Wednesday, August 24, 2011

The Family Research Council will continue to lie even after GLSEN embarrassment

No matter how the Family Research Council tries to spin the controversy regarding GLSEN's cease-and-desist letter, it will remain as a well-deserved kick in the organization's ego.

I don't know what's worse for FRC - the fact that it quietly reshot the accusatory video or throughout the entire situation, it has given no comment thereby giving credibility to the belief that the organization knew that it had lied on GLSEN.

No doubt about it, this embarrassment proves that FRC does deserve its hate group status given by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

My guess is that the organization will continue to dodge the GLSEN controversy and continue to lie on the gay community. And I know this by looking on its webpage.

In the section of FRC's site talking about Human Sexuality, the organization is pushing a brochure written by Peter (gays should be exported out of the United States) Sprigg called The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality.

Of course the brochure is junk. I wrote on it last year and I said the following:

According to Sprigg:

The homosexual movement is built, not on facts or research, but on mythology. Unfortunately, these myths have come to be widely accepted in society—particularly in schools, universities and the media. It is our hope that by understanding what these key myths are—and then reading a brief summary of the evidence against them—the reader will be empowered to challenge these myths when he or she encounters them.

According to Sprigg, these "myths" include the following:

  • People are born gay.
  • Sexual orientation can never change.
  •  Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.
  • Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

At first glance, Ten Myths looks legitimate. However, a more intensive look reveals it to be a mishmash of inaccurate theories, cherry-picked work, and studies taken out of context created to justify homophobia

The following are just a few of the problems with Ten Myths:

1. Ten Myths repeats the lie that the Robert Spitzer study proves that homosexuality is changeable, excluding the fact that Spitzer has said on more than one occasion that his research was being distorted.

2. Ten Myths utilizes the work of  the organization National Association for  Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The website Truth Wins Out calls NARTH  a discredited “ex-gay” fringe organization that peddles fraudulent “cures” for homosexuality.

According to Truth Wins Out, several NARTH members have been embroiled in controversies including:


Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, a member of NARTH’ “Scientific Advisory Committee,” who wrote a piece on the group’s website that seemed to justify slavery

NARTH psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, another member of its “Scientific Advisory Committee,” who wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children.

Also, according to Truth Wins Out:

NARTH’ co-founder, Joesph Nicolosi encourages male clients to become more masculine by drinking Gatorade and referring to friends as “dude”. NARTH therapists have been known to practice rubber band therapy, where a gay client is made to wear a rubber band and snap it on his wrist when sexually stimulated. It is a mild form of aversion therapy meant to “snap” the client out of the moment of attraction. NARTH members have also been known to practice “touch therapy”, where a client sits in the therapist’ lap for up to an hour, while the therapist caresses him.

Earlier this year, another member of NARTH, George Rekers, resigned from the organization after caught coming from a vacation overseas with a "rentboy."

3. Ten Myths cites Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse as proof that people can change their sexual orientation. However in 2009, the American Psychological Association repudiated this study for bad methodology. Furthermore, Ten Myths does not address the conclusion by the APA last year that programs created to change a person's several orientation does not work.

4. Ten Myths pushes the inaccuracy that a man who molests a boy is automatically gay even though the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that the homosexuality and pedophilia are not linked

5. But the most egregious inaccuracy in Ten Myths - and also something that says a lot about the mindset of its author, Peter Sprigg - is the following passage:

Even the pro-homosexual Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) acknowledges:

• “Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population . . .”
• “Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate . . . .”
• “ . . . [G]ay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse . . . .”
• “ . . . [G]ay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men . . . .”
• “Problems with body image are more common among gay men . . . and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder . . . .”

The GLMA also confirms that:

• “ . . . [L]esbians may use tobacco and smoking products more often than heterosexual women use them.”
• “Alcohol use and abuse may be higher among lesbians.”
• “ . . . [L]esbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women.”

Homosexual activists generally attempt to explain these problems as results of “homophobic discrimination.” However, there is a serious problem with that theory—there is no empirical evidence that such psychological problems are greater in areas where disapproval of homosexuality is more intense.

So Sprigg's point is that the lgbt orientation itself is indicative of negative behaviors (i.e. drug and alcohol abuse) and not the homophobia that lgbts face.

But strange enough, the source which he cites - the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association - says that homophobia is the reason for many of these health problems. Sprigg deliberately omits information pointing this out:

Sprigg:

“Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate . . . .”

GMLA:

Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns.

Sprigg:

“ . . . [L]esbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women.

GMLA:

Research indicates that lesbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women. This may be due to added stressors in lesbian lives from discrimination. Lesbians need support from each other and from health care providers to find healthy releases, quality recreation, stress reduction, and coping techniques.

So what does this prove? It proves that FRC will freely lie on the gay community until it gets caught. And then most likely it will try to dodge the controversy.

What can the gay community do about this? We continue to expose them. We continue to not only remind people that FRC is a hate group, but we also remind them why FRC is a hate group. We remind people of things like the GLSEN controversy and Sprigg's homophobic comments every chance we get.

No matter how much money or influence FRC may have. No matter how many networks its spokespeople can appear on. No matter how large its mailing list may be, the simple fact of the matter is that the truth is on our side.

And sometimes, truth is all you need.


Bookmark and Share

Huffington Post taking serious look at NOM's disclosure violations and other Wednesday midday news briefs

National Organization For Marriage Repeatedly Rebuked For Disclosure Violations - This is BIG. The Huffington Post is taking a serious look at NOM's disclosure violations. About time too. My writing arm was getting tired.

MEMO: Circumventing campaign finance law for donor secrecy
- And if you want a detailed history of which states NOM has tried to dodge disclosure laws, go here.

NOM's featured press conference speaker: 'There is a direct connection between earthquakes and homosexuality' - Sorry for the third NOM-related item but this is a hoot. A NOM affiliated rabbi blames the gay community for yesterday's earthquakes.

NJ School District Pulls Gay-Themed Books From Summer Reading List - Their explanation was that their aim is not causing controversy but getting students to read. They failed on the first point but I bet they have succeeded on the second.

INDIANA: Male Hooker Hiring Lawmaker Won't Resign, Says "I'm Not Gay!" - That's like saying "I'm not gay. But those annoying parts of my body are."


Bookmark and Share

GLSEN forces Family Research Council to change fraudulent video

Last week, GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) issued a cease-and-desist letter via its attorneys to the Family Research Council "demanding that FRC cease distribution and publication of a video clip containing false and defamatory statements about GLSEN, as well as any other similar false and defamatory statements that may be contained in a longer video associated with that video clip."

The cease-and-desist letter has to do a video in which Tony Perkins, head of FRC, and Brian Camenker, head of the Massachusetts anti-gay group Mass Resistance claimed that GLSEN and the Massachusetts Public Schools distributed an explicit safe-sex guide called The Little Black Book to fifth to ninth graders at a conference in 2005.

This story had been debunked by several groups, including Media Matters .

If one were to look at the video now, he/she would see the following:





The new video (seen below) does not say that GLSEN had anything to do with distributing The Little Black Book. However it continues to refer to Brian Camenker regarding GLSEN and repeats the nonsense regarding "Fistgate," a controversy which Camenker played a huge role in.




To get the true story on "Fistgate," click on the link. Needless to say the controversy, like the original claim about The Little Black Book which FRC was forced to take back, is a lie.

I should also mention that Camenker's group, Mass Resistance, is also Southern Poverty Law Center declared hate group, just like FRC.

The bottom line is this - why should anyone believe any claim about GLSEN coming from FRC?  The organization's reponse to GLSEN's cease-and-desist letter clearly showed that it erred (intentionally?) in its claims about GLSEN and The Little Black Book.

And FRC didn't even have the good Christian grace to apologize. Instead the organization takes the tone of "we may have been wrong about that charge, but these new charges prove our point."

Not true, FRC.  Your repeated attacks on GLSEN only prove yourself to be a homophobic, lying  group hiding behind the mask of Christian integrity.

A killer wearing the facial skin of his victim would look better than you right now.


Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Poor study used to defend DOMA gets worse

Earlier today, I mentioned how Speaker of the House John Boehner's hired team of lawyers was using bad research to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

I zeroed in on a poor study, No Difference?: An Analysis of Same-Sex Parenting. which was a part of the team's documentation. This study, written by George Dent, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, contained many errors, including citing the work of discredited researchers such as Paul Cameron and George Rekers.

I also made note that the Dent's study also cited work from the American College of Pediatricians, a group designed to pass along anti-gay junk science as fact.

In fact, I said the following about Dent's citation of ACP material:

The particular study by the ACP cited by Dent, Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?, is filled with several errors which I talked about two years ago, including:

1. Outdated work

2. Extreme distortion of studies not meant by to used to gauge the effects of same-sex parenting.

3. And researcher complaints.

In citing Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?, Dent tries to pull a double deception. Not only does he cite this poor study done by ACP, but he actually takes some of the individual bad work from the study and cites it on its own throughout his study in general.

It is here that I want to go into more detail.

As I said before, not only does Dent cite the study cited by ACP, but he also pulls out material from the study and cites it in other parts of his own study, thereby becoming guilty of the same errors committed by the ACP, including:

1. Outdated sources - Both the ACP study and Dent's study cite the following two references as proof that gay couples are more apt to be less faithful:

David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: how relationships develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984)

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978)

But neither study can be used to generalize about the gay community. The authors of The Male Couple said:

“We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location, and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community.”

A passage in Homosexualities clearly says:

“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”


2. Extreme distortion of studies not meant by to used to gauge the effects of same-sex parenting -  Both the ACP study and Dent's study cite the following study to claim that gay men cannot be monogamous and are not good child rearers:

Maria Xiridou et al., The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection in Amsterdam (Editor's note - Dent made an error in giving the name of this study in his paper. He called it Maria Xiridou et al., The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection in America. This is inaccurate because the study took place in Amsterdam. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here.)

From this study, both ACP and Dent claimed - men in these partnerships had an average of eight casual partners per year.

But the Xiridou study only looked at casual relationships between gay men. It had nothing to do with the lesbian population and certainly nothing to do with children in lgbt households. Xiridou's study was designed 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."
 
For this study, Dr. Xiridou received her information from the Amsterdam Cohort Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and AIDS Among Homosexual Men.

Xiridou's study cannot even be used gauge an effect of marriage equality because the researchers conducting the Amsterdam Cohort Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and AIDS Among Homosexual Men studied 1,800 gay men between the years of 1984- 2001.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001.  Wouldn't that make her study useless for defending DOMA?

3. Researcher complaints - Both the ACP study and Dent's study cites the work of Dr. Judith Stacey and Dr. Kyle Pruett. On several occasions, both Stacey and Pruett have complained about how their work has been distorted by the religious right to demonize the gay community.

Keeping all of this in mind, I have a question:

How much are we (the taxpayers) paying for this mess?



Bookmark and Share

Bigot claims that gay 'gyrating nude bodies' will ruin America and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Boehner's DOMA defense contains junk science, bad sources

Government's defense of DOMA contains references to the work of Paul Cameron and George Rekers

Yesterday, it was discovered that one of the experts,  Professor Lisa Diamond, cited by Speaker of the House John Boehner's legal team in their defense of DOMA complained that her work was being distorted.

Boehner's team is defending DOMA against Edie Windsor, an 81-year-old woman suing the federal government for not recognizing her union with her late partner.

The portion having to do with Lisa Diamond's work is in documentation provided by the lawyer chosen to defend DOMA, Paul Clement (see the documentation here.) Clement is using this documentation as an attempt to get the case dismissed and for the judge to deny Windsor's motion for summary judgment.

Diamond's complaint is detrimental to this pursuit.  But I think I have found another potentially huge problem.

There is a portion of Clement's documentation which bears much scrutiny. It is the section called "Plaintiff Misstates the Science on Same-Sex Parenting" and it is a huge mess.

Part of this section (pg. 24) cites George W. Dent, Jr., No Difference?: An Analysis of Same-Sex Parenting.

Dent is a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has written many negative papers on marriage equality and homosexuality in general. In the paper cited by Boehner's legal team, he pulls out all of the stops to make the case that same-sex parenting is inferior to heterosexual parenting, even the citing of  folklore:

Every child with homosexual guardians has lost at least one biological parent. Loss of a parent is universally regarded as a great misfortune. If the child has one biological parent, the other adult is a step-parent. In fables step-parents are typically hostile to their step-children.

If you pardon me for being so bold, anyone who takes Dent's paper as credible is dealing in folklore themselves. There are several problems with it including:

On page four, Dent cites both Paul Cameron and George Rekers, both discredited researchers. Cameron has been censured or rebuked by several organizations for his bad methodology in his studies and Rekers lost a lot of credibility for last year's scandal when he was caught coming from a European vacation with a "rentboy."

On page two, Dent cites the work of Walter Schumm's study Children of Homosexuals More Apt To Be Homosexuals? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data.

Schumm's study was criticized for using the same false methodology as Cameron's work. i.e. citing sources "from general-audience books about LGBT parenting and families, most of which are available on Amazon.com"

Furthermore, in 2008, Rekers and Schumm testified for Florida's gay adoption ban. The judge overseeing the case, Cindy Lederman, criticized both of them. She said about Rekers:

"(His) testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers' beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court cannot consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."

And about Schumm, she said:

" (He) integrates his religious and ideological beliefs into his research," citing several of his writings, including one with Rekers, in which a theological argument against homosexuality is offered."

Regarding Cameron, Dent's paper not only cites him directly, but also indirectly.

On page 13, Dent cites a book called Straight & Narrow by Thomas E. Schmidt to make criticisms about gay health. However, Schmidt is not a credible researcher in the field of gay health. He is a professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara and according to Rev. Mel White of the group Soulforce, Schmidt cited Cameron's discredited studies many times in Straight & Narrow (5th letter to Jerry Falwell.)

Another huge problem with Dent's paper is on page 16 when it cites a paper by the American College of Pediatricians (Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?).

The American College of Pediatricians is not a credible organization, but an organization created to give credibility to junk science about the gay community. Last year, over 14,000 school district superintendents in the country were sent a letter by ACP inviting them to peruse and use information from a new site, Facts About Youth. The site claimed to present "facts" supposedly not tainted by "political correctness."  Of course these were not facts, but ugly distortions about the gay community, including:

Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes

The particular study by the ACP cited by Dent, Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?, is filled with several errors which I talked about two years ago, including:

1. Outdated work

2. Extreme distortion of studies not meant by to used to gauge the effects of same-sex parenting.

3. And researcher complaints.

In citing Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?, Dent tries to pull a double deception. Not only does he cite this poor study done by ACP, but he actually takes some of the individual bad work from the study and cites it on its own throughout his study in general.

One has to wonder what other "surprises" Boehner's defense of DOMA contains. They may not be accurate but they are certainly entertaining.

Related post: 

Why is Boehner using distorted work to defend DOMA?




Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 22, 2011

Why is Boehner using distorted work to defend DOMA?

Usually, I try to point out how the religious right distorts credible research. Imagine my surprised today when an online buddy of mine, Joe Sudbay from Americablog Gay, came up with this tidbit about U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner's attempts to defend DOMA:

As we've reported, Edie's lawyers have moved to strike much of the documentation provided by John Boehner's legal team, led by Paul Clement. As expected, Clement objected. He wants all those documents and articles entered into evidence. He's conducting this case like he's arguing before the Supreme Court. But, this is a trial court.

Today, Edie's lawyers responded. They submitted the affadavit, posted below, of Professor Lisa Diamond, one of the authors cited by Boehner's lawyers.

(You can find BLAG's cites to Diamond on pages 10 -11 of the document posted here.)

In what amounts to a legal bombshell, Diamond maintains that Boehner's crack legal team misconstrued and distorted her writings. She stated, "They have completely misrepresented my research."

From the Reply Memo filed today:
Professor Lisa Diamond, the author of two of the academic articles Plaintiff seeks to strike, has submitted an affidavit testifying that BLAG has in fact distorted her research and that she never would have agreed to testify to the propositions BLAG has advanced in its papers. It is hard to imagine a more concrete example of why the materials submitted by BLAG are not reliable. Had BLAG followed the rules and used as expert witnesses any of the authors it cites (as contemplated by the May 11 Scheduling Order), and had Plaintiff’s counsel then had the opportunity to depose them, Plaintiff would have been able to obtain similarly damaging testimony from them as well.
How can anything else Clement wrote in his brief be trusted? He's trying to play by his own rules. But, even the "esteemed" Paul Clement can't just make things up

Here is the interesting part about Diamond. She is a member of my list of 11 physicians and researchers who have complained about how the religious right and their allies distort their work.

According to Truth Wins Out:

Lisa M. Diamond, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies in the Department of Psychology at the University of Utah. She has won a number of awards for her work. In 2000, Dr. Diamond published a study, “Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual minority women over a 2 year period.” This study was distorted by The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The anti-gay organization falsely claimed that Dr. Diamond’s work shows that sexual orientation is “amenable to change.”

Dr. Diamond also produced a second study, “Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study” in Developmental Psychology (2008, Vol. 44, No 1., 5-14). NARTH recently cited this study to support its anti-scientific belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder that should be treated. Truth Wins Out informed Dr. Diamond about these misrepresentations of her research, and she agreed to discuss how her work was manipulated:




If you go to the Americablog Gay page to read Diamond's affadavit, you will find Boehner's team distorted her study the same way in which NARTH did, i.e. making the case that sexual orientation can change.

Which leads me to ask a simple question - just who is Boehner and Clement working with to preserve DOMA?  I sincerely hope that they aren't working with NARTH.

You are familiar with NARTH, aren't you? That's the same discredited organization responsible so much inaccurate information about the gay community. Again from Truth Wins Out:

NARTH relies on outdated studies and frequently confuses stereotypes with science. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, for example, often tells audiences that people are gay because they have a rift with a same-sex parent or a have domineering opposite sex parent. It has been decades since any serious scientific body subscribed to these views and there is no contemporary research to uphold these anachronistic theories. Yet, NARTH’ co-founder Dr. Joseph Nicolosi repeats the empty mantra, “We advise fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.”

 . . . NARTH also has bizarre theories, such as encouraging male clients who drink Gatorade and call their friends “dude,” because this will supposedly make them more masculine. Dr. Nicolosi also espouses the bizarre idea that, “Non-homosexual men who experience defeat and failure may also experience homosexual fantasies or dreams.”

In 2006, NARTH had a meltdown after two major controversies. In the first, psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, a member of their “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children. “I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex–but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings,” Dr. Berger wrote on NARTH’s website. “On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”

In the second controversy, Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, also a member of NARTH’s “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a polemic on the group’s website that seemed to justify slavery: “With all due respect, there is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America,” wrote Schoenwolf. “It could be pointed out, for example, that Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle, as yet uncivilized or industrialized. Life there was savage, as savage as the jungle for most people, and that it was the Africans themselves who first enslaved their own people. They sold their own people to other countries, and those brought to Europe, South America, America, and other countries, were in many ways better off than they had been in Africa. But if one even begins to say these things one is quickly shouted down as though one were a complete madman.”

The most recent controversy involving NARTH occurred last year when a prominent board member, George Rekers, was caught coming from a European vacation with a "rentboy." This controversy led caused him to resign from the board.

While I am certainly not accusing Boehner or Clement of utilizing the services of this group, it seems odd that their team distorts a professor's work the same way NARTH did.

There needs to be some questions answered here as to how our Speaker of the House is spending taxpayer money.

Is he wasting it on a discredited anti-gay organization?



Bookmark and Share