Box Turtle Bulletin

Ted Haggard: “I’m Not Gay”

It’s a miracle! After three whole weeks of “intensive psychological therapy” — yes, that’s right! Twenty-one days to examine a life of some fifty years — we can now be assured that Ted Haggard most definitely is not gay:

[Rev. Tim] Ralph said three weeks of counseling at an undisclosed Arizona treatment center helped Haggard immensely and left Haggard sure of one thing.

“He is completely heterosexual,” Ralph said. “That is something he discovered. It was the acting- out situations where things took place. It wasn’t a constant thing.”

Nope. Not homosexual. Nothing to see here. According to Haggard’s advisors, all we gotta do now is figure out why he “chose to act out in that manner”.

How about his: He paid a lot of money to have sex with another man. He went back to that man again and again. Could it be because he liked it?

This news comes on the same day that we learn that Astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak is being charged with first degree murder after having attacked a rival for another astronaut’s attention. Nowak, mission specialist on a Space Shuttle Discovery flight last summer, was found in Orlando wearing a trenchcoat and a wig, and she had worn diapers so she wouldn’t have to stop on the 1,000-mile drive from Houston.

Now, mind you, NASA has some pretty sharp psychologists on staff (Dr. Bellows notwithstanding). Astronouts undergo an enormous battery of psychological and physical tests to make sure they are fit to perform their missions. NASA can’t afford to have a nutcase on the shuttle or the space station. And yet, these sharp psychologists apparently missed the ticking time-bomb that finally went off in Nowak’s mind.

But all Haggard’s “therapists” needed were three weeks to figure out he’s really a heterosexual after all.

Daniel Gonzales at Ex-Gay Watch has a great observation in all this. He notes that Dr. Joseph Nicolosi (Daniel’s therapist back in his ex-gay days) believes there are no such thing as homosexuals:

This he’s heterosexual with a homosexual problem of acting out sounds an awful lot like NARTH president Joe Nicolosi who said:

“There is no such thing as a homosexual. Homosexual is a description of a condition, it’s not a description of the person. We are all heterosexual, some heterosexuals have a homosexual problem.”

Much as I too was able to convince myself I was a heterosexual with a homosexual problem that could be dealt with whenever attractions came up, we shall see how long Haggard is willing to keep up the exhausting charade after the honeymoon ends.

I don’t know which ex-gay ministry Haggard went to. But I think it’s time they drop all pretenses of “therapy”. This looks more like a really bad characature of “name it and claim it” theology in action. He calls himself a heterosexual, therefore he is.

And you want to know the really amazing thing about it? His next step is to get an online degree in psychology.

See also:

The Megachurch, Mike Jones, and the Suspension of Disbelief
“There Is A Part Of My Life So Repulsive and Dark…”
Blessed Are The Opportunists
Haggard Resigns; “I Know What You Did Last Night”
Prayers and Assistance for the Haggard Family
I Did Not Have Sex With That Man!
Jones “Fails” Lie Detector?
Fall of the House of Haggard

Alana Burke Might Do Well To Find A Closet Of Her Own

Here’s an odd column that appeared in Sunday’s Redding (CA) Record Searchlight:

Gays Might Do Well To Stay In The Closet

By Alana Burke, Columnist
Sunday, February 4, 2007

There was a time when to be “gay” simply meant that a person was happy, giddy, or perhaps just singin’ in the rain over requited love. Back then, people kept their clothes in the closet and their sexual preferences to themselves. In these days of over-the-top political correctness, we can’t throw a fagot on the fire for fear of offending someone and even the tooth fairy is suspect because so many words now carry a double entendre.

Well, Ms. Burke, I happen to be gay, which pretty much means that, yes, in fact, I am happy, giddy, and singing’ in the rain over requited love. And these days the only thing I keep in my closet are my clothes. But I think I should correct you on a few points.

I don’t think it’s over-the-top political correctness that keeps one from tossing a faggot onto the fire. I believe that would be fear of being charged with capital murder.

Oh, I see. That was humor you were trying to get at. That “keen observation of human foibles with a no-nonsense attitude” that so thrilled the editors of the Redding Record Searchlight that they invited you to share them in the Sunday opinion section. And oh, what observations you have!

Unfortunately, you failed on the “no-nonsense” part. Your column this time is nothing but nonsense.

Ms. Burke is incensed that gays are demanding “special rights”. What exactly are these special rights? She doesn’t much say, except the right to call people faggots. While doing so is in very poor taste, I agree with her on that one. Our beloved Constitution guarantees her right to call me or anyone else a faggot anytime she wants to. Have at it.

She concedes that hospitals ought to be nice and allow patients designate anyone they want to visit them under “family only” policies. That’s very generous of her. Now what about the main point, which is the whole issue about who gets to make decisions regarding that person’s care when he or she is incapacitated? She can be safely assured that her husband (if she’s married, that is) has that right, a “special” right that gays and lesbians do not have.

She also concedes that “provided that an agenda is not being pushed, any qualified person should be allowed to perform any given job, without harassment.” I’m still scratching my head over the “provided that an agenda is not being pushed” part. What agenda would that be? The agenda I publish for the weekly staff meeting? An agenda that says that I ought to expect that my employees and supervisors treat me fairly and with respect? What?

I was spending so much energy trying to puzzle that one out that I almost completely missed this little gem:

I’m a firm believer in the U.S. military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” except for the clause that prohibits homosexuals from serving their country.

Huh? Now my brain really hurts.

But what really gets her goat — and believe me, she spends an unusual amount of time worrying about sheep in this piece — what she’s really upset about is that we might go around showing, you know, affection for each other. Kinda like maybe the way she might. Maybe:

The LGBT organizations, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, (sounds like a sandwich — a nice lettuce, gruyere, bacon and tomato) and the gay culture persistently push their agenda with displays of public face sucking and flamboyant antics and then complain bitterly when discriminated against.

I will be more than happy to make a deal with you, Alana. I’m serious on this one. I won’t suck face in your presence if you don’t suck face in mine.

And I also don’t want to see you holding hands, or calling your sweetheart by any pet names in public, not even “sweetheart.” No dancing together in public, no flagrant hand-holding, no in-your-face wedding announcements. As far as I’m concerned, you can just keep your flamboyant antics to yourself.

And I don’t want to hear anything about dates the morning after, or marriages or spouses or anything, you know, “yucky.” I don’t want to hear about where you went for your honeymoon or anniversary or St. Valentine’s day. And that picture you keep on your desk at work, the one where he has his arms around you. I can’t even begin to tell you how inappropriate that is.

I don’t want to hear about what you did with your boyfriend or husband last weekend, even if it was just to watch the Superbowl. I don’t want to know what cute thing he did, or what awesome plans you’ve cooked up for him on his birthday, or what argument you had just, or how worried you are about his medical tests and the results that won’t come back for another week. I don’t want to hear about any of that. You can just keep all of that “sex stuff” to yourself.

It’s time for everyone to just stop “parading their sexual preferences” Including yours, Alana. That would certainly make my life so much gayer.

KGUN-9’s Anti-Gay Newscast Out-Gunned

It looks like KGUN-9 co-anchor Jennifer Waddell’s hit piece on local gays and lesbians here in Tucson failed to achieve the results that station management had hoped for. Her tabloid journalism has landed the evening KGUN-9 newscasts squarely where they belong: in the gutter.

If KGUN’s management have any sense, they should realize that Waddell’s shrill and unprofessional “reporting” has no place in the Tucson market. They should send her packing to Roanoke, Virginia where she came from. Maybe unbalanced reports that play on the worst stereotypes and fears about gay men play well there. I don’t know. They certainly don’t play well here.

Again, I invite you to see for yourself what she thinks reporting ought to look like in the Old Pueblo. And this isn’t about just what is happening here in Tucson. If this style of “reporting” goes unchallenged, it will only embolden another so-called “reporter” to do the same thing elsewhere.

Tell Jennifer Waddell and her managers what you think. Nothing will happen unless we all speak up.

Jennifer Waddell
Reporter, KGUN-9 News
Tel: (520) 290-7719
Cell: (520) 260-6355
jwaddell@kgun9.com

Andrew Stewart
Vice President and General Manager, KGUN-9
Tel: (520) 290-7633
Fax: (520) 733-7080
astewart@journalbroadcastgroup.com

Bill Berra
Vice President, News, Journal Broadcast Group
Tel: (414) 967-5319
Fax: (414) 967-5378
bberra@journalbroadcastgroup.com

See Also:

Tucson’s KGUN-9: Will They Apologize to the LGBT Community?
KGUN-9’s Anti-Gay Newscast Out-Gunned
Tucson’s KGUN-9 Gunning For Gays
Wingspan’s Statement: “Wingspan Responds to Jennifer Waddell’s Sensationalistic Journalism”
GLAAD Statement: “GLAAD Urges Tucson ABC Affiliate to Address Defamatory News Coverage”

Ex-Gay Watch Analyzes The Spitzer Study

At the 2001 Annual Convention of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Robert Spitzer presented the preliminary results of a study that he had been working. For the previous year and a half, he looked for and found two hundred “ex-gays” to interview to determine whether they had actually changed. Based wholly on their self-reports in telephone interviews, he concluded that some of them had.

The issue of “change” (I only put it in quotes because there hasn’t been a consistent definition of exactly what supposedly changes) is extremely complex and contentious. It’s one that I will be dedicating considerable energy in exploring in the near future. It is impossible to discuss the many claims that ex-gay leaders make concerning change without understanding what the Spitzer study did and did not say.

My friends and compatriots at Ex-Gay Watch have put together an excellent video that makes a very good primer on the Spitzer Study. Contributing author and ex-ex-gay Daniel Gonzales delves into how the study was done, what its weaknesses and limitations are, and how Dr. Spitzer has denounced the way the study has been misused by those who seek to limit or roll back civil liberties for gays and lesbians. It’s worth a watch.

Tucson’s KGUN-9 Gunning For Gays

I’ve gotten used to seeing a lot of hit pieces put out by Focus in the Family, the Family “Research” Council, Peter LaBarbara, Lou Shelton, and of course, Fred Phelps. When you go into those websites or read their publications, you pretty much know what to expect.

But when you turn on the local evening news, you don’t expect the see the same thing you find coming from the most homophobic organizations this fine country has to offer. Unless, of course, you happen to turn on the Channel 9 news, Tucson’s languishing third-place newscast here in Tucson.

Thursday evening, our local ABC affiliate aired a lurid segment as part of its “KGUN-9 On Your Side” series, in which reporter Jennifer Waddell portrayed gay men as being on the prowl for sex in our parks. (You can see the video here.) In this report, Waddell and KGUN pull out all of the dangerous stereotypes of gay men in order to create fear and panic in the community — as well as to increase advertising rates for their shareholders.

Notice what is missing from the so-called “report”:

• There’s no indication anywhere that local gays and lesbians also oppose this activity, especially those who are parents. They are completely left out of the picture. Instead, the entire community is represented on camera by a lone, unidentified and shadowy figure who admits to public sex and beating the rap. The viewer is left to assume that this is considered “normal” behavior for gay men in particular.
• There’s no mention of the LGBT advisory board that has worked very closely with the City of Tucson and the police department to develop standard operating procedures for dealing with public sex and solicitation. This is clear evidence of local gays and lesbians taking a pro-active role in trying to address the issue. KGUN completely ignores this.
• KGUN also completely ignores the fact that Wingspan, our LGBT community center, condemns public sex acts, and that Wingspan’s Anti-Violence Project has worked with the Tucson Police Department for more than five years to address park safety issues.
• Whenever a local news outfit reports on a problem related to our sizable Mexican-American community, it’s standard practice to solicit comments from a local Mexican-American leader. The same is true for the African-American community or any other community in Tucson. But when Wingspan learned of this story and tried to contact Waddell to discuss possible solutions to the problem, they were completely rebuffed.
• In fact, this entire piece is notable for its lack of substantiation and its lack of a proposal for a solution. Instead, it leaves the viewer with a sense of fear and loathing for gay men. I can only conclude that this was intentional.

GLAAD calls this piece, “little more than a sweeps-month stunt that abandons basic journalistic practices and ethics in favor of lurid tabloid sensationalism.” And as Wingspan notes, “the story likely left viewers fearful of public parks and suspicious of all gay men who happen to use the parks for legitimate social and recreational purposes.” This, of course, can lead to some dangerous consequences to gays and lesbians who enjoy the many jogging trails and other recreational facilities that our taxes paid for.

Tucson is a wonderfully affirming community for gays and lesbians. After the senseless murder of Richard Heakin more than thirty years ago, Tucson became one of the first cities in the nation to enact anti-discrimination measures for sexual orientation. Tucson also defeated the Arizona marriage amendment by the widest margin in the state. We’ve come a long was as a community, and I am very proud to be part of it.

And I am too proud of this community to remain silent while a “journalist” slanders us in spite of all of the contributions we have made to our city. That’s why I am asking for your help. I ask that you look at the video and call Jennifer Waddell at either her direct line (520-290-7719) or on her cell phone (520-260-6355), and tell her how hit pieces like this affect you and your community. (But please, be nicer to her than she was to us. This is important!)

And call or send an e-mail to station management. Here is the contact information:

Jennifer Waddell
Reporter, KGUN-9 News
Tel: (520) 290-7719
Cell: (520) 260-6355
jwaddell@kgun9.com

Andrew Stewart
Vice President and General Manager, KGUN-9
Tel: (520) 290-7633
Fax: (520) 733-7080
astewart@journalbroadcastgroup.com

Bill Berra
Vice President, News, Journal Broadcast Group
Tel: (414) 967-5319
Fax: (414) 967-5378
bberra@journalbroadcastgroup.com

Ask them to remove the clip from their website, to apologize for the hit piece, and to air another “KGUN9 On Your Side” segment about the positive contributions of gays and lesbians in our community. I would certainly appreciate having KGUN9 on my side.

See Also:

Tucson’s KGUN-9: Will They Apologize to the LGBT Community?
KGUN-9’s Anti-Gay Newscast Out-Gunned
Tucson’s KGUN-9 Gunning For Gays
Wingspan’s Statement: “Wingspan Responds to Jennifer Waddell’s Sensationalistic Journalism”
GLAAD Statement: “GLAAD Urges Tucson ABC Affiliate to Address Defamatory News Coverage”

Woke Up This Morning…

Here’s a good video about Gay History. Not sure what the last minute or so has to do with gay history specifically, but overall the video is a remarkable overview of the trials and contributions of gays and lesbians gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders in the twentieth century. (Marti Abernathey helpfully corrects me on this point.)

Hat Tip: Good-As-You.

FRC Warns “Your Child At Risk!”

The Family “Research” Council has issued a hyperventilating Action Alert which claims that “special rights legislation could place your child at risk!” — complete with an exclamation mark in the title:

The Iowa state legislature is preparing for a vote on the “Bullying Bill” — a bill which currently protects Iowa students from bullying only if they are in certain protected classes, including sexual orientation and cross dressing. This sends the message that bullying only certain groups of students is wrong, not that the act of bullying itself is unacceptable.

Well, no. Just about none of what you just read is true.

The bill sets up classes of students which, based on historic data, have demonstrated a need for special protection, and it requires school systems to report bullying incidents to the state with an explanation of what the school did in response. It does not, as the FRC claims, deny anti-bullying measures to anyone. It doesn’t say that some students can be bullied while others cannot. In fact, it reinforces the opposite message.

Let’s not kid ourselves. We all know of many instances in which bullying of gender noncomforming kids have been met with silence as teachers and administrators looked the other way. You’ve heard the arguments. If these kids would just act normal, then none of this would happen. And unfortunately, anti-gay extremists are sometimes guilty of promoting this message.

Remember, it was just last August when a NARTH scientific advisery board member insisted that some children should be singled out on the playground. How’s that for sending a message? With supposed professionals like that, it’s no wonder many consider legislation like this to be necessary.

And as for the claim that this legislation would only protect some children while somehow endangering others, I would like to remind the FRC (yet again!) that legislation like this actually does protect everyone — including straight kids who are mistaken for being gay (as well as, I suppose, straight football players that are set upon by roving gangs of sissies).

When the law specifies protection of everyone regardless of sexual orientation, the plain English used in the law couldn’t be simpler. It protects everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

The Megachurch, Mike Jones, and the Suspension of Disbelief

I am reluctant to write about this because I tend to stay away from criticism of religious practices. My interest is more in debunking junk science that emanates from the anti-gay lobby. While much of it is supported by religious groups, I don’t want to get into any theological discussions because it seems to me that this is a dead end. Faith is a deeply personal thing, and I’m not here to change anyone’s faith. All I want to do is to get some facts on the table and wipe away the falsehoods that many others promote.

A lot of those falsehoods about homosexuality are accepted uncritically by a large number of people, and many of those people accept them in good faith because they come from leaders of faith. So while I hesitate to enter into a theological discussion, I do believe it is appropriate to enter into a cultural one. And a recent visit by Mike Jones to Ted Haggard’s megachurch offers just such an opportunity.

I’m sure you remember Ted Haggard, the founder of New Life Church in Colorado Springs who was caught in a sexual relationship with Denver escort Mike Jones. This scandal played on the worst stereotypes many gays and lesbians have about Christians, stereotypes that are reinforced with great consistency by the behavior of many prominent Christian and religious political leaders themselves.

And whenever the mighty have fallen, there’s always a great celebration that one with so much hubris has finally met with his come-uppance. But in the midst of all of this, it is easy to forget that one of the core tenets of Christianity is the humbleness and meekness (“Blessed are the meek…”) that all Christians are called to exercise. And so it’s good when, from time to time, we can get a glimpse into that most admirable Christian trait, that seemingly rare quality of humility. When Mike Jones visited a service at New Life Church yesterday while on a fact-finding mission for his new book, the Denver Post reports that he got a small glimpse of it:

Just about every person who offered him a handshake said the same thing: Welcome, thank you and God bless. …

A couple of ladies cried when they were touching me,” Jones said. “I was thanked for exposing the church, for helping Ted Haggard. A couple of them said they hoped I get God into my life. And they all said ‘God bless you,’ every one of them.”

Christianity is at its best when it is humble. That has always been the case, and for good reason: Christ called his followers to a life of service and humility.

And yet, our culture is far from humble and Christians are just as much a part of our culture as anyone, despite the Apostle Paul’s warning to “be not of this world.” From slick web sites, television networks, music videos, and all manner of political pronouncements delivered on cable news channels at all hours of the day and night — and the massive and constant fund-raising that supports all of these endeavors — there is very little in the public face of Christianity that suggests that humility is actually a core tenet. That’s why it’s so good to witness it wherever we find it. But the public expression of humility is increasingly rare, and it seems that it takes a scandal to remind everyone of its importance.

It shouldn’t be that way, but we have no one but ourselves to blame. Our popular entertainments have trained us well in the spectacular arts, and we have come to expect spectacle when we go to a theater. And as all students of theater know, we best experience theater only when we are willing to suspend disbelief. In other words, we know it’s a show, we know they are performers, and we know that what we are seeing isn’t entirely true. Our rational minds disbelieve what we are seeing. But we are spectators, and our role is not to question such things and just enjoy the show. To do that, we must suspend our disbelief in the literal falseness of what we are seeing before we can get wrapped up in the spectacle. If we don’t, we won’t have nearly so much fun. That’s the whole point of theater.

So I wonder what happens when, after an audience enters the auditorium and takes their seat, when the lights come on, the band takes the stage and the music swells, I wonder what the audience’s natural instinct would be? Aren’t we conditioned to automatically suspend disbelief? And now that some practitioners of Christianity have incorporated all of these elements — complete with stage, sound systems, theatrical lighting, and canned music — one has to wonder if the audience doesn’t react with the same habits as when they enter a theater. Why wouldn’t the audience — I’m sorry, did I say audience? I meant congregation — suspend disbelief?

We now shop in shopping centers and worship in worship centers. And when the church builds an auditorium instead of a sanctuary and engages in stagecraft instead of contemplation, when the bright spotlight shines on the “humble servant” on the stage, it seems that stage is set for a lot of things, including the suspension of disbelief. And in the midst of that suspension, an awful lot of falseness can slip through.

There is a fundamental contradiction in play here. We are placed in an environmnet in which we are conditioned to suspend disbelief, and yet in this very same place we are supposed to be a witness to the Truth with a capital “T.” I think Mike Jones detected this very contradiction here:

But Jones … said he wasn’t impressed on the whole. If the Gospel message is enough, he said, why the loud music and MTV-quality production?

I hate to promote stereotypes, but Time Magazine complained in 1966 that “on Broadway, it would be difficult to find a production without homosexuals playing important parts, either onstage or off. And in Hollywood, you have to scrape them off the ceiling.” I guess you could say we know theater. And as with theater, we’ve learned not to believe everything we see.

And I hate to promote stereotypes of Christianity either. But as long as the most visible branch of Christianity is seduced by spectacle as a method, there will always be the temptation for a pastor to say something that propels his voice above the loud noise emanating from the other worship center next door. And all too often, he can do that by employing the time-tested elements of stagecraft. Great theater demands a villain, and gays and lesbians have been a very reliable villain for quite some time.

And just as great theater demands a villain, it also demands a great hero who can look directly into the camera and say, “I Know What You Did Last Night”. That way, he gives the audience, err, congregation something to cheer about, and keeps them coming back for more.

See also:

Ted Haggard: “I’m Not Gay”
The Megachurch, Mike Jones, and the Suspension of Disbelief
“There Is A Part Of My Life So Repulsive and Dark…”
Blessed Are The Opportunists
Haggard Resigns; “I Know What You Did Last Night”
Prayers and Assistance for the Haggard Family
I Did Not Have Sex With That Man!
Jones “Fails” Lie Detector?
Fall of the House of Haggard

The Wizard Behind The Curtain

Joe.My.God. is convinced that the mystery is solved and the man behind “The Bible Says (God Hates A Fag)” is Joey Oglesby, a Dallas area actor and former member of the Chicken & Pickle Guys sketch comedy duo.

Oglesby also appeared in a local production of Debbie Does Dallas: The Musical (A must see if I’ve ever heard one). As Joe.My.God says, “Finally, our long nightmare is over.”

The Chicken & Pickle Guys, according to their website, has a mission of “Dumb Comedy for Smart People”:

Lee Trull and Joey Oglesby don’t need comedy. No. Each is an accomplished musician, astute athlete, fine chef, and considerate lover. No, they each could live fulfilling lives without comedy. It is comedy that needs them.

The show is a comedy stew of dance, homophobic/gay experimentation, male chauvinism, obscure racism, and spiritual revelation.

Brilliance. When I think of the benchmark of all parodies, Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal” , I see these qualities that made it such a classic:

• It very cleverly mimics the thing it intends to mock, and does it so closely that it offends those who would be offended by the original more than those who it intends to mock. (Feel free to go back and read that sentence again!) “A Modest Proposal” generated howls of protest, but they didn’t at first come from the English establishment. It came from Irish sympathizers who mistook it for yet another haughty British bigwig (that was the era that invented the term) with a moralizing solution to the Irish famine.
• It plays on the stereotypes of those who would be offended by similar material. And in doing so, if forces us to confront our own prejudices and strawman arguments we often use to characterize our opponents.
• Once the parody is exposed and everyone is in on the secret, the tables will be turned. Many of those who were originally offended will turn and cheer (unless, of course, they are put off by the parody’s bad taste, another essential element of parody it seems), and those who were silent will suddenly be very offended. You just watch. This will come next.

I’ve never seen anyone play this thing with such a deft hand. Congratulations Joey. Well done.

See Also:

Confirmation of the Real Donnie Davies
The Wizard Behind the Curtain
More From Donnie Davies
Is This For Real?

NARTH Exports Their Political Agenda Overseas

NARTH’s leadership may be poised to change, but it looks like its political activism will go unchecked — along with its penchant for misusing research. In this latest example, NARTH President-elect Dean Byrd flew all the way across the pond, exporting American-style anti-gay rhetoric to Yorkshire:

An employment tribunal in Yorkshire has heard evidence from an American academic who claims that placing children with same-sex couples damages them.

Former magistrate Andrew McClintock is claiming the Constitutional Affairs department were acting unlawfully by not allowing him to opt out of ruling on cases where gay and lesbians were seeking to adopt children…

The tribunal heard evidence yesterday from Dean Byrd, who is a prominent promoter of so-called conversion therapy as a “cure” for homosexuality. Dr Byrd told the tribunal:

“The most reputable scientists would agree that the research on children raised by same-sex couples is in its infancy,” according to The Yorkshire Post. “However, in spite of the many flaws in the very limited pool of rigorous studies, there appears to be an emerging theme. Children raised by same-sex couples exhibit poor outcomes not so dissimilar to those raised by divorced heterosexual parents.”

What Dr. Byrd neglects to mention is that these studies compare children who had experienced divorce and were raised by same-sex parents to children who had experienced divorce and were raised by opposite-sex parents. The reason their outcomes are “not so dissimilar to those raised by divorced heterosexual parents” is obvious: both groups of children had experienced divorce.

When you understand the nature of the research, it appears that when children are raised by same-sex parents, their outcomes are quite similar to their counterparts raised by heterosexual couples. The sexuality of their parents does not show up as a factor.

But none of this has anything to do with parents who adopt children, which is what this case is about. Perhaps Dr. Byrd believes children are better off in foster care than they would be in permanent homes with parents who love them. Unfortunately for him, there is no research on which he could make that sort of claim, so he went with other research which is irrelevant to the case.

NARTH bills itself as an association of scientific and mental health professionals while distorting research to advance a political agenda. And despite this change in leadership, it appears that they will continue to use their cover as dispassionate professionals to the detriment of gays and lesbians — and to the detriment of children who need good homes.

All We, Like Sheep?

My friend Richard is one of the gayest people I know. He’s not only gay, but he is one of the happiest, friendliest and most cheerful souls you could ever hope to meet. He fits every definition of the word. One morning he was watching one of those news-chat programs in which a well-meaning guest was intoning with great sympathy that gay people are “that way” because they were born gay. It’s not their fault; they didn’t have a choice. Richard responded to that condescending tone by throwing up his hands and exclaiming, “Well if it’s not a choice it oughta be!”

I thought about that a few weeks ago when the blogging world exploded with news of Dr. Charles Roselli, of the Oregon Health and Science University, and his experiments to “make gay rams ex-gay”, or at least that’s how the research was represented. For some reason, about 8% of rams will only try to mate with other rams, and the actual goal of his research was to try to figure out how to identify those rams which are more likely to breed.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) learned of this (these studies had actually been appearing in professional journals since the mid-nineties 2002), and hyped it into a worldwide outrage. Dr. Roselli was inundated with e-mails, including death threats (“I hope you burn in hell”, “please die”, etc.) and Martina Navrotilova wrote that such treatment “can only be surmised as an attempt to develop a prenatal treatment” for homosexuality.

This morning’s The New York Times followed up with the story behind the story heard ’round the world:

Dr. Roselli, whose research is supported by the National Institutes of Health and is published in leading scientific journals, insists that he is as repulsed as his critics by the thought of sexual eugenics in humans. He said human sexuality was a complex phenomenon that could not be reduced to interactions of brain structure and hormones

But others continue with their criticisms:

Paul Root Wolpe, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow at the university’s Center for Bioethics, said that although he supported Dr. Roselli’s research, “I’m not sure I would let him off the hook quite as easily as he wants to be let off the hook.”…

If the mechanisms underlying sexual orientation can be discovered and manipulated, Dr. Wolpe continued, then the argument that sexual orientation is based in biology and is immutable “evaporates.”

It evaporates indeed. Biology can be manipulated much more easily than minds and hearts. The argument that says that homosexuality is pre-natal and can’t be changed misses an obvious point. If it’s pre-natal, it can’t be changed because we don’t know how to change it. But just because we don’t know how to change a lot of pre-natal conditions today doesn’t mean we won’t discover how to do it in the future.

But there are those who claim to know how to change sexuality today because, according to their favorite theories, it arises solely from what happened to us after we were born. But that argument is just as flawed. The fact is the mental health professions have not demonstrated a very good track record in “fixing” all sorts of horrible things our mothers or fathers supposedly did to us. And part of the reason is simple: our parents cannot bear the sole blame for who we are or whatever ails us.

Parents (especially mothers) have, at various times throughout history, been blamed for autism, asthma, epilepsy, schizophrenia, alcoholism, depression, post traumatic stress disorder, stuttering, poor peer relationships, low self-esteem, social phobia, sociopathy, bad grades, and homosexuality. And what do many of these patients get after so many years of therapy? Autism, asthma, epilepsy, schizophrenia, alcoholism, depression, post traumatic stress disorder, stuttering, poor peer relationships, low self-esteem, social phobia, sociopathy, bad grades or homosexuality and someone to blame it on.

That’s not to say that bad parenting doesn’t contribute to severe difficulties later in life. It often does. And investigating those past influences can be a benefit to many people by giving them important insights into how they see their world and react to it. But the mental health professions have had, at best, middling success in “correcting” the effects of parental factors.

I have often argued that, first of all, it is silly to suppose that something as complex as human sexuality and romantic attractions can be boiled down to a single cause for all people. But even if such an argument could be made and it were somehow proven that homosexuality were environmental, does that mean we are any closer to “curing” it?

The best evidence says we aren’t, and that assessment seems to be shared by the collective “gut check” taking place in a society where psychoanalysis has fallen out of fashion. Psychoanalysis (that particular branch of psychology based on the methods and theories of Sigmund Freud in which childhood experiences reign supreme) reached its peak some thirty years ago, but it has been losing its influence ever since. (When’s the last time you heard of someone seeing their analyst?) The reason for its loss of influence is obvious: While it may help some people, it hasn’t proven to be terrible effective for many. Woody Allen is just as messed up today as he ever was. And yet, ex-gay groups like Exodus and NARTH continue to cling to those outdated notions because it’s all they have. There is no pill or vaccine to “cure” homosexuality. Not yet, anyway.

But what if someday there is a pill or a vaccine? Will that put an end to all gay people? Probably not. As I said before, there is not likely to be a single cause for all gayness. We are not sheep. Nor are we fruitflies, which can be made to try to mate with other fruitflies of the same gender with the modification of a single gene. We are human beings, and we are a very complex bunch.

So what if new discoveries cover all of our biological bases and we still have gay people? What then? Well, I guess that would prove what we already suspect and shouldn’t be afraid to say, that the environment plays a role for some people. But then that brings us back to the nurture side of the debate and the very dicey “success” we’ve had with dealing with it so far. If the ever-growing number of ex-ex-gays in our midsts tells us anything, it’s that we’re not likely to see many therapeutic breakthroughs here.

And this brings me to my second argument. It is not only silly to argue that human sexuality can be blamed solely on biology or parenting because it is scientifically ludicrous, it is silly to argue it because it merely reinforces the assumption that something must have gone wrong. Laura Schlessinger says we are a “biological error”. Strike the “error” from that statement and you have the prevailing pro-gay argument on what happened. Most gay activists have bought into the same argument; they’ve just chosen a different side. The only difference between these gay activists and the anti-gay lobby is in their arguments about what went wrong.

Don’t get me wrong. This is not a call to end all research into the etiology (origins) of sexuality. I’m a big believer in knowledge for knowledge’s sake. I’m very quick to rush off to the University library whenever I hear of a new study being published. I’m as fascinated by all of these studies as anybody can be. I’m also a firm believer that this research should go forward and we should let the chips fall where they may. We should never fear intellectual curiosity, no matter where it leads us.

But I would suggest we step outside of the nature/nurture debate altogether and instead adopt Richard’s attitude. If it’s not a choice, it should be. And while we’re at it, we can also choose to be grateful to our parents for contributing to the good things that are in us. I’m grateful to both of my parents for nurturing in me a love of science, a love of reading, a love of exploration and discussion, a love of antiques, a love of traveling, and so much more. They also nurtured in me a deep faith and a strong sense of justice and fair play. Many of these characteristics may well have been pre-natally ordained, but they nurtured them anyway. And if they nurtured my developing sexuality — and if they influenced how I relate to other people — then who am I to wag my finger at them? And more personally, how dare anyone else speak badly about my mom and dad?

Besides we must never allow this argument to serve as a distraction from the fundamental values that we are really wrestling with. These values go to our very core as men and women and as citizens. And they are also the founding values of our great nation: that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. And we are endowed with these rights not because of how we were born, but because of the fact that we were born.

More From Donnie Davies

What’s the difference between madness and genius? Whatever it is, it’s a small one.

Here’s that video Donnie Davies promised. I still can’t tell for certain if this is outrageous madness or sublime parody. But with this latest installment, I’m increasingly convinced it’s the latter. He seems to give it away here:

I also gotta give a special thanks to Andrew Sullivan, the world-famous blogger from Time Magazine, obviously a great Christian man helping us forward our message. Andrew took time to condemn YouTube for taking down our video and taking away our freedom of speech. Thank you so much Andrew Sullivan for getting behind me.

I believe he may be referring to Andrew Sullivan’s post here. I’m inclined to agree. If the original video is a parody, it a sublime one.

The next one is less successful. He’s laying on the accent a little thick, and it looks to me he’s struggling to keep from laughing at a couple of points. Here’s the video:

If Davies is sincere, he has got to be one of the most misguided figures since Fred Phelps. But if he’s treating us to performance art, then I bow down to worship at the feet of the master. I think that is exactly what we’re seeing here. My favorite nugget is this one, where he talks about being overweight due, he says, to a thyroid condition. He’s worked hard to try to overcome it though:

“And sometimes I work so hard to control those urges. But I just can’t. I was just born this way.”

And also, there’s that theme song at the end of the video. I can’t quite place it… Who is it? It’s a popular Brit-pop song, but I can’t put my finger on it. Whoever it is (and it will come to me sometime in the middle of the night probably), don’t you think it sounds just a little, I dunno, gay?

So, what do you think? Genius or madness? I’m changing my vote to genius.

Update: Commenter Emproph reminds me it’s the Psychedelic Furs’ “Love My Way” you hear turned into “Love God’s Way” at the end of the video. Of course!

See Also:

Confirmation of the Real Donnie Davies
The Wizard Behind the Curtain
More From Donnie Davies
Is This For Real?

Peterson Toscano’s Portland Mercury Interview

Ex-ex-gay performance artist Peterson Toscano’s interview is featured in the Portland Mercury. In it, he talks about his experience in turning to religion as a refuge against his sexuality.

Peterson underwent a conversion experience and was born again. But when that wasn’t enough, he became, by turns, fundamentalist, evangelical fundamentalist, and finally Pentecostal. When none of that worked he tried exorcisms to drive the demons out. He finally spent two years at Love In Action in Memphis, spending $1000 a month to try to cure his homosexuality:

We had a football clinic. Changing your oil and stuff like that. I graduated from the program, and tried to live on the outside, to see if it worked — and it didn’t.

Check out the interview here.

FRC’s Tony Perkins “Unimpressed” With State of the Union Speech

The Family “Research” Council’s Tony Perkins issued a press released in which he complained about President Bush’s State of the Union address last night. Apparently, the Uniter-In-Chief’s message wasn’t divisive enough:

“What will become of the culture of life, the defense of marriage and permanent family-friendly tax policies?” Perkins asked. He called on Bush to “fight for the American family, and American families will stand with you!”

Tuesday’s State of the Union speech marked the first such address in five years in which the president did not focus on family values issues like abortion, stem cell research and marriage.

Noting that President Bush called for constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in the 2004 and 2005 State of the Union messages, he “avoided homosexual ‘marriage’ after a year — 2006 — in which efforts to create a constitutional amendment to ban it failed.”

If this speech is any indication, perhaps the President finally recognized that the old politics of division and scapegoating didn’t serve his administration well. Only time will tell if there has been a change of heart. But there is one thing we can all count on. In Tony Perkin’s ideal America, second-class citizenry would not only be acceptable, it would be the law of the land.

Update: Gary Bauer of American Values chims in with an e-mail he sent to his troops (You don’t want to know what shows up in my inbox sometimes!):

While the president did challenge the Senate to provide up-or-down votes on his judicial nominees, I was disappointed that there was no mention of values issues –- like the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, or religious freedom. I realize the president was addressing a hostile Congress and was undoubtedly advised to avoid these “controversial issues.” But, my friends, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not controversial with the American people.

Tell that to the people of Arizona.

Is This For Real?

Oh my God. Either it’s a parody that’s too subtle to be obvious, or it’s for real and disturbingly hateful. If it’s the latter, then hateful’s the word — his word, not mine:

Lord help them hear me and
make clear my voice.
‘Cos being gay
is nothing but a choice.

God hates a fag.
God hates a fag.
God hates a fag.
If you’re a fag he hates you too.

Here’s the video. What do you think? Is Donnie Davies for real?

Looking over his website, Davies looks pretty serious. Although I got a laugh when I saw him divide several popular musicians into “safe” and “gay” categories. Cindi Lauper? She’s “safe”.

Update: The video has been removed from YouTube due to a terms of use violation. But you can still see it at Google Video. Also, Warren Throckmorton confirmed that, no, it is not a parody. Sick. It’ll be interesting to see how many anti-gay activists distance themselves from this revolting stunt.

Update 2: Andrew Sullivan concluded that it’s “a brilliant piece of performance art. So brilliant it illuminates what it satirizes more deeply than any argument could.” If he’s right, my hat’s off to Donnie Davies. That Cindi Lauper reference may be our clue. On the other hand, it could be just another example of Davies’ cluelessness. Meanwhile, his website promises another video this evening. Genius or madman? We’ll find out soon.

Update 3: The video has now been removed from Google Video as well. And it looks like his MySpace page has been deleted. So if anyone knows where I can get a copy of the video, please let me know. Meanwhile, you can find the full lyrics here:

The Bible Says (God Hates A Fag)

Tell me straight to fight temptation.
Lord, lead me into your salvation.
The Bible says as plain as day,
with a man you shall not lay.

Lord you are my strength.
Fill me with your love.
Help me fight these feelings,
help me rise above.

Lord help them hear me and make clear my voice,
‘cuz being gay is nothing but a choice.

God hates a fag.
God hates a fag.
God hates a fag.
If you’re a fag he hates you too.

Read the Bible and you’ll be sure
to enter Heaven, there’s no back door.
Righteous man, get on your knees.
There lies no virtue in sodomy.

Lord you are my shield.
Sustain me through the fight,
a shelter from the urges
and help me see the light.

You filthy sinners should just let me be,
cuz Jesus, my Savior’s, the only man for me.

God hates a fag.
God hates a fag, yes he does!
God hates a fag.
If you’re a fag he hates you too.

Lord you are my strength.
Fill me with your love.
Help me fight these feelings.
Help me rise above.

Lord help them hear me and make clear my voice,
‘cuz being gay is nothing but a choice.

God hates a fag
God hates a fags
God hates a fags
If you’re a fag he hates you too.
He hates, he hates you too!

See Also:

Confirmation of the Real Donnie Davies
The Wizard Behind the Curtain
More From Donnie Davies
Is This For Real?