Countdown to exploitation
Mondays suck on principle. And this news doesn't make things better:
H.I.V. Study Finds Rate 40% Higher Than Estimated
MEXICO CITY — The United States has significantly underreported the number of new H.I.V. infections occurring nationally each year, with a study released here on Saturday showing that the annual infection rate is 40 percent higher than previously estimated.
The study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that 56,300 people became newly infected with H.I.V in 2006, compared with the 40,000 figure the agency has cited as the recent annual incidence of the disease.
The findings confirm that H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, has its greatest effect among gay and bisexual men of all races (53 percent of all new infections) and among African-American men and women.
The new figures are likely to strongly influence a number of decisions about efforts to control the epidemic, said the disease centers’ director, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, and other AIDS experts. Timely data about trends in H.I.V. transmission, they said, is essential for planning and evaluating prevention efforts and the money spent on them.
Dr. Gerberding said the new findings were “unacceptable,” adding that new efforts must be made to lower the infection rates. “We are not effectively reaching men who have sex with men and African-Americans to lower their risk,” she said.
Now here is the interesting question: just how long will it take before One News Now, Americans for Truth (in name only) and other so-called pro-family groups take the headline and add their own interesting details to the mix?
How long before we are inudated by comments about the "dangers of homosexual sex." Never mind that such stigmatizing comments contribute to the ignorance of and spread of AIDS. Far be it from our "worthy" opponents to miss an opportunity the demonize the lgbt community.
I say it won't take a day. Probably even as I speak, Peter and company are thinking of ways to spin this bad news for their own purposes.
I found that last sentence of the article (involving African-Americans) interesting in light of the fact that the African-American community in my state of South Carolina are in severe jeopardy due to the disease.
We have people in the trenches fighting hard to alleviate this problem. As a matter of fact, Dr. Bambi Gaddist (a tireless worker and educator) of the South Carolina HIV/AIDS Council was just featured as a CNN hero .
One News Now and their cohorts like to brag about their so-called Christian principles.
Bambi doesn't brag. She just does the work that needs to be done.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Matt Barber's crazy semantics
Try as I might, I cannot ignore Matt Barber's mean bleatings against McDonalds.
I really tried to ignore his latest hysterics masquerading as a reasonable column. That is until this part:
Unfortunately, the radical San Francisco-style policies both the NGLCC and McDonald's advocate run directly counter to the best interests of the vast majority of Americans outside California's "Sodom on the Bay." For example, under communist-tested, McDonald's-approved "hate speech" legislation, such as the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Christians and other business owners with traditional values would be forced – under penalty of law – to abandon sincerely held religious beliefs and adopt McDonald's own secular-humanist, moral-relativist view of right and wrong.
Why is it so hard for Barber to simply say, "yes, I believe that someone should be fired or be kept from getting a job because they are gay or lesbian."
But no. He doesn't want to say what he really believes. He wants to string words together in a ploy to hide what he really thinks.
From political perspective, it's a good idea. But from a moral perspective, it comes across like a something out of The Manchurian Candidate.
The phrase reveals the duplicity of the anti-gay industry. As much as they try to push the notion that they are the bastions of truth and morality, they have to rely on cynical political wordings to try and sway the population.
If they tried truth for a change, they would probably get laughed out of the country (i.e. Elaine Donnelly).
And by the way, Barber's assertions that the boycott is growing is wrong. At the very least, in my city, McDonalds continues to do excellent business.
In fact, I am beginning to think that maybe McDonalds manufactured this boycott to create a jump in business.
Try as I might, I cannot ignore Matt Barber's mean bleatings against McDonalds.
I really tried to ignore his latest hysterics masquerading as a reasonable column. That is until this part:
Unfortunately, the radical San Francisco-style policies both the NGLCC and McDonald's advocate run directly counter to the best interests of the vast majority of Americans outside California's "Sodom on the Bay." For example, under communist-tested, McDonald's-approved "hate speech" legislation, such as the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Christians and other business owners with traditional values would be forced – under penalty of law – to abandon sincerely held religious beliefs and adopt McDonald's own secular-humanist, moral-relativist view of right and wrong.
Why is it so hard for Barber to simply say, "yes, I believe that someone should be fired or be kept from getting a job because they are gay or lesbian."
But no. He doesn't want to say what he really believes. He wants to string words together in a ploy to hide what he really thinks.
From political perspective, it's a good idea. But from a moral perspective, it comes across like a something out of The Manchurian Candidate.
The phrase reveals the duplicity of the anti-gay industry. As much as they try to push the notion that they are the bastions of truth and morality, they have to rely on cynical political wordings to try and sway the population.
If they tried truth for a change, they would probably get laughed out of the country (i.e. Elaine Donnelly).
And by the way, Barber's assertions that the boycott is growing is wrong. At the very least, in my city, McDonalds continues to do excellent business.
In fact, I am beginning to think that maybe McDonalds manufactured this boycott to create a jump in business.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Peter LaBarbera is naaaaasty - the remix
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan:
there he goes again.
Our friend Peter LaBarbera has posted pictures of yet another subcultural event in California in an attempt to demonize the entire lgbt community.
You can see them if you want by going here but if you know Peter, you know what to expect - a bunch of nasty pictures with cutlines feigning shock and disgust over the events happening in said pictures.
And commentary along with the pictures and cutlines detailing just how the lgbt community are so hedonistic and nasty.
In this round of pictures, Peter outdoes his past attempts. One wonders if he asked the participants to pose.
I am beginning to think that perhaps Peter is taking too much pleasure in not only taking these pictures, but making sure that his readers get "full details" as the actions perpetrated in the pictures.
Of course he will probably say he is being "thorough."
Suuure you are, Peter. But is it really necessary to have a "click picture to enlarge" function?
Personally, I have never been to any of these events that Peter attends. Nor do I plan to.
But here in South Carolina, I have proudly participated in five gay pride parades. Our events are orderly and decent as well as family-oriented. Families join together hand-in-hand and mothers either carry their children in their arms or push strollers in our parades.
And on the sidelines, we get lots of cheers, especially from young children, teenagers, and adults who are not marching.
And I KNOW that South Carolina's parade isn't an anamoly, but a true picture of American lgbts.
But you will never see Peter at parades like these. And as much as I try, I can't get alarmed at his actions anymore.
I feel sorry for him.
Peter LaBarbera is as much of an exhibitionist as those folks in the pictures featured on his page.
PFOX continues to wallow in mess
What is the deal with PFOX?
One would think the group would give it a little rest after being embarrassed last week for not only distorting a legitimate study but trying to pass it off as recent.
No such luck. Apparently the group and its leader, Regina Griggs, are gluttons for punishment:
Regina Griggs of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays) continues to tell whoppers. In this article at OneNewsNow she tells a huge lie:
"Why are we allowing people to tell them, 'Try it -- you might like it?' Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive," Griggs notes.
Over 70% of 13 to 24 year olds who are men having sex with men (MSM) are HIV-positive? That's absolutely ridiculous, not even in the ballpark. Here's the most recent CDC report, which does in fact note that HIV infections have increased among MSM between 13 and 24. But 70%? Not even close.
The new CDC study found a total of 214,379 people of both genders testing positive for HIV between 2001 and 2006. 46% of them were among MSM, or about 98,000 of them. And of that total, 13,584 of them were between 13 and 24. That's up 12.4% from previous figures, so it's certainly troubling and needs to be addressed. But that sure as hell doesn't constitute 70% of all gay men between 13 and 24, folks. Not even close.
And according Emproph of Genocide for Jesus, even though Dr. Gary Remafedi, the author of the study PFOX distorted last week, has formally asked the group to remove it from its webpage, the study remains there.
Well as long as PFOX wants the punishment for lying, I say we should dispense it with vigor.
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan:
there he goes again.
Our friend Peter LaBarbera has posted pictures of yet another subcultural event in California in an attempt to demonize the entire lgbt community.
You can see them if you want by going here but if you know Peter, you know what to expect - a bunch of nasty pictures with cutlines feigning shock and disgust over the events happening in said pictures.
And commentary along with the pictures and cutlines detailing just how the lgbt community are so hedonistic and nasty.
In this round of pictures, Peter outdoes his past attempts. One wonders if he asked the participants to pose.
I am beginning to think that perhaps Peter is taking too much pleasure in not only taking these pictures, but making sure that his readers get "full details" as the actions perpetrated in the pictures.
Of course he will probably say he is being "thorough."
Suuure you are, Peter. But is it really necessary to have a "click picture to enlarge" function?
Personally, I have never been to any of these events that Peter attends. Nor do I plan to.
But here in South Carolina, I have proudly participated in five gay pride parades. Our events are orderly and decent as well as family-oriented. Families join together hand-in-hand and mothers either carry their children in their arms or push strollers in our parades.
And on the sidelines, we get lots of cheers, especially from young children, teenagers, and adults who are not marching.
And I KNOW that South Carolina's parade isn't an anamoly, but a true picture of American lgbts.
But you will never see Peter at parades like these. And as much as I try, I can't get alarmed at his actions anymore.
I feel sorry for him.
Peter LaBarbera is as much of an exhibitionist as those folks in the pictures featured on his page.
PFOX continues to wallow in mess
What is the deal with PFOX?
One would think the group would give it a little rest after being embarrassed last week for not only distorting a legitimate study but trying to pass it off as recent.
No such luck. Apparently the group and its leader, Regina Griggs, are gluttons for punishment:
Regina Griggs of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays) continues to tell whoppers. In this article at OneNewsNow she tells a huge lie:
"Why are we allowing people to tell them, 'Try it -- you might like it?' Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive," Griggs notes.
Over 70% of 13 to 24 year olds who are men having sex with men (MSM) are HIV-positive? That's absolutely ridiculous, not even in the ballpark. Here's the most recent CDC report, which does in fact note that HIV infections have increased among MSM between 13 and 24. But 70%? Not even close.
The new CDC study found a total of 214,379 people of both genders testing positive for HIV between 2001 and 2006. 46% of them were among MSM, or about 98,000 of them. And of that total, 13,584 of them were between 13 and 24. That's up 12.4% from previous figures, so it's certainly troubling and needs to be addressed. But that sure as hell doesn't constitute 70% of all gay men between 13 and 24, folks. Not even close.
And according Emproph of Genocide for Jesus, even though Dr. Gary Remafedi, the author of the study PFOX distorted last week, has formally asked the group to remove it from its webpage, the study remains there.
Well as long as PFOX wants the punishment for lying, I say we should dispense it with vigor.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Whooo weeeee! Somebody gonna pay!!!
There are several things going on today around the country.
First of all, my prayers are with those who caught up in that recent awful incident in Tennessee.
As many of you know, I lost my father almost eight years ago via a violent act by a group of ignorant men so my first thoughts are with the relatives of those who lost their lives. I pray for closure and the ability to eventually deal with having a loved one taken away.
(PAUSE)
Elaine Donnelly continues to provide us all with many moments of fun. Everyone is taking their shots at her. Now it's John Stewart and the Daily Show's turn.
I'm soooo ashamed. I watched the clip twice and laughed my ass off.
Meanwhile, Donnelly is upset as to how she was treated during the hearing and she made her thoughts known via One News Now:
Donnelly says the way she was treated during the hearing -- treatment she says included "personal insults and diversionary insinuations" -- actually demonstrated the kind of intolerance the military can expect if the new policy goes into affect. If it does, she believes it will no longer be an option to oppose any portion of the homosexual agenda -- something Donnelly calls "truly radical." - 'Deck stacked' against pro-family representatives
Never minding the stupidly offensive headline, Donnelly was not personally attacked. If she viewed anything as a personal insult, that's too bad.
The fact of the matter is that she came to the hearing unprepared and revealed herself to be way in over her head. To wit, she was appropriately dressed down.
Donnelly was so embarrassing that it ceased to become a hearing and began to resemble an episode of American Idol.
Other items - LGBTS won a huge victory in Massachusetts (that is going to make the anti-gay group Mass Resistance piss out of their noses ) and Buffalo.
And now to the crux of my post - an incident that hasn't gotten that much press as of yet, but is nonetheless very satisfying:
A federal judge scolded a Panhandle school principal, saying the administrator led a "relentless crusade" against gay and lesbian students at Ponce de Leon High School and violated their First Amendment rights.
Student Heather Gillman and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Holmes County School District, saying that the principal prohibited the teen from wearing gay pride clothing, stickers and buttons in 2007.
Students, including Gillman, had begun showing support after the taunting of a gay student at school. In response to the taunting incident, David Davis told the gay student it wasn't right for her to be homosexual and held a morality assembly, according to testimony.
He also suspended several students for supporting Gillman, court records show.
A two-day trial was held in May, but U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak's 36-page opinion wasn't released until last week.
And I happen to have looked at the decision. Based on what I read, Davis needs to be . . . well you understand the crux of my anger when you see how this entire thing started:
This case arose from events involving a homosexual student at Ponce de Leon High School on Friday, September 7, 2007. The twelfth-grade student, Jane Doe, reported to a teacher’s aide that she had been taunted by a group of approximately five middle school students because of her sexual orientation. The middle school students allegedly told Jane that “dykes,” such as herself, were nasty,” “gross,” and “sick.” The teacher’s aide reported the incident to Principal
David Davis.
At the end of the school day on the following Monday, September 10, 2007, Davis called Jane into his office. Davis asked Jane if she had told the teacher’s aide that she identified herself as a lesbian. Jane answered, “Yes.” Davis then asked,“Are you a lesbian?” Jane again answered, “Yes.” Davis counseled Jane that it was not “right” to be homosexual.
He then questioned Jane about whether her parents were aware of her sexual orientation. When Jane answered in the negative, Davis asked Jane for her parents’ telephone number so that he could call them and inform them of her sexual orientation. Davis also instructed Jane to “stay away” from the middle school students or that he would suspend her. Jane left Davis’s office in tears.
Also, according to the judge's opinion:
Testimony at trial revealed that Jane’s father threatened to kick Jane out of the house upon learning of his daughter’s sexual orientation.
Judge Smoak didn't cut the former principal (he was removed from his job because of the incident) any slack:
Principal David Davis responded to Jane Doe’s complaints of harassment by other students, not by consoling her, but by shaming her. Davis interrogated Jane about her sexual orientation, informed her parents that she identified as homosexual, warned her to stay away from other students because of her sexual orientation, preached to her that being homosexual was not “right,” and ultimately suspended her for expressing her support for herself and for other homosexual students.
Regrettably, Jane’s contact with Davis during her senior year may well have been her last interaction with a school administrator before her graduation. Instead of providing Jane with a positive experience in the public school system during her final year, Davis crushed her and brought her to tears. Davis’s conduct, in the capacity of a role model and authority figure, is particularly deplorable in light of studies which confirm the vulnerability of gay and lesbian students . . .
The next time some idiot (hello PFOX) ruminates as to the supposed harm of GSAs, please remind them of this incident.
It's not the GSAs harming our children. It's the so-called doyennes of morality.
There are several things going on today around the country.
First of all, my prayers are with those who caught up in that recent awful incident in Tennessee.
As many of you know, I lost my father almost eight years ago via a violent act by a group of ignorant men so my first thoughts are with the relatives of those who lost their lives. I pray for closure and the ability to eventually deal with having a loved one taken away.
(PAUSE)
Elaine Donnelly continues to provide us all with many moments of fun. Everyone is taking their shots at her. Now it's John Stewart and the Daily Show's turn.
I'm soooo ashamed. I watched the clip twice and laughed my ass off.
Meanwhile, Donnelly is upset as to how she was treated during the hearing and she made her thoughts known via One News Now:
Donnelly says the way she was treated during the hearing -- treatment she says included "personal insults and diversionary insinuations" -- actually demonstrated the kind of intolerance the military can expect if the new policy goes into affect. If it does, she believes it will no longer be an option to oppose any portion of the homosexual agenda -- something Donnelly calls "truly radical." - 'Deck stacked' against pro-family representatives
Never minding the stupidly offensive headline, Donnelly was not personally attacked. If she viewed anything as a personal insult, that's too bad.
The fact of the matter is that she came to the hearing unprepared and revealed herself to be way in over her head. To wit, she was appropriately dressed down.
Donnelly was so embarrassing that it ceased to become a hearing and began to resemble an episode of American Idol.
Other items - LGBTS won a huge victory in Massachusetts (that is going to make the anti-gay group Mass Resistance piss out of their noses ) and Buffalo.
And now to the crux of my post - an incident that hasn't gotten that much press as of yet, but is nonetheless very satisfying:
A federal judge scolded a Panhandle school principal, saying the administrator led a "relentless crusade" against gay and lesbian students at Ponce de Leon High School and violated their First Amendment rights.
Student Heather Gillman and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Holmes County School District, saying that the principal prohibited the teen from wearing gay pride clothing, stickers and buttons in 2007.
Students, including Gillman, had begun showing support after the taunting of a gay student at school. In response to the taunting incident, David Davis told the gay student it wasn't right for her to be homosexual and held a morality assembly, according to testimony.
He also suspended several students for supporting Gillman, court records show.
A two-day trial was held in May, but U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak's 36-page opinion wasn't released until last week.
And I happen to have looked at the decision. Based on what I read, Davis needs to be . . . well you understand the crux of my anger when you see how this entire thing started:
This case arose from events involving a homosexual student at Ponce de Leon High School on Friday, September 7, 2007. The twelfth-grade student, Jane Doe, reported to a teacher’s aide that she had been taunted by a group of approximately five middle school students because of her sexual orientation. The middle school students allegedly told Jane that “dykes,” such as herself, were nasty,” “gross,” and “sick.” The teacher’s aide reported the incident to Principal
David Davis.
At the end of the school day on the following Monday, September 10, 2007, Davis called Jane into his office. Davis asked Jane if she had told the teacher’s aide that she identified herself as a lesbian. Jane answered, “Yes.” Davis then asked,“Are you a lesbian?” Jane again answered, “Yes.” Davis counseled Jane that it was not “right” to be homosexual.
He then questioned Jane about whether her parents were aware of her sexual orientation. When Jane answered in the negative, Davis asked Jane for her parents’ telephone number so that he could call them and inform them of her sexual orientation. Davis also instructed Jane to “stay away” from the middle school students or that he would suspend her. Jane left Davis’s office in tears.
Also, according to the judge's opinion:
Testimony at trial revealed that Jane’s father threatened to kick Jane out of the house upon learning of his daughter’s sexual orientation.
Judge Smoak didn't cut the former principal (he was removed from his job because of the incident) any slack:
Principal David Davis responded to Jane Doe’s complaints of harassment by other students, not by consoling her, but by shaming her. Davis interrogated Jane about her sexual orientation, informed her parents that she identified as homosexual, warned her to stay away from other students because of her sexual orientation, preached to her that being homosexual was not “right,” and ultimately suspended her for expressing her support for herself and for other homosexual students.
Regrettably, Jane’s contact with Davis during her senior year may well have been her last interaction with a school administrator before her graduation. Instead of providing Jane with a positive experience in the public school system during her final year, Davis crushed her and brought her to tears. Davis’s conduct, in the capacity of a role model and authority figure, is particularly deplorable in light of studies which confirm the vulnerability of gay and lesbian students . . .
The next time some idiot (hello PFOX) ruminates as to the supposed harm of GSAs, please remind them of this incident.
It's not the GSAs harming our children. It's the so-called doyennes of morality.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Bad Monday made worse
Some trifling ass individual took it upon himself to open fire on a church in Knoxville, Tenn.
The church was gay-friendly and the shooter supposedly hated "liberals," "blacks," "gays," and folks who were different from him.
Things have become so damned ugly when it comes to polarization in America.
When Bush was elected, I never thought it was the end of the world. I certainly didn't vote for him but when he was sworn it, I never felt the need to stand on South Carolina highways wailing like a banshee and tearing my clothing.
It's sad that we have gotten to the point where people are marked as the "enemy" in society.
Now at this point, I could go on a tangent about One News Now. All one has to do is read the comments on that "news site" to get the gist of what I am talking about.
However, I won't because it would make me sound a bit hypocritical, especially when one takes into account how I have talked about the lies of the "anti-gay industry."
I will say that I have never advocated violence. I have always advocated fighting lies against the lgbt community by spreading truth and letting people know the distortions told about us.
And I have said on many occasions that there is nothing wrong with someone believing that homosexuality is a sin.
My problem is when organizations are knowingly spreading false and discredited data while at the same time embracing principles like God and country.
In the long run, I don't believe that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is inherently evil or intolerant. And I certainly don't believe that they deserve to be executed
When it's all said and done, this situation will be remembered as one of a coward who, instead of taking care of business, blamed other people for his problems and took it upon himself to hurt innocents; some who probably didn't know him from Adam and others who would have probably helped him if he talked to them rather than shoot them.
But we can all learn from this incident. We do need to watch our words and pull back from our pronouncements of doom.
You never know who we may be giving perfect excuses to.
Some trifling ass individual took it upon himself to open fire on a church in Knoxville, Tenn.
The church was gay-friendly and the shooter supposedly hated "liberals," "blacks," "gays," and folks who were different from him.
Things have become so damned ugly when it comes to polarization in America.
When Bush was elected, I never thought it was the end of the world. I certainly didn't vote for him but when he was sworn it, I never felt the need to stand on South Carolina highways wailing like a banshee and tearing my clothing.
It's sad that we have gotten to the point where people are marked as the "enemy" in society.
Now at this point, I could go on a tangent about One News Now. All one has to do is read the comments on that "news site" to get the gist of what I am talking about.
However, I won't because it would make me sound a bit hypocritical, especially when one takes into account how I have talked about the lies of the "anti-gay industry."
I will say that I have never advocated violence. I have always advocated fighting lies against the lgbt community by spreading truth and letting people know the distortions told about us.
And I have said on many occasions that there is nothing wrong with someone believing that homosexuality is a sin.
My problem is when organizations are knowingly spreading false and discredited data while at the same time embracing principles like God and country.
In the long run, I don't believe that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is inherently evil or intolerant. And I certainly don't believe that they deserve to be executed
When it's all said and done, this situation will be remembered as one of a coward who, instead of taking care of business, blamed other people for his problems and took it upon himself to hurt innocents; some who probably didn't know him from Adam and others who would have probably helped him if he talked to them rather than shoot them.
But we can all learn from this incident. We do need to watch our words and pull back from our pronouncements of doom.
You never know who we may be giving perfect excuses to.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Is anyone keeping score?
In light of the one-two punch given to PFOX and Elaine Donnelly this week regarding their distortion of legtimate studies, I would like to create a new timeline of past complaints:
1994 - Joanne Hall, Ph.D. of the University of Tennessee’s College of Nursing publishes a study looking at the patterns of behavior for 35 lesbians who had self-identified alcohol problems. Her study is later used by various anti-gay industry groups to claim that lesbians in general have a problem with alcohol abuse and that gay adoption is not a good idea. Hall later writes a letter of complaint to one of the groups distorting her study (the Family Research Council). Her complaint is ignored.
1998 - Pediatrician Robert Garafalo complains that the anti-gay industry distorted his study regarding at-risk behavior amongst gay youth. He said the groups omitted the part of his study that said the at-risk behavior is the result of a homophobic society.
Assistant Professor of Sociology Lisa Waldner tells Frank Rich of the New York Times that the anti-gay industry is distorting a study she wrote while in 1992 in order to claim that lesbians relationships have a high rate of domestic violence.
2001 - Six researchers (Robert S Hogg, Stefan A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V. O’ Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T Schechter) write a letter to the editor to the International Journal of Epidemiology accusing the anti-gay industry of distorting a study they published in 1997 in order to claim that gay men have a short life span. They said they were speaking of a hypothetical outcome that would take place if there were not better practices regarding safe sex in that particular area. They also said that conditions have improved; therefore the outcome they predicted (i.e. gay men not reaching their sixty-fifth birthday) had been averted.
Patrick Letellier complains 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.
Robert Spitzer publishes a study that says a small number of people can change their sexual orientation. The anti-gay industry cites the study as proof that homosexuality is a choice. Spitzer complains as to how his work was being used, even publishing a piece in the Wall Street Journal complaining about how his work was being distorted. In 2006, he gives an interview with the Los Angeles Times in which he says he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his 2001 study may have been either lying to him or themselves.
2002 - A. Nicholas Groth writes a letter to the Family Research Council claiming that the group distorted his work in a study to prove that gays molest children at a high level. Groth, in 1983, complained that discredited researcher Paul Cameron had done the same thing. The study published by the Family Research Council is almost similar to the one published by Cameron.
2006 - Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc of the University of British Columbia complains that Focus on the Family distorted her study on lesbian teen suicide.
Dr. Kyle Pruett, a clinical professor of psychiatry in the Yale Child Study Center and School of Nursing accuses Focus on the Family head James Dobson of distorting his work.
New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. writes Focus on the Family head James Dobson a blistering letter accusing him of distorting her work.
2008 - Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, claims the “ex-gay” organization PFOX distorted his research findings.
The Palm Center announces that a Duke University law review will be publishing a critique of a 2007 article by Elaine Donnelly. Donnelly is the president of the Center for Military Readiness, a traditional values interest group with no military or academic affiliation. According to Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin, Donelly's article 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.
I repeat my question: Is anyone keeping score?
In light of the one-two punch given to PFOX and Elaine Donnelly this week regarding their distortion of legtimate studies, I would like to create a new timeline of past complaints:
1994 - Joanne Hall, Ph.D. of the University of Tennessee’s College of Nursing publishes a study looking at the patterns of behavior for 35 lesbians who had self-identified alcohol problems. Her study is later used by various anti-gay industry groups to claim that lesbians in general have a problem with alcohol abuse and that gay adoption is not a good idea. Hall later writes a letter of complaint to one of the groups distorting her study (the Family Research Council). Her complaint is ignored.
1998 - Pediatrician Robert Garafalo complains that the anti-gay industry distorted his study regarding at-risk behavior amongst gay youth. He said the groups omitted the part of his study that said the at-risk behavior is the result of a homophobic society.
Assistant Professor of Sociology Lisa Waldner tells Frank Rich of the New York Times that the anti-gay industry is distorting a study she wrote while in 1992 in order to claim that lesbians relationships have a high rate of domestic violence.
2001 - Six researchers (Robert S Hogg, Stefan A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V. O’ Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T Schechter) write a letter to the editor to the International Journal of Epidemiology accusing the anti-gay industry of distorting a study they published in 1997 in order to claim that gay men have a short life span. They said they were speaking of a hypothetical outcome that would take place if there were not better practices regarding safe sex in that particular area. They also said that conditions have improved; therefore the outcome they predicted (i.e. gay men not reaching their sixty-fifth birthday) had been averted.
Patrick Letellier complains 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.
Robert Spitzer publishes a study that says a small number of people can change their sexual orientation. The anti-gay industry cites the study as proof that homosexuality is a choice. Spitzer complains as to how his work was being used, even publishing a piece in the Wall Street Journal complaining about how his work was being distorted. In 2006, he gives an interview with the Los Angeles Times in which he says he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his 2001 study may have been either lying to him or themselves.
2002 - A. Nicholas Groth writes a letter to the Family Research Council claiming that the group distorted his work in a study to prove that gays molest children at a high level. Groth, in 1983, complained that discredited researcher Paul Cameron had done the same thing. The study published by the Family Research Council is almost similar to the one published by Cameron.
2006 - Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc of the University of British Columbia complains that Focus on the Family distorted her study on lesbian teen suicide.
Dr. Kyle Pruett, a clinical professor of psychiatry in the Yale Child Study Center and School of Nursing accuses Focus on the Family head James Dobson of distorting his work.
New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. writes Focus on the Family head James Dobson a blistering letter accusing him of distorting her work.
2008 - Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, claims the “ex-gay” organization PFOX distorted his research findings.
The Palm Center announces that a Duke University law review will be publishing a critique of a 2007 article by Elaine Donnelly. Donnelly is the president of the Center for Military Readiness, a traditional values interest group with no military or academic affiliation. According to Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin, Donelly's article 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.
I repeat my question: Is anyone keeping score?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)