Box Turtle Bulletin

More on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Poll

Here’s something else I noticed from the Michael D. Palm Center’s poll concerning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. One question asked, “Have you had training on the prevention of anti-gay harassment in the past three years?” Only 52% of respondents answered yes, 37% no, and 11% were not sure.

Fifty-two percent seems low. I know from working for a very large multinational company in private industry that if a company wants to make anti-harassment training mandatory, there are ways to make sure that happens. Surely the military’s emphasis on command and cohesion would be able to obtain much better results than this — if they made it a priority.

Another question asked, “What are the strongest arguments for keeping gays from openly serving in the military?” Respondents were allowed to pick up to three answers out of a longer list. Twenty-eight percent chose “Open gays and lesbians would get beat up or abused.”

I wonder how many of these twenty-eight percent were among those who did not receive anti-gay harassment prevention training in the past three years?

New Poll: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Headed To The Dustbin of History?

A new poll of current and former military service members about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was conducted by Zogby International (PDF: 203KB/27 pages). The University of Californa at Santa Barbara’s Michael D. Palm Center, who commissioned the survey, announced the results yesterday. Some of the key findings:

• “Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?” 26% agree, 37% disagree, 32% are neutral.
• “In your unit, are there people you suspect are gay or lesbian, but don’t know for sure?” 45% answered yes, 31% no, and 25% not sure. Of those who answered “yes”:
  • 49% believed the presence of gays in the unit would not impact personal morale, and only 26% believe it would not impact the unit’s morale. 38% believed it would have a negative impact on personal morale and 58% believed it had a negative impact on the unit’s morale.
• “Do you know for certain that someone is gay or lesbian in your unit?” 23% answered yes, 61% no, and 17% not sure. Of those who answered “yes”:
  • 55% believed the presence of gays or lesbians in the unit was well-know by others; 25% said they were not well-known, and 21% were not sure
  • 66% believed the presence of gays in the unit did not impact personal morale, and 64% believe it did not impact the unit’s morale. Only 28% believed it had a negative impact on personal morale and 27% believed it had a negative impact on the unit’s morale.

Notice the difference in answers to troop morale between those who knew there were gays and lesbians in their unit and those who only thought there were gays and lesbians in their unit. When service members actually know someone who is gay, they are much less likely to report a negative impact on morale. When they only suspect someone is gay, they are much more likely to assume a negative impact on morale. This suggests that the current uncertainties surrounding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” actually contributes to problems with morale.

Other interesting findings:

• Of those who knew for certain that someone in their unit who was gay or lesbian, 8% said they knew because they saw the person at a gay club, bar, parade, political activity, etc. While the survey did not ask if the respondent is gay or lesbian, it appears that a few were actually questioned by the survey.
• In your current unit, how often do you take showers privately, such as in a single-stall shower rather than an open group shower?” 49% almost always shower privately, and another 22% usually shower privately.
• “Personally, how comfortable are you in the presence of gays and lesbians?” 73% answered that they were comfortable, and 19% were uncomfortable.
• “Would you have still joined the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly?” 78% said yes, and only 10% said no.

According to the Sevicemembers Legal Defense Network, 4,376 service members were discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” between 2001 and 2005. These poll results indicate that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is an anachronism that continues to have a negative impact on military morale, deprives our armed forces of critical skills, (including Arab translators), and may even leave service members who “Don’t Tell” potentially vulnerable to blackmail and whisper campaigns. It is time for the new Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson

A third researcher has come forward to speak out against Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and his misuse of research. In his online newsletter “How Boys Learn To Be Men“, Dobson claims that Angelina Phillips’ book, The Trouble with Boys blames homosexuality on absent fathers:

Whereas girls have a readily available model after which to pattern feminine behavior and attitudes (except when they are raised by single fathers), boys living with single mothers are left to formulate their masculine identity out of thin air. This is why early divorce is also devastating for boys. Writer Angela Phillips believes, and I agree, that the high incidence of homosexuality occurring in Western nations is related, at least in part, to the absence of positive male influence when boys are moving through the first crisis of child development.

But Professor Phillips does not agree with Dr. Dobson:

I certainly agree that boys suffer from a lack of positive men in their lives but I am at pains to point out that positive men are often as much lacking in two parent households as they are in lone mother (or two mother) households. I do not suggest that lack of positive male role models leads to homosexuality (or indeed that it would be problematic if it did). My concern is that boys without positive men around them are more likely to be violent, angry and lacking in self control. I have never heard that these are characteristics that are associated with homosexuality

Professor Phillips demands that Focus on the Family publish her letter on their website. We’ll see if that happens.

The scientific community has been silent for too long as their honest and hard work has been twisted for political goals. It’s very heartening to see that silence finally come to an end.

See also:

Dr. Kyle Pruett Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson
Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit
James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video

Truth Wins Out has posted an amazing video of New York University’s Dr. Carol Gilligan. In the video, she reacts to Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson’s distortion of her research in a recent Time magazine commentary on Mary Cheney and Heather Poe’s decision to have a baby:

The “money-quote”, as they say, is here:

I have an issue with James Dobson, because if he picked up my book In A Different Voice and just read the beginning, the introduction, he would read a sentence I wrote saying that “a different voice” I describe is identified not by gender but by theme, and its association with women and empirical observation that admits exceptions. And in my book I write about men speaking about care and about women about fairness… And it’s such a simplification and really a caricature of my work, and I just think it’s not in the spirit of science… and for someone who represents morality and family , its disrespectful…

Dr. Gilligan reiterates later in the video that there are no grounds whatsoever in her research on which Dr. Dobson can attack Mary Cheney and Heather Poe’s decision to have a baby. She also discusses how people have responded to her speaking out:

This morning, I got emails from such a range of people … basically just saying “good for you for speaking out.” And I think that a lot of people have been frustrated that there isn’t more response to this kind of distorted use of science in the media. It’s not the first time, by any means.

I feel that same frustration. As a scientist, I have always worked with the operative axiom that good science happens when you let the data lead the way. The worst mark of a scientist is one who will fudge the data to fit a hypothesis. Fudging data is what causes rockets to explode in mid-flight, or drugs to cure diseases which instead kill through unintended side-effects. Fudging data gave tobacco companies cover when others suspected a link between smoking and cancer. Fudged data has been accused of bringing about any number of failed national policies and destroyed lives. And fudging data has long been a tool for those who marginalize others who cannot defend themselves.

We expect scientists to act with integrity in dealing with research, and we expect moral leaders to speak morally. I find the abuse of science to be unspeakably outrageous, both in its motivations and in its consequences. And I find moral leaders’ easy distortions and falsehoods to be utterly antithetical to their very status as moral leaders.

Kudos to Dr. Gilligan for speaking out so visibly and forcefully. And many thanks to Wayne Besen for bringing this to everyone’s attention.

See also:

Dr. Kyle Pruett Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson
Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit
James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit

Earlier this week, James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, published a commentary in Time magazine concerning Mary Cheney’s announced pregnancy with her partner Heather Poe. Dobson claimed that ” the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.” In making his case, he named two researchers, Dr. Carol Gilligan and Dr. Kyle Pruett, while misrepresented their findings. Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Kyle Pruett separately wrote letters in which they condemned Dobson’s misuse of their research and demanded a retraction and apology.

But Dr. Dobson is having none of it. Focus on the Family has decided to ratchet up the controversy by sending out an E-mail to their many thousands of supporters asking them to inundate Time with letters in support of Dobson’s article. This is apparently intended only for Dobson’s supporters, since you won’t find it anywhere on Focus’ web site:

Gay-activist groups have mobilized to oppose an editorial in Time magazine written by Dr. James Dobson. Write the publication’s editors and let them know that you appreciate them publishing “Two Mommies Is One Too Many,” Dr. Dobson’s piece on why children “do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.” …

Homosexual-advocacy groups posted Internet and email alerts this week expressing “outrage” that Time published Dr. Dobson’s essay. Supporters of same-sex marriage, parenting and adoption are trying to challenge long-standing social science data that children do best with a married mother and father, claiming that newer research discredits these findings — a claim that many respected experts in this field reject. As part of this effort, gay activist organizations are asking their supporters to write Time and complain that Dr. Dobson’s essay is inaccurate.

The boldness of this outright lie is startling. Nobody is “claiming that newer research discredits” Dr. Dobson’s position. In fact, the exact opposite is happening. The very research that Dobson tried to appropriate doesn’t say what he claims it says. And those very researchers who Dr. Dobson mentioned by name are now expressing their outrage at being misrepresented to support a conclusion that they do not share.

It’s not just “homosexual activists” who are outraged. It is well-respected scientists. And it is everyone else who values common decency and integrity, commodities which are in distressingly short supply at Focus on the Family.

You can write to Time yourself and let them know what you think. Letters to the editor should be about 200 words or less, and sent to letters@time.com.

See also:

Dr. Kyle Pruett Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson
Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit
James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

2006 Weblog Awards

Voting for the 2006 Weblogs award is winding down. Today is the last day. I want to offer my congratulations to all the nominated websites, and I especially want to congratulate the irrepressible Pam Spaulding for her commanding lead for Best LGBT Blog.

This humble site is also one of the nominees. Not a bad showing for a blog in its first year still trying to find its legs. Thanks to those of you who have voted so far. If you haven’t voted yet (and even if you have, you can vote again once every twenty-four hours), you can still vote until midnight tonight.

What Ever Happened To Anita Bryant?

Crowned Miss Oklahoma in 1958 and second runner-up Miss America in 1959, Anita Bryant was a wholesome, 30-something singer in the 1970s who was voted “Most Admired Woman in America” by Good Housekeeping magazine three years in a row. She parlayed her wholesome image into a successful career in the Florida Citrus campaign (“Breakfast without orange juice is like a day without sunshine”).

But many of us remember her for her infamous 1977 “Save our Children” campaign to repeal a Dade County, Florida gay rights ordinance. She led a particularly nasty campaign, complete with charges that gay men and women were only interested in recruiting children. That campaign quickly led Florida legislators to pass a law banning gay adoptions — a ban that is still in place today. Eventually, the controversy over her anti-gay activism ruined her career and her personal life. Her citrus contract was not renewed, she and her husband divorced, and she moved back to her native Oklahoma where she fell off the national radar.

Where Is She Today?

The St. Petersburg Times caught up with her a few years ago. Bryant remarried and has tried, without success, to revive her career, first in Eureka Springs, Arkansas and Branson, Missouri. That failed in 1997, and she was forced to declare bankruptcy.

Anita and her husband then moved to Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, where history repeats itself. She opened the Music Mansion, a Branson-style theater, and put on a show where she sang songs from her 1950’s and 1960’s heyday and preached her Christian beliefs. She was well-liked among her conservative Christian followers, but popularity remained elusive. Attendance was sparse; even on her best days the theater was never more than 25% full. Salaries went unpaid, bills piled up, promises were broken, and the theater eventually closed amid hard feelings and anger. Yet Bryant seems to remain unphased by all the damage she has done:

“In my opinion, you do not do people like they have done people and live a Christian life,” said Margaret Cole, who cannot explain the strange, faith-based hold that kept her in Bryant’s service for so long.

“If I owed people like they owe people I would not be able to lay down at night and sleep.”

Ashley Matthews, a dancer who is owed $3,200 in back pay, said the hard times left some workers so strapped for cash they stole popcorn and candy from the theater’s concession stand so they could eat.

While theater employees subsisted on popcorn, Anita and her husband continued to live in a $350,000 home in a gated community in the Smokies.

Anita Bryant has left a lot of devastation in her wake. Not only did she stoke the fires of homophobia in the late 1970’s with legislative effects that last to this day, she has also left a trail of unpaid bills, back taxes, broken promises, and abused employees in her wake.

Her theater manager, Brion Bever, tried to cover expenses from his own pocket but he was never reimbursed. He even deferred his own pay so others could be paid. His credit history was ruined when suppliers went after him because he signed for deliveries on her behalf. Those bills went unpaid and Bryant left Bever holding the bag.

But being the good Christian that she is, Anita has — get this — forgiven him:

Anita Bryant approached him on the day he was fired and dismissed all that he had been through, he said.

“Anita looked at me and she says, “I forgive you,’ ” he recalled. “And I’m like, “For what?’ She said, “I forgive you and God will forgive you, too.’ And she turned around and walked off.”

James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

Updated: Dr. Kyle Pruett denounces James Dobson for misusing his research as well

Wayne Besen, of Truth Wins Out, is reporting that James Dobson distorted research in an op-ed that appeared in this week’s Time magazine. In his op-ed, Dobson comments on Mary Cheney’s pregnancy with a child she will raise with her partner Heather Poe. He claims that children do best in heterosexually-married families, citing Dr. Carol Gilligan’s research as “proof”:

According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences.

Wayne contacted Dr. Gilligan, who responded with a copy of a strongly letter she wrote to Dobson:

I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.

Dr. Gilligan isn’t the only researcher whose work Dobson abused in the Time piece. Since the op-ed isn’t footnoted, it’s not easy to track down all of his sources. But in that same op-ed, Dr. Dobson writes:

The fact remains that gender matters–perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because “fathers do not mother.”

When Wayne Besen contacted Dr. Pruett about Dobson’s use of his work, Dr. Pruett responded with a letter to Dobson and Time, saying:

Dr. Dobson, I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission.

You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.”

Wayne did a great job tracking this down and bringing this abuse of science to light.

In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics has undertaken an exhaustive review of the professional literature and found that “children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.” That is what the overwhelming research really shows.

See also:

Dr. Kyle Pruett Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson
Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit
James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

A Comment on Genetics and Homosexuality

Commenter “Lij” corrects me in my rush to make a point:

You say that:

“Twin studies suggest that for some people their sexuality is genetic or congenital. But since there are examples where one identical twin is gay and another is straight, then this can’t be true for all gay twins.”

This is not necessarily true. Gene expression may occur in one twin and not the other.

This is true. It’s easy to make too much of the word “identical” in identical twins and jump to the erroneous conclusion that identical twins are, well, identical. Researchers avoid that assumption by using the more correct term monozygotic twins, referring to the fact that they came from a single egg or zygote that splits into two separate embryos. While they share the same genetic material when they split apart, the twins do not become exact copies of each other (for example, their finger prints are different) because of a process known as epigenetic modification.

Epigenetic modification occurs as individual genes switch on and off at different times, different intensities, with different interaction with other genes or environmental factors (“environmental” can mean hormonal, chemical, climate, emotional – or any number of other external factors), causing a slowly evolving buildup of differences between the two supposedly identical twins over the course of a lifetime.

So, to be absolutely correct, the fact that one identical twin is gay and the other one is straight does not by itself disprove any genetic theories. And on that point, I stand corrected.

Older Brothers, Left-Handedness, and Gay Men

Blanchard, Ray; Lippa, Richard A. “The sex ratio of older siblings in non-right-handed homosexual men .” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2006): in press. Abstract available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9107-6.

Recent research that shows a link between male homosexuality and the number of older brothers has gotten a lot of attention lately. For several decades researchers have noticed that gay men are less likely to be among the firstborn, and more specifically they are more likely to have more older brothers than sisters. This phenomenon, generally referred to as the Fraternal Birth Order effect (or sometimes the Sibling Sex Ratio effect), generally holds true for gay men but it but doesn’t hold true for lesbians. Researchers have also noticed that gay men and women are more likely to be left-handed than everyone else. This study tries to look at the interaction of the two effects on homosexuality in men.

My Older Brothers Made Me Gay

Historically, there have been several reasons offered for the Fraternal Birth Order effect in men, and these theories generally fall along the nature/nurture divide. For the “Made Gay” side, some has taken this as a sign that perhaps the younger boys in a family were treated differently for being the “baby” of the family. But this doesn’t explain why older brothers and not older sisters are associated with homosexuality in men. Another more nefarious theory holds that perhaps these gay younger brothers suffered from sexual abuse at the hands of their older brothers. This wild and unsupported speculation appeared as recently as last month in the Journal of Biosocial Science (the same journal that published Paul Cameron last May).

The “Born Gay” interpretation of the Fraternal Birth Order effects speculates that there may be some sort of immunization to male-specific antigens in the mother when she’s pregnant. According to this theory, when Mom is pregnant for the first boy, she’s exposed to male antigens that her body begins to develop an immunity against. When she’s pregnant for the second boy, the process is repeated and strengthened. At some point, whether it’s during that second boy’s gestation or a later one, her body’s immune system interferes with the sexual differentiation in that fetus’ developing brain. This results in that boy’s sexual and romantic attraction to other men later in life.

My Left Hand Made Me Gay

It’s also been observed that gay men and women are more likely to be left-handed than the general population. (Remember, the Older Brother effect applies only to gay men.) Again, the speculated reasons for this are varied. Some have attributed left-handedness to some sort of developmental instability that, in some cases, may also give rise to homosexuality. Others speculate that prenatal hormonal levels may result in left-handedness, homosexuality, or both.

It’s important to keep in mind that no single theory can explain the development of homosexuality for everyone who is gay. It’s much more likely that there are multiple reasons why someone is gay, and that those reasons are different from one man or woman to the next. In my case, for example, I am the oldest brother out four boys and no girls in my family. I am the only one who is gay, so the Older Brother theories obviously don’t apply to me. But I am profoundly left-handed — my right hand is just there for decoration and balance. It comes in handy (excuse the pun) when I tie my shoes, but that’s about it.

An Interaction Between Fraternal Birth Order and Handedness?

A forthcoming article by Ray Blanchard and Richard Lippa in the Archives of Sexual Behavior examines both of these phenomena. They looked at 2,486 participants from five previous studies, consisting of gay and straight men and women. (The last two samples were volunteers at southern California gay pride events.) After examining the number of older brothers and sisters and the handedness of the volunteers, Drs. Blanchard and Lippa noticed there were two completely independent trends among gay men:

1. Right-handed gay men were much more likely to have more older brothers and fewer older sisters than the general population.
2. Left-handed gay men were the opposite. They were much more likely to have fewer older brothers and more older sisters than the general population. Gay lefties were also more likely to have older siblings regardless of gender than anyone else, included gay men who are right handed.

There was another trend that Drs. Blanchard and Lippa noticed but couldn’t explain. While right-handed lesbians didn’t stand out much from the general population, left-handed lesbians were much more likely to have more older brothers and fewer older sisters, and they were much more likely to be lower in the birth order than the population overall. This was a surprise. Most other studies that looked at lesbians overall without regard to handedness generally found no correlation to Older Sibling Sex Ratio. But somehow, these left-handed lesbians share older sibling sex ratios that mimic right-handed gay men. Drs. Blanchard and Lippa noted that this is new information that deserves further study.

I found this study interesting, but it certainly opens up more questions than answers. As a first-born gay southpaw, I’m still a statistical anomaly. And there were some other statistical quirks that showed up in this study that the authors couldn’t explain. The biggest one in my mind was this: Why were the straight men more likely to have older brothers in this sample than expected? Their numbers practically matched those of the right-handed gay men.

To me, this is probably the biggest red flag in this particular study, which is why more studies need to be done to confirm these results. But this study confirms another one that was published in the journal Hormones and Behavior. Using a different sample of 3,146 individuals, Ray Blanchard and another team of researchers were able to demonstrate a similar interaction between older brothers and left-handedness in gay men. They observed the that Fraternal Birth Order effect applied only among right-handed gay men, and that gay men with fewer or no older brothers (like me) were more likely to be left-handed than straight men. Blanchard & Lippa note that a third manuscript is being prepared for publication that examines handedness and birth order in the Kinsey sample, and it will confirm this same interaction.

The Bigger Picture — “What Causes Homosexuality?”

The truth is we will never arrive at a single comprehensive theory to explain gayness in everyone. Many anti-gay activists (and pro-gay activists) argue for their favorite theories and against their opponents’ theories based on the assumption that a single theory can apply to all gay people. Research like this one demonstrates the fallacy of that assumption.

Twin studies suggest that for some people their sexuality is genetic or congenital. But since there are examples where one identical twin is gay and another is straight, then this can’t be true for all gay twins. Other studies have tried to prove that parental factors (either a smothering mother or a distant father, depending on the theorist) produce gay offspring. But the fact that there are gay men and women who do not report a smothering mother/distant father is evidence that this can’t explain homosexuality for everyone either. The real answer lies in the individual.

If we are ever able to tease out all of the possible factors that influence sexuality, we will probably learn that there are many different “types” of homosexuality. For some, it may be genetic. For others, maybe their later birth order after a string of brothers. For others still, it may be the same thing that made them left-handed. For others, their left-handedness may be a red herring and the real cause was their distant father. And for others, maybe their absent father had nothing to do with it; prenatal hormones made it inevitable. And for most — maybe all — it is more likely to be the unique combination of any and all of these factors (and others that we haven’t discovered yet) which forms the basis for who we are.

Correction: Commenter “Lij” corrects me on my statement about identical twins. My response is here.

A Faith That Refuses To Break

Yesterday’s revelation of another evangelical pastor resigning after admitting that he had sexual relations with other men has drawn attention to something that is rarely talked about: the gay evangelical.

Today’s New York Times offers an interesting profile on several gay evangelicals and their struggle to reconcile their faith and their sexuality. The encouraging aspect of this is that some succeed, despite the obvious hurdles:

Justin Lee believes that the Virgin birth was real, that there is a heaven and a hell, that salvation comes through Christ alone and that he, the 29-year-old son of Southern Baptists, is an evangelical Christian.

Just as he is certain about the tenets of his faith, Mr. Lee also knows he is gay, that he did not choose it and cannot change it.

To many people, Mr. Lee is a walking contradiction, and most evangelicals and gay people alike consider Christians like him horribly deluded about their faith. “I’ve gotten hate mail from both sides,” said Mr. Lee, who runs gaychristian.net, a Web site with 4,700 registered users that mostly attracts gay evangelicals.

The article notes that there are very few paths for gay evangelicals. Usually those paths involve having to choose between their faith and their sexuality in the belief that they can’t have both. But more and more are refusing to settle for that false choice.

Clyde Zuber, 49, and Martin Fowler, 55, remember sitting on the curb outside Lakeview Baptist Church in Grand Prairie, Tex., almost 20 years ago, Sunday after Sunday, reading the Bible together, after the pastor told them they were not welcome inside. The men met at a Dallas church and have been together 23 years. In Durham, N.C., they attend an Episcopal church and hold a Bible study for gay evangelicals every Friday night at their home.

Faith is a very mysterious thing, and there is no greater testament for the power of faith than when it’s challenged at every turn but refuses to break. Their faith is challenged on all fronts. They aren’t well accepted by fellow evangelical Christians, and they aren’t understood by the gay community either:

“A lot of people are freaked out because their only exposure to evangelicalism was a bad one, and a lot ask, ‘Why would you want to be part of a group that doesn’t like you very much?’ ” Mr. Lee said. “But it’s not about membership in groups. It’s about what I believe. Just because some people who believe the same things I do aren’t very loving doesn’t mean I stop believing what I do.”

Rev. Paul Barnes of Denver-area Grace Chapel has come forward with his struggle. Others have met the challenges of their struggles head-on and survived with their integrity and their faith intact.

Integrity comes from the Latin integritas, meaning soundness, of being whole or complete. Integrity does not require us choose between faith and sexuality, as though these were two halves of yourself that are strangers to each other. To be at war with yourself is the opposite of integrity. Recognizing the false choice between faith and sexuality is not just the first step to wholeness, it is the most powerful witness to faith itself.

Another Evangelical Pastor Comes Out Of The Closet

Another evangelical pastor has apparently come out of the closet:

In a tearful videotaped message Sunday to his congregation, the senior pastor of a thriving evangelical megachurch in south metro Denver confessed to sexual relations with other men and announced he had voluntarily resigned his pulpit.

If the Denver Post article is accurate, this case appears to be somewhat different from that of Ted Haggard. Rev. Barnes is described as an “introvert who avoided politics,” staying out of the debate over Colorado’s Amendment 43 which banned same-sex marriage.

The Denver Post’s account of Rev. Barnes’ struggle will be very familiar to anyone who has tried to conceal or bury their sexuality. When he was a teenager, his only talk about sex with his father ended with his father describing what he would do if a “fag” approached him, driving the younger man deeper into the closet. And while he converted to Christianity at 17, his feelings for other men never went away. He married, and is the father of two girls. But at the same time, he’s described as someone who is struggling with the biblical teachings of homosexuality with “hope for a future where one can ‘be who you are’ and be accepted and loved in the Christian community.”

And yet, he says that homosexuality is a sin.

I’m afraid that many gay advocates will see in this a simple morality tale of the mighty laid low, the hypocrite exposed, and, of course, schadenfreude. But in this particular case, I can’t quite see it that way.

This is a very deep struggle that many gay men and women must contend with, especially those who are themselves people of faith. We’ve seen Daniel Gonzales at Ex-Gay Watch describe some of his own struggles, before he was able to come out the other side as a fine young gay man. His story is not unique. There are many stories like these that we can all reflect on — those of us who have spent a large measure of our lives trying to reconcile who we are with what we profess to believe. And to believe that being who you are requires a separation from the very God who created you, well, there’s nothing more devastating for someone of faith. The sense of abandonment can be very powerful.

There is a way out of that hopelessness however, and it is the way of profound faith. Faith in the goodness of creation, including your own. And faith in the love of a benevolent Creator and the mercy of a just judge. Perhaps Rev. Barnes will discover that it really is possible to be gay and Christian. Because in the end, love can never contradict Love, and truth can never contradict Truth.

Ex– Ex-Gay Testimony

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi was one of the co-founders of NARTH, serving as its president until the end of this year. He has been a leading advocate for “reparative” therapy at Love Won Out, Exodus, and other ex-gay conferences. While he has traveled all over the country touting his success in “curing” gay people, the voices of those very people he claims to have cured have been mostly silent — until now.

Dr. Nicolosi’s former clients now have a voice. Daniel Gonzales, one of the authors at Ex-Gay Watch has posted a video in which he describes, in his very quiet and thoughtful way, his experiences as he underwent reparative therapy as Dr. Nicolosi’s client. He describes why he did it and what he lost as a result.

After you watch this video, please go over to Ex-Gay Watch and leave a message of support.

Paul Cameron on MSNBC

Paul Cameron has just made an appearance on MSNBC’s News Live today (Saturday, Dec 9) at about 3:40 pm EST. Saying that Mary Cheney is being “cruel to children,” it looks like he memorized his press release from yesterday. The weekend host apparently didn’t know about his problem with professional ethics, which mean that his credentials as an “expert” went unchallenged. A very simple Google Search should have clued them in.

Matt Foreman, of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, was also there to offer his perspective on Mary Cheney and Heather Poe. While he did a good job in defending their decision to have a child, he did little to shine light on Paul Cameron’s junk science.

The 2006 Weblog Awards

If you’re new to this site, please have a look around. According to site visitor statistics, the three most popular destinations are:

• The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths, a parody modeled after popular anti-gay tracts.
• What The “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples, where I examine one of the anti-gay activists’ most popular and effective statistics.
• Testing the Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children? where I look into what the research really says about the supposed link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.

If you like what you see and think this work is worthwhile, I invite you to vote for this web site as Best LGBT Blog for 2006. Remember, you can vote once every twenty-four hours. I appreciate your support.