Paul Cameron is Back
Meet
Paul Cameron. Professional quack, liar, and gay hater. I said in the comments of another blog that every gay person and gay ally should get to know this guy. He goes out of his way to lie, distort facts and basically make up studies to prove how terrible gays are. And for those that may be wondering- I don't dislike him because he thinks being gay is immoral, I dislike him because he spreads lies about gay people to try to prove how immoral they really are.
Cameron's take on gays can be pretty much summed up in this press
release where he says, "Their results cast serious doubt on the claim of the gay rights movement that, except for their sexual proclivities, homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals." Obviously Cameron thinks gays are some sort of social misfits not worthy of anything.
To take this a bit further though, let's look at his track record (I took this from the link above and from a couple of other cites to back it up):
-Licensed Psychologist, but license has been inactive in Nebraska since 1995.
-Dropped from membership from the American Pshychological Institute in late 1983. (Let's be clear that this is very hard to do. There are plenty of anti-gay psychologists in the APA. It took bad science and faulty research in numerous studies to get himself kicked out).
-In 1984 the Nebraska Pyschological Association wrote a
formal resolution disassociating itself from Cameron or any of his work.
-In 1986 the American Sociological Association did just about the same thing. Their resolution said that Paul Cameron was not a sociologist.
-In 1985 he was reprimanded in open court for being the only witness in the trial that was completely unbelievable.
-Lastly- he is chairman of the Family Research Institute, a so called Christian organization. To me it seems pretty hard to be a Christian organization and be led by a guy who has been denounced by so many different groups- the largest psychological and sociological groups in the nation. It's not that his views are unpopular, it is that he lies about his findings.
Again, let me be clear that Cameron was not dropped for his beliefs. These guys went out of their way to distance themselves from Cameron not because of what he was saying, but because his conclusions were not backed by evidence or fact, and were often made with complete disregard for the facts.
Cameron likes to post his "studies" in a magazine called
Psychological Reports. He and his group claim that this is a scientific journal, but it really isn't. First, the magazine will publish almost anything for a fee (almost all professional journals do not charge a fee). And second, no peer review is required of any of the studies published here. There isn't any peer review of Cameron's studies because they are so faulty.
Ok, so now that that is all said and done, I'd like to go into why I am writing this. Yeah, Paul Cameron is a bad guy, but who cares? In his book,
Anything But Straight, Wayne Besen says Paul Cameron is so far out of the mainstream (and so discredited) that no ex-gay or anti-gay groups will use his stuff anymore (they're too smart for that). But, it turns out that recently Cameron's completely
discredited studies have come up recently from some pretty mainstream sources.
According to Pink Dome, the Christian Wire Service printed a Paul Cameron
press release recently and then points out that more and more Christians are looking to Christian media for news over traditional media. Funny how if they print Cameron material, the Christian media might be less honest...
The Pink Dome also reported that along side my Governor, Rick Perry, a Christian Pastor
spouted various discredited Cameron statistics (un-cited though) right before Perry signed two Texas bills.
Ex-Gay Watch has done a decent job of keeping up with Paul Cameron, and recently they have cited his works coming up
here (by the conservative group The Christian Coalition--non-cited again) and
here.
Even the Exodus blog cites an article regurgitating Cameron chicanery
here. I know the blog says Exodus doesn't endorse any of the articles it links, but shouldn't the individuals picking these articles do at least SOME research before linking to material that has been published by a completely defrocked researcher? Isn't knowingly rehashing lies, lying?
I also recall seeing Cameron numbers come up in the State Senate debates over gay marriage from a handfull of ill-informed (or maybe just immoral) state senators, but I don't have those on hand now.
This is possibly the longest post I have made here.
I'm writing it, though, not specifically about Cameron (although I wanted to show how manipulative and dishonest he is), but about the Christian organizations and just regular old people that have no idea who he is. I'm going to give most of them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they don't know the story behind Cameron and his debunked studies. I'll certainly fault any religious leaders and public officials for publicly citing Cameron without doing their own research, but I will assume that it was a mistake and not intentional lying. But, I know in my heart that even if some of these people knew about Cameron, they still wouldn't care. They'd point out this stuff anyway, just to show (like Cameron) how terrible gay people are. To hell with the truth, I guess.
Hopefully at least a few gays, gay supporters, and even non-gay supporters will read this, learn about Cameron and at least know this vile isn't true. I hope the leaders out there will stop their misinformation campaign sometime too. But, sometimes the end seems to justify the means, no matter how immoral or wrong the means is or how many people get hurt in the process. Disagree with being gay all you want, but why lie about it? In the end I think misinforming millions of people intentionally is probably not going to sit too well with God. Probably less well than a gay person that was wrong about being gay, but tried to do the right thing in his/her life.
James Holsinger or Paul Cameron
If you've been reading this blog for a while, you probably know of my extreme dislike of professional quack Paul Cameron. I spent a number of posts in this blogs younger days on
Paul Cameron and his insanity.
So, as you can imagine, I was surprised to learn recently that Surgeon
General nominee James
Holsinger wrote a paper that used tactics
embarrassingly reminiscent of Paul Cameron. Jim
Burroway over at Box Turtle Bulletin has a
top-notch rundown of the claims made in the paper that's getting a good amount of
blogosphere press. I highly recommend the read (and be sure to check out the commenter that tries to argue that a survey of gays at an STD clinic can and should be extrapolated to represent all gays).
For all of the folks out there calling James
Holsinger's opponents, extremists--I'd encourage you to read this stuff for yourself. This isn't about being ex-gay or anti-gay--it's about plain old misleading people with junk science. Surely someone with these types of morals shouldn't be allowed to be the top Doctor in the country.
Michael Bailey Bad, Paul Cameron Good
Over at the Exodus Blog, Randy Thomas has a
post linking to an article that questions 60 Minutes' use of research from Michael Bailey. Apparently Bailey's research and research methods have been in question lately and he's received sanctions causing him to resign a high-level post.
I was glad to see the information since I hadn't heard it before.
I thought it was odd, though, that Randy Thomas was so quick to point this researcher's problems when he has ignored the enormous problems of Paul Cameron, who has been sanctioned or kicked out of numerous professional organizations in his field (nearly every one, actually).
So, why would Randy care? Well, the Agape Press, Focus on the Family, the FRC, and even Randy's own employer, Exodus International still cite Paul Cameron's studies to this day, even though his credentials are highly suspect and his studies are completely invalid.
I was glad to see Randy bring up the Michael Bailey saga. I hope he urges his organization and its associates to denounce Paul Cameron as well, for truth's sake.
More Paul Cameron. Really?
As I mentioned, the Exodus Media Blog is up and running, and recently they linked to a
story on LifeSite that is trying its best to prove that gay marriages won't make gay people happier or healthier.
I know Exodus' blog says they don't endorse any of the articles that they link to, but it sure is telling when they keep linking to articles that use these completely bogus studies to demean gay people.
To show how terrible gay people are, the article mentions a "study," saying, "that it revealed there is a 20-year reduction in the average life span of a homosexual male, compared to that of a heterosexual. Published in Psychological Reports in 2005, the study “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS” shows that the dangers of homosexual activity reduce the life span of gay men to the life expectancy of men in1871."
Sadly, the study is Paul Cameron (or regurgitated Paul Cameron in this case) trash. It's funny that they imply this study pertains to all gay people when the title of the study very clearly is talking about reported deaths from AIDS, not all gay people. Plus, any normal, educated person should see that reading obituaries does not a study make. I mean, really.
It's so disheartening to see people will try so hard to be "scientific" to cover up their own bigotry. A junior high understanding of sociology and psychology would allow any regular person to see through the holes in nearly all of these studies. This isn't partisan opinion, it is plain fact. The studies are completely bogus.
But, it sounds good. It makes them sound like they have crediblity. And, when someone really wants to dislike gay people, they aren't going to do research to disprove a study that makes their bigotry feel comfortable. Of course, that's the problem, and until we reframe the debate, these types of studies are exactly why we will lose. We have to get the media on our side to call this type of study out for the lie that it is.
Back to Exodus. I wonder when Exodus Corporate will get in the business of ministering to gay people and out of the business of publicly demeaning and stereotyping them.
BoxTurtleBulletin is a great resource to disprove a good number of the anti-gay studies out there, some of Paul Cameron's best (worst). Check them out if you want to learn more.
Cameron's Critics
I've posted already about Paul Cameron's latest research on gay families, which is basically a summary of books he found on Amazon.com.
Well, recently I ran across the
blog of one of the authors of one of the books he used in his "research." The author, Abigail Garner, wrote a book called
Families Like Mine, Children of Gay Parents Tell it Like it is, and she (not Cameron) interviewed 50 of the 77 subjects in his "study."
Garner has a
post linking several blogs that discuss Cameron and Jim Burroway's rebuttal (including a link to me!). She also has a post
here detailing some of her issues with the Cameron "study" that uses her book extensively.
Garner's
letter to the Journal of Biological Science expresses her view of Cameron's work pretty clearly:
I am the author of Families Like Mine, one of three books Cameron used for his supposed statistical analysis in the article in question. Cameron had absolutely no right to twist these non-scientific samples into bogus findings that he is trying to pass off as hard data. Anyone who is familiar with the sources he cites would know his results are ludicrous — no advanced degree necessary to debunk his work after just a few minutes of elementary fact-checking.
Abigail has lots more about the Cameron study, so you should really read her site. I especially like her take on having to hear AM talk show hosts who don't care that Cameron is a discredited quack who most on the far right won't even pay attention to.:
I can hear it now: “According to a report released by Cambridge University Press — now this is not some fly-by-night-publication here folks — here’s what they reported in May 2006: Children of homosexuals are more likely to become homosexual under their parents’ influence. All the more reason for you to pick up the phone, call your senator, and tell him you want him to make sure he helps pass [insert anti-gay family bill du jour here].”
Box Turtle Bulletin Hits it Big
Jim Burroway's website,
Box Turtle Bulletin, is one of my favorite sources for gay and anti-gay research. The site is listed on my links area, and Jim is an occasional commenter here. He takes my curiosity about anti-gay research one hundred steps further with his incredibly detailed and researched articles.
So, I was delighted to see that Jim's site (his new article about Paul Cameron in particular) was the focus of a new post over at
Pam's House Blend. The Blend is one of the most popular GLBT blogs in the blogosphere, so this is a big deal. I'm glad more people will get to see Jim's writings as a result of the post.
I had been meaning to comment on this particular Paul Cameron article written by Jim anyway, so I'll take this time to congratulate Jim and tell everyone to go read the article. It will take some time to read, but it's an amazing piece of work that completely destroys every assertion made in Cameron's newest anti-gay propaganda.
It's pretty unbelievable how easily dissected this research really is. Especially since Jim admits up front that he is not a sociologist or any kind of social scientist.
My favorite part is that the "research" is really just a summary of books Cameron found on Amazon.com. Sounds a bit like the infamous gay obituary study. How anyone can call this science is beyond me.
The Journal of Biological Science, who published the Cameron study
, should really be ashamed.
All that aside, congrats again, Jim!
The Daily Show and Paul Cameron
I don't watch the Daily Show that much, but when I do, I am almost always pleased. In fact, this time I didn't even watch the show--I just read the transcript.
I have some vested interest in this because it is on the subject of some insane legislators in my state passing a bill to ban gays from being foster parents. Not only are some of these people insane, but they actually lie and quote statistics without even trying to cite a source.
If this type of madness, dishonesty, vitriol isn't driven by hate, I don't know what is.
I encourage you to check out the unofficial transcript, commentary, and analysis of the quack Paul Cameron (who I have been setting people straight on for a few years now in various blogs, message boards, etc.), go to
jabbs.
Let me be blunt.
Paul Cameron is such a quack and lying cheat that anyone that would come near a study he has done has a clear agenda or a very poor fact-checking team. Probably the first.
Insure.com's Anti-Gay Article
Box Turtle Bulletin broke a
story last week about a major insurance broker, insure.com, hosting anti-gay
articles on its website. The articles feature regurgitated Paul Cameron statistics (you
remember that quack, right?), claiming that gay men live a life that is 20 years shorter than straight men. One of the articles, called
Top five ways to kill yourself and get away with it, is now
off the site, which is a good thing because the article resembled a parody more than actual serious writing. The article, as you can probably guess, named being gay as the number 1 way to kill yourself and get away with it, and commented (somehow seriously) that gay men get away with paying life insurance premiums that are unfairly cheap since they die so young.
Astonishingly, Bob Bland, the Founder and CEO of insure.com is defending the
Cameronesque article about shorter life spans for gays and has commented several times that he does not plan to take the article down. This is even after the guys over at Box Turtle Bulletin have sent him numerous emails pointing out the fallacy of the studies they are citing. Mr. Bland claims not to have a political agenda against gays, but it's hard to see that based on this hard
headedness.
Even Dr. Warren
Throckmorton, hardly a gay-rights advocate (but a seemingly good guy nonetheless), pointed out that the author of the insure.com article failed to mention that the authors of one of the studies he cites wrote an article after their study was released specifically detailing why the study should not be used for the very actuarial conclusions the insure.com attempts to make. Mr. Bland claims that his writing and editing staff plans to review the "research" used in the article in the next 4 weeks or so but until then, he plans to leave the article up and stand by Cameron's quackery (check my Cameron link above to see how absurd of a move this really is).
I wrote a letter of my own to Mr. Bland addressing the fallacies of Paul Cameron and the Vancouver HIV study the article on his site references but haven't heard back (hint: the Vancouver study is about gay men with HIV, and the article on insure.com extrapolates it to speak for all gay men...wow). I encourage all of you to do the same (his email address is on their website). Like I've said many times in the past, it's one thing to not be in favor of gay-rights, but to use blatantly false, incorrect, and misleading information to stir up anti-gay sentiment is quite another. Mr. Bland should certainly be shown the err of his ways on this one.
In Case You Thought Gays Couldn't Commit
**Update**I'd like to update this post in response to a comment from Bruce Garrett. I encourage you to read the comment from Bruce because he brings up some very good and well thought-out points--points that I had not considered when I originally wrote this post.
Now, in my clarfication, I'd like to say that my comment about my coworker was not to condemn his behavior or demean the work of him or his generation (although I see now that my words were more harsh than I had intended them to be). My comment was that my coworker is falling for the same fallacy of logic that people like Paul Cameron fall for. Paul Cameron determined the average life expectancy of gay men by looking in the obituaries of gay papers during the height of the AIDS epidemic--thoroughly skewing his results to the point of being meaningless. Other anti-gay grouops have claimed the rates of STDs among all gays are astonishingly high by looking at studies done only on gay men in STD clinics, giving similar useless results.
Obviously, these are studies and claims that have poor results because of sampling. These groups ignored gay people that didn't die during the AIDS epidemic and those that didn't list an obituary in a gay paper. They also ignored gays that didn't go to STD clinics. My coworker unintentionally ignored a group of gay people that did not frequent the party scene or the drug scene (he was heavily part of this scene by his own account).
In my coworkers case, I believe that his experience was similar in that he knew most of his friends from the club scene, most of whom were involved in drugs and unsafe sex. Had he met his friends outside of this type of environment, he might have had a different point of view. Gay or straight--the club scene surrounded by promiscuous sex, drug use and partying is not a safe one, and these types of environments will skew people's perceptions just like a sampling problem in a study.
So, that was my intent. I apologize for not being clear and being too harsh about the environment I was describing. And, I appreciate Bruce's comment (which I encourage you again to read). Bruce is right--there are people out there like him and my coworker that have lived their lives as openly gay men for decades so that the life I have can be as easy and fulfilling as it is. They've fought the battle, and I frequently think back in awe of how hard it must've been, so I in no way want to demean that experience or contribution.
Now, if I've still come off to strong, I apologize again, but I believe my point about sampling errors skewing people's beliefs or perceptions about gay life and gay life span still holds true.
Here's the original post:
I was talking to an employee at work the other day about how there aren't any old gay people (Well really I was listening to him talk about it). He's gay and about 65 years old and was lamenting that most of his friends had passed away over the years. Now granted, he did live through the height of the AIDS epidemic, but he didn't seem to draw the connection between his few remaining friends and the out of control party days he fully admits he used to be a part of. Maybe if he had met some gay people at his local church or local community organization, rather than out at drug-induced raves he wouldn't have had such an unfortunate turnout. Then again, this is the same person that spent over 15 minutes telling me how hard life was for Geminis. I guess some people just don't get it--on both sides of the issue.
Anyway, in case you are like him and think that a) gays die young or b) gays can't commit, check out this
story of the nuptials of an elderly lesbian couple that have been together for 40 years. Now that's a long time in
anyone's book. Who knew there were even gay bars back then?
Dr. Warren Throckmorton on the Stubborness of Some Christian Media
For those of you not familiar with Dr. Warren Throckmorton (though I'm sure most of you are), he's an Associate Professor of Psychology at the conservative Grove City College and does a great deal of work in the world of homosexuality and ex-gay issues. Over the years, Dr. Throckmorton has moved from what I saw as a very staunch pro-exgay view to one that is very more centric.
These days I've found Dr. Throckmorton to be one of the most middle-ground voices in the gay vs. ex-gay world, and he keeps both sides under very well needed scrutiny. That's basically why I go to his
blog--to get a view of what's gonig on out there that is a nice escape from the pro-gay and anti-gay sites I usually find myself rummaging through.
Let's not forget, though, that he works for a conservative school and comes from a pro ex-gay background. In past blog posts, I feel that this background has given him not only a different perspective, but also unique access to the anti-gay and pro ex-gay world that most other critics don't get. Unfortunately, though, that background doesn't always means he is going to get the time of day.
In a recent blog
post, Dr. Throckmorton questions the validity of NARTH refering to their recent summary paper on ex-gay successes as "new scientific research." Unfortunately, the paper does not provide new research--it just summarizes and rehashes old studies. Throckmorton rightfully wondered how a group, a self-proclaimed Christian group, no less, could claim this to be "new scientific research," when none of the research was new. He then took his question to the past president of NARTH who told Throckmorton two times that he did not have time to answer his question (but somehow had time to say that twice).
This leads me (finally) to the topic of this post. After being asked in the comments of his blog post why NARTH feels it appropriate to stretch the truth on such a regular basis, Throckmorton conjectures that maybe it's because the Christian media (the media that is both on their side and most likely to cover them) lets them get away with such things, even when they are shown problems.
Throckmorton brings up an instance where he pointed out to OneNewsNow (of the AFA) that their slant on a story was wrong, and rather than look into the issue, he got the cold shoulder. And this is from someone on their own side. I can only imagine what happens when a pro-gay person points out similar issues.
For now, thankfully, the Paul Cameron's of the world have been fairly widely rebuffed among most major media sources, and even most of the Christian ones don't get near him as a direct source, but thats as far as they go sometimes. They still get away with third-party sources that use Cameron's material. They still get away with misrepresenting studies about divorce rates and adoption. And, as long as they continue to rationalize away their detractors by pretending that anyone not ant-gay is the enemy, they may never change.
Where Did the Year Go?
Well, I'm back. And, I'm really wondering why none of my devoted readers were worried if I was
ok. Come on guys, I could have died or something!
Anyway, this post is going to be kind of short. I really just wanted to check in. Here are some things that I've done since I've been gone:
- Went to visit J's family for Christmas in West Texas.
- Went on a cruise with my dad's side of the family over New Years and proved ourselves to be the most obnoxious family on the cruise. It was really fun.
- Decided not go on a New Year's cruise in the future. As fun as it was, it wasn't worth the craziness with the holidays.
- Got a new roommate. Our dog Parker got a new roommate too. We're still dealing with that. Two puppies, no yard, yikes!
- Watched an episode of Law and Order that had heavy references to my old friend Paul Cameron.
- My online presence over the last 2 weeks has been less than it has been in years. This is still a result of being out of town so long over the holidays, oh, and the new dog.
- Have not started working out with P90X again. We're shooting for Saturday. Surely I can get willpower for 90 days. I mean, it's just 90 days.
Ok, I'll leave it at that for now. But, before I go, I'd like to list some of my pet peeves. I don't talk about work much, but basically I interview people all day long. I love it and hate it all at the same time. Here are some of the things I hate:
- When I go up to meet a candidate and they give me a blank stare. Who were they expecting?
- When someone shows up late, even just by one minute.
- When someone doesn't apologize for being late (this is way too common).
- When someone shows up more than 15 minutes early. Wait in your car, please.
- When people seem to think they are too good for our position. If that's the case, fine, just keep it to yourself.
That's it for my update full of lists. I'll be back to regular scheduled updates now (hopefully).
Gays Still Recruit
You know, I honestly thought that it was only the far right fringe (the
Paul Cameron,
Peter Labarbera, and
James Hartlines of the world) that still accused gays of recruiting their kids. I honestly really did. Apparently I'm still a bit naive (or maybe it's just me being too trusting in the inherent goodness of people).
But I was wrong, as you might have guessed. Yesterday on my drive home, while listening to a local conservative talk show host named
Michael Berry I heard the recruitment accusation come up again. It was just in passing; some drawn out monologue about parental responsibility that eventually led to him saying that "alternative lifestyle" clubs are really just recruitment clubs. Berry was guest hosting the nationally syndicated
Mark Levin show, and I've always found his views to swing more far right when he guest hosts for Levin, but I was still shocked by what I heard.
I always found Michael Berry, while conservative, to be fairly level-headed and fair. He was a popular city councilman in Houston until he term-limited out of office. I typically enjoy his show. And then I hear this.
So now I wonder if people that make these kinds of claims are really just that ignorant of homosexuality (do they honestly believe we want to recruit kids?), if they are that hateful of gay people (to make such a slanderous claim), or if they just don't care--they want ratings, and they want to win the "culture war" at all costs? Is it that much of a stretch for me to see a connection between a statement like "gays recruit kids" as a reason we still see gay people getting beat up in the streets? I'm starting to think it's not.
Updates- Greatest Hits
The "I Used to Hate Being Gay"
post that I wrote about 2 years ago has been getting comments sporadically since I put it up here on the blog, but lately it's had a little extra attention. Most of the comments have come from people who searched online for the phrase "I hate being gay" and were directed to my site. The comments have been touching, emotional, and powerful all at the same time, and I hope they continue to come in. I'll try to be more diligent about responding to them in the future.
So, as I was responding to a couple of the latest comments, I decided to finally get around to updating my "Greatest Hits" links. I couldn't resist putting the "I Used to Hate Being Gay" post as the first link, because I feel like it's the most powerful thing I've written on this blog so far (and it has nothing to do with the fact that the Advocate
picked it up as a letter to the editor ;-). Feel free to disagree if you think I've written better posts too, btw.
Among the others I decided to include (all clickable from the links on the sidebar) are "I like Being Gay" (for balance and progress sake), "Pictures from My Wedding (how could I resist that?), Meet Paul Cameron (his shenanigans are one of the reasons I started this blog), and "Fall Out Boy's Terrible Message" (which is the first story I semi-broke on the blogosphere).
Please check the links out if you haven't read these posts before, and maybe suggest others if you feel so inclined. And, if anyone wants to get included on my blog links list, now's the time to ask!
Conservapedia
Wow, it's been a while! Life happens sometimes, I guess.
Some coworkers at work were talking about
Conservapedia today. I've heard of and seen the site before, but I figured it was worth talking about. Basically, it's the conservative's answer to wikipedia. I'm not really sure how wikipedia is "liberal" since anyone can change it, but for some reason some conservative people thought they needed an answer to it (here's a
list of their reasons why it's needed, but let's not forget that they can edit Wikipedia too), so this is what they created.
The site borders on being a parody of itself with some of it's entries and "popular articles." For example, in it's "
homosexuality" article, after a brief introductory paragraphy, the very first entry lists biblical references (this is after the topic is only given a one sentence definition). The entry goes on to claim no biological or genetic cause for homosexuality at all (not even as a partial influencing factor), quoting several studies, including one from the 1950's, two from the 1970's, and none (that I can see) from this decade. The entry goes on to "quote" the APA by linking to a Concerned Women For America article. Of course, there are several sections linking homosexuality and pedophelia, based on faulty research, and interestingly, and several more that mention the violence of the "homosexual movement." This stuff makes Paul Cameron look like a real researcher. If you're looking to get all riled up, please go check it out. I actually can't even believe people can write such blatant lies like that. Oh well.
So, this is what they are claiming is a honest and non-bias answer to wikipedia? Wow. Some things never cease to amaze. Sadly, this is the kind of stuff that my dad and stepmom would probably fall for. Maybe not necessarily the gay part these days, but some people are so eager to have their own beliefs validated, that they throw all critical thinking to the wind. This is what results.
I was going to link to some other stuff (it's "popular articles" lists things like dinosaurs, professor values, Hollywood values, homeschooling, and other conservative buzz words). This thing is really just blowing my mind right now. The fact that people fall for this type of stuff baffles me. Anyway, I think I've had enough. Check out the site for yourself and be amazed, and not in a good way.
The Heterosexual Agenda
Jim Burroway over at
Box Turtle Bulletin has a great piece of work on his site right now. He's put together one of the best refutations of anti-gay attacks I've ever seen. It's an amazing piece of work.
His report, "The Heterosexual Agenda: Exponsing the Myths" (download your own copy
here) is a parody article written in the style and using the research methods of many of the major anti-gay groups and writers out there (think Paul Cameron, the TVC, Focus on the Family and others). It details the alarming problems of sexual promiscuity in the heterosexual world. It's all parody, of course, but as he says in the epilogue of the paper, "all of [his] 'facts' are accurately quoted," even if they are not all quoted in proper context.
Basically Jim uses the exact strategies that anti-gay folks when they write anti-gay papers and studies. But, he is honest about where he gets his information and how he misreports it. This report is brilliant and very topical, especially the epilogue at the end. If you don't know much about anti-gay research, this paper will open your eyes in a hurry. I encourage you to read it and even download a copy of your own. While you're at it--show it to your friends--it's that good.
Now I'm just wondering how long it will take for anti-gay folks to take this paper out of context and use it for their own efforts--wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events. Hey, it's happened
before.
Having Gay Parents
Abigail Garner over at Damn Straight has a post up about what it's like to
grow up with a gay parent.
The post caught my attention since I just recently told my 10 year old sister that I was gay. Abigail's dad told her the news when she was 5. It didn't answer some of the questions I was hoping to get answered (like if she remembers what she thought when he told her), but it's very interesting and worth the quick read.
On a side note, Abigail is the author I
talked about who's book,
Families Like Mine, was completely dishonestly used by our good friend Paul Cameron in his recent "hate the gays with me" study.
Gay Divorces
I'm not saying that gay people are better at keeping relationships than straight people. Then I'd be just as bad as the far right that constantly tell us how bad gay relationships are, how the "gay lifestyle" is full of promiscuity and depression.
But, in Vernmont, the Civil Union dissolution rate (divorce rate) is right about
1% currently. I'll keep that in mind next time someone quotes regurgitated Paul Cameron B.S. at me.
Exodus President Wins Award
Recently Charisma magazine
named Alan Chambers, the President of Exodus as one of the top 30 emerging leaders in the American church. So, I suppose congratulations are in order. I'm sure he and his organization are both very proud.
In response to the award, Chambers said this, "It has been my privilege to be a part of the tremendous progress the evangelical church has made in demonstrating a more compassionate and truthful approach to those caught in homosexuality."
A nice sentiment, but I'm not sure I have felt the compassion from the evangelical church at large. Surely people like Chad Thompson, Randy Thomas, and maybe (maybe) even Alan Chambers have called for compassion to all gay people. But, Alan goes on to say what a pleasure it has been to work with
James Dobson (yes, that Dr. Dobson). I'd hardly say he has been the new voice of compassion towards gays, but Alan Chambers has no qualms with Dobson's take on the issue. Plus, I don't think using recycled
Paul Cameron statistics on the Exodus website is really doing much to treat gays more respectfully.
Maybe Alan and I have different opinions of what respect and compassion are. Or maybe he is just talking about respect and compassion for ex-gays. Actually, that's probably it. If anyone had used Dobson's words on gays and directed them towards Christians instead, I don't think Alan would be quite as friendly.
Maybe someone from Exodus could sit down and tell me how telling the world that gays are incapable of committed relationships, are drug users, abusers, etc. is really that compassionate. I'm always open for a letter.
Out of Town
I was out of town for the big July 4th weekend, so that explains the lack of blogging. That and I have been really busy with work since I returned.
The business has left me with little to say now too, but I wanted to get a post in.
Something I have been thinking about recently- I am concerned about Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation. I was really hoping she would hold out for another few years, but I understand her decision.
Question for Rush Limbaugh- given the number of previously conservative Supreme Court Justices that have moderated or even gone liberal, how is Bush going to ensure that his new justice is conservative enough for you? I mean, some of the seemingly most conservative judges appointed by some of the most conservative Presidents have turned out to not be conservative enough. Maybe that says something about the real conservative nature of conservatism. Maybe they are just as activist as the liberals they hate.
The Exodus Blog recently
linked to a study by Paul Cameron. Come on, have you no shame? This man has been proven to be dishonest and fraudulent. Why would Exodus want to associate with someone like that?
Ex-Gay Watch has a funny
post about the growing numbers of ex-gays in the world. I had noticed the trend too. I'm not sure he hasn't used all three of these numbers throughout those years though.
Lastly, hi to
Josh, who somehow found my blog. I'll add you to my blog list soon too.
Which is Worse?
Recently, a commenter named Timothy over at Ex-Gay Watch posed a
question to ex-gay pastor D.L. Foster (if he is not ex-gay himself, he is in the industry) that I have frequently posed myself.
Here is the question:
Is it morally worse to:
a) live in the "homosexual lifestyle", or
b) tell half-truths, spread unconfirmed "facts", repeat stories you know not to be true, and even lie?
D.L.'s response was that both were morally repugnant in God's eyes. That answer, of course, is a cop out. Timothy rebuked Foster's brush off and followed up with a very on topic statement by saying:
"According to your above statement, God will judge you no less harshly for allowing lies, distortions, and half-truths to be spread than if you had stayed in the "homosexual lifestyle".
Just a little thought for you when it comes time to claim "gays die sooner", "gays want to destroy the fabric of America", or any of Paul Cameron's lies. You have an obligation to dispute the lies or suffer God's judgement."
D.L. and others work so hard trying to get people to turn around from the sin of homosexuality, but they just let lies and distortions fly about. Surely someone in the anti-gay right should have the moral fortitude to come forward and say, "you know what, I disagree with being gay, but I also will not stand by and let these lies, stereotypes, exaggerations, distortions, and false information about gays go forward.
I've said this so many times. If being gay is a sin, tell people it is a sin. Why make up (or allow others to get away with making up) false information to make gays seem like some sort of terrible plague?
