Anti-gay tactic - Ignore the truth and maybe it will go away

Yesterday, I talked about the controversy involving Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle and his robo-toilet idea. Naugle wanted the city to pay $250,000 for a robo-toilet that he claimed would curb anonymous gay sex in public restrooms.

Of course the city didn't accept the proposal and the lgbt community were furious. Apparently his idea of a robo-toilet was the latest in a long line of nasty comments and proposals Naugle lodged against the lgbt community.

Yesterday, he called a press conference claiming to issue an apology.

Which he did. Of course the apology was not to the lgbt community but for allegedly underestimating the "problem" of anonymous gay sex in public restrooms.

That's right. Naugle used the press conference to insult the lgbt community yet again. Needless to say that lgbts and other citizens in Ft. Lauderdale are banding together to voice their displeasure with him.

As they should.

I have been reading about the entire controversy and noticed something that you probably already know but I still want to make you aware of.

The following comment is one I posted yesterday. It is by an area sergeant when he was asked about the problem of "gay public sex" :

. . . one problem Naugle had in trying to justify buying a robo-john due only to his belief that it will stop the rampant anonymous t-room sex he's been thinking about is that the rampant anonymous t-room sex he's been thinking about isn't a problem. According to Sgt. Frank Sousa, "There's no evidence, no reports or arrests made for any men having sex in any restrooms." - Robo-johns and stereotypes, Sun-Sentinel, July 20, 2007

You would think that the word of a police sergeant would be enough. Think again. Apparently some folks feel that if they ignore the sergeant's comments, then their view of the issue will be the correct one:

Hurrah for Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle for telling it like it is. The mayor is absolutely correct about gay men over taking the public restrooms as they troll for sex and drugs.Gays having sex in public is becoming an epidemic, not just in Florida but all over the U.S. - letter to the editor, Sun-Sentinel, July 22, 2007

I am not homophobic in any sense of the word. I count gays and lesbians among my closest friends and acquaintances, and respect them no less for their sexual orientation.That having been said, there's no reason the government needs to sanction behavior that the vast majority of Americans find morally reprehensible. That "cruising" in public areas is a problem in the gay community is well-known, especially among gays. To note that gays disproportionately engage in this activity (for whatever reason) is not homophobic, it's honest. Naugle has every right to his concerns. - letter to the editor, Sun-Sentinel, July 22, 2007

Instead of asking whether the laws against sex in the public restroom should be obeyed (as the mayor and the people of Ft. Lauderdale would like) The Sun Sentinel, a pawn for the homosexual lobby, asked if the mayor should resign for his stand against this illegal activity. He also voted against pornography in the public libraries. And for that, he's being protested against at Ft. Lauderdale City Hall today. - News Flash! Sex in Public Still Illegal, Janet Folger, World Net Daily, July 24, 2007

Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle is catching a lot of flack for taking on the problem of public homosexual sex in his city, especially in public restrooms. - The Dakota Voice blogspot, July 24, 2007 (this site, of course, did not print the comment by Sgt. Frank Sousa)

Every now and then, a politician stands up and does the right thing no matter how loudly leftist activists spew. As you'll see from the link below, Mayor Jim Naugle in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, has his hands full with homosexual activists who are trying to bully their way, as usual. To his credit, Mayor Naugle is standing his ground and doing exactly the opposite of what they're demanding (that is if you can understand them through their spittle). They're even shouting out "shame on you" to the mayor, when in fact THEY'RE the ones who ought to be ashamed. - The Seventh Sola, July 25, 2007

Finally, a strong public official! City was overwhelmed by homosexuals having anonymous sexual encounters in public parks & restrooms, angering parents and community. Mayor announced a crackdown - that the city won't take it any longer. Homosexual activists (supported by local press, of course) demonstrated against mayor, held rally, called him a "bigot", etc., but mayor held his ground. - Mass Resistance webpage, July 25, 2007

Homosexual Activists Continue to Attack Mayor Naugle - a headline from Active Christian Media, July 25, 2007

Watch yesterday’s Sun-Sentinel video of Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle’s press conference in which he apologizes for not doing more to stop homosexual “sex” in the city’s public and beach restrooms . . . A note on the Naugle story: will the day ever come when LEADERS of the proud “gay” lobby apologize for their community’s own excesses — e.g., tolerating or encouraging men to commit anonymous sodomies with other men in public restrooms, parks, and bathhouses (sex clubs)? - Americans for Truth web page, July 26, 2007

I think you all will understand why I choose not to read any comments from Free Republic.

A stupid and misleading question courtesy of Janet Folger

If homosexuals aren't having illegal sex in the public restrooms why are they so upset about a mayor trying to stop it?

That ridiculous question comes from Janet Folger. She is referring to a situation involving Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle. Naugle seems to be intent on attacking the lgbts in his community with a series of ugly comments and proposals.

This includes a plan to install a $250,000 robo toilet. Naugle claims that the toilet will curb activities of gay sex in public restrooms; something he says is rampant.

I should tell you that area police have refuted Naugle's claim:

According to Sgt. Frank Sousa, "There's no evidence, no reports or arrests made for any men having sex in any restrooms."

But Naugle soldiers on with his claims and backing him is Folger in a column today where she announced that Naugle was the recipient of a "Protector of the Family" award.

It was in this column that Folger asked that stupid question.

Well let me answer it.

Janet, if there is any problem with public sex (which the police have said there isn't), then it should be handled in a way that is quick and effective and does not stigmatize a group of people for the actions of a few.

I am a black gay men.

I do not have sex in public restrooms.

And when I say that, I speak for a huge number of lgbts.

I get angry at any inferrence that public sex is my nature as a gay man just like I get angry with any inferrence that criminal behavior is my nature as a black man.

The way Naugle has addressed the situation is no different than a white woman tiptoeing around me because she heard of a purse snatching in another city involving a black man.

As a proud gay black man, I will not allow anyone to stigmatize me and my lgbt brothers and sisters as oversexed fiends.

Because we aren't.

And the sad thing is that many so-called Christians don't seem to care that Naugle was not telling the truth about public gay sex. Many of them have written letters to the editor and responded online preaching admonitions against homosexuality.

I get it. Homosexuality is wrong but lying about lgbts is perfectly okay.

This is just par for the course for Folger by the way. She and her group, Faith2Action, have been strident in their attempts to defeat the new hate crimes legislation, including pushing the lie that lgbts seek to criminalize pastors for speaking out against homosexuality in the pulpit.

Last week, she reached the upper echelon of hypocrisy.

Folger has made a career out of claiming that Christians are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. She even wrote a book, The Criminalization of Christianity, that continues to press this theory.

However, she thinks its perfectly alright for Christians to act in a persecuting manner towards other religions.

Check out what she said about the incident of the Hindu minister being interrupted as he gave the opening prayer in the Senate:

"If you look and see what God's position is on idolatry, he's not fond of it, to put it lightly," says the Christian activist. "And what we've got to do is side with where God is on this -- and he is not for praying to millions of false gods on the floor of the United States Senate, which incidentally was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to one nation under God."

Folger says the three Christian activists who were arrested for disrupting the Hindu prayer "are heroes and history will show them as such."

I guess in Folger's world, mischaracterization and persecution should be tolerated if Christians are doing them.

It's not a world that I want to live in and I don't care what anyone's religious view of homosexuality is, you cannot tell me that this is a world God advocates.

The end is near and I am so glad

Today I sent my last batch of corrections to my publisher. And if all comes together, my book will be ready to be run by next week.

I should get the prototype in a month and by the middle of September, it should ready for the public.

It's not exactly the easiest thing to self-publish a book. For one thing, you don't have the backing of a publishing house. This means you have write, edit, and market it by yourself.

And I hate the editing process. Everytime I felt my galleys were complete, I would find another way to make my points better or find that I need to make a change concerning a current event (i.e. the death of Jerry Falwell or the dissolution of the Center for Reclaiming America).

And then there is always a point you wished you expanded on further.

For example, there is one controversy regarding Paul Cameron I wanted to cover in more detail.

Cameron has claimed that he was not in fact dismissed from the American Psychological Association. He claims that he resigned from the group before it had a chance to dismiss him.

And he allegedly has a letter to prove this.

Cameron claimed that he wrote a letter of resignation to the president of the APA at the time, William Bevan, and that Bevan accept the letter.

This is not necessarily true.

This link shows what Bevan told Cameron.

It is clearly not an acceptance of a resignation. In fact, Bevan tells Cameron that he forwarded Cameron's letter to APA's executive officer "to arrange the necessary details."

What happened then regarding Cameron's "resignation?" Was the "necessary details" taken care of?

This is not known.

But what is known is that Cameron received an official letter from the APA dismissing him.

What I want to know is where is the letter from the APA as an official body accepting his resignation.

You see at the time of his alleged resignation, Cameron was under investigation for misconduct and APA rules prohibit a resignation while a member is under investigation.

I don't cover this in as much detail as I would have liked to, but how I covered it is sufficient to prove my point. Also, I do have Cameron on record saying that he was in fact dismissed by the APA.

But getting back to my point, I will be glad when this entire process is over.

Trying to get this book out while recovering from that house fire two weeks ago has taxed me big time.

But all I can do is hang in there.

Paul Cameron pops up yet again

(For those who read my recent blog on Jesse Dirkhising and Mary Stachowicz, I apologize. What you read was a rough draft that I composed this morning with a full intent of working on later. However I forgot that my blog has a self saving function. Therefore when I pressed a control in order to save it, I inadvertently posted it. I have corrected the blog entry.)

Yesterday, I talked about how commentator and think tank troll Dinesh D'Souza tried to link gays and pedophilia.

He was talking about the recent decision by the Los Angeles Catholic Diocese to pay over $600 million to the victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests.

I am surprised that D'Souza did not cite "research" to prove his point. And you know whose "research" I speak of.

Well today, someone else did.

In a piece that out-and-out blames gay men for sexual abuse in the Catholic church, Philip Magnan, president of Family Bible Advocates says the following:

What is not being reported by the news media is that the majority of those who were sexually abused across the nation were most likely adolescent boys, which makes the case that these precious minors were abused by homosexual men.

Magnan, who is not a not a medical professional or researcher, is pushing the lie that if a man molest a boy, then that automatically makes the man gay.

This is not true. In fact, there is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. This comes from the mouths of the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America.

And since these bodies have training in such things, I will trust their word more than that of Magnan.

Magnan also says the following:

"I now wonder if the general public will consider that children in other institutions like public schools are at higher risk by allowing homosexual teachers to associate with their children? "

The link that Magnan used (and clearly shown in the above sentence) comes from the web page of Paul Cameron, our discredited friend.

It's sad when so-called Christian people continue to lie for their own point of view.

Perhaps Magnan should remember that Biblical verse about pride.

Jesse Dirkhising and Mary Stachowicz : Pawns in the game

In 1999, a 13-year-old boy by the name of Jesse Dirkhising was raped and murdered by two men

In 2002, mother of four, Mary Stachowicz, was viciously raped and murdered.

These two crimes are terrible in and by themselves but the repercussions continue to be felt by people who had nothing to do with the cases.

You see, the men who killed Dirkhising were gay. And the man who killed Stachowicz was allegedly gay. Supposedly he killed her after she continued to question his orientation.

There is no excuse for the murders of Dirkhising and Stachowicz. Having lost my father to violence, I know the grief and pain of having a murdered love one. I know that no matter how many years passes, these emotions never go away.

But like I said in a past column, I would be angry if my father's death was used to distort world views. And unfortunately, since my father's murderers were African-American (like he and myself), I am sure that there are some racists out there who have used his murder to denigrate black people on the whole.

When Dirkhising was murdered, he became a cause celebre to the anti-gay industry.

Rather than focus on the fact that a child was murdered, they focused on the orientation of the murderers.

They claimed that because the murderers were gay, the media were hesitant to pursue the story. This was a lie of course, but when have you ever known the anti-gay industry to be truthful about our community.

Our friend Peter LaBarbera had field day with the case, even devoting a special web page to the sordid affair, complete with a picture of Dirkhising.

Please bear in mind that since Dirkhising's death, there have been several high profile cases of murdered children, including that of Samantha Runnion and Dantrell Davis; the latter one happening when Davis was caught in gunfire while walking to school.

Strangely enough, the anti-gay industry did not talk about these stories.

Probably because the perpetrators weren't gay.

Nor is it known whether or not they have pushed for laws that would protect children from predators, whether these predators are gay or heterosexual.

And I definitely know that none of them have vocal on gang violence, except for that recent ridiculous moral panic on "lesbian gangs."

But just as he hysterically pushed the Jesse Dirkhising case as an example of the "gay menace" towards children, LaBarbera is claiming that Mary Stachowicz murder proves that lgbts should not be added to hate crimes legislation.

Never mind that the case had nothing to do with hate crimes, but of a young mentally ill young man who took his aggression out on an innocent women.

But who cares about the facts when you have something you can exploit.

And what else can you expect from a man who has a page on his web site devoted to the "Victims of Homosexuals Murderers."

Don't forget to ask for donations, Peter.

It's sad when someone's life is taken away due to violence.

It's even worse when someone uses those crimes to attack people not even involved.

And it's equally sad that lgbts are not judged by our contributions to society but by the criminal behavior of a few who share our orientation.

That confuses me and perhaps those black pastors who speak out against the gay community can answer this question.

Just how aren't black people and gay folks alike?

When all else fails, blame gay men for it all

In the wake of the Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles paying out over 600 million to the victims of sexual abuse by its priests, you just know someone had to attempt bring up the lie that gay men molest boys at a high rate.

And surprisingly, the person is not one of the usual suspects. The person lodging the accusation is a new player in the politics of being anti-gay - Dinesh D’Souza:

In the vast majority of [abuse] cases we aren’t dealing with pedophilia–an extremely rare disorder that is no more prevalent in the Catholic church than it is elsewhere in society–but rather with homosexual priests taking advantage of their authority to seduce teenage parishoners and altar boys.

D’Souza even claims that based upon this, the country is in for negative consequences if "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is repealed:

Now consider what would happen to that other predominantly-male organization, the U.S. military, if it got rid of "don't ask, don't tell" and allowed open homosexual relations between soldiers. We can easily imagine all the problems, but is there an upside? The Spartans are one of the few groups in history to allow homosexuals in the military. They tried to use it to fighting advantage. The idea was that men would be more willing to die for the sake of partners to whom they had become sexually attached. So the Spartans fought as couples, with each young soldier romantically linked to an older veteran. Typically the older veteran played the "male" or dominant role and the youthful recruit the "female" or passive role in the relationship.

Now before folks like Harry Jackon and Ken Hutcherson offically welcome D’Souza into the brotherhood of homophobia, perhaps they should read his book, The End of Racism.

You see Dinesh belongs to that breed of intellectual thinkers collecting huge paychecks courtesy of conservative think tanks for pushing "interesting" ideas under the guise "encouraging debate."

"Interesting" ideas such as claiming that segregation was created to protect African-Americans (i.e. The End of Racism).

Imagine waking up and thinking that Bull Connor and Lester Maddox were actually heroes of the civil rights movement.

No doubt, the irony of all of this will be lost on Jackson, Hutcherson and company. I guess as long as he is blaming another group for societal ills, it is all good with them.

And speaking of scapegoating, apparently the anti-gay industry are still pissed about the James Holsinger situation:

This is from our Concerned Women for America friend Matt Barber:

"We're looking for a surgeon general who is going to give unfettered and nonpolitical scientific information," he states, "and the reality is, based on a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that, for instance ... 71 percent of people with HIV/AIDS in the United States are male homosexuals -- and that is up 11 percent from 2001."

Now check out this post from a commentator from the One News Now site. He was responding to another person claiming that Barber was misusing statistics:

. . So your argument is that just because 71% of homosexual men have AIDS does not mean the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy? Wow.

The statistic actually says:

MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting)

That statistic tells us that we need to do more to curb HIV and AIDS.

One thing that needs to be done is stopping misinformation.

The statistic is bad but it is a long way from saying 71 percent of people with HIV/AIDS in the United States are homosexual males or 71 percent of homosexual men have AIDS.

But like I have said so many times before, who cares about facts when you are fighting for the kingdom of God?

Repercussions and broken records

When I talked about the situation involving Peter LaBarbera's exploitation of Russell Groff's death, I left out an important detail.

His partner, Kevin Olive, fighting Groff's parents over burial arrangements and being the executor of Mr. Groffs' will.

The fight is hard on him financially but he is determined to see it through. If anyone wishes to donate, they can do so sending contributions to:

Kevin Olive Defense Fund
c/o Homewood Friends Meeting
3107 N. Charles St.
Baltimore, MD 21218

I am glad that the other blogs who reported the incident included this information. Speaking of which, many of them having been giving their opinions of this situation.

One of the best postings comes from Good As You.

I am hopeful that something positive will come out of this situation. However, I can't help but continue to feel angry. I am sure that LaBarbera is probably giddy over the trouble he caused. And the worse thing about it is that he probably doesn't think he did anything wrong.

Meanwhile black minister Harry Jackson has written yet another diatribe against adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation:

Labeling politically incorrect views as “hate” will have a chilling effect on the free speech and religious liberty of our churches and of our members. . . Such laws will ultimately establish, as a matter of legal principle, that any opposition to homosexual or other unbiblical behavior is inherently a form of “hate,” a direct threat to every American citizen’s freedom of conscience.
This legislation is constitutionally suspect, unnecessary, unfair, and ultimately un-American. We are African Americans, though we represent thousands of Christian leaders of all races. We understand more clearly than most the dangers of racially motivated violence.

It is sad how Jackson continues to exploit his racial heritage to tell lies. It has been pointed out repeatedly to him and others that adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation will not lead to pastors being jailed for preaching against homosexuality. Hate crimes legislation deals with violent action, not thought.

Amazingly, throughout all of Jackson's rantings, he has never repudiated the hate crimes legislation in place that deals with race. Seems to me that there should be some degree of consistency.

If Jackson opposes hate crimes legislation for lgbts then why doesn't he oppose it for African-Americans?

As far as I know, Jackson has never said what he feels about this contradiction.

And you know what I think?

I think that he is aware of it, but as long as no one talks about it, he won't bring it up.

Nice, deceptive, but not very Christian.