Box Turtle Bulletin

Ken Hutcherson: No Work, No Food

Rev. Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church, is fond of the spotlight. Sadly, that spotlight often reveals a person who is hard of heart and full of bitterness towards his fellow man.

I’m sure there are few who are unaware that this country is currently experiencing difficult times. Many people are finding themselves, due to no fault of their own, to be facing financial difficulties and some are suffering severe hardship. The Seattle Times has an article about how tent cities are springing up due to the foreclosure crisis and the rising unemployment rate.

Thirty-five year old Karissa Vaugh in Seattle is a tent city resident.

“As soon as I lost my job, I kinda of lost my place to live and came here,” Vaughn told CBN News. “This is something that, you know, it could happen to anybody. And the preconceived notions I had maybe before about homeless people are out the window.”

Aaron Beachage once lived in a $1,200 a month apartment. He now lives out of his van parked at the tent city.

“I have been homeless about three months,” he said. “I found myself in this predicament through my job as a truck driver, losing my job.

Although Karissa Vaugh may have had her notions about homeless people challenged, but Hutcherson appears to have held onto his views:

“Our Saviour died to keep us off the cross. I don’t think he’d be satisfied keeping us in tents,” Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Wash., said.

“I think the Bible gives it to us straight, if you don’t work, you don’t eat,” he said. “We’re supposed to give hands up, not hand outs to the point of letting people stay the way they are.”

As someone who is fairly conservative and skeptical about many social programs, I’m frankly shocked. Though raised in conservative Christian circles, I find this example of heartlessness to be extreme beyond anything I’ve experienced.

I do support the idea that education and responsibility is preferable to a lifetime of cash disbursements. And I recognize that there are some few who are lazy and will abuse any charity.

But come on!! Times are hard and people are hurting. And there just aren’t many people who are willing to brave Seattle’s winter in a tent if they had other options.

And as for what Our Saviour gave to us straight, we can find that in the 25th Chapter of Matthew:

34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

For the sake of Hutcherson’s soul, I sincerly hope he was misquoted.

An Attack on Christianity

I do not often find that the social issues that get Bill O’Reilly worked up are worth my attention. But I am troubled about a situation that he has highlighted involving religious displays in the State Capitol of Washington.

Last year the Alliance Defense Fund took time from their anti-gay activities to sue the State of Washington over Christmas displays. As a consequence, a policy was established to allow use of public space to sponsor a display, regardless of belief.

This year three displays went up: a “holiday tree”, a nativity scene, and a statement by an atheist organization.

That in itself does not bother me entirely; I support the accommodation of diverse views. I am, however, bothered by both the language of the placard and its placement next to the nativity scene. The statement says:

At this season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail.

There are no gods,
no devils, no angels,
no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but
myth and superstition
that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds.

This is not an endorsement of atheism; rather, it is an attack on religion, most specifically that religion next to which it was placed. Those who placed the sign, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, make no pretenses that this was not an attack on a Christian holiday nor do they apologize for the hurt and anger that they have caused Christians. In fact, they portray themselves as the victims.

In an interview with Fox News, the co-president had this to say:

DAN BARKER: If there is going to be a nativity scene that’s pro-Christian, which basically insults those of us who are not Christian, by telling us we’re going to go to hell unless we bow down before that Baby Jesus, then we want an equal time, too. We want a place at the table. We want to show America that we, atheists and agnostics, are here, too.

A statement of belief is not equivalent to a position of hatred and attack on others.

Nor do I think that the atheist organization is the victim here. The existence of a nativity scene is no more an insult or attack than a Sikh wearing a Dastar is attacking Muslims or the lighting of a menorah is an attack on Buddhists. That others observe that which I do not has nothing to do with me and I have no right to insist that they do so in secret nor does society have an obligation to respect my attack on them.

Many atheists are content with their conviction of the order of nature and the limitation of existence to that which can be observed. And they really don’t much care whether I agree.

But these particular atheists, like some others that I have encountered, are not interested in allowing disagreement. These evangelical atheists view the existence of anyone else’s religion as an attack on their own religious beliefs. It is not enough that each person determine whether to believe and that each religious viewpoint be respected, or at least allowed. No, rather than coexistence with religious faith, they want to attack religious faiths and those who practice them.

Ironically, this is very similar to the tactics and language employed by some religious opponents to gay civil rights. Those who are recoiling from the anti-Christian behaviors of this group includes, no doubt, many of those who made statements about gay marriage that were astonishingly similar.

The anti-gay marriage campaigns were full of those who indignantly demanded that gay people not have marriage because the mere existence of such marriages was at threat to their family. It was not enough that they had their own marriage, rather they insisted that mine not exist.

I think that our society would be better served if each of us allowed room for the other.

I am entitled to equality under the law, including marriage rights. But I can also respect those who disagree and I do not insist that my wedding be at their church. And while they can believe that I will burn forever in eternal torment, this does not entitle them to place placards next to the best man at my wedding.

This sort of religion-by-attack only escalates. Each slight is answered by a larger attack until the whole of society is embroiled in a nasty culture war.

Already, Ken Hutcherson – always ready with words of hatred and contempt – is threatening a response to the FFRF:

Redmond pastor Ken Hutcherson of the Antioch Bible Church called an 11 a.m. news conference Friday. The Olympian reports he’ll place his own pro-Christian sign in the Rotunda to mock atheists.

I think it is time for Washington State to establish rules that those seeking to display their religious positions are banned from attacking others. Tolerance does not include those who refuse to show it to others.

Further, I think that they should demonstrate some connection to the season. Perhaps the atheists could find a time of celebration, maybe the birthdate of a leader in freethought or a season in which there were fewer traditional mythologies. They can hardly expect to be taken with credibility when they oppose myth and mystery at the time of the Winter Solstice.

Guess Who Else Isn’t On Board With the U.N. Resolution to Decriminalize Homosexuality

Mark, at Slapped Upside the Head, has a good take on yesterday’s news that the Vatican is opposing a U.N. resolution calling on member states to rescind laws outlawing homosexuality — which in some countries includes the death penalty. We discussed the Vatican’s intrinsically disordered logic here. Mark has his own take here.

There are a lot of countries which have already signed on to the declaration, including: Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Those last three are rather surprising. Also surprising co-sponsors are three African countries: Gabon, Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau. That’s quite an impressive list.

So, who’s missing? Well, let’s see. Oh look: the United States and Australia.

Our Place in the Democratic Party Minority Coalition

One of the strategies of the Democratic Party has been to bring together otherwise powerless minorities into a coalition of bodies that can work together to collectively protect their individual interests. And gays and lesbians, as sexual minorities, have been welcomed as part of the coalition.

However, while that initiative has served the gay community well in some states, in other places it appears that gay and lesbians are the ugly red-headed stepchildren in the Democratic family. While they are asked to be supportive of the agenda of other members of the family, the needs of gay citizens can be subject to the whims of anyone who might object.

We see this in Maryland where one legislator, who is undoubtedly a valuable advocate for his constituency, also was unyielding in his efforts to block any measure of protection for same-sex couples. Due in great part to the efforts of Sen. Muse – and the absolute unwillingness of the Party to call him on his championing of discrimination – gay Maryland couples have but the barest of almost-inconsequential rights, far less than is supported by Maryland’s population at large.

And now it appears that a similar situation has evolved in New York.

The voters in New York State support rights for same-sex couples. The Assembly in the State has voted for marriage equality, the Governor is an advocate, and it was a common belief that if only the Senate were in Democratic hands then gay people would have their place at the table as equals.

And it was this belief that led to substatial contributions to Democratic Senate candidates from gay men and women.

And the Democrats won a majority. Which should have been good news.

But Senator Rubén Díaz Sr., a Democrat from the Bronx, led a rebellion of three Senators and refused to support the leadership unless his conditions were met. He demanded, among other things, that there be no vote allowed to be brought to the floor that could advance marriage equality:

Diaz, a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, has said he won’t back anyone for majority leader unless that person pledges in writing not to put marriage legislation up for a vote.

Well now the Democratic leadership has reached an agreement with Diaz, Pedro Espada, and Carl Kruger. Guess who wins and guess who loses.

Yesterday Elizabeth Benjamin reported in the Daily News

• The positions of Senate majority leader and president pro tempore, which were both held by former Majority Leader Joe Bruno, have now been bifurcated. Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. will be the majority leader while Smith is president pro tempore.
• Sen. Carl Kruger will … chair a pumped-up Senate Finance Committee.
• Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. will chair the Aging Committee.
• A bill to legalize same-sex marriage will not be brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote this year.

Today she clarifies:

It now appears fairly certain that legislation to legalize gay marriage is on indefinite hold in the Senate as the result of the deal brokered by Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Malcolm Smith and the Gang of Three.

A source close to the gang said the plan is to have the same-sex marriage bill introduced, determined to have fiscal implications (although I’m not exactly certain what those might be) and referred to the Finance Committee, which, assuming the agreement between the gang and Smith sticks, will be headed by Sen. Carl Kruger, who could stop the measure in its tracks.

And in addition to this sell-out of the gay community by the Senate leadership, the Governor seems to be back-pedaling as well.

“I supported same-sex marriage legislation when I was running for lieutenant governor with Governor Spitzer, and we had advocated for its passage and we are ready to have it passed at any time. But now my role is not as a legislator but is to sign the bill when and if the Legislature ever passes it, which I will do.”

As Benjamin notes, this is far less supportive than Gov. Spitzer who presented a “program bill” and proactively sought marriage equality. And it is also far less than the promises that Paterson has made in the past.

I recognize the difficulty that faced Malcolm Smith (top right) in his efforts to wrest control of the New York State Senate from the Republicans. But I am convinced that no other minority group’s rights would have ever been allowed to even be considered as a bargaining tool.

So the Democratic Party leadership has made clear the position of the gay community in the coalition family. We may attend the celebration feast, but our place is at the kiddies table. And we are welcome to campaign and contribute funds but we should know that our rights are not of equal importance and will be considered last.

And while some minority groups have increased their influence through the empowerment of the Democratic Party coalition, our minority status has ensured that we will get “special treatment” – a very special promise that our equality will not even be considered.

PPIC Prop 8 Poll: It’s Only Informative If You Provide Information

The Public Policy Institute of California has released a new survey (pdf) which purports to tell us about how various demographics in the state voted in November. Among their observations:

Differences in support for Proposition 8 are evident across party lines, with three in four Republicans (77%) voting yes and two in three Democrats (65%) voting no, while independents were more divided (52% yes, 48% no). The measure was supported by a majority of those without a college education (62%), while a majority of those with a college degree voted no (57%). Evangelical or born-again Christians (85%) are far more likely than others (42%) to have voted yes. Whites (50%) are less likely than Latinos (61%) to have voted yes; 57 percent of Latinos, Asians and blacks combined voted yes (sample sizes are too small to report Asians and blacks separately). Voters who supported Obama (30%) were far less likely than those who supported McCain (85%) to vote yes. Support for Proposition 8 increases with age (43% for ages 18–34; 50% for ages 35–54, yes; 56% for ages 55 and older) and declines with income.

But demographic information is only useful if the sample is representative. And in the case of a vote that has already occured, we can check to see how closely the sample aligns with the actual vote.

Before the election, I gave credence to the polling of PPIC. I monitored and tracked the movement of their results. And they were just flat wrong.

So I immediately looked in this new PPIC survey to see if the respondants indicated a vote that correlated with the Secretary of State’s tally. I’m a reasonable guy and I know that both recollection and voter reluctance can cause a variation from the actual vote so I was ready to allow for a measure of difference.

But the information provided by PPIC was:

23. Proposition 8 was called the “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”

Did you vote yes or no on this measure?

[actual vote]

52% voted yes
48 voted no

PPIC replaced the response of their sample with the actual vote. But that is nonsense statistics.

They go on to tell us the opinion of those who reported to them that they voted “yes”, but they don’t tell us how many that was. And without some way to measure how closely their survey is to the actual vote, we have no idea whether the sample is skewed.

And the answer for Proposition 8 was not alone. They provided the [actual vote] response for all “how did you vote” questions, so I can’t even compare to see if respondants are “changing their vote” based on their emotional response to the subsequent social activism.

Frankly, without providing real answers, this PPIC survey has little value.

Moscow Mayor Promises Further LGBT Suppression

While speaking at an AIDS conference (no less!), Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov said that the city would continue to ban gay rights marches and other “propaganda”:

“So-called democrats consider that sexual minorities can be the main indicator and main symbol of democracy, but we will in future continue to ban propaganda of the views of sexual minorities. Of course, we will be criticised by all democrats in the world but in each society there are own views on that.”

The mayor reportedly blamed gays for the spread of AIDS in Russia, and said that condoms should not be a part of an HIV-prevention program because, he said, “contemporary science” claims that they are not 100% safe. Mayor Luzhkov has previously referred to gays as “satanic.”

For the past several years, local gay rights organizations have been denied permits to hold Pride marches in Moscow. Two years ago, an attempted Pride parade was broken up by police and local thugs. Last year, Pride organizers were able to outsmart Moscow police and hold two visible and public events before authorities were able to shut them down. This occurred despite Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s order that local authorities authorize the march.

Next year, Moscow Pride organisers plan to take advantage of increased visibility surrounding the next May’s Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow to hold a coinciding Pride celebration.

Heterosexual Menace: Their Marriage Is Perfectly Valid

Even though she has sex with dogs and young teens while he takes pictures:

A Palm Coast couple was arrested Tuesday on charges of lewd and lascivious battery and contributing to the delinquency of a minor in connection with a 2004 incident involving sex with dogs. David Maldonado, 42, and his wife, Carla Maldonado, 40, were being held in the Flagler County Inmate Facility. …

To be fair, Carla really loves dogs. She was a longtime employee for the Flagler County Humane Society.

The Sheriff’s office also found photos of Carla Maldonado having sex with a 15-year-old female while her husband took pictures. The couple also provided the minor with alcohol.

This couple is legally married, and the state of Florida thinks their marriage is perfectly dandy. Florida schoolchildren are being taught that their marriage is just as good as anyone else’s — except for gay people. Because, you know, that’s a much bigger threat to marriage than people who have sex with dogs and with 15-year-old family friends.

Good thing all of those “pro-family” Floridians saved the fine institution of marriage from us gays.

[Hat tip: Reader Erin]

See also:
Heterosexual Menace: Straight Married Couple Tortures Teen
The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths

GLAAD Harris Interactive Survey: More Public Support

GLAAD has released a new survey by Harris Interactive that shows increased support for a number of the gay community’s goals:

• 49% of adults favor marriage equality; 49% oppose when presented with an up or down decision.
• When given options, 38% favor marriage; 38% favor civil unions while disallowing marriage; and 22% wish for no legal recognition at all.
• 69% oppose adoption discrimination.
• 64% favor overturning DADT.
• 63% favor trans-inclusive Hate Crimes Legislation
• 51% support trans-inclusive ENDA, 45% do not. They didn’t inquire about non-discrimination laws that did not include transgender persons.
• 47% support immigration rights; 48% do not. This one surprises me and may be a result of the phrasing of the question: Do you favor or oppose… allowing gay Americans to sponsor their non-American life partners to become residents of the United States.

One thing that I found fascinating is that issues of homosexuality are sharply dividing Mainline Christians from Evangelical Christians. In all questions, Mainline Christians were gay-favorable and Evangelicals were among the least favorable.

This was particularly evident on issues that were in traditional areas of Christian activism (pre-Religious Right). For example, on the ENDA question, Mainline was the most supportive of all demographics while Evangelical was the least.

As the issues surrounding sexual orientation become more instilled in the war over religious dominance in the culture, a possible positive side effect could be that the non-religious come to see this as a sectarian battle and opt out of anti-gay efforts.

The Psychological Harm of Anti-Gay Ballot Campaigns

If you’ve been experiencing post-election psychological distress in the wake of the recent antigay ballot campaigns ­– whether in the form of anger, sadness, irritability, feelings of betrayal, revenge fantasies, sleep difficulties, or something else ­– research suggests you’re not alone. What you’re feeling these days is a natural and normal response to the attacks you endured during the months leading up to November 4, and to the trauma of election night.

In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I describe the results of two studies on the psychological impact of antigay ballot measures.

One study was conducted by psychologist Glenda Russell and her colleagues in the wake of Colorado’s 1992 Amendment 2 campaign. Examining personal accounts by sexual minority Colorado citizens, the researchers observed themes that are all too familiar today to many sexual minority residents of California, Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas.

Respondents reported feeling overwhelmed or devastated by the vote. Some were shocked that the measure passed. Many experienced anger, fear, sadness, or depression. Some felt a sense of loss, saying they would never again feel the same about living in Colorado. Some expressed regret at not having done more to prevent the measure’s passage.

Dr. Russell’s team also found that a substantial segment of the sample reported many symptoms commonly associated with depression, anxiety disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and perceived that these symptoms were a direct result of having lived through the months of antigay campaigning.

The second study, which will soon be published in the prestigious Journal of Counseling Psychology, supports and extends Dr. Russell’s findings. The researchers — led by Dr. Sharon Rostosky at the University of Kentucky — assessed the psychological well-being of sexual minority adults across the United States before and after the 2006 elections. They found that, as a group, participants residing in states with a marriage amendment on the ballot reported experiencing significantly more psychological distress than did the residents of other states. Moreover, their levels of stress, negative emotions, and symptoms of depression were significantly higher after the election compared to six months earlier.

Taken together, the studies’ findings are consistent with the conclusion that antigay campaigns not only take away individuals’ rights, but are also harmful to the mental health of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who live through them.

You can read more about the studies and the implications of their findings at Beyond Homophobia.

Heterosexual Menace: Straight Married Couple Tortures Teen

Can you imagine the blood-curdling headlines from some people if this had been a same-sex couple?

A Girl Scout leader and her husband were arrested after an emaciated, terrified and nearly naked 17-year-old showed up at a gym with a chain locked to his ankle, saying he had just fled his captors, authorities said Tuesday… The boy, who authorities said ran away from a Sacramento foster home last year, came into the In-Shape Sports Club in Tracy on Monday wearing only boxer briefs and covered in what appeared to be soot, gym manager Chuck Ellis said. Tracy is about 70 miles south of Sacramento.

Ellis said the teen was scared someone was going to come after him and asked to be hidden. “He said, ‘Don’t let them get me, don’t let them get me,”‘ Ellis said. “He was totally terrified.” The boy said he had been held captive for nearly a year, said Ellis, adding that he looked as if he were only 10 to 12 years old.

Police arrested Michael Schumacher, 34, his Girl Scout leader wife Kelly Layne Lau, 30. Don’t they look like a fine heterosexual, as-God-intended husband and wife?

And guess what? Schoolchildren in California will be taught that the Schumacher-Lau marriage is just as good as anyone else’s. Good thing Californians saved the fine institution of marriage from us gays.

See also:
The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths

Vatican’s Intrinsically Disordered Opposition To Decriminalizing Homosexuality

The Catholic church — as part of a what it sees as a consistent “pro-life” ethic — opposes the death penalty. But the Vatican’s representative in the United Nations is opposing a measure calling on governments around the world to decriminalize homosexuality — including countries which impose the death penalty on gays:

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination” and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

“If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations,” Migliore said. “For example, states which do not recognize same-sex unions as ‘matrimony’ will be pilloried and made an object of pressure,” Migliore said.

The proposed measure does nothing to extend rights to anyone — unless you consider the elimination of the death penalty, imprisonment or fines for homosexuality a special right. Because that’s all the proposed resolution does: it only calls for decriminalization.

Homosexuality is still punishable by imprisonment or fines in more than 85 countries. Some, including Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, impose the ultimate penalty of death. A Vatican spokesman argues that the church is against all that, saying that “no one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals.” And yet the Vatican opposes a measure calling for the elimination of these very penalties that “no one wants.” Because, according to the Vatican, the only way to prevent adding “new categories of those protected from discrimination” is to preserve the most egregious examples of discrimination — criminal sanctions against gay people.

No wonder an editorial in Italy’s La Stampa called the Vatican’s stance “grotesque.” Me, I think that this sort of flawed and inconsistent reasoning is just instrinsically disordered.

California Legislature to Request Prop 8 Rejection

Legislators in the California Senate and in the Assembly jointly issued bills to have the legislature in official opposition to the proposition (PolitickerCA):

On Tuesday, the second day of the 2009-10 legislative session, Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (both D-San Francisco) launched Senate Resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly. If approved, the bills would place both houses of the California Legislature on record as opposing the controversial initiative and declaring it an illegal revision to the state constitution.

“Prop. 8’s revision to the California Constitution violates key structural checks and balances built into our legal system,” Leno said. “Overnight, the constitutional protections of thousands of tax-paying, law-abiding California citizens were stripped from them by a simple majority vote, without a prior two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature, thereby trampling on their fundamental right to equal protection.”

I predict that this will pass easily.

Congratulations Kalamazoo

From the Kalamazoo Gazette:

The Kalamazoo City Commission voted 7-0 Monday night to adopt an expanded anti-discrimination ordinance that makes it a municipal civil infraction to discriminate against gays, lesbians and transgender citizens.

The ordinance makes it illegal to use sexual orientation to discriminate in housing, public accommodations and employment and carries a fine of $500.

Some Concerns About Study Refuting Fraternal Birth Order Effect

In January of 2008, Andrew Francis, an assistant economics professor at Emory University, released a paper in which he sought to apply analysis to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”). His results are published in the October 2008 Journal of Sex Research and have gotten some attention from those who follow the nature / nurture debate.

His abstract includes the following:

For men, I find that having one older brother does not raise the likelihood of homosexuality. Although having multiple older brothers has a positive coefficient, it is not significant. Moreover, having any older sisters lowers the likelihood of homosexual or bisexual identity.

Unfortunately, I am neither a statistician nor am I able to fully comprehend his methodology or make heads or tails of his charts. I will leave that to those better skilled than I.

But I do have some observations that cause me to be reluctant to quickly accept Francis’ assertions.

Bias: I do have concern about Francis’ motivations. In August 2007 he released a paper in which he applied economic theory to sexual behavior and HIV and declared:

I present evidence that AIDS causes some men to shift from homosexual to heterosexual behavior, whereas AIDS causes some women to shift from heterosexual to homosexual behavior. Thus, sexual behavior may respond to incentives. I consider alternative hypotheses, including biological theories of sexual orientation and stigma-related survey bias, and argue that they are unlikely to explain the results.

In a paper written in March of this year, he proposed that a 1 to 2 year incarceration be the penalty for intentionally or unknowingly transmitting HIV. And while I find that paper to be troubling, he also released a paper in October that suggested that increased social tolerance towards homosexuality causes a statistical decrease in HIV infection rates.

So please note that I am not accusing Mr. Francis of bigotry; he’s not Paul Cameron.

But behind all of Mr. Francis’ work is the assumption that sexual behavior is malleable – at least on the edges – and it’s strongly implied that orientation (what Francis calls “desire”) is as well. So it should be greeted with caution that he has released a study that confirms what he has been presuming to be true for at least a year.

Contradictory: The most important question to ask of any study is, “Does this make sense”.

While it is entirely possible for ‘common knowledge’ to be completely wrong and for research to be a tool that overthrows myth and supposition, it doesn’t overthrow mathematics or logic. And Francis’ results reveal ‘findings’ that are hard to fathom.

Francis measures sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and two measures of sexual identity: not entirely heterosexual and not even close to heterosexual. But in Francis’ model these are often contradictory and in ways that are difficult to rationalize.

For example, being raised by a single dad has no material effect on sexual desire or sexual behavior but it is a positive indicator on identity. Say huh?

Yep. Boys raised by a single father are more likely to identify as gay but they aren’t attracted to the same sex or doing anything about it.

And a few other things he found… discoveries that will certainly delight some folks who have notions about classes and races.

Young black men are more attracted to guys and are having more sex, but (except for the nelly ones) they deny being anything but 100% straight. And if a boy is more educated, he’s more likely you are to declare himself gay (while remaining virginal), while blue-collar “straight” studs are out there humping like rabbits.

Frankly, that’s a worldview that is best left to porn.

Where it all falls apart for me is in the comparison of desire and identity.

I can get that there might be some demographic that expresses desire and romantic attraction to other men but cannot or will not identify as other than heterosexual. But it makes no sense whatsoever for a study to claim that there are four demographic subgroups that are more likely to identify as gay but aren’t attracted to the same sex.

Conclusion: You can measure the credibility of a research by whether their declarations of discovery are well supported by the data.

But consider this doozy:

Given the complexity of the empirical relationship between sexual orientation and the biodemographic and other correlates, it is likely that both biological and social mechanisms may play a role.

Wait. Social mechanisms? When, oh when, did the data address social mechanisms? The closest he gets is looking at college education.

But in Francis’ assumptions, if there’s no older brother effect then it’s likely that social mechanisms may play a role. Yikes.

I don’t know whether there is adequate evidence to conclusively prove whether there is a fraternal birth order effect in male sexual orientation. And I’ll let those who are more knowledgeable tell us if this model is conducted properly.

But I think I’ve seen enough to know that I’ll not place much reliance on this paper.

World AIDS Day 2008

Today is World AIDS Day and while you may have few options for changing the global situation, here are a few suggestions of things you may want to do locally to commemorate the international event:

• Get tested. Make it an annual event whether you need to or not.
• If you are positive, this might be a good time to review your meds, make an appointment, read up on new treatments, join a gym, or dedicate some time to thinking about and planning your health.
• Contact a local AIDS service group and find out whether you can volunteer some time. While due to advances in medical care many HIV positive people live very normal lives, for some 2008 is no better than 1998. Food still needs cooking and delivering, dogs need walked, and sick people need a caring ear.
• Write a check.
• Tell the truth. Many people – gay and straight – are misinformed about this disease and its impact on our community. Today is a good day to help eliminate myths. Yes, most HIV patients can manage the virus through a strict regimine of medicines, but not all can: so play safe. And no, not all gay people have -or will get – HIV; only about 12% of gay men and virtually no gay women have the virus.
• Think about whether you have a unique talent that could be put to good use. If you are a member of an ethnic minority, you may have access to the hardest hit communities in ways that no ‘white guy in a suit’ could ever reach. We each have our own skills and advantages; find yours.
• Pray. If you are a member of a faith-based group, ask others to join you in your appeal to the divine.
• Take a moment to remember those whom we have lost to this horrible disease and honor their memory.