the lady's room does serve a purpose.
But not a very good one.
In keeping with the steady drumbeat of claiming that legislation protecting lgbts from discrimination would lead to the "attack of the she-males" in our nation's showers and bathrooms comes this tale from our friend Peter LaBarbera and Americans for Truth (in name only) :
The Transg-ENDA Agenda: Man in a Purple Pants Suit Invades the Ladies Room in Md
By Bunny Galladora
The hearing room of the Judicial Committee in Annapolis, Maryland, was overflowing with all sorts of unusual looking people hours before the hearing on a bill to add “sexual orientation” to the list of protected categories was to begin. It would be a very long day. After many people had testified giving their various positions on the issue, the Judicial Committee took a break.
Conrae Fortlage and I left the hearing room to “freshen up” in the ladies’ restroom. When it came time to wash our hands, I finished quickly and waited for Conrae inside the bathroom by the door, a few steps away. Conrae lingered slowly, applying lipstick and fiddling with her hair. She seemed to be staring in the mirror for an unusual amount of time. I paid little attention to the person dressed in a purple ladies pants suit with a white blouse standing next to Conrae — or to Conrae’s behavior which was out of character for her, but instead my thoughts were on the testimony I would be giving soon.
As we left the ladies’ room, the door shutting behind us, Conrae began to tell me that the person standing beside her in the bathroom was actually a man. Conrae said she first noticed that the person was unusually tall for a woman, then, while looking in the mirror, she had focused on his unusually large Adam’s apple — and other features normally found in a male. She noticed that the person was wearing a woman’s wig.
Sounds spooky, don't it.
Well there are a few things about this story that just don't sound right to me.
The alleged incident seems to have taken place in Maryland during a judicial hearing about anti-discrimination protection for gays and lesbians but author, Bunny Galladora, cannot remember the exact year:
Neither Galladora nor Fortlage can recall the year of the incident, but it was between 1999 and 2001, when Maryland’s legislature passed a “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination bill, later signed into law by the state’s Democratic governor, Parris Glendening.
The only thing I can think of is how "very appropriate" for this incident to be recounted during the time in which Congress will be talking about ENDA. Indeed, LaBarbera prefaces the story with the following:
When a society raises gender confusion (men in dresses) and its cousin, homosexuality, to the level of “civil rights,” it’s time to recognize that this nation is in a state of moral decline unheard of in our history.
So did this incident take place? Maybe, but until I see further proof, I will doubt its validity. The story reminds me of tactics done in the past.
Remember when Anita Bryant was attempting to repeal a gay rights ordinance in the 1970s This is what she said:
“homosexuals cannot reproduce—so they must recruit . . . the youth of America.”
Or how about when Paul Cameron was working against a gay rights ordinance in Nebraska in 1982. He told the tale of a four-year-old getting castrated in a bathroom attack by a gay man. When the police investigated and found the story to be false, Cameron said that a "friend" told him the story.
Back then, people did have a fear that gay men would try to harm children. It's safe to say that many Americans are less ignorant about gays and children.
But visibility in the transgender community is relatively new. So telling that story of a man in the lady's room does serve a purpose.
But not a very good one.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Fall out from yesterday's blog on San Francisco Chronicle and Paul Cameron
Yesterday, I wrote about how the San Francisco Chronicle cited Paul Cameron in its article about gay adoption. The article omitted his dubious history of rebukes and censures.
Several blogs, including Americablog, picked up the story.
And today, the error has been corrected:
CLARIFICATION: In an article about San Francisco's campaign to get more gays and lesbians to adopt foster children - as well as an opposing evangelical campaign to get more Christian families to adopt -- the Chronicle quoted Paul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute. The article should have noted that Cameron, who believes gays make unfit parents and self-published dozens of articles he said were based on his research, was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 when he refused to subject his work to peer review. The article also should have reported that his Family Research Institute was named a hate group in 2006 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Of course that makes me happy for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that it establishes the presence of a "watchdog" system of blogs that will spot and expose anti-gay industry distortions.
This is how you win a war; by being assertive.
In that spirit, I want to add more to the story of how Cameron's information can slip through and be thought of as credible. I talk about the following in my book and I know that the Southern Poverty Law Center made mention of it.
The following passage is from my upcoming book:
In July 2005, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter asked that the national Health and Human Services look at a certain web site because it allegedly showed inaccurate information about homosexuality and contraception.
The web site, 4parents.gov, received information from an organization called the National Physicians Center for Family Resources. The chairman of the National Physicians Center for Family Resources board, John Whiffen, said the organization was correct regarding what it had printed about homosexuality.
He said:
“It’s fairly well-accepted that smoking is not a good idea. It takes seven years off of your life. It appears that male homosexuality takes more than that off your life.”—Specter seeks review of teen health site, Washington Blade, July 29, 2005
So why is this significant? Because of this passage:
In May 2005, Cameron announced the completion of another study that supposedly proved that homosexuality is more dangerous than cigarette smoking and being overweight.
What he did was take over 10,000 obituaries from the gay newspaper the Washington Blade and compare them to a CDC report entitled AIDS Cases in Adolescents and Adults, by Age—United States, 1994-2000.
He claimed that this supported his gay life span study. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) said otherwise.
Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, said Cameron uses bad methodology.
He also said:
“[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.”
Now is it really fair to claim that Mr. Whiffen and his group received their information from Cameron? His name was not mentioned.
I think that it is fair. It is too much of a coincidence that Cameron would come out with a certain study and Mr. Whiffen just happens to make references to the findings of the study almost two months later.
If Mr. Whiffen and his group was citing Cameron, it would mean that the national Health and Human Services used information by a group that thinks Cameron, despite his infamous history, is legitimate.
That is scary.
Yesterday, I wrote about how the San Francisco Chronicle cited Paul Cameron in its article about gay adoption. The article omitted his dubious history of rebukes and censures.
Several blogs, including Americablog, picked up the story.
And today, the error has been corrected:
CLARIFICATION: In an article about San Francisco's campaign to get more gays and lesbians to adopt foster children - as well as an opposing evangelical campaign to get more Christian families to adopt -- the Chronicle quoted Paul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute. The article should have noted that Cameron, who believes gays make unfit parents and self-published dozens of articles he said were based on his research, was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 when he refused to subject his work to peer review. The article also should have reported that his Family Research Institute was named a hate group in 2006 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Of course that makes me happy for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that it establishes the presence of a "watchdog" system of blogs that will spot and expose anti-gay industry distortions.
This is how you win a war; by being assertive.
In that spirit, I want to add more to the story of how Cameron's information can slip through and be thought of as credible. I talk about the following in my book and I know that the Southern Poverty Law Center made mention of it.
The following passage is from my upcoming book:
In July 2005, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter asked that the national Health and Human Services look at a certain web site because it allegedly showed inaccurate information about homosexuality and contraception.
The web site, 4parents.gov, received information from an organization called the National Physicians Center for Family Resources. The chairman of the National Physicians Center for Family Resources board, John Whiffen, said the organization was correct regarding what it had printed about homosexuality.
He said:
“It’s fairly well-accepted that smoking is not a good idea. It takes seven years off of your life. It appears that male homosexuality takes more than that off your life.”—Specter seeks review of teen health site, Washington Blade, July 29, 2005
So why is this significant? Because of this passage:
In May 2005, Cameron announced the completion of another study that supposedly proved that homosexuality is more dangerous than cigarette smoking and being overweight.
What he did was take over 10,000 obituaries from the gay newspaper the Washington Blade and compare them to a CDC report entitled AIDS Cases in Adolescents and Adults, by Age—United States, 1994-2000.
He claimed that this supported his gay life span study. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) said otherwise.
Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, said Cameron uses bad methodology.
He also said:
“[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.”
Now is it really fair to claim that Mr. Whiffen and his group received their information from Cameron? His name was not mentioned.
I think that it is fair. It is too much of a coincidence that Cameron would come out with a certain study and Mr. Whiffen just happens to make references to the findings of the study almost two months later.
If Mr. Whiffen and his group was citing Cameron, it would mean that the national Health and Human Services used information by a group that thinks Cameron, despite his infamous history, is legitimate.
That is scary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)