Combating the creators of lgbt lies
There continues to be a degree of fallout from Elaine Donnelly's testimony at yesterday's House Armed Services personnel subcommittee regarding the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Washington Post's Dana Milbank practically skewers Donnelly. And I enjoyed reading every bit of it:
Inadvertently, Donnelly achieved the opposite of her intended effect. Though there's no expectation that Congress will repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve openly in the military, the display had the effect of increasing bipartisan sympathy for the cause.
The question in my mind is just who invited Donnelly to testify. This woman has never served in the Armed Forces and her organization, the Center for Military Readiness, does no studies.
I wouldn't mind knowing just who is funding this woman's mess.
Another good thing about Donnelly's testimony is that it brings to light the anti-gay industry practice of creating "phony experts."
Donnelly is not an anamoly. She is just the latest in a long line of anti-gay industry "experts" who try to pass either distortions of legitimate studies or discredited studies as proof of an alleged "homosexual agenda."
Linda (gays should never be around children nor should anyone supporting gay rights be around children) Harvey comes to mind. Robert Knight, who has testified in front of Congress using Paul Cameron's work, also comes to mind.
There is also Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey are two others who come to mind. I know there are many others who look good on camera with nicely coiffed hair, precise speech, and smart clothing. After all, that is what they are paid.
You see there is a difference between these folks and Peter LaBarbera. For whatever reason, LaBarbera is consumed with the "homosexual agenda" that he gets carried away to the point of lunacy. And he is good for a laugh. On the odd occasion, he does something that we take seriously
But in the long run, he is merely a tool; a funneler of information.
Folks like Donnelly, Knight, Harvey, Sprigg, and Dailey create the information. They cut and paste, disseminate and distort, analyze and omit.
They have to know that some of the things they are saying are incorrect, but they say them with a straight face, as if they believe that lies in the name of God will work out to be truth.
In the past, they were able to get away with it. But now the lgbt community are more savvy. We question everything that comes out of the mouth of the anti-gay industry.
And we are quick to point out their lies, as well we should.
Not just for ourselves but for the sake of history. When it is all said and done and lgbts are at the point where we should be, someone will look back on this so-called culture war.
And I want them to know every lie the anti-gay industry told on us.
This weekend, I will be updating my other blog, Anti-Gay Lies and Liars. I will include this week's events as well as new developments regarding Paul Cameron.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Phony expert gets owned!!
Another annoying characteristics of the anti-gay industry is how they characterize their spokespeople as experts on homosexuality.
The anti-gay industry generally don’t recruit unbiased third parties in their information gathering. They create their own experts on the subject of homosexuality. And these phony experts are usually in-house employees or members of affiliated groups who already have anti-gay biases.
They also have no training or background in what they claim to have expert opinions on. It
seems that their titles are dependent on how well they look in the media, or how adept they can apply spin.
Elaine Donnelly is one of these experts. Despite the fact that she has never served in the military, she is president of the Center for Military Readiness.
This is a fancy way of saying that Donnelly's sole responsibility seems to be speaking out against allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
And she was on Capitol Hill today during a Congressional hearing regarding gays in the military.
From what I hear, she got her butt handed to her.
Or a better way of putting it is that she giftwrapped her ass and handed it to the committee:
The live feed from today's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hearing just ended. The curious can watch it here. (Warning, this thing went on forever: 2h35.)
The hearing went better than I expected, insofar as the Democratic witnesses, Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, and Marine Staff Serg. Eric Alva utterly outspoke Army Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones and Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, both of whom testitified (poorly, and in some places, damn near incoherently) on behalf of Republicans.
Donnelly managed, somehow, to answer every question from both the right and the left with, "Sexual urges would prevent unit cohesion." Jones, when asked whether or not he thought homoesexuality was immoral, replied, "No, but if I'm 6'8" and I want to be a fighter pilot, I can't." Both think a gay-friendly military would bring on the end of the world.
As this hearing evidenced, the social conservative arguments for preserving DADT, letting the Department of Defense write its own policy, or banning gay service, range from paper-thin to non-existent. The only obstacle I see to passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act—the bill that would repeal DADT and implement a non-discrimination policy—is good ole' fashion homophobia.
What a difference 15 years make. When hearings about gays in the military began in 1993, we got inudated with Paul Cameronesque rhetoric about sex-crazed gay men and fisting.
Now, folks seemed to have attained a degree of sense and intelligence.
Progress is good.
And Donnelly distorts legitimate work too
Law Review Questions Expertise of Congressional Witness; Misstatements and Sloppy Use of Evidence Subject of New Publication
SANTA BARBARA, Calif., July 23 (AScribe Newswire) -- The Palm Center announced today that a Duke University law review is publishing a critique of a chief Congressional witness who is testifying at today's hearings on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a research organization which studies gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said the study is to appear in the forthcoming issue of the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy.
The article, "The Importance of Objective Analysis: A Response to Elaine Donnelly's Constructing the Co-Ed Military," is a reply to a 2007 article by Elaine Donnelly in the same journal. Donnelly, who is president of the Center for Military Readiness, a traditional values interest group with no military or academic affiliation, is one of two witnesses testifying against the right of gays to serve at today's hearings.
Donnelly's testimony is largely drawn from her 2007 article, also published in the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. The Palm Center study is a response to her article, which, according to Belkin, is riddled with mistakes and misreadings of both Palm Center work and the "don't ask, don't tell" law and policy that governs gay service.
"It's unclear why Elaine Donnelly has a platform at all on this issue," Belkin said. "She and her organization do no research." Belkin noted, for example, that to bolster her point that the British military has been undermined by allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, her article cites a single footnote which refers to five newspaper and radio stories, none of which have anything to do with gays in the military.
My sentiments exactly, Mr. Belkin. More of the article is here.
Another annoying characteristics of the anti-gay industry is how they characterize their spokespeople as experts on homosexuality.
The anti-gay industry generally don’t recruit unbiased third parties in their information gathering. They create their own experts on the subject of homosexuality. And these phony experts are usually in-house employees or members of affiliated groups who already have anti-gay biases.
They also have no training or background in what they claim to have expert opinions on. It
seems that their titles are dependent on how well they look in the media, or how adept they can apply spin.
Elaine Donnelly is one of these experts. Despite the fact that she has never served in the military, she is president of the Center for Military Readiness.
This is a fancy way of saying that Donnelly's sole responsibility seems to be speaking out against allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
And she was on Capitol Hill today during a Congressional hearing regarding gays in the military.
From what I hear, she got her butt handed to her.
Or a better way of putting it is that she giftwrapped her ass and handed it to the committee:
The live feed from today's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hearing just ended. The curious can watch it here. (Warning, this thing went on forever: 2h35.)
The hearing went better than I expected, insofar as the Democratic witnesses, Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, and Marine Staff Serg. Eric Alva utterly outspoke Army Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones and Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, both of whom testitified (poorly, and in some places, damn near incoherently) on behalf of Republicans.
Donnelly managed, somehow, to answer every question from both the right and the left with, "Sexual urges would prevent unit cohesion." Jones, when asked whether or not he thought homoesexuality was immoral, replied, "No, but if I'm 6'8" and I want to be a fighter pilot, I can't." Both think a gay-friendly military would bring on the end of the world.
As this hearing evidenced, the social conservative arguments for preserving DADT, letting the Department of Defense write its own policy, or banning gay service, range from paper-thin to non-existent. The only obstacle I see to passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act—the bill that would repeal DADT and implement a non-discrimination policy—is good ole' fashion homophobia.
What a difference 15 years make. When hearings about gays in the military began in 1993, we got inudated with Paul Cameronesque rhetoric about sex-crazed gay men and fisting.
Now, folks seemed to have attained a degree of sense and intelligence.
Progress is good.
And Donnelly distorts legitimate work too
Law Review Questions Expertise of Congressional Witness; Misstatements and Sloppy Use of Evidence Subject of New Publication
SANTA BARBARA, Calif., July 23 (AScribe Newswire) -- The Palm Center announced today that a Duke University law review is publishing a critique of a chief Congressional witness who is testifying at today's hearings on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a research organization which studies gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said the study is to appear in the forthcoming issue of the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy.
The article, "The Importance of Objective Analysis: A Response to Elaine Donnelly's Constructing the Co-Ed Military," is a reply to a 2007 article by Elaine Donnelly in the same journal. Donnelly, who is president of the Center for Military Readiness, a traditional values interest group with no military or academic affiliation, is one of two witnesses testifying against the right of gays to serve at today's hearings.
Donnelly's testimony is largely drawn from her 2007 article, also published in the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. The Palm Center study is a response to her article, which, according to Belkin, is riddled with mistakes and misreadings of both Palm Center work and the "don't ask, don't tell" law and policy that governs gay service.
"It's unclear why Elaine Donnelly has a platform at all on this issue," Belkin said. "She and her organization do no research." Belkin noted, for example, that to bolster her point that the British military has been undermined by allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, her article cites a single footnote which refers to five newspaper and radio stories, none of which have anything to do with gays in the military.
My sentiments exactly, Mr. Belkin. More of the article is here.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Another update from yesterday's post: PFOX caught distorting study
This just keeps getting better and better. The author of the study PFOX cited (see yesterday's post) has now gone on record.
And he is pissed:
Dr. Gary Remafedi Says ‘Ex-Gay’ Group Manipulated His Study And Should Immediately Take The Distortions Off Its Website
NEW YORK – TruthWinsOut.org published exclusive comments today by Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, who claimed the “ex-gay” organization PFOX distorted his research findings.
On its website, PFOX expressed its displeasure with The Washington Post for publishing what it called “a sympathetic article about a 15-year-old boy named Saro who described his homosexual feelings and how Gay Straight Alliance student clubs help such gay teens to deal with discrimination and bullying in high school and middle school.”
“What the article failed to describe,” said PFOX Executive Director Regina Griggs, “is the danger of young sexually confused teens self-identifying as gays at an early age. Research has shown that the risk of suicide decreases by 20% each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling.* Early self-identification is dangerous to kids.”
Dr. Remafedi’s study was the one cited by PFOX to back their unfounded conclusions. Today, Dr. Reamafedi released the following comments to Truth Wins Out:
“My work has been cited by PFOX in response to a Washington Post article on gay-straight alliances (GSA),” wrote Dr. Remafedi. “PFOX misuses one of my studies on suicide attempts in gay youth to argue that people should not identify their sexual orientation at young ages. Our findings do not support the contention that young people choose their identity or the timing of events in identity formation. Nor is there any evidence that the availability of GSAs influences those developmental processes.”
Remafedi’s report was published in Pediatrics in 1992. The study explored patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of more than 34,000 Minnesota students in grades 7 to 12. PFOX, as well as Focus on the Family, distorted his findings to make the case that young people should not learn about homosexuality because they were sexually confused, and could thus be influenced by educational material.
Last year, several researchers held Dobson accountable for misrepresenting their work. Letters and videos from these scientists can be viewed at www.RespectMyResearch.org.
“We thank Dr. Remafedi for stepping forward and not allowing his research to be manipulated for political gain,” said Truth Wins Out Executive Director Wayne Besen. “The right wing thrives on twisting legitimate research in its efforts to confuse people. We are doing everything in our power to stop this insidious practice.”
TruthWinsOut.org is currently working to find examples where right wing organizations have twisted scientific work. If you have a case that is worthy of investigation, please contact TWO’s Director of Research, Peter Cabrera, at petercabrera74@yahoo.com.
(Hat tip to my online buddy Emproph for alerting me to this.)
COLUMBIA — Pursuing a deal to advertise South Carolina as “so gay,” tourism officials in the state hosted a visit to showcase gay-friendly hotels, bars, and beaches, two European executives told Q-Notes.
“A three-day visit was arranged for me,” said Andrew Roberts, CEO of the gay travel agency Amro Worldwide. The visit included free hotel stays and escorting by tourism representatives, at least one of whom was reimbursed for mileage.
Impressed by what he experienced during his April trip, Roberts gave the go-ahead to Out Now Consulting, the gay marketing agency selected to execute the ads.
South Carolina’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT) initiated and approved the campaign at every step, according to Roberts and Out Now CEO Ian Johnson.
But SCPRT refused to pay its bill for the campaign after Gov. Mark Sanford and other state politicians reacted to a post on “The Palmetto Scoop,” a conservative blog.
‘This guy was right up there’
“Out Now certainly had no indication prior to July 10 that anyone at SCPRT was in the slightest way at all uncomfortable with our strategic gay marketing approach in this particular ad campaign,” Johnson told Q-Notes. “Which makes sense — since they were aware of it, and had approved it, at a high level, long before the campaign began. They signed off on it all the way through the launch process.”
More here
Geez, it is getting more and more difficult to defend my state.
This just keeps getting better and better. The author of the study PFOX cited (see yesterday's post) has now gone on record.
And he is pissed:
Dr. Gary Remafedi Says ‘Ex-Gay’ Group Manipulated His Study And Should Immediately Take The Distortions Off Its Website
NEW YORK – TruthWinsOut.org published exclusive comments today by Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, who claimed the “ex-gay” organization PFOX distorted his research findings.
On its website, PFOX expressed its displeasure with The Washington Post for publishing what it called “a sympathetic article about a 15-year-old boy named Saro who described his homosexual feelings and how Gay Straight Alliance student clubs help such gay teens to deal with discrimination and bullying in high school and middle school.”
“What the article failed to describe,” said PFOX Executive Director Regina Griggs, “is the danger of young sexually confused teens self-identifying as gays at an early age. Research has shown that the risk of suicide decreases by 20% each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling.* Early self-identification is dangerous to kids.”
Dr. Remafedi’s study was the one cited by PFOX to back their unfounded conclusions. Today, Dr. Reamafedi released the following comments to Truth Wins Out:
“My work has been cited by PFOX in response to a Washington Post article on gay-straight alliances (GSA),” wrote Dr. Remafedi. “PFOX misuses one of my studies on suicide attempts in gay youth to argue that people should not identify their sexual orientation at young ages. Our findings do not support the contention that young people choose their identity or the timing of events in identity formation. Nor is there any evidence that the availability of GSAs influences those developmental processes.”
Remafedi’s report was published in Pediatrics in 1992. The study explored patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of more than 34,000 Minnesota students in grades 7 to 12. PFOX, as well as Focus on the Family, distorted his findings to make the case that young people should not learn about homosexuality because they were sexually confused, and could thus be influenced by educational material.
Last year, several researchers held Dobson accountable for misrepresenting their work. Letters and videos from these scientists can be viewed at www.RespectMyResearch.org.
“We thank Dr. Remafedi for stepping forward and not allowing his research to be manipulated for political gain,” said Truth Wins Out Executive Director Wayne Besen. “The right wing thrives on twisting legitimate research in its efforts to confuse people. We are doing everything in our power to stop this insidious practice.”
TruthWinsOut.org is currently working to find examples where right wing organizations have twisted scientific work. If you have a case that is worthy of investigation, please contact TWO’s Director of Research, Peter Cabrera, at petercabrera74@yahoo.com.
(Hat tip to my online buddy Emproph for alerting me to this.)
And now something that is totally unbelievable. But then again, knowing my elected officials . .
‘Knowingly incorrect info’ from S.C. officials, say Brit ‘So Gay’ ad execs
COLUMBIA — Pursuing a deal to advertise South Carolina as “so gay,” tourism officials in the state hosted a visit to showcase gay-friendly hotels, bars, and beaches, two European executives told Q-Notes.
“A three-day visit was arranged for me,” said Andrew Roberts, CEO of the gay travel agency Amro Worldwide. The visit included free hotel stays and escorting by tourism representatives, at least one of whom was reimbursed for mileage.
Impressed by what he experienced during his April trip, Roberts gave the go-ahead to Out Now Consulting, the gay marketing agency selected to execute the ads.
South Carolina’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT) initiated and approved the campaign at every step, according to Roberts and Out Now CEO Ian Johnson.
But SCPRT refused to pay its bill for the campaign after Gov. Mark Sanford and other state politicians reacted to a post on “The Palmetto Scoop,” a conservative blog.
‘This guy was right up there’
“Out Now certainly had no indication prior to July 10 that anyone at SCPRT was in the slightest way at all uncomfortable with our strategic gay marketing approach in this particular ad campaign,” Johnson told Q-Notes. “Which makes sense — since they were aware of it, and had approved it, at a high level, long before the campaign began. They signed off on it all the way through the launch process.”
More here
Geez, it is getting more and more difficult to defend my state.
Monday, July 21, 2008
UPDATE - PFOX answers my question. And someone is still distorting the issue
I received an email from PFOX regarding my question about the study PFOX head Regina Griggs cited in a recent One News Now article.
In my post below, I talked about how Griggs was claiming that GSAs actually led to lgbt children attempting suicide. According to the article:
Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity -- a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs.
The name of the study was not mentioned in the article. I had a suspicion that PFOX was referring to the 1996 Elizabeth Saewyc study that looked at lesbian teen suicides. If it was, then PFOX would have been in error.
A controversy had come up concerning the study when Focus on the Family's spokesperson Melissa Fryrear used it to claim that teen lesbians are having problems with suicide because they are "encouraged by gay activists to come out" (I am paraphrasing here).
Dr. Saewyc said Fryrear's comments was a distortion of her research.
I was concerned that PFOX was still using the Saewyc study to reach the same conclusion that Fryrear did.
This is the email I received from PFOX:
The source is listed at www.pfox.org under Press Releases.
The press release, PFOX Exposes Dangers Of Self-Identifying As ‘Gay’ Before Maturity, is where the name of the study is mentioned.
And Griggs was right. PFOX did not cite the Saewyc study. It cited:
Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth by Remafedi, Farrow, and Deisher, in Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics 87: 869-875 June 1991
Now here is the problem. The first sentence of the One News Now article says:
Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity -- a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs.
A recent study? Hardly. Who considers a 17-year-old study to be recent? Apparently members of the anti-gay industry if the study can be used to demonize lgbts.
There is still a deception here but I don't know who is guilty of it; PFOX, One News Now, or LifeSiteNews.com (the place where the article originated from).
I emailed Griggs again asking for clarification. Was it she who described the 1991 study as a recent one or did One News Now and LifeSiteNews.com use bad dramatic license?
This is getting good.
They just can't stop lying: PFOX tries to slip one by and Peter LaBarbera's friend cites Paul Cameron
One of the most annoying characteristics about the anti-gay industry is their tendency to repeat distortions even after the said distortions have been refuted.
A perfect example are two that I found today:
PFOX tries to distort work on gay teen suicide
I read this today in One News Now:
Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity -- a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs - PFOX: Homosexual high school clubs increase risk of suicide
Interestingly enough, the study PFOX is referring to is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
But PFOX head Regina Griggs gives a clue as to the nature of the study:
. . ."Research has shown that the risk of suicide decreases by 20 percent each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling. Early self-identification is dangerous to kids."
That quote looked familiar to me so I did a little research and found the following:
Going far beyond the research results, Focus on the Family claims a recent study presented at a Canadian public health conference links "pro-gay advocates" to increased rates of lesbian teen suicide attempts, a claim that has baffled the scientist who conducted the study.
"Nothing in the brief results we presented or in our overall study could lead to such conclusions," said Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, and research director of the McCreary Centre Society.
Reacting to survey results that showed higher rates of suicide attempts among lesbian high school students vs. heterosexual teens, Focus on the Family blamed the very people trying to help teens enter a more accepting society.
"Regrettably, they think they have to embrace homosexuality because pro-gay advocates told them that they were born gay," claimed Melissa Fryrear, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, on their website.
This was from a June 16, 2006 article in which University of British Columbia Professor Elizabeth Saewyc accused Focus on the Family of distorting her study about lesbian teen suicide.
Focus on the Family spokeswoman Melissa Fryrear claimed that lesbian teens are committing sucide because they are encouraged to "identify as lesbians" by "pro-gay advocates."
Saewyc said Fryrear's conclusion was a distortion of her study. She said:
What we have found is that sexual, racial, or anti-gay harassment, discrimination, and violence are strongly associated with suicidal attempts among young people -- and that includes heterosexual teens too." She noted her previous study of Seattle high school students, which found 4 out of 5 students experiencing anti-gay harassment identified as heterosexual, and harassed students were significantly more likely to report suicide attempts regardless of their orientation.
So now in 2008, is PFOX and Griggs trying to incorrectly interpret the study even after Saewyc cried foul?
I think so.
Of course some may say that I am engaging in pure conjecture. Fair enough. I have drafted a letter that I will email to Griggs and PFOX asking for the name of the study she referred to in the One News Now article. I will send the letter today.
I will also keep you posted on whether or not I receive an answer.
Peter LaBarbera's 'Christian friend' and Paul Cameron
On his webpage, Peter LaBarbera has endorsed a report written by Phil Magnan of the Family Bible Advocates:
Meanwhile, take a read of Phil Magnan’s report, “15 Reasons Why Homosexuality is Wrong and Hurts Society.” Phil is the founder of Biblical Family Advocates, based in San Diego. I just met him in person for the first time and came away impressed by his love for people, including those practicing homosexuality, and his love for God’s truth and His heart on this issue.
By all means, please do read the "report." Magnan's essay comes across as the standard anti-gay industry tripe which recycles the discredited studies and other distortions that have made our lives just a little bit harder.
Interestingly enough, I emailed Magnan about several errors in his work last weekend. Of course I did not get an answer back.
The following are just a few of his errors:
Magnan - The book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence by two homosexual researchers “estimated that 650,000 homosexual men are victims of domestic violence each year, compared to figures from the FBI which showed that last year 1,300 hate crimes were reported.”
Truth - Patrick Letellier complained that Gary Glenn of the American Family Association cherry picked passages from his book (Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them) in order to assert that domestic violence is high in gay relationships. Years after this, the book continues to be cited by the anti-gay industry in the same way Glenn cited it. (in the same manner Magnan did)
Magnan - Defining a Homosexual relationship as loving and monogamous ignores the reality of same sex relationships. Many say that the premise on which we should accept same sex unions is that some of them are "loving, monogamous relationships." Same sex unions may be loving and monogamous from a worldly viewpoint, but if they had “real godly love” they would not subject each other to unnatural sexual activity that leads each other into sin. When we lead others into sin, we are no longer walking in love. In regards to homosexual monogamy, homosexuals remain faithful to one partner about 25% of the time. This is a much lower fidelity rate, than their heterosexual counterparts, which is 80%. It is not unusual for homosexuals to have hundreds of sexual partners in a life time.
Truth - Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service completes a study which objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).” Despite the fact that this study was situated in a foreign city, only looked at casual relationships, was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands, had nothing to do with lesbian relationships or children in same-sex households, it will be cited by the anti-gay industry to speak against gay relationships, same-sex marriage, lesbian relationships, gay adoption, etc. etc. (FOOTNOTE - Box Turtle Bulletin published a excellent report today accusing the Family Research Council of distorting the study in the same manner as Magnan.)
And the piece de resistance: Magnan freely cites discredited researcher Paul Cameron:
Magnan - There is less likelihood that a same sex couple will even be alive to care for their child. One of the reasons that Homosexual couples should not be able to adopt children or take in foster children is that according to many studies, the life span of homosexuals is much lower than that of heterosexuals. These tragic conditions create a much less stable home life for that child. Giving a foster or adopted child to homosexual parents is a form of relational child abuse. The child has been placed in a home in which the parents have an inherent shorter life span.
Truth - The study mentioned was created by Paul Cameron .
* On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.
* At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."6
* In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron."
At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:
The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."
And of course those errors merely scratch the surface when it comes to Magnan's report. On my other blog, Anti-Gay Lies and Liars, I list 17 lies that the anti-gay industry spread about gays and lesbians.
Magnan seems to be trying to validate them all, even the one about gay men allegedly molesting children at a high rate.
I guess Magnan's version of Christian love doesn't involve truth.
Why is it that those who look to get into Heaven seem to be causing the most hell on earth for the rest of us?
You see this is why it is important to keep up with anti-gay industry lies and be ready to refute at almost every turn.
They keep coming up.
I received an email from PFOX regarding my question about the study PFOX head Regina Griggs cited in a recent One News Now article.
In my post below, I talked about how Griggs was claiming that GSAs actually led to lgbt children attempting suicide. According to the article:
Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity -- a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs.
The name of the study was not mentioned in the article. I had a suspicion that PFOX was referring to the 1996 Elizabeth Saewyc study that looked at lesbian teen suicides. If it was, then PFOX would have been in error.
A controversy had come up concerning the study when Focus on the Family's spokesperson Melissa Fryrear used it to claim that teen lesbians are having problems with suicide because they are "encouraged by gay activists to come out" (I am paraphrasing here).
Dr. Saewyc said Fryrear's comments was a distortion of her research.
I was concerned that PFOX was still using the Saewyc study to reach the same conclusion that Fryrear did.
This is the email I received from PFOX:
The source is listed at www.pfox.org under Press Releases.
The press release, PFOX Exposes Dangers Of Self-Identifying As ‘Gay’ Before Maturity, is where the name of the study is mentioned.
And Griggs was right. PFOX did not cite the Saewyc study. It cited:
Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth by Remafedi, Farrow, and Deisher, in Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics 87: 869-875 June 1991
Now here is the problem. The first sentence of the One News Now article says:
Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity -- a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs.
A recent study? Hardly. Who considers a 17-year-old study to be recent? Apparently members of the anti-gay industry if the study can be used to demonize lgbts.
There is still a deception here but I don't know who is guilty of it; PFOX, One News Now, or LifeSiteNews.com (the place where the article originated from).
I emailed Griggs again asking for clarification. Was it she who described the 1991 study as a recent one or did One News Now and LifeSiteNews.com use bad dramatic license?
This is getting good.
They just can't stop lying: PFOX tries to slip one by and Peter LaBarbera's friend cites Paul Cameron
One of the most annoying characteristics about the anti-gay industry is their tendency to repeat distortions even after the said distortions have been refuted.
A perfect example are two that I found today:
PFOX tries to distort work on gay teen suicide
I read this today in One News Now:
Quoting a recent study, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is warning of the increased risk of suicide that is linked with young people who identify themselves as homosexuals before achieving full maturity -- a process encouraged by many homosexual high school clubs - PFOX: Homosexual high school clubs increase risk of suicide
Interestingly enough, the study PFOX is referring to is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
But PFOX head Regina Griggs gives a clue as to the nature of the study:
. . ."Research has shown that the risk of suicide decreases by 20 percent each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling. Early self-identification is dangerous to kids."
That quote looked familiar to me so I did a little research and found the following:
Going far beyond the research results, Focus on the Family claims a recent study presented at a Canadian public health conference links "pro-gay advocates" to increased rates of lesbian teen suicide attempts, a claim that has baffled the scientist who conducted the study.
"Nothing in the brief results we presented or in our overall study could lead to such conclusions," said Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, and research director of the McCreary Centre Society.
Reacting to survey results that showed higher rates of suicide attempts among lesbian high school students vs. heterosexual teens, Focus on the Family blamed the very people trying to help teens enter a more accepting society.
"Regrettably, they think they have to embrace homosexuality because pro-gay advocates told them that they were born gay," claimed Melissa Fryrear, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family, on their website.
This was from a June 16, 2006 article in which University of British Columbia Professor Elizabeth Saewyc accused Focus on the Family of distorting her study about lesbian teen suicide.
Focus on the Family spokeswoman Melissa Fryrear claimed that lesbian teens are committing sucide because they are encouraged to "identify as lesbians" by "pro-gay advocates."
Saewyc said Fryrear's conclusion was a distortion of her study. She said:
What we have found is that sexual, racial, or anti-gay harassment, discrimination, and violence are strongly associated with suicidal attempts among young people -- and that includes heterosexual teens too." She noted her previous study of Seattle high school students, which found 4 out of 5 students experiencing anti-gay harassment identified as heterosexual, and harassed students were significantly more likely to report suicide attempts regardless of their orientation.
So now in 2008, is PFOX and Griggs trying to incorrectly interpret the study even after Saewyc cried foul?
I think so.
Of course some may say that I am engaging in pure conjecture. Fair enough. I have drafted a letter that I will email to Griggs and PFOX asking for the name of the study she referred to in the One News Now article. I will send the letter today.
I will also keep you posted on whether or not I receive an answer.
Peter LaBarbera's 'Christian friend' and Paul Cameron
On his webpage, Peter LaBarbera has endorsed a report written by Phil Magnan of the Family Bible Advocates:
Meanwhile, take a read of Phil Magnan’s report, “15 Reasons Why Homosexuality is Wrong and Hurts Society.” Phil is the founder of Biblical Family Advocates, based in San Diego. I just met him in person for the first time and came away impressed by his love for people, including those practicing homosexuality, and his love for God’s truth and His heart on this issue.
By all means, please do read the "report." Magnan's essay comes across as the standard anti-gay industry tripe which recycles the discredited studies and other distortions that have made our lives just a little bit harder.
Interestingly enough, I emailed Magnan about several errors in his work last weekend. Of course I did not get an answer back.
The following are just a few of his errors:
Magnan - The book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence by two homosexual researchers “estimated that 650,000 homosexual men are victims of domestic violence each year, compared to figures from the FBI which showed that last year 1,300 hate crimes were reported.”
Truth - Patrick Letellier complained that Gary Glenn of the American Family Association cherry picked passages from his book (Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them) in order to assert that domestic violence is high in gay relationships. Years after this, the book continues to be cited by the anti-gay industry in the same way Glenn cited it. (in the same manner Magnan did)
Magnan - Defining a Homosexual relationship as loving and monogamous ignores the reality of same sex relationships. Many say that the premise on which we should accept same sex unions is that some of them are "loving, monogamous relationships." Same sex unions may be loving and monogamous from a worldly viewpoint, but if they had “real godly love” they would not subject each other to unnatural sexual activity that leads each other into sin. When we lead others into sin, we are no longer walking in love. In regards to homosexual monogamy, homosexuals remain faithful to one partner about 25% of the time. This is a much lower fidelity rate, than their heterosexual counterparts, which is 80%. It is not unusual for homosexuals to have hundreds of sexual partners in a life time.
Truth - Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service completes a study which objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).” Despite the fact that this study was situated in a foreign city, only looked at casual relationships, was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands, had nothing to do with lesbian relationships or children in same-sex households, it will be cited by the anti-gay industry to speak against gay relationships, same-sex marriage, lesbian relationships, gay adoption, etc. etc. (FOOTNOTE - Box Turtle Bulletin published a excellent report today accusing the Family Research Council of distorting the study in the same manner as Magnan.)
And the piece de resistance: Magnan freely cites discredited researcher Paul Cameron:
Magnan - There is less likelihood that a same sex couple will even be alive to care for their child. One of the reasons that Homosexual couples should not be able to adopt children or take in foster children is that according to many studies, the life span of homosexuals is much lower than that of heterosexuals. These tragic conditions create a much less stable home life for that child. Giving a foster or adopted child to homosexual parents is a form of relational child abuse. The child has been placed in a home in which the parents have an inherent shorter life span.
Truth - The study mentioned was created by Paul Cameron .
* On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.
* At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."6
* In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron."
At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:
The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."
And of course those errors merely scratch the surface when it comes to Magnan's report. On my other blog, Anti-Gay Lies and Liars, I list 17 lies that the anti-gay industry spread about gays and lesbians.
Magnan seems to be trying to validate them all, even the one about gay men allegedly molesting children at a high rate.
I guess Magnan's version of Christian love doesn't involve truth.
Why is it that those who look to get into Heaven seem to be causing the most hell on earth for the rest of us?
You see this is why it is important to keep up with anti-gay industry lies and be ready to refute at almost every turn.
They keep coming up.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
South Carolina is an excellent place to live, but we really need to elect better public officials
First Governor Mark Sanford, now Senator Jim DeMint:
The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly defeated Sen. Jim DeMint's bid to cut the $48 billion cost of expanding President Bush's global AIDS initiative to dozens of countries beyond Africa.
DeMint's amendment to a five-year reauthorization of Bush's signature program lowered the price tag to $35 billion and removed funding for new efforts to fight malaria and tuberculosis.
"What we're doing here this week I consider obscene -- completely unacceptable," DeMint said in an angry Senate floor address before the vote. "We're talking about creating the largest foreign aid program in the history of our country, with no thought."
The Senate's 64-31 vote against the DeMint measure indicated strong bipartisan support for Bush's heralded 2003 campaign targeting AIDS in Africa, which supporters say has saved 2 million lives.
Two hours after defeating DeMint's amendment, the Senate voted 80-16 to pass the AIDS bill. Its total cost is $50 billion, with senators voting earlier in the day to divert $2 billion to domestic benefits for Native Americans.
Meanwhile, the tourism controvery heats up. Some lgbts (who don't live in South Carolina) aresaying that SC Pride is in the wrong for offering to raise money to pay for the ad.
I totally disagree. I have been a board member of SC Pride for over five years and I want to commend my fellow board members for their initiative in this matter.
You see, some of us do think that despite the attitudes of some, South Carolina is an excellent place for lgbts.
I love this state and I am tired of the stereotype that it is backwards and homophobic. One of the reasons why the stereotype is so prevalent is because very few take the initiative to affect change.
We didn't start this controversy, our Governor did. And now that it is started, we will use it to our advantage; to shine a light on this sate.
We will not sit on our asses, twiddle our thumbs, and whine about discrimination. Nor will we ruminate about how "homophobic" South Carolina is.
You see we believe that the state belongs to us also and we will not surrender our rightful place as South Carolinians to ignorant people.
Sometimes fighting battles involve thinking out of the box .
First Governor Mark Sanford, now Senator Jim DeMint:
The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly defeated Sen. Jim DeMint's bid to cut the $48 billion cost of expanding President Bush's global AIDS initiative to dozens of countries beyond Africa.
DeMint's amendment to a five-year reauthorization of Bush's signature program lowered the price tag to $35 billion and removed funding for new efforts to fight malaria and tuberculosis.
"What we're doing here this week I consider obscene -- completely unacceptable," DeMint said in an angry Senate floor address before the vote. "We're talking about creating the largest foreign aid program in the history of our country, with no thought."
The Senate's 64-31 vote against the DeMint measure indicated strong bipartisan support for Bush's heralded 2003 campaign targeting AIDS in Africa, which supporters say has saved 2 million lives.
Two hours after defeating DeMint's amendment, the Senate voted 80-16 to pass the AIDS bill. Its total cost is $50 billion, with senators voting earlier in the day to divert $2 billion to domestic benefits for Native Americans.
Meanwhile, the tourism controvery heats up. Some lgbts (who don't live in South Carolina) aresaying that SC Pride is in the wrong for offering to raise money to pay for the ad.
I totally disagree. I have been a board member of SC Pride for over five years and I want to commend my fellow board members for their initiative in this matter.
You see, some of us do think that despite the attitudes of some, South Carolina is an excellent place for lgbts.
I love this state and I am tired of the stereotype that it is backwards and homophobic. One of the reasons why the stereotype is so prevalent is because very few take the initiative to affect change.
We didn't start this controversy, our Governor did. And now that it is started, we will use it to our advantage; to shine a light on this sate.
We will not sit on our asses, twiddle our thumbs, and whine about discrimination. Nor will we ruminate about how "homophobic" South Carolina is.
You see we believe that the state belongs to us also and we will not surrender our rightful place as South Carolinians to ignorant people.
Sometimes fighting battles involve thinking out of the box .
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
South Carolina “so gay” ad controversy - See this is what we mean when we say homophobia
Maybe I am wrong, but I am getting a huge kick out of this controversy regarding my state and the gay tourism ad.
On Friday it was learned that a London company was working on an ad campaign that would attract gay tourists to South Carolina. South Carolina tourism officials said they would not pay for the ad campaign because it was not agreed upon in the right manner.
Governor Mark Sanford and Greenville State Senator David Thomas objected strongly to the ad campaign. Senator Thomas demanded an investigation.
Since that time, much has taken place.
The person who was responsible for the ad campaign is said to have resigned. However, my paranoid Southern intuition tells me that maybe he was helped in that direction.
We don’t know for sure because no one is talking.
Meanwhile our esteemed Governor and Senator have removed themselves from their soapboxes of righteous indignation and onto the tables of conciliatory gestures. Both are trying to backtrack from their earlier comments
You think it has something to do with the fact that their overly aggressive condemnation of the ad campaign sends the message that lgbts aren’t welcomed in South Carolina?
Perhaps. And now the word is coming down that the state’s tourism industry could be harmed from all of their political posturing.
We will see what happens. All I know is that the more our representatives talk, the more they seem to wallow in the mess they put themselves in:
Governor Mark Sanford’s spokesman - “We welcome anyone to visit our state, but we agree with Sen. Thomas about using tax money to promote any group with a particular social or political agenda.”
Social or political agenda? We are talking about tourists here, not the Chicago Seven. The only agenda tourists have is getting a tan and lots of pictures so that they can make their friends back home jealous.
Greenville Senator David Thomas - “If the ad had said, ‘You will love the Southern Baptist beaches,’ I would also be offended. If a homosexual is attracted here, that’s great. But I have a problem with tax money being spent on ads with a social viewpoint, particularly with sexual orientation.”
Thomas is obviously tap dancing to the same tune the Governor’s office is listening to. And he is dancing as badly as the Governor.
I’m still stuck on the part about Southern Baptist beaches though. But I think I will leave that alone. No sense in causing a new controversy.
I want to say something stark and bold but modesty prevents me from being as rude as I want to be.
I hope that our representatives learn something from this. Our state has been laughed at on television and in the newspapers because of this controversy and frankly, we deserve it.
Don’t even try to sell me on the notions of Southern values and how South Carolina is entrenched in the old ways and traditional morality.
Our representatives acted liked damned fools (well, there goes the modesty).
They heard the word “gay” and conjured up images of half-naked men cavorting shamelessly on beaches complete with whips, chains, and leather chaps. Their minds spun visions so nasty and vile that they forgot that they were adults chosen by their peers to conduct business at a higher standard than that of ugly rumors and preconceived notions of sex and mindless bacchanalia.
Instead of using their heads, they acted with their emotions. They were so quick to take part in a gay version of the ‘War of the Worlds’ paranoia that they did more damage to South Carolina than any invading army, gay or otherwise.
You see when gay people talk about homophobia, this controversy is a perfect example of we mean.
This state is already in the middle of another controversy involving a high school principal who thinks that a gay/straight alliance in his school is the same as a sex club. It is obvious that the actions of Governor Sanford and Sen. Thomas aren’t isolated incidents, but patterns in a huge tapestry of ignorance.
What is that scares people so much about gays and lesbians in this state anyway? We all have gay relatives and we are all privy to occasional rumors about gay public officials. Whether we want to admit it or not, we interact with gays and lesbians almost every day.
So why does it scare people to realize that there are gays among them who lead normal, boring lives; who work, pay taxes, and even go on vacations.
Why is there this need to make gays the natural enemy of South Carolina families when many of them are the heads of those families?
Whatever the case may be, it goes way beyond believing that homosexuality is a sin. But I am not a psychiatrist so I am not going to try and analyze it from that standpoint.
I just hope that Governor Sanford, Sen. Thomas, and everyone in general learn something from this about gay South Carolinians and, most of all, themselves.
UPDATE - It has now been discovered by Q-Notes that the Governor's Office was personally involved in stopping the tourism campaign. The article is here.
Also, the Board of the SC Pride Movement has decided to raise the $5,000 necessary to pay the debt owed by the state for the "South Carolina is so gay" ads created for London Pride Week.
They will launch the campaign using the attached "South Carolina WILL BE 'So Gay'" ad on Thursday from the SC Pride website with PayPal as a way to donate. They will also accept donations mailed to them (Payable to SC Pride, PO Box 12648, Columbia, SC 29211).
Once they repay the state's debt to the UK company, all other proceeds will benefit the SC Pride 2008 Festival and Parade featuring RuPaul to ensure that South Carolina will be "SO GAY" on September 20, 2008 in Columbia, SC.
Anyone interested in donating should contact Ryan Wilson, call the Harriet Hancock Community Center (803) 771-7713, or visit www.scpride.org for more info.
Robert Knight returns and reminds me the nature of not being truthful
Those who have read this blog or my book know that I don't particularly care for anti-gay industry talking head Robert Knight.
He was the only major anti-gay industry talking head whom I had the displeasure of meeting and I have never met anyone whom I would probably dislike more.
Some of you may accuse me of making hasty judgements, but I assure you that I am not. There is simply no other way that I can describe somone who talks about values and morality while at the same time repeating information that he knows is false.
For those who have not read my book, Knight and I met at the University of South Carolina a number of years ago when he was affiliated with Concerned Women for America. Before then he was with the Family Research Council. During his sojourn with these two groups, he freely cited the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. He even did so in front of a Congressional committee.
On the night that he and I met, I was able to ask about his usage of Cameron's work. His answer to me was "we have used his work. So what?"
And that my friends (and forgive me for my use of hyperbole) is when I came to a true understanding of the nature of evil.
Sometimes evil has nothing to do with monsters that we see in horror movies like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger. The true and insidious nature of evil is the ability to give deceptive information with a straight face even though you most likely know that the information will lead to broken families, lgbt children being kicked out of their homes, elderly lgbts losing everything at the death of their partners, and the eventual psychological boxing in of the lgbt community in general.
That is the essence of Robert Knight. Dr. Martin Luther King once said he wanted to be remembered as a drum major for justice. Knight will be remembered as a drum major for lies.
What got me so philosophical about Knight was reading a piece he wrote in One News Now today entitled Washington Post tells kids that homosexuality is fine.
Actually the article does not takes sides. But to Knight and those like him, any article that does not include lies about the "health risks of being gay" is one sided.
Of course one good thing about his column is that while Knight gives the spiel about "gay health risks," he does not go into the lies about "gay domestic violence" and "gays having a short life span."
In the past, he would have. The fact that he cannot now is to the credit of intelligent lgbts and bloggers who have destroyed those patterns of lies.
But this is not to say that Knight doesn't try to do damage. Especially when he talks about the murder of Matthew Shepard:
(Washington Post writer Theresa) Vargas pulled out all the stops, even repeating the gay-activist-created myth that Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard "was killed for being gay." Shepard, as revealed in an ABC News investigation on 20/20 on Nov. 26, 2004, was tied to a fence and left to die after a drug deal turned into a robbery in 1998. The assailants, who were convicted of murder and given life terms, picked out Shepard not to make a savage point about hating gays but because he was carrying cash and looked like an easy mark. Nonetheless, the media have continued to follow the "killed for being gay" script written for them by homosexual activists who flooded into Wyoming and made Matthew the martyr for their cause.
Knight is referring to a 20/20 special that made the claim that Shepard was not murdered because he was gay. In all honesty, the investigation brought up points of hearsay that were never proven. According to wikipedia:
Commander Dave O'Malley — who was also interviewed by ABC and criticized the 20/20 report — pointed out that the drug motive does not necessarily disqualify the anti-gay motive: “My feelings have been that the initial contact was probably motivated by robbery because they needed money. What they got was $20 and a pair of shoes ... then something changed and changed profoundly... But, we will never, ever know because Matt’s dead and I don’t trust what [McKinney and Henderson] said.
You see, before the report, McKinney and Henderson did say that they targeted Shepard because he was gay. In addition, their girlfriends testified under oath that the two had planned to rob a gay man.
So to Knight, in the case of an anti-gay murder, a convicted murderer has more credibility than a man on trial for murder.
But such is Robert Knight, the drummer major for lies.
By the way, this link is the original Washington Post article that got Knight all up in arms. It's good journalism; something Knight knows nothing about.
Maybe I am wrong, but I am getting a huge kick out of this controversy regarding my state and the gay tourism ad.
On Friday it was learned that a London company was working on an ad campaign that would attract gay tourists to South Carolina. South Carolina tourism officials said they would not pay for the ad campaign because it was not agreed upon in the right manner.
Governor Mark Sanford and Greenville State Senator David Thomas objected strongly to the ad campaign. Senator Thomas demanded an investigation.
Since that time, much has taken place.
The person who was responsible for the ad campaign is said to have resigned. However, my paranoid Southern intuition tells me that maybe he was helped in that direction.
We don’t know for sure because no one is talking.
Meanwhile our esteemed Governor and Senator have removed themselves from their soapboxes of righteous indignation and onto the tables of conciliatory gestures. Both are trying to backtrack from their earlier comments
You think it has something to do with the fact that their overly aggressive condemnation of the ad campaign sends the message that lgbts aren’t welcomed in South Carolina?
Perhaps. And now the word is coming down that the state’s tourism industry could be harmed from all of their political posturing.
We will see what happens. All I know is that the more our representatives talk, the more they seem to wallow in the mess they put themselves in:
Governor Mark Sanford’s spokesman - “We welcome anyone to visit our state, but we agree with Sen. Thomas about using tax money to promote any group with a particular social or political agenda.”
Social or political agenda? We are talking about tourists here, not the Chicago Seven. The only agenda tourists have is getting a tan and lots of pictures so that they can make their friends back home jealous.
Greenville Senator David Thomas - “If the ad had said, ‘You will love the Southern Baptist beaches,’ I would also be offended. If a homosexual is attracted here, that’s great. But I have a problem with tax money being spent on ads with a social viewpoint, particularly with sexual orientation.”
Thomas is obviously tap dancing to the same tune the Governor’s office is listening to. And he is dancing as badly as the Governor.
I’m still stuck on the part about Southern Baptist beaches though. But I think I will leave that alone. No sense in causing a new controversy.
I want to say something stark and bold but modesty prevents me from being as rude as I want to be.
I hope that our representatives learn something from this. Our state has been laughed at on television and in the newspapers because of this controversy and frankly, we deserve it.
Don’t even try to sell me on the notions of Southern values and how South Carolina is entrenched in the old ways and traditional morality.
Our representatives acted liked damned fools (well, there goes the modesty).
They heard the word “gay” and conjured up images of half-naked men cavorting shamelessly on beaches complete with whips, chains, and leather chaps. Their minds spun visions so nasty and vile that they forgot that they were adults chosen by their peers to conduct business at a higher standard than that of ugly rumors and preconceived notions of sex and mindless bacchanalia.
Instead of using their heads, they acted with their emotions. They were so quick to take part in a gay version of the ‘War of the Worlds’ paranoia that they did more damage to South Carolina than any invading army, gay or otherwise.
You see when gay people talk about homophobia, this controversy is a perfect example of we mean.
This state is already in the middle of another controversy involving a high school principal who thinks that a gay/straight alliance in his school is the same as a sex club. It is obvious that the actions of Governor Sanford and Sen. Thomas aren’t isolated incidents, but patterns in a huge tapestry of ignorance.
What is that scares people so much about gays and lesbians in this state anyway? We all have gay relatives and we are all privy to occasional rumors about gay public officials. Whether we want to admit it or not, we interact with gays and lesbians almost every day.
So why does it scare people to realize that there are gays among them who lead normal, boring lives; who work, pay taxes, and even go on vacations.
Why is there this need to make gays the natural enemy of South Carolina families when many of them are the heads of those families?
Whatever the case may be, it goes way beyond believing that homosexuality is a sin. But I am not a psychiatrist so I am not going to try and analyze it from that standpoint.
I just hope that Governor Sanford, Sen. Thomas, and everyone in general learn something from this about gay South Carolinians and, most of all, themselves.
UPDATE - It has now been discovered by Q-Notes that the Governor's Office was personally involved in stopping the tourism campaign. The article is here.
Also, the Board of the SC Pride Movement has decided to raise the $5,000 necessary to pay the debt owed by the state for the "South Carolina is so gay" ads created for London Pride Week.
They will launch the campaign using the attached "South Carolina WILL BE 'So Gay'" ad on Thursday from the SC Pride website with PayPal as a way to donate. They will also accept donations mailed to them (Payable to SC Pride, PO Box 12648, Columbia, SC 29211).
Once they repay the state's debt to the UK company, all other proceeds will benefit the SC Pride 2008 Festival and Parade featuring RuPaul to ensure that South Carolina will be "SO GAY" on September 20, 2008 in Columbia, SC.
Anyone interested in donating should contact Ryan Wilson
Robert Knight returns and reminds me the nature of not being truthful
Those who have read this blog or my book know that I don't particularly care for anti-gay industry talking head Robert Knight.
He was the only major anti-gay industry talking head whom I had the displeasure of meeting and I have never met anyone whom I would probably dislike more.
Some of you may accuse me of making hasty judgements, but I assure you that I am not. There is simply no other way that I can describe somone who talks about values and morality while at the same time repeating information that he knows is false.
For those who have not read my book, Knight and I met at the University of South Carolina a number of years ago when he was affiliated with Concerned Women for America. Before then he was with the Family Research Council. During his sojourn with these two groups, he freely cited the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. He even did so in front of a Congressional committee.
On the night that he and I met, I was able to ask about his usage of Cameron's work. His answer to me was "we have used his work. So what?"
And that my friends (and forgive me for my use of hyperbole) is when I came to a true understanding of the nature of evil.
Sometimes evil has nothing to do with monsters that we see in horror movies like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger. The true and insidious nature of evil is the ability to give deceptive information with a straight face even though you most likely know that the information will lead to broken families, lgbt children being kicked out of their homes, elderly lgbts losing everything at the death of their partners, and the eventual psychological boxing in of the lgbt community in general.
That is the essence of Robert Knight. Dr. Martin Luther King once said he wanted to be remembered as a drum major for justice. Knight will be remembered as a drum major for lies.
What got me so philosophical about Knight was reading a piece he wrote in One News Now today entitled Washington Post tells kids that homosexuality is fine.
Actually the article does not takes sides. But to Knight and those like him, any article that does not include lies about the "health risks of being gay" is one sided.
Of course one good thing about his column is that while Knight gives the spiel about "gay health risks," he does not go into the lies about "gay domestic violence" and "gays having a short life span."
In the past, he would have. The fact that he cannot now is to the credit of intelligent lgbts and bloggers who have destroyed those patterns of lies.
But this is not to say that Knight doesn't try to do damage. Especially when he talks about the murder of Matthew Shepard:
(Washington Post writer Theresa) Vargas pulled out all the stops, even repeating the gay-activist-created myth that Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard "was killed for being gay." Shepard, as revealed in an ABC News investigation on 20/20 on Nov. 26, 2004, was tied to a fence and left to die after a drug deal turned into a robbery in 1998. The assailants, who were convicted of murder and given life terms, picked out Shepard not to make a savage point about hating gays but because he was carrying cash and looked like an easy mark. Nonetheless, the media have continued to follow the "killed for being gay" script written for them by homosexual activists who flooded into Wyoming and made Matthew the martyr for their cause.
Knight is referring to a 20/20 special that made the claim that Shepard was not murdered because he was gay. In all honesty, the investigation brought up points of hearsay that were never proven. According to wikipedia:
Commander Dave O'Malley — who was also interviewed by ABC and criticized the 20/20 report — pointed out that the drug motive does not necessarily disqualify the anti-gay motive: “My feelings have been that the initial contact was probably motivated by robbery because they needed money. What they got was $20 and a pair of shoes ... then something changed and changed profoundly... But, we will never, ever know because Matt’s dead and I don’t trust what [McKinney and Henderson] said.
You see, before the report, McKinney and Henderson did say that they targeted Shepard because he was gay. In addition, their girlfriends testified under oath that the two had planned to rob a gay man.
So to Knight, in the case of an anti-gay murder, a convicted murderer has more credibility than a man on trial for murder.
But such is Robert Knight, the drummer major for lies.
By the way, this link is the original Washington Post article that got Knight all up in arms. It's good journalism; something Knight knows nothing about.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Bill Whitman is right - they do hate gays
It was a very big crowd during lunch at McDonalds today. Everyone was supersizing their menus and were also very nice.
I ran into a very polite, well-dressed young man. Another five minutes and I would have been engaged.
Apparently news of the AFA's boycott isn't affecting McDonalds here in South Carolina. And to a degree, that is interesting. After all, South Carolina is the buckle of the Bible Belt. Down here, we not only argue over Biblical interpretations, but also the length of baptism pools and the size of the cross on which Jesus was crucified.
Who knows. Maybe very few people down here know about it. Or maybe they do know about the boycott and the general feeling is "the AFA be damned. I'm hungry and hot. Now supersize me!"
Either way, it's really not surprising. Telling Americans not to go to McDonalds is like telling my great aunt not to go to church. The difference is that in the case of my great aunt, you might get cut.
But you have go give the AFA points (albeit very small ones) for using the words of McDonalds spokesman Bill Whitman.
Notice that I did not say twisting words because Whitman did infer that the actions of the AFA and others are motivated out of hatred.
It is something that us lgbts know all too well. Now some may say describing the AFA and other members of the anti-gay industry as hateful and homophobic is overused. Certainly it gives them a chance to play innocent. All we are doing is standing up for Christian values and traditional morality, they say. Why is that when Christians stand up for what they believe in, they are called haters?
I personally don't have a problem with describing the AFA and the others as hateful. I do have a problem with folks doing so without supplying proof of their offenses.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how AFA, Donald Wildmon, Peter LaBarbera, the Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America, etc. try to spin and plead ennui, they really do hate the lgbt community.
And as luck would have it, there is a paper trail. Just in time for their press conference tomorrow, too.
Read on if you have a strong stomach and feel free to pass this list to anyone else, especially "pro-boycott" supporters:
“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” — Robert Knight (formerly of the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America)
"Now the Bush Administration is opening its arms to homosexual activists who have been working diligently to overthrow the traditional views of Western Civilization regarding human sexuality, marriage and family… AFA would never support the policies of a political party which embraced the homosexual movement. Period.” – Don Wildmon, AFA Press Release
"Why is the House of Representatives wasting taxpayer dollars to discuss whether or not drag queens or she-males are offended because of their cross-dressing or sexual behaviors in a business environment?” Of course, “I already know the answer: Because liberals…are aggressively promoting the normalization of cross-dressing and transsexualism in our culture.” - Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
" . . . I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society." - Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council
“Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.” - Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel
"Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting".– Peter LaBarbera
It was a very big crowd during lunch at McDonalds today. Everyone was supersizing their menus and were also very nice.
I ran into a very polite, well-dressed young man. Another five minutes and I would have been engaged.
Apparently news of the AFA's boycott isn't affecting McDonalds here in South Carolina. And to a degree, that is interesting. After all, South Carolina is the buckle of the Bible Belt. Down here, we not only argue over Biblical interpretations, but also the length of baptism pools and the size of the cross on which Jesus was crucified.
Who knows. Maybe very few people down here know about it. Or maybe they do know about the boycott and the general feeling is "the AFA be damned. I'm hungry and hot. Now supersize me!"
Either way, it's really not surprising. Telling Americans not to go to McDonalds is like telling my great aunt not to go to church. The difference is that in the case of my great aunt, you might get cut.
But you have go give the AFA points (albeit very small ones) for using the words of McDonalds spokesman Bill Whitman.
Notice that I did not say twisting words because Whitman did infer that the actions of the AFA and others are motivated out of hatred.
It is something that us lgbts know all too well. Now some may say describing the AFA and other members of the anti-gay industry as hateful and homophobic is overused. Certainly it gives them a chance to play innocent. All we are doing is standing up for Christian values and traditional morality, they say. Why is that when Christians stand up for what they believe in, they are called haters?
I personally don't have a problem with describing the AFA and the others as hateful. I do have a problem with folks doing so without supplying proof of their offenses.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how AFA, Donald Wildmon, Peter LaBarbera, the Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America, etc. try to spin and plead ennui, they really do hate the lgbt community.
And as luck would have it, there is a paper trail. Just in time for their press conference tomorrow, too.
Read on if you have a strong stomach and feel free to pass this list to anyone else, especially "pro-boycott" supporters:
“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” — Robert Knight (formerly of the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America)
"Now the Bush Administration is opening its arms to homosexual activists who have been working diligently to overthrow the traditional views of Western Civilization regarding human sexuality, marriage and family… AFA would never support the policies of a political party which embraced the homosexual movement. Period.” – Don Wildmon, AFA Press Release
"Why is the House of Representatives wasting taxpayer dollars to discuss whether or not drag queens or she-males are offended because of their cross-dressing or sexual behaviors in a business environment?” Of course, “I already know the answer: Because liberals…are aggressively promoting the normalization of cross-dressing and transsexualism in our culture.” - Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
" . . . I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society." - Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council
“Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.” - Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel
"Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting".– Peter LaBarbera
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)