What’s Shakin’ – Wings of Desire at MFAH, IRS to allow deductions for gender transition

Wings of Desire1. If you’re a fan of German films that are partially in French, the film oeuvre of Peter Faulk and sexy trapeze artists with existential angst then “Wings of Desire” is your kind of flick.  The 1987 Wim Wenders masterpiece tells the story of an Angel (Bruno Ganz) who, after watching humanity since the dawn of time, desires to become human so he can be with the woman he loves. “Wings of Desire” screens tonight at 7 pm at the Museum of Fine Art Houston (1001 Bissonnet).

2. Transgender Americans who undergo hormone therapy or receive gender realignment surgery may now be able to deduct the costs of those treatments on their taxes. According to GLAD, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the IRS has issued an “action on decision” statement saying that the agency will acquiesce to an appeals court ruling allowing the deductions. GLAD cautions that medical deductions can still be audited and encourages anyone planning to deduct cost of transition medical expenses to rigorously document the medical necessity of treatments and consult with a tax professional when preparing return

3. Election day is tomorrow. If you’re one of the 58,345 people in Harris County who voted early, then good for you.  If not, you’ll want to visit HarrisVotes.org and find out where to go to cast your ballot.  Polls open at 7 am on Tuesday and close at 7 pm sharp.

—  admin

Peter Sprigg won’t address hate group charges but will lie about same-sex households

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Photobucket Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council has yet to address the charges lodged against his group by the Southern Poverty Law Center regarding how they spread propaganda and junk science or misrepresent legitimate science to demonize the lgbt community.

But apparently he isn't too busy to continue misrepresenting legitimate science against the lgbt community.

Yesterday, a piece of his, Federal Report Confirms 'Nuclear Family' Best for Children's Health, was published in The Christian Post.

In this piece, Sprigg claims that nonpartisan groups support theories lodged by himself and FRC regarding the best households to raise children – i.e. the notion that two-parent heterosexual families are the best places to raise children as opposed to same-sex families:

 

During such debates, Family Research Council and other pro-family groups note social science evidence showing children raised by their own mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier (experience better mental health), healthier (have better physical health), and more prosperous (attain higher socioeconomic status) than children raised in any other household setting. For example, the non-partisan research group Child Trends summarized the evidence this way:

“Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.”

We point to this evidence in support of policies which would discourage divorce, cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, while encouraging sexual abstinence until marriage-as well as in opposing efforts to change the fundamental definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Yet more evidence along these lines can be found in a recently published federal study on “Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States.” The report compares health outcomes on a variety of measures by family structure. Seven different categories of “families” are identified-“nuclear,” “single-parent,” “unmarried biological or adoptive,” “blended,” “cohabiting,” “extended,” and “other.”

Like with so many other times Sprigg refers to legitimate science to quantify his theories, there are several things wrong with his citations of these studies.

The first study he cited – The Child Trends study – was published in 2002.  And it never even addressed same-sex households.
The second study he cited – The Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States study – looked at  findings from the National Health Interview Survey between the years of 2001 and 2007. And it looked at married familes vs. unmarried families. Same-sex households was not specifically mentioned. The following classifications – seven different categories of “families” are identified-“nuclear,” “single-parent,” “unmarried biological or adoptive,” “blended,” “cohabiting,” “extended,” and “other” – are extremely vague at best in dealing with same-sex households because there is no specificity.

With these two studies, Sprigg seems to be following a pattern very familiar with him, i.e. twisting legitimate science to prove his theories even when said studies don't address his theories or contradict what he is trying to prove.

Last year, he published  The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality. In this piece, he used the statements of an lgbt health organization to prove that the lgbt orientation itself is indicative of negative behaviors, i.e. depression, alcohol and drug abuse:

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.

But strange enough, the source which he cited – the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association – said that homophobia is the reason for many of these health problems. Sprigg deliberately omitted 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.

What Sprigg is doing now with these two studies regarding households raising children is simply more of the same.

It's worth mentioning that Sprigg is fastly becoming the “point man” who is called in front of state legislative committees to speak against marriage equality.

Pretty soon, the question regarding Sprigg's intentional distortion of scientific work will no longer be “how can he continue to get away with this?”

The question is going to become “how can someone professing to believe in Jesus continue to engage in such blatant deceptions?”

And “how can an organization claiming to stand up for morality and values (the Family Research Council) condone such behavior?”

Related posts:

Family Research Council has yet to come out with 'detailed response' against SPLC charges

Will the Family Research Council ever fulfill its promise and address SPLC's charges?

Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find 
 
Peter Sprigg proves the Family Research Council to be a hate group (again)

Family Research Council defends itself with distorted studies . . . again
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  David Taffet

CBN helps Peter ‘Teflon’ Sprigg apply another coat

The Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg pretty much single-handedly crippled his host organization’s reputation when he made comments calling for gays to be “exported” or criminalized:



*SOURCE: Gays seek immigration reform [Medill Reports]



*SOURCE: MSNBC

That’s just a fact. Because one really can’t go back form something like this. Suggesting gays be deported or arrested? Those aren’t in the realm of Freudian Slippage. By choosing to air these comments openly, Peter Sprigg revealed an ugly truth about the Family Research Council’s guiding mindset — one that, quite frankly, shocked even those of us who already knew how much FRC stood against us.

But of course Sprigg will never actually acknowledge these, the plainspoken comments that made a persecuted community’s jaws go from dropped to floor-scaping. Instead, he’ll continue to dance around it all, so that he can make himself and FRC look like the victimized voices of mere conservatism. And he’ll do so with the careless cooperation of the Christian Bible Network:

It’s simply maddening. If someone like Sprigg made these very same comments about any other population, this would be an international story. Especially when said person is regularly used by outlets like CNN as a counterpoint voice. The above two clips would not be bullet points in a story — they would be *THE* story. “Christian media pundit calls for criminalization of minority group,” scene at 11. We’ve seen that story play out with pundits who’ve dished out comparably minor infractions.

But for Peter “Teflon” Sprigg? Not only does he keep his job with the organization that many mainstream conservatives consider a top dog (all of the major GOP presidential candidates appear at FRC’s Values Voters Summit), but he even seems to have received a PROMOTION. We suddenly see Sprigg everywhere, discussing everything except his own brute comments. What the hell?!

Look, nobody is saying that conservatives of 2011 should be banned from debating policy. As long as LGBT rights are still a debate, it’s fine (even if annoying) to have a factual media discussion on the various topics at hand. Procedure, politics, partisan outlooks — these are acceptable topics. But there is a MAJOR difference between taking on the minutiae of a bill and casting out a whole group of rich, vibrant American citizens! We are more than confident in our side’s ability to win on the merits of any given LGBT debate, ultimately leading us to the day when any such debate will be seen as a non-starter. But until we get to that day, the media does not have to book supposed “experts” who’ve more than laid bear their true, frightening desires for millions of the world’s people.

Sorry, but our placement inside a remote island’s prison is not a point to which we can, will, or should “Agree to disagree”!




Good As You

—  admin

Richard Dawkins & Peter Tatchell Debate Immigrant Values In The UK

In an interesting episode of the BBC’s Big Question series, famed LGBT activist Peter Tatchell and Richard Dawkins debate others on the right wing and anti-gay attitudes brought by some in Britain’s burgeoning immigrant communities. Dawkins goes off beautifully at 15:00.

Joe. My. God.

—  admin

LOLZ Tweet of the day: Peter LaBarbera on hate sites and chutzpah

The hypocrisy meter just broke. From Porno Pete himself, of the documented hate site Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality:

New prize for chutzpah: Dan Savage, "gay" creator of the uber-nasty hate site "Santorum.com," crusading against alleged conservative "hate"!

UPDATE: A winning response from Jeremy

.@PeterLaBarbera thrice lifted my wedding pic & wrote "perversion" on it. So he can spare me(& my Jewish hubby)his misuse of term 'chutzpah'
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  admin

Peter LaBarbera’s most revelatory four words

Private gay relationships are fine — “at least right now”:

( click to play audio clip)

And what would Peter’s tomorrow look like? We’d certainly love to hear the desired endgame, not just from Peter, but from every “pro-family” person who’s working day and night for something.

***

*SEE ALSO:



Anti-Gay Chicago Groups Make ‘Hate List’: MyFoxCHICAGO.com




Good As You

—  admin

Watch: Gay Vet Alex Nicholson and Hate Group Leader Peter Sprigg Discuss ‘DADT’ Repeal

Nicholson_sprigg

If CNN is going to keep inviting hate group leaders like Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council on their shows, I hope they’ll continue to apply tougher questioning regarding the falsehoods that they are peddling.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP


Towleroad News #gay

—  admin

Peter LaBarbera freely admits to using Paul Cameron’s discredited work, sees nothing wrong with it

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

If you want the quintessential fact why the Southern Poverty Law Center is correct in calling out certain religious right organizations for their anti-gay bias, check out this portion of an interview between members of two of these groups -  Peter LaBarbera, head of Americans for Truth and Martha Kleder of the Concerned Women for America:
 

Transcript:

Kleder: One of the things I've also noticed is that the SPLC seems to be riled by the  fact . . . uh . . . if they don't particularly like your source that you document then you must be a hate group.

LaBarbera: Paul Cameron

Kleder:  Yeah.

LaBarbera: They say if you cite Paul Cameron, then you are a hater. I mean that's ridiculous. You know there is a researcher who just came out and found that Paul Cameron's work on the greater likelihood of homosexual adoptive parents to have . . . for the child to emerge as a homosexual. He confirmed Cameron's thesis. You don't have to agree with everything Paul Cameron ever did but how proposterous to say that citing a researcher . . Paul Cameron's work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. What they've done, Martha is set up these criteria and then you violate them,  they call you a hate group, and then they have their little echo chamber on the left which reports their charge. And of course the media, which really doesn't like us anyway. The media is very pro-gay, they cite us and so it begins to take a life of its own.

One of the main reasons why religious right groups (i.e. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, The Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc.) have been profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups is because of their repeated citings of the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. They use his work to spread propaganda about lgbts.

As all of us, if the not the vast majority of us, knows, Cameron is a researcher who has made a name for himself by creating studies designed to demonize the lgbt community.  These studies for the most part have been published in “vanity” or “pay-for-publish” journals and they are not “peer-reviewed” in the normal sense. No “peer” who objects to Cameron's work has the right to remove it from the journal.

He has also been discredited and censured by many group and individuals on the left, the right, and in the middle due to his bad research techniques. Several of his studies have been criticized for such errors as having small sample sizes, showing an anti-gay bias in interviews, and not having enough responses to establish a suitable analysis.

Let's take a quick look at his history:

“Right now, here in Lincoln, there is a 4-year-old boy who has had his genitals almost severed from his body at Gateway in the rest room with a homosexual act… It’s really awkward. I could see where Gateway would want to suppress this. I could see where the parents would want to suppress it. It could be just a rumor. But enough things have happened recently so that such a thing doesn’t have to be invented.” – Paul Cameron told this story to a group in 1982 in Lincoln, NB in an attempt to kill a human rights ordinance,  Lincoln Star May 8, 1982

The story was discovered to be a hoax and Cameron was called out in the local newspaper-  “A leading opponent of the proposed Lincoln Human Rights Amendment spreads rumors of an alleged vicious incident calculated to damage the proposal’s chances at the polls. When asked about it, he admits the rumor was without foundation. He refused to say from whom he heard the rumor. Nonetheless, he still insists it ‘could be true’, even though responsible authorities in the city say there was not a shred of evidence such an incident ever took place. The seed is planted, to the contrary.” – Editorial. Lincoln Star (May 10, 1982), as quoted by Brown, Robert D.; Cole, James K. Letter to the Editor, Nebraska Medical Journal 70, no. 11 (November 1985)

. Cameron has also had numerous condemnations rained down on him by the medical community:

“(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” – Dr. A. Nicholas Groth in letter written to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists on August 21, 1984
 
“Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists – American Psychological Association, 1983

 
The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists – Nebraska Psychological Association, 1984

 
Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” – American Sociological Association, 1985

The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. – Canadian Psychological Association, 1996

And while we are at it, let's not forget those on the right who dismiss Cameron's work:

“Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron's study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years.” – former Ronald Regan Cabinet member William Bennett criticizing Cameron's “gay lifespan study.” – New Republic (1998, February 23, page 4)

This article has been removed due to the inaccuracies surrounding the research of Paul Cameron. – A posting on the webpage of Ex-gay group Exodus International

And if that's not enough to convince you of Cameron's lack of credibility, check out various comments he has made regarding the lgbt community:

“What homosexuals do is so incredibly stupid, so patently absurd and antibiological, that only a foolish society would take their whimpering about ‘equal rights with heterosexuality’ seriously . . . Are we supposed to feel so sorry for them that we join them in the march to the cemetery?” – Paul Cameron, The Advocate, October 29, 1985

“At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, ‘Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.’ According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983.” – Mark E. Pietrzyk, New Republic, October 3, 1994

“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get – and that is what homosexuality seems to be — then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm.” - Paul Cameron, Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999

Cameron is the religious right's dirty little secret. Many of the organizations named as anti-gay hate groups by the SPLC  have used Cameron's studies even though they are aware of his dubious history of condemnations.

However, many of them won't admit to this fact.That is except for Peter LaBarbera. And what makes it worse is that LaBarbera is trying to justify work he knows has credibility problems.

And by the way, LaBarbera's claim that another researcher proved Cameron's thesis about children in same-sex households is also incorrect. LaBarbera failed to mention that the researcher, Walter Schumm, used the same bad methodology Cameron used to come to his original thesis:

Schumm’s “meta-analysis” (and Cameron’s before him) doesn’t even have the benefit of being built off of random convenience samples. There were no convenience samples in any of the ten prior works that Schumm used for his meta-analysis. In fact, they weren’t even professional studies. They were popular books! That’s right, each of the ten sources that Schumm used to construct his “meta-analysis” were from general-audience books about LGBT parenting and families, most of which are available on Amazon.com. Schumm read the books, took notes on each parent and child described in the book, examined their histories, and counted up who was gay and who was straight among the kids.

But here is the important thing – with Cameron's credibility problem, if he were “publishing studies” about the African-American community, Jewish community, or women, then he and those who freely cite his work would be thought of as either racist, anti-Semitic, or gender biased.

So what's the difference between Cameron's work impugning any of these groups and what he is doing to the lgbt community? Why shouldn't be he and those who use his work be thought of as “haters” in spite of the fact that they can hide their lies behind the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality?

At any rate, the usage of Cameron's work certainly does put a monkeywrench into religious rights claims that they are being “targeted” by the SPLC because of their “Judeo-Christian” beliefs.

I never knew that freely citing research known to be sloppy and inaccurate was a tenet of  “Judeo-Christian” beliefs.

Related posts:

Homophobic 'researcher' Paul Cameron in all of his repulsive glory

More homophobic lies from the Paul Cameron Poland tour

Hat tip to Kyle Mantyla of People for the American Way's Right  Wing Watch , Box Turtle Bulletin, and Dr. Gregory Herek.
Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

—  admin

Forget adult lives. Peter LaBarbera now wants your innocent memories, too

Peter LaBarbera:

I am always perplexed to hear adult homosexual men talk about how they “knew they were gay” from a very young age, say, five years old. Normally, boys don’t even know what sex is, much less homosexuality, in their early years, so such comments in an of themselves seem to indicate dysfunction, at best, or victimhood at the hands of a predator, at worst, in the young lives of these homosexually identified men.” [SOURCE: AFTAH's web site, find the link yourself]

Pop culture is filled with imagery of little boys and girls, hand in hand, fetching pails of water or sneaking sweet kisses. Young mothers celebrate kid crushes, complete with predictions of future marriage for the growing tots. In Hollywood and in life, these portraits of youth are painted as the epitome of human purity and innocence:

But leave it to Peter LaBarbera to sexualize these feelings as they apply to LGBT children. Since he’s already internalized the notion that the adult gays he challenges lead with the crotch and/or leather ball gag, Peter feels compelled to apply Screen Shot 2010-11-16 At 2.02.23 Pmthese same outlooks to the LGBT population’s youthful counterparts. Peter takes the tales of what caught young gay eyes — which are just as sweet and innocent (and vivid) as hetero peers’ own remembrances — then puts them through his typical spin machine (one that not only slights LGBT children’s memories, but also indicts their home lives). The resultant meme is one where lil’ Johnny, fresh off a bender of juice boxes and candy cigarettes, bides time between molestations by luring his fellow innocents into rounds of salacious Wii playing. Where lil’ Susie turns her back yard pool party into a mini Dinah Shore weekend. Where kid-sex guides the play dates. Where crushes become dysfunctional, simply because the in-born attractions weaken the far-right’s requisite “it’s a choice” strategy.

So okay, whatever — Peter can act like he’s “perplexed” all he wants. He knows exactly what he’s doing here. If he’s honest with himself, he knows that all humans have stirring attractions and exciting feelings in their minds long before they have any kinds of growth spurts. In our hyper-analyzed world, these instinctual responses should be among the easiest to let play out naturally. It’s only because of certain grown adults’ fetish for screwing gay people that the natural course of things becomes a point of interest, conflict, and controversy.




Good As You

—  admin

And now another edition of ‘Injecting Gay Sex into Everything w/ Peter LaBarbera’

Picture 1-221 1Sometimes, in order to make the anti-gay noise more enjoyable for you, the dear reader, we need to write a few quips, turn a few phrases, and inject a general sense of wit into what is often a very depressing conversation. Other times, we simply need to print Peter LaBarbera’s press release in full, then get out of the way, so as not to impede your lolz:

CHICAGO, Nov. 16 /Christian Newswire/ — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) today questioned the propriety of “same-gender’ TSA (Transportation Security Administration) “pat-downs” — if the TSA agents doing the ‘patting down” are homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.

Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano went out of her way yesterday to stress that the TSA pat-downs are “same-gender” — mostly to reassure women that men will not be groping them at airports in the name of safety.

“But what about homosexual TSA agents?” AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responded. “Isn’t it just as inappropriate for a ‘gay’ male TSA agent to pat down male travelers as it is for a normal, heterosexual male TSA agent to pat down female travelers?

“The reality is, most traveling men would not want Barney Frank to pat them down at the airport security checkpoint,” LaBarbera said. “Neither would it be fair to assign Ellen DeGeneres to pat down female travelers. (In the same vein, the Army should no more force normal male soldiers to shower and bunk with homosexual male soldiers than it would force females soldiers to bunk and shower with their male counterparts.)”

The TSA, as a federal agency, is barred from discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation,” thanks to a pro-homosexual Executive Order signed by President Clinton in 1998.

Said LaBarbera: “Obviously Napolitano wants to assure the public that sexual tension will be taken out of the equation. Hence, we must take seriously the self-identified desires of homosexuals. ‘Gay’ men define themselves as being sexually attracted to other men. Lesbians are sexually attracted to women. And bisexuals are attracted to both.” Some observations:

Perhaps some common-sense, healthy “discrimination” is in order: the TSA should put conditions on employment for self-acknowledged homosexuals — that they not be assigned to pat down travelers so as to avoid being put in sexually compromising situations;

It would not be workable to assign, say, gay male TSA agents to pat down female travelers — as the latter — thinking the agents to be normal men — would protest that they are being patted down by males. Chaos would ensue;

Does the TSA know which of its employees are homosexual, anyway, and how? If not, is it fair to travelers who may end up getting “groped” by homosexual TSA agents who are secretly getting turned on through the process?

Could the TSA be subjected to a sexual harassment lawsuit if the agent who engages in an overly aggressive “same-gender pat-down” — and gets sued — turns out to be homosexual?

LaBarbera said that even if it could be assumed that most TSA agents — regardless of their sexual proclivities — would act professionally, that is not the issue. Male TSA agents — no matter how “professional” their conduct — cannot frisk female travelers.

“To allow homosexual agents to conduct same-gender pat-downs is tantamount to a new form of discrimination that must be recognized and prevented,” he said.

Should Gay TSA Agents be Barred from Giving ‘Same-gender Pat-downs’ [Christian Newswire]




Good As You

—  admin