Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Focus on the Family unveiled its campaign of lies to counter the "Born Different" campaign. The extremist ministry said the Born Different campaign misleads readers and viewers about the scientific basis for homosexuality. Focus will meet with reporters this morning to introduce its own advertisements featuring Sherman, a dog who barks.

"Sherman is the centerpiece of a multimedia 'No Moo Lies' campaign to be launched Wednesday, July 19, which clearly explains the truth about what characteristics dogs - and humans - are really born with," the ministry said in a news release.

The ministry's news release included the headline "Focus to make major announcement: Dogs don’t moo," and a subheadline: "Ministry to offer irrefutable proof that 'woofing' is the language of canines."

I'm looking forward to seeing the "scientific evidence" Focus on the Family will use. I'm sure it will take limited effort to expose it as second-tier propaganda. The fact is, all studies over the past few decades have pointed to a biological basis for sexual orientation. There is not even a shred of evidence to support the contention of Focus on the Family that sexual orientation is a result of bad families or sexual abuse. There is even less evidence for their cure: That gay people can become straight through non-sexual same-sex friendships.

Indeed, most gay people already have such non-sexual relationships with straight friends. To suggest that this is a cure is absurd on its face. With such nonsense, is it any surprise that so many recloseted homosexual leaders end up in gay bars?

44 Comments:

Now we need to introduce yet another canine named James Dogson--he licks his own balls and sticks his nose up people's asses.
B. Queer
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 11:18 AM

I heard on the Randi Rhodes Show yesterday that Dobson was abused as a child (no surprise there). They were a fanatically religious family with a mother like Piper Laurie who used to beat him with a large heavy girdle (apparently she was quite porcine). Hmmm, there must be some weird kinky shit going on in Jimmy's subconscious mind.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 11:27 AM

The studies that may show a link towards a biological base for homosexuality can rarely be repeated. And I would like to see a biological base for it to put an end to the debate. The other thing is that some research points towards acculturationor conditioned response. So... Wayne you can say no evidence but the truth is studies are flawed for both camps.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 12:09 PM

B. Queer - why are you so crude. Is everything about penises, assholes, anuses, dick s etc...? You are just crude and nothing more.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 12:16 PM

Huh. I like B Queer's crudeness, maybe that's because I like what he (or she?) has to say. Maybe its the message you dislike more than anything.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 12:27 PM

It perpetuates the myth that homosexuality is just about sex. No civil rights actions can be supported by that.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 1:23 PM

I'm sorry anon if I offened you, but when discussing the religious right, polite language just doesnt convey the visceral feelings that it brings up. Besides, if your president can say 'shit' to Tony Blair while masticating a breakfast roll with his mouth open, I can certainly use crude language, where appropriate, on a blog. So, when is it appropriate? Like your president, I'm the Decider. A final thought: as our queen Bette Midler so elequently said, "fuck em if they cant take a joke!"
B. Queer
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 1:30 PM

Come on anon 1:23, 99.9999% of the general public never even heard of Wayne nor this blog. Do you really think anything we say here is going to have an impact on the progress of gay rights in the country? Besides, any truely straight people (not the "ex-gay" wannabees) wouldnt be reading this blog anyway---except our good friend Regan! Hi Rags!
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 1:41 PM

Plus, I have seen very few public forums where there was not a "B-Queer" being crude. And I am not referring to gay forums. You are the one who seems to think this is strictly a gay thing.
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/18/2006 2:07 PM

Yes, the idea that gay men need "non-sexual" friendships with straight guys (to help heal their homosexuality) is yet another sad example of the absurdity and superstition that is common amongst religious fundamentalists. Just last week, in fact, I spent a night out with a straight male friend. When his fiancee called him on his cell phone, I urged him to invite her to join us for dinner.

All three of us had a great time walking around the city, laughing and enjoying our time together. And we plan to do it again. But I confess, even with the picture of a happy, in-love heterosexual couple right before my very eyes, I STILL couldn't shake those gay feelings! Go figure.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 4:25 PM

Christo-fascists have no scientific basis for their "viewpoint" beyond the junk they pay someone to create for them.

Someone in the press needs to ask Dobson and Company why his organization is so obsessed with the lives of people who want nothing to do with him.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 6:14 PM

Actually - Wayne's bolg gets surfed by the cristian right. So yeah- I think they get some impression of what goes on in the gay community from here.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 10:00 PM

B Queer - it is obvious that you have little impulse control. Yep - alot of things bug us but we learn to control our animalistic impulses. Apparently, you have not.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/18/2006 10:01 PM

The Christian Right already has their opinion of the gay community and no blog is going to alter that opinion one way or the other. They think we are all sex crazed maniacs who screw three or four different people every night and six more in the morning; and that's on a slow day. If we all acted like choir boys on this site, it wouldn't change their view on iota.
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/18/2006 10:24 PM

ONE iota, that is
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/18/2006 10:25 PM

Then let's give up the fight right now? No. But I'll be damned if I'm going to be bullied into a corner by some fouled mouth little boy either.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 12:03 AM

they think that because that is what they see - and they see that here. except of course for you j.hyde. and me.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 1:55 AM

Re the mention of Randi Rhodes's comment about Dobson's traumatic childhood, the source of the comment was an article on Denver's 5280.com that starts here. Apparently, as a child, Dobson was beat up by another boy whom he believed was probably gay (apparently the other boy was somewhat effeminate). Hence Dobson's strong dislike for gay people.

Kind of like the root of Karl Rove's strong dislike for Democrats. When Rove was a boy, he was beat up by a girl Democrat.

At base, these people are wimps.

--raj
posted by Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 6:24 AM

Anon above--i think you're suffering from advanced paranoia, no one is 'bullying you'. And yes I have very good impulse control; I work with the public and have to deal with clueless uptight obnoxious irritable schmucks like you all day long--and i never lose my cool. If I want to blow off a little steam on this blog, i will! Besides, my 'crude' comments are fairly tamed compared to what some have written in other threads. By the way, i'm finished with this one, so if you want to spew more poison, you'll have to do it elsewhere. I'm not surprised you're always 'anonymous'!
B. Queer
posted by Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 11:52 AM

B. Queer - plainly you are just suffering all sorts of maladies that no one can explain.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 2:02 PM

I don't know if using my name was sarcasm or not, but I'll take it as a compliment. I do try to take the high road more often than not. But I cannot and will not criticize anyone for not doing so. Especially in this venue. I understand the frustration and aggravation involved. In my lifetime, I've attended many a protest march and I've seen both sides; the high road and the low road, and you know what? It takes both types of words to make an impact. If we are all sitting around singing kumbaya, that's not being heard. If we are all practicing "in your face" vulgarity, that's not being heard either.

I believe that it is imperative to show mainstream America that we are not so different from them. We are human. And I am not really interested in what the Christian Coalition has to say on the matter. To them, I'm heading straight to hell anyway and that opinion won't change until Christ himself comes back and tells them the truth. Or until they see another burning bush. And frankly, I don't even think that would persuade them. They would call the fire department and have a prayer to get the devil out of the bush.
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/19/2006 4:59 PM

These arguments that one is "born gay"...have ANY of them passed the test of scientific replication?
posted by Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 5:56 PM

No.
Twin Studies - solicited among gay community for participants - population sample was skewed

Brain Differences - never replicated and does not explain if this is prior or aprior to homosexual activity.

Pheromones test: Again does not replicate and does not explain if prior or a prior.

Youngest brother: Not replicated yet - and again no testing done on or during pregnancy of mother - just a guess. Again does not explain if prior or aprior.

I would love to believe it is inborn but no conclusive evidence.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 8:41 PM

There are flaws in born gay tests and there are flaws in change is possible. I do not think anyone of us has the answer. Arguing over it is like arguing over which came first the chicken or the egg. Who cares?? Gays should be allowed the same prviliges as anyone else.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/19/2006 8:47 PM

How about adding common sense to the equation. I have a friend who, a few years ago was coming out of a bar in Baltimore and was attacked. He got his throat cut and was thrown into a dumpster behind the bar. He did manage to survive, but to this day, he can't speak clearly since they severed his vocal chords. Would a person endure such violence and hostility, just to get his rocks off? If it were a choice, would it be chosen? No one chooses to be hated. No one chooses to be ridiculed. No one chooses to be attacked. Common Sense folks.
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/19/2006 10:46 PM

Just to play devil's advocate and not to hurt anyone's feelings - No one in their right mind would submit to being violently attacked. Having said that - let's look at how the right wing would couch this (this is for education so we know how to respond) They would say that just like a drug addict who goes into dangerous situations for their drug that person has a choice to stop using drugs. They are addicted and yes, they need help. The right wing, if you look at their literature, will say that homosexuality has components of sexual addiction - thus the "victim" of such a haneous crime could in fact work on his addiction and choose not to go to gay bars. Not meaning to offend anyone here, I am just trying to show how the other side will percieve this very same event that your friend experienced.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/20/2006 1:58 PM

Oh, of course. The Christian Coalition would always blame the victim. And they would, certainly, lump every gay guy who gets the crap kicked out of him into a "You deserved it," scenario. But I said common sense, of which the Christian Right has very little. Any group of individuals who would ignore Science, as in the case of evolution just so that life fits the prerequisits of a book that was written over a thousand years ago, has little sense. But thinking people who are on the fence have to see the common sense in this debate. Average people learn by researching and by observing.

We can change the world, one person at a time.
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/20/2006 2:40 PM

How about this for common sense? Why oh why do gay men contnue to contract HIV and AIDS when they know how to prevent it? No one attacked them walking out of a bar. No one raped them. No one stuck needles in their arms. But the numbers still show gay men as a group continuing to get HIV and AIDS. My question is this - are these men out of control? Do they need sex so badly that they skip precaution? I am not a gay man - can someone explain this to me?
posted by Anonymous, at 7/20/2006 2:43 PM

Anonymous 8:41...thank you!
posted by Anonymous, at 7/20/2006 6:43 PM

Last I heard, Trixie, the largest growing population of HIV/AIDS contracting is in the heterosexual female population. Furthermore, heteros continue to get the diseases also. Are they so sex crazed that they forgo protection????
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/20/2006 7:10 PM

Are your statistics accurate?
posted by Anonymous, at 7/20/2006 8:05 PM

According to the CDC, women, particularly African American women make up more than 1/4 of all new aids cases diagnosed. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/women.htm. Amoung men who have sex with men, the stats are still too high, but the majority of new infections are in the African American and Hispanic population and most involve intravenus drug use. I lost the link, but the CDC provides all the stats. Look thru the site http://www.cdc.gov. Unfortunately, I fear that with the advent of new drugs that are prolonging the lives and quality of life of many gay men living with aids and hiv, many younger guys are living as if there is a cure if they are tested positive. Still many others are not being tested at all. Ignore it and it will go away. But the stats are conclusive, women; especially african american women make up the most new diagnosis' of aids and hiv.

Speaking from experience. In the 80's when AIDS was supposedly a rare disease, I lost 4 close friends in a 5 year time span. We just didn't know. But in this day in age, we do know. Aids cases in the 90's for gay men went down considerably. That is, newly diagnosed cases. Please surf the CDC site. You'll find all the info you need from there.

As far as the cultural aspect, I'm too far out of the loop to give much information. The bars I visit nowadays, I visit with my sig other and friends. Sort of a gay lowenbrau commercial. "Here's to good friends...." Not sure if you are old enough to know that commercial. But I ramble so.

That's the stats as I know them, trixie.

Take care,
Darren
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/20/2006 8:49 PM

Did you read the article by some researcher who does not think a cure is on the way? In the 80's, I lost some friends, too. That's before we all knew what was going on. Watching them wither was horrible. And now the drug cocktails. I cannot even imagine the regiment one has to go through.

Although, the populations show an increase in certain groups (contracting the disease) and I'm not trying to be mean, gay men are are still showing as being the largest population with it. Anyhow, yes I think anyone who partakes in sex outside of a committed relationship has a problem with sex. Anyone.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/20/2006 9:18 PM

I would agree, only to the extent that I think that most males have a problem with sex. I am 37 years old and have been in a committed monogamous relationship for the passed 8 years. However, I will admit with no shame that in my younger years I had a lot of sex. The thing is, My heterosexual counterparts were going out every night looking to score. They weren't searching for a girlfriend. They weren't looking for a lifelong commitment. They were looking to get laid. I was doing the same thing. But I was getting lucky. It is, I think, the difference between males and females. I don't know the stats, but I presume that lesbians are less promiscuous than gay men. Anyone correct me if I am wrong. I would like to know for certain. But I think that young men, in general, have a brain that drops to their genitals the day they hit puberty and doesn't rise to their heads again until they hit their mid thirties. The only reason hetero guys get around less is because their gender partners hold them back.

And youth tends to think it's immortal. So protection is an afterthought.

just my thoughts. Nothing proven, simply observation.
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/20/2006 9:29 PM

Another thing, from what I read, although gay men show the largest population group with the disease, the cases of new diagnosis' is remaining steady, while women are newly diagnosed more often.
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/20/2006 9:30 PM

I think in general this society does not have a healthy view on sex. As if having it is suppossed to fill in that need. That is not a gay or straight issue just everyone as a whole - myself included.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/20/2006 10:35 PM

Just curious: What would be your idea of a healthy view on sex?
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/21/2006 3:50 PM

Honestly, I'm not sure.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/22/2006 12:18 AM

Interesting. I'm at aol.com if you are interested in discussing this further.

A bit of background info on me: I was raised in a hippie communal house. My father is a converted jew, turned christian minister and my mother is a bonifide bra burning feminist. I was taught a healthy respect for sex, although I don't think i followed that as often as my parents would have liked.

I'm interested in your views, mostly because I am raising three girls in an age of sexual misunderstanding, in a number of different aspects. And I am a writer, so such subjects interest me.

Just plucking info. Feel free to tell me to get lost. LOL

Darren
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/22/2006 11:41 PM

Good luck w/ your girls. Raising children these days is difficult enough.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/24/2006 3:29 AM

Although Focus on the Family is unwilling to concede the argument that people are born gay, I am willing to do it. I concede that people can be born gay. In fact I concede that most people are born with some type of issue with which they must deal throughout their lives. Many are emotional. Many are sexual. Many are social.

I used to work in the Department of Corrections in Colorado. There are men in there who are arsonists, men who are murderers, men who are drug addicts and alcoholics, men who are sexually attracted to children. Many of these men claim to have been "born different" in that they've always had the proclivities to perform these actions. Yet - they're in prison for commiting these crimes.

Society as a whole has rules and laws that state that particular behaviors are wrong and even punishable. Feeling that you were born with certain tendencies that leave you wanting to break these rules and laws does NOT get you "off the hook" for them. These actions are wrong - whether or not you were born with a desire to commit them.

Until the laws are changed, same-sex marriage and civil unions will be wrong and punishable by law. As well they should be.

And until the God changes His views on homosexuality, it will continue to be wrong. When a Christian organization, church or person condemns someone for practicing homosexuality, it is not that person or organization that is "judging or condemning" the behavior. It is the Word of God that is doing the judging. It is simply that person proclaiming the truth of the Word of God.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/24/2006 3:16 PM

Oh Jeremy,

You poor misguided soul. First of all, civil unions and gay marriage are not punishable, they are simply not allowed in many places. My state does in fact have a civil union law, but it is not equal to marriage.

Secondly, the Bible has been intrepreted, re-intrepreted, translated and re-translated. If you are following the Bible to the letter, you must practice poligamy, possibly incest, you must beat you children, you must not eat pork or shellfish, and you must never wear cotton and linen together. If you are following the letter of the Bible, every woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death. You must never do any kind of manual labor on the Sabbath which is actually Saturday in accordance with the Bible.

My point is that God did not condemn homosexuality. And Christ never spoke of it, although he had the opportunity.

Lastly, there is a big difference between people who are possibly predisposed to murder, rape, child abuse, etc. and gay people. My sexuality hurts no one; and before you try to say it, it hurts NO ONE. You mention the behavior. What is this behavior of which you speak? I've been with the same man for 8 years. My sister has been divorced three times. Her behavior is fine because she's straight. Mine isn't because...what? Because you are not gay and don't think that anyone should be.

I will say again and probably not for the last time, My only choices in life are to be happy with me as I am, or to be alone and lonely for the rest of my life. God is love, my friend. He doesn't intend any of us to be alone, lonely, sad.

I pity your misunderstanding of the Word. I hope He eventually opens your heart, if not your eyes.

Take care,

Darren
posted by jekelhyde, at 7/24/2006 9:55 PM

Jeremy,

You may read the same bible I read. But I do not believe that homosexuals should be punished for being so. Whether they are born that way or whatever - as long as they are two consenting adults - then let them do what they want. Now a pedophile on the other hand is in a whole different class. They prey on at risk children. Rapists prey on at risk women. And many murderers or violent criminals have been shown to have insults to their frontal lobes that inhibit impulse control. So what? I don't know what God thinks and no one else does either. In the meantime, I'll just try to love others - but you may go on hating (is that what God tells you?) You apparently do not read Paul's letters.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/24/2006 11:30 PM

Do you know how to convert avi to iphone? here, i would like to recommend you this ultra AVI to iPhone converter, which can help you convert any avi file to iphone format easily and quickly, you can download it and have a wonderful try! you may also interested in iPhone to Mac Transfer and iPhone to Computer Transfer.
posted by Titanic, at 5/05/2010 1:44 AM