Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 124
December 12, 2010
Safe sex in pulp fiction: Open Thread
But it has also been a glimpse into heterosexual pulp fiction, a genre I've had little experience with. I'm disappointed to find that 30 years into the AIDS epidemic that safe sex has not been incorporated into these Harlequin romance stories even though the story lines reflect modern-day life in other ways. For example, women have their own careers and they also have sexual relationships and children outside of wedlock, without shame.
I know that romances are escape literature and make the women who read them feel hope despite the mistakes they may have made or the lack of love in their current lives. But don't readers also want the author to show them how to have sexy safe sex or at least support the meme that characters who are so achingly in love wouldn't dream of having unprotected sex without a conversation first?
Only once in these three stories is a condom produced during a sex scene, and then not because the woman produced it or because the couple talked about protection, but because, we learn later, the man thinks he carries the Huntington's gene and doesn't want to knock up the women he's screwing with a Huntington's baby. From the story "More Than Friends" (my rough translation):
GAG! And check out this "sex on the first date" scene from the story "A Buried Treasure"Suddenly Josh turned away. Toni shivered and felt deserted. But suddenly she understood. A condom. She hadn't actually given that a moment of thought. And undoubtedly Josh had quite a store of those. With his lifestyle, that was very important. These thoughts should perhaps have bothered her, but it didn't matter to her at all. All that mattered was that she and Josh were together.
Of course it wasn't smart to stay out late since they both still had interviews the next day. It also would have been better had they not gone to the observatory because there they learned about the constellations that they later, lying in the grass in the park, would try to find again. If they hadn't done that, Jack wouldn't have kissed her.Reckless and unforgettable alright, because Hannah got pregnant. But by the time we meet Hannah, her daughter is 5 years old and adorable and Hannah is the picture of loving, devoted single-motherhood. And after a few twists and turns of the plot she and her hunk o' burnin' love are reunited and live happily ever after.Or had she kissed him first?
It didn't matter. The attraction was so strong that Hannah effortlessly transgressed all the rules she had about going out on dates with men. She would start a new life and everything was excitinig, magical and delicious. What could be more perfect than spending the night with the hansomest, most attractive man she had ever met?
Had it been reckless? Absolutely. Unforgettable? More than unforgettable.
Now I'll admit I've only read the three stories in this single volume, all written by the same author. So maybe I'm missing something. Maybe the wider world of heterosexual pulp fiction is rampant with nauseatingly romantic responsible sex. Help me out here blenders, is that so? And is gay pulp any better?
LaBarbera's ramblings exposes the Family Research Council's deception
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Leave it to Peter LaBarbera to unwittingly call the Family Research Council a liar.
LaBarbera is no doubt still smarting from his organization being called an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Now one of the main reasons why SPLC named LaBarbera's organization, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, as a hate group (as well as several other religious right groups) is because they continue to push many falsehoods about the lgbt community. One in particular is the notion that homosexuality and pedophilia are related. The SPLC said this is not true:
According to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.
However, LaBarbera in advertising his recent appearance on a Concerned Women for America radio program said the following:
I challenge the SPLC’s “hate” criterion chastising any group that says homosexuals are disproportionately involved in child molestation. (I ask why there are so many boy victims of pedophilia if homosexual men comprise such a tiny percentage of society; I assume few boys are molested by women.)
I won't even begin to ponder where LaBarbera looked to find the photo of the pedophilia magazine he used on his webpage to illustrate his point.
But I will point out that LaBarbera, who has absolutely no training in the field of pediatrics, child welfare, or the prevention of child sex abuse, seems to think that he is more skilled to make a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia than those who do have adequate training in these fields. I think that the statement by the Southern Poverty Law Center (using the statements of legitimate groups and researchers) is more than enough to refute his nonsense.
But here is the thing that's interesting about LaBarbera's need to bring up pedophilia and homosexuality - doesn't it contradict the recent whinings of the Family Research Council concerning SPLC's labeling of them and other religious right groups - LaBarbera's included - as hate groups?
FRC claims that SPLC is trying to "shut down the discussion" by labeling them simply because they stand the for the so-called "Judeo-Christian" definition of marriage:
The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that.
The group, which was once known for combating racial bigotry, is now attacking several groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
I fail to see how the covert labeling of gay men as pedophiles aligns with "Judeo-Christian moral views." But if the inaccurate linking of homosexuality and pedophilia isn't a huge part of this controversy, then why did LaBarbera feel the need to bring it up?
The lgbt community owes LaBarbera a degree of thanks for his ignorant stridency. He has proved that FRC's claim is merely a talking point designed to obscure and deceive.
Make no mistake about it. SPLCs' designation has nothing to do with gay marriage and more to do with groups passing along propaganda and lies under the guise of Christianity. It's not about trying to shut down "Judeo-Christian" beliefs and more to do with exposing those who would exploit these beliefs to cage the lgbt community or make us pariahs to ourselves and the mainstream community at large.
This issue is about bearing false witness, an ugly sin but one which FRC and other religious right groups - LaBarbera's included - are committing with unrestrained glee.
December 11, 2010
The Practice of Plutonium Politics
If there's anyone here left wondering how politics gets more and more and more toxic, Minnesota has given us the latest example.
Minnesota's campaign finance regulators ruled Friday that two conservative groups that raised money to thwart Mark Dayton's bid for governor failed to properly register with the state as political funds.
But the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board declined to fine the groups, saying it found no "intentional plan or strategy" to avoid disclosure of donors.
The ruling stems from a complaint this fall filed by watchdog group Common Cause Minnesota. It said money for TV ads critical of Gov.-elect Mark Dayton had been illegally funneled from the Republican Governors Association [RGA] through a "shell corporation," Minnesota Future LLC, to avoid disclosing the source of donations.
"The board is sending a message to special interest groups that no one will hold them accountable for violating campaign disclosure laws," said Common Cause Minnesota Executive Director Mike Dean, who was disappointed the groups weren't fined.
Yes, ultimately Democrat Mark Dayton won.
And, yes, there are differences in the law between murder, attempted murder and negligent homicide. However, all are crimes. No one gets executed for a negligent homicide conviction - even in Texas (much less Minnesota) - but there is jail time (or, at the very least, probation and the stain of a criminal conviction.)
At the other end of the spectrum...
If I know that no cop will ever issue me a speeding ticket - and that if one does, any judge who hears the case will never allow me to actually be fined - I'm not really going to give a damn about how far the needle on my speedometer drifts past 70 when I'm out on I-80.
No one is suggesting that those behind these conservative groups be executed or locked up for life - and some may not even want them locked up at all - for violating the rules in question, but who will ever make any effort to abide by any campaign rules if they know that they'll never pay any price?
And what sort of price actually matters if the illegal campaign practices have their desired effect? In 2002, mealy-mouthed 2012 presidential aspirant Tim Pawlenty got caught, was found to have violated the rules and was actually fined. But, eight years later he's an outgoing two-term governor and a mealy-mouthed 2012 presidential aspirant who has been legitimized in the latter role by the corporate media.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Pawlenty has now accepted full responsibility for campaign practices that a state review board found illegal. The decision could represent a substantial setback for Pawlenty, who also announced he would temporarily suspend television ads while his campaign assesses its options. But Pawlenty vows he'll vigorously press the campaign until the end.
Just one day after the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board ruled against the Pawlenty campaign and the state Republican Party, Pawlenty gathered supporters around him to accept the board's decision.
The board ruled that an estimated $800,000 in television ads produced by the party were incorrectly identified as the sort of soft-money independent expenditures that are subject to limited regulation. The board's order requires Pawlenty to count the ads as direct contributions, a decision that will eat deeply into the campaign's $2.2 million spending limit.
Pawlenty, who's run his campaign around the catch-words of accountability and trust, says accepting the board's ruling demonstrates those principles.
No...
Admitting that what he did disqualified him from the race would have demonstrated those principles. The ads had run when they did - bells that could not be un-rung.
And now...
He's one of the darlings of the Plutonium Politics set.
Do not censor religious right groups. Demand that they answer questions
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
I am in TOTAL disagreement with other lgbt activists (such as Dan Savage) who think that the news media shouldn't have religious right organizations on their shows on the grounds that their opinions are akin to those of the Ku Klux Klan.
It's not that I don't agree with the root part of this argument. Just like the Klan demonizes African-Americans based on ignorance, fear, and (in some extreme cases) religion, religious right groups do the same to the lgbt community.
But I think veteran newscaster Tom Brokaw put it best:
Asked how antigay views should be presented, he said, “You just say that they’ve got strong opinions. You treat like them like anyone else. You cross-examine and ask them the right questions.”
That's the thing which as been solely missing from this controversy regarding the religious right and the lgbt community. No one in the lgbt community has issued a clear plan of attack. It has been a morass of words thrown around, such as "bigots" and "haters, and tangents devoted to the issue of gay marriage or sidetracked to the larger issue of condemnation of the Christian religion.
And in the middle of this complicated muddle, religious right groups zero in on one issue, i.e. censorship, and begin to control the debate.
This issue is not about gay marriage per se, nor is it about condemnation of religion. It's about the intentional propagation of falsehoods and junk science in order to smear a group of people.
Therefore demanding that the news media keep people like Tony Perkins or groups like the Family Research Council off television is extremely counterproductive. It gives the inaccurate notion that somehow their ideas are so truthful that the lgbt community is fearful of letting them be heard.
Instead, we need to demand that certain questions be asked. For example:
"Mr Perkins, why did your organization freely and unapologetically cite the work Paul Cameron, a discredited researcher who thinks that gay men stuff gerbils up their rectums?"
"Why do religious right groups continue to cite a 1997 study to claim that gays have a short lifespan when in 2001, the researchers of the study complained that you all were distorting their work? To be more specific, why do religious right group ignore legitimate researchers who complain about how they distort their work?"
"Mr. Perkins, why did your organization remove several anti-gay studies from your web page on the grounds that they used outdated studies? And this being the case, why did you cite those supposed "outdated" studies in works that do appear on your pages?"
Or even better, demand that the news media interview some of us on their shows when they have people like Perkins on. The lgbt community is a bit more intelligent and sophisticated than we were in the past in terms of calling attention to how religious right groups lie. We should be chomping at the bit to confront them on national television and making them spell out in exact terms why their distortions and junk science are accurate.
But instead of relishing the thought of a public feud, we seem to be backtracking from it or trying to sidestep it.
The lgbt community should take note of the recent hell President Obama has been getting from progressives about his need to compromise with the GOP. Just like it seems that President Obama has been reluctant to get into a war with the bullies of the GOP, the lgbt community seems to be reluctant to get into a needed fight with our bullies, i.e. the religious right.
But whereas as Obama tries to compromise with the GOP, the lgbt community seem to view the media as our parents and we run to them crying that they keep the big, bad bullies of the religious right from picking on us.
The media is not the parents of the lgbt community and it's not their job to stop the religious right from picking on us via their lies. It's our job to call them out and not just with words like "bigots," but with demands that they either explain their propagation of lies (such as linking homosexuality to pedophilia or claiming that gays caused the Holocaust) or apologize for them.
But we can't do this adequately without calling them out.
Doesn't anyone think that it's time we started?
Q of the day - what could have changed the outcome of the last two years?
So I'm tossing this out for you to chew on...
Q of the day - was there any way we could have acheived a favorable political outcome re: major LGBT issues versus the flaccid outcome we're left with after the last two years?***
Second Q of the day: building a better leader
By the way, another logical question, looking forward, is pretty obvious. If not Joe Solmonese, then who should head up the largest LGBT organization? My answer may seem like a punt, but it comes from my own professional experience -- I don't know; that's up to the HRC board, which should do a thorough analysis/rewrite of the job description and form an appropriate search team (or contract that out).
What are the musts? It really depends on what HRC would prioritize in a leader, that's why a job description overhaul is needed to suss things out. But this list includes general things that any good org should think about. Feel free to add your own items.
* Crafting a pool that is outside of the box in many ways (that means including people outside of the existing incestuous pool of LGBT movers and shakers)I'm partial to the behavioral-based interview, which commits the candidate to answer questions based on how they've handled a particular issue/situation in the past. It prevents the generation of speculative/hypothetical answers, which are not necessarily going to generate an answer that you can bank on in terms of the person's capabilities.
* Do they want a figurehead/fundraiser type?
* What is their vision for HRC's role and mission?
* Someone with media savvy/communication is a must.
* DC/Beltway experience?
* Excellent managerial/supervisory skills (a woefully underrated quality, in my experience, in this case a motivational internal leader is needed)
* A smart delegator who knows when to take the baton and when to pass it.
* Recognition of the role of new media/social media/new outlets for communication.
* Grassroots organizing experience?
The fact is that there is no perfect candidate for this tough job; but to get the best match it requires a lot of introspection and discussion by any board if it wants to make an effective change at the top. Whoever is selected would need to instantly and publicly signal and project a new direction that build internal and external morale.
Doing so would show great maturity of the board in challenging existing thinking about HRC's role and relationship to the wider LGBT community. That takes work and a time investment, but a committed board member should be ready to roll up the sleeves when so much is at stake.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Discuss!
December 10, 2010
Sen Kirsten Gillibrand introduces the standalone bill to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell
The bill's sponsor is Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), with co-sponsors Susan Collins (R-ME), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Mark Udall (D-CO). Official text and other bill information is here.
Although the bill is thought to have enough support to pass, there are two major hurdles to success. First, it is uncertain whether enough cloture votes can be found to override a filibuster challenge. Second, there is little time to act on this bill before the Congress adjourns for the year. Although Sen. Reid has promised to expedite the bill by using "Rule 14" to prevent it from dying in committee, he has also vowed to adjourn the Senate for the year on Friday, December 17th. The Senate is now in recess until Monday.
Update: check out this multi-organizational press release. Despite the hurdles remaining, all parties are on board with this effort.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Servicemembers United, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Third Way, Log Cabin Republicans, and Stonewall Democrats released the following joint statement on continued efforts to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before the end of the year:"Despite the unfortunate result of the Senate's cloture vote on the defense authorization bill, there are other viable legislative options to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before Congress adjourns , and a solid 60-vote Senate majority still in favor of repeal. With commitments on record from the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House to move this new bill, as well as Secretary Gates' urgent and renewed request that repeal happen in this Congress, we are confident repeal can still happen this year."
While U.S. Fumbles On DADT, Australia & Canada Accommodate Trans Servicemembers
One day Henny Penny was scratching in the farmyard looking for something good to eat when, suddenly, something hit her on the head. "My goodness me!" she said. "The sky must be falling down. I must go and tell the king."
Above is the opening paragraph to the traditional telling of the children's story Henny Penny -- Henny Penny being a hen who kept repeating the mistruth to all willing to listen that "The sky is falling!" 
She convinced her friends Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey that the sky is falling along her way to the king -- the king who never ended up hearing her message of doom -- but the sky was never really falling.
As I watched the Family Research Council's (FRC's) November 30, 2010 Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) press conference, my mind kept wandering back to the signature line from Henny Penny: The sky is falling! As I've listened to the statements of Senator John McCain on DADT -- as Senator McCain has rhetorically moved the goal posts on what it would take for him to vote for repeal of DADT -- my mind keeps wandering back to the signature line from Henny Penny: The sky is falling!
We know, if only from the examples of other militaries in our allied countries who allow lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers to serve openly, that the sky won't fall if DADT is repealed. The military will still be able to accomplish its missions if DADT should be repealed.
In fact, other allied countries are now figuring out how to accomplish the accommodation of transgender servicemembers. 
In the Sydney Morning Herald's Sex-Change Soldier Forces Army To Scrap Transgender Policy, we learn that Australia is revamping their policy on transsexuals to clearly allow them to transition on active duty. And Pink News reported in their piece Canada's Military Updates Uniform For Transgender Soldiers that Canada's military has put together a new policy on how trans service members should be accommodated.
From the Pink News piece:
While debate continues in the US about openly gay troops, the Canadian military has been putting together a new policy on how trans soldiers should be treated, the National Post reports.The policy says they should wear the uniform of their "target" gender but must be given privacy and respect. For example, no reason must be given when a person's name is changed on military records.
The new policy does not allow military honours to be reassigned to new names, saying "there is no legal authority for rewriting history".
Canada's military first paid for gender treatment for a member in 1998 and deals with one or two trans troops every year.
So while the United States can't seem to get past the stage of discussing whether or not lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers should be allowed to serve openly, some of our allies have moved on to accommodating the transitions of transsexual servicemembers.
I believe what Australia and Canada are at with their policies towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) servicemembers is where the United States should be in its discussions of LGBT servicemembers, but instead we're still discussing whether or not LGB servicemembers should even be allowed to serve openly in the military services, let alone be accommodated in serving their country while in military uniforms.
The sky isn't falling. We in the United States can allow lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers to serve openly in the military services, and still be extremely professional, and capable, of meeting mission requirements. The United States could go much further in accommodating lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender servicemembers than just a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell that would accommodate LGB servicemembers, and still be able to capably and professionally meet the country's military mission requirements.
That the United States still is functioning with antiquated policy regarding LGBT servicemembers says something about my country, and what it says isn't particularly good.
Hat Tip to Monica Helms and Robin McGeehee. 
A New Year's wish for the community: Joe Solmonese's resignation
All of the FAILs lead to one obvious conclusion, though. It's time for the Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese to tender his resignation.
By any sane performance metrics, he has failed to successfully lead. Promises like those made in the "This year we are going to bring down DADT" video at the HRC Carolinas dinner on Feb. 27 were used to extract money from low-info, fat wallet attendees. It's rinse and repeat at events like that around the country and there is precious little to show for it in terms of the major promises made by Solmonese -- and this President.
I thankfully captured Joe's bold promises to the HRC Carolinas dinner attendees. You realize that was before we had to deal with the failed, weak DADT compromise language, the sad shell of pre-repeal we're dealing with now. He makes it abundantly clear that true, full repeal would be achieved in 2010.
Joe Solmonese should do the honorable thing and step down. It is shameful to cash all those checks without the follow through on the job. The White House was never put under serious pressure; the late calls now in the e-blasts for the President to do something ring hollow after the toadying that has gone on for two years.
As we saw, Reid couldn't get it together in the Senate and the wingnuts will have more control in January. The watered-down repeal doesn't do much of anything at this point (even if it passes as a separate bill during the lame duck session -- good luck with that), and we're still dealing with all the GOP squawking by McCain and others who want a "do-over" of the Pentagon's implementation report. It's a big f'ing mess because there has been piss-poor leadership by those who are lobbied in government.
In turn it's the unelected, highly marketed, well-tailored representative of the entire LGBT community, Joe Solmonese of HRC, who also has to be held accountable for these failures. It's clear that those in power had no fear of the vast war chest of HRC being used to turn up the heat. No, the heat came from less well-heeled activists who didn't have the access to power, only voices and fearlessness to call out the purposeful foot-dragging and inaction.
One can only call Joe Solmonese's reign as a "could have been," with DADT as the latest of a string of lobbying efforts, such as they are, that seemed more in tune with keeping the peace (and cocktails) flowing when it was clear to even a political novice (or Cheetos-stained blogger) that the Obama administration had only a limited amount of time to move any LGBT legislation in the first two years, and repeal of DADT was back-burnered in favor ENDA by HRC in "the plan", which has, as we have seen, gone NOWHERE.
Honestly, for HRC to become the organization the community needs it to be in terms of a lobbying organization with access to our elected power brokers, it will take more than Joe Solmonese's resignation. The organization is multi-faceted and is populated with well-meaning, hard working people who deserve better leadership -- and the buck stops at Joe's desk.
His position at the top requires that he set tone for the organization, provides the baseline for staff morale (god knows how many hair-raising off the record tales I have heard about failure on that level), and effectively uses the incredible war chest developed by formidable fundraising and branding machine.
FAIL. Tone deaf to community concerns and political momentum at the grassroots level.
FAIL. An inability to admit mistakes in strategy and correct course.
FAIL. A refusal until the back is against the wall to publicly criticize the very people in power who needed to be shamed for the slow-walking.
FAIL. The institutionalization of paranoia and defensiveness toward the activists, LGBT media and independent voices of criticism rather than looking inward to see whether the organization is bloated, and has failed to evolve and become nimble and focused in its leadership.
It is not airing dirty laundry to hold Mr. Solmonese accountable in his position that he is happy to promote as the voice of the community when called upon by the mainstream media. With that position comes responsibility -- and accountability. We, as "the community" cannot vote him out of office, we can only 1) point out how and why he isn't the voice of the LGBT community and 2) form alternate means of sharing that dissent through commentary, and/or action -- e.g. GetEQUAL.
It is not divisive to ask what have we gotten for the $80 million that flowed into the coffers of the Human Rights Campaign when it comes to leadership. Those funds -- were they effectively used to ensure promised action on by this President on his major promises?
For those who simmer with anger and immediately call any criticism the "circular firing squad", that's disingenuous. There have been plenty of kudos for what has been accomplished (including those Cinderella Crumbs); but we're talking about a long list of major issues (DADT, ENDA, etc.) that were not seriously pushed after the promises were made.
In any case, critics haven't any power to change the strategic vision (such as it is), within HRC, and if those in charge simply blow off any criticism, is the community expected to sit silent with hands politely folded? There certainly hasn't been a private summit to discuss the myriad problems that have arisen, nor does there appear to be any feedback mechanism desired. I don't expect that it would occur, anyway, given the bunker mentality in place.
That can only change if there is a thorough shake-up, even if only a symbolic one such as Solmonese's departure, that can signal an understanding of the magnitude of disconnect, discord and failure to lead that needs to be addressed. How that occurs is up to the board of HRC - so my little call for a change at the top is of little significance other than it's just me sharing my two cents and you all reacting to it in the comments.
And as far as calls for accountability for new media/bloggers/citizen activists? Hey, that's easy -- people won't read what doesn't interest them, and our voices are limited by time -- we're not news services. As we all know here at the Blend, all it takes is a health issue to take me offline for a good long while. Voices will come and go.
Without the access or proximity, that means actual influence of new media is limited to perceived power. Certainly if the Cheetos-stained PJ set all thought we could effect change in the structure of the broken parts of Gay Inc. through a twitch of a virtual nose it would have happened already.
I suppose HRC could ban its staff from reading critical blogs, or make them take some sort of absurd loyalty oath to the organization, but unless they are going to lock down internet access in their building, people will read what they want to read. And when they are bored or disagree strongly, they'll move along.
Religious right doesn't want lgbt children to have parental support
crosssposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
A new study has come out saying that lgbt youth who receive support from their parents are less likely to engage in destructive behaviors such as suicide or substance abuse.
According to U.S. News and World Reports, the study which appears in Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing:
. . .also found that those adolescents with highly accepting families have much higher levels of self-esteem and social support when they're young adults.
The study included 245 white and Hispanic LGBT young adults, aged 21 to 25, in California who were open about their sexual orientation to at least one parent or caregiver during adolescence.
Examples of positive parental and caregiver support include supporting their gender expression or advocating for their children when they are mistreated because of their LGBT identity.
However, leave it to the folks at the American Family Association's One News Now to object to the study. And what makes the phony news publication's objection more shameful is that it doesn't even try to refute what the study says.
Instead, it quotes Dr. Andre Van Mol, a private physician in California. Mol calls the study "indoctrination":
"This is ideology and indoctrination in high gear, and it carries with it the implicit [threat] 'or else your kid will kill themselves,' which is ridiculous," contends Dr. Andre Van Mol, a family physician in private practice in Redding, California.
. . . "Love is not the same as enablement and co-dependency," counters Van Mol. "A parent can fully love and accept their [LGBT] teen, give them a safe home where they know that they as a person are accepted, and still have it be known that their parents feel that acting out on that sexual orientation will be an inherently negative thing," he suggests. "I don't think that's contradictory."
The family physician goes on to tell OneNewsNow the study pushes the fruits of a strategy to take over the medical field with the ideology and indoctrination of homosexuality.
I think it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Mol doesn't know what he is talking about.
Apparently One News Now isn't alone in raising an objection about the study:
In a November commentary, Christopher Doyle of the support group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)calls efforts to scare parents into embracing their children’s sexual behavior for fear of suicide “minority stress” theory propagated by gay activists.
Even in gay-tolerant cultures, the occurrence of suicidal behavior is much higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals,” he explained.
Doyle, an ex-gay and PFOX board member, cited a 2006 study of homosexuals in the Netherlands, which was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Gay men were five times and lesbian women were 10 times more likely to contemplate suicide than heterosexuals. Another study found that a lower level of social hostility toward homosexuals in the Netherlands and Denmark compared with the U.S. was not associated with a lower level of psychiatric problems among homosexuals in these European countries.
Of course Doyle is inaccurate. The "studies" (actually there weren't two different studies. The article in the Christian Post is inaccurate. There was only one study) Doyle referred to was the work of Dr. Theo Sandfort. In an email written last year, Sandfort objected to how his work has been distorted.
On the whole, this entire needless controversy is a perfect example of how religious right groups operate. Was it really necessary for them to object? Common sense tells one that children who receive love and support from their family tend to have less problems with self-esteem. And we all know that unfortunately in some homes, lgbt children are robbed of that crucial support system because of the real fear that they will be rejected by their parents or even worse, kicked out on the streets.
The study just affirms this. But leave it to the religious right to object solely on ground that the lgbt identity is involved. And according to them, the study has nothing to do with making sure that lgbt children are safe and sound, but some evil plan by "gay activists" to force acceptance of homosexuality.
Such an idea is devoid of not only common sense, but basic Christian decency and kindness.
The sad irony is that without parental support, lgbt children are more likely to engage in behaviors such as suicide and substance abuse, and thereby becoming a statistic eagerly cited by religious right figures such as Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg regarding the so-called "dangers of homosexuality."
One can't help thinking that the only reason why the religious right objects to parents giving support to lgbt children is due to the cold fact that depressed, drug addicted lgbt youth are of more use to them than happy lgbt youth.
Related posts:
One News Now, Matt Barber dehumanizes recent suicide victims
Why can't the religious right stop denigrating gay suicide victims?
Phony Christians shedding crocodile tears over the bullying of lgbt teens
Guest column by David Mixner - DADT: The Ultimate American Tragedy
DADT: The Ultimate American Tragedy
by David Mixner, Live from Hell's Kitchen
My policy generally is not to write or speak while angry. Anger has a tendency to blur my ability to think rationally. But quite honestly at this moment I have no desire to be rational. The failure of the United States Senate to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" yet again is an American tragedy. Yesterday, our elected officials continued their path of shame on this issue by failing to join the rest of the civilized world in allowing members of the LGBT community to serve their country honorably. What a disgrace.
Despite efforts to make this vote about procedures and politics, every one of us know this vote was about freedom and justice. Most importantly it was about the right of every American citizen to serve their country with honor and dignity.
Absolutely pay no attention to those who talk about procedures and the need for more debate. That is just total nonsense and doesn't hold up no matter how you examine it. These senators have had nearly 18 years and over 14,000 discharges to figure out this policy. They have had their impact study. The Pentagon has signed off in favor of changing this policy. There have been numerous hearings and more information disseminated on this issue than any sane person can consume in a lifetime. Those who hold up the smoke screen of procedures are hiding behind a cloud of politics are simply cowards or homophobia - or both.
Make no mistake about it. Those are the only two options at this stage.
First the White House with support of our national organizations have made a horrible strategic mistake in not voting on this issue in the first year of the Presidency. They should be held accountable in some form. We would have not had Senator Kirk (R-Ill), Senator Manchin (D-WVa) or Senator Brown (R-Mass) voting "no" because all those votes would have been "yes" from the previous senators who held those seats. Those votes would have been Byrd (D-WVa), Burris (D-Illinois) and either Kennedy/Kirk (Democrats from Massachusetts). That would have given us sixty and maybe even an extra vote or so.
Second, thank you for Senator Susan Collins for being the sole vote from the Republican Party. You gave us a lot of grief in leading up to the vote but in the end you did the right thing. And despite my differences with Senator Lieberman, he deserves enormous thanks for fighting hard for the passage of DADT. He has not given up yet and there is still an outside shot we might succeed.
Third, there should be a special place in hell for Senator Brown of Massachusetts and Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. Both represent states that are overwhelmingly for repeal of DADT. The LGBT community and our allies should throw everything we have to defeat them in the next election. Fight Back USA? Like Fight Back New York we should hand them their walking papers. No one should contribute any funds to any group that will contribute to Democratic Senator Manchin of West Virginia. We should never forget his betrayal. Finally Senator Lincoln was at the dentist. I guess every reason we challenged her in the primary proved to be true.
Fourth, the vote was a cloture vote and not one on DADT. Why don't we add it as an amendment to the President's compromise keeping the Bush Tax Cuts and let us filibuster until it is added and passed! Let the Republicans explain to the CEO's why their hatred of the LGBT community is holding up their tax breaks. Let's give them hell. Let's fight back and not roll over one more time and take another blow to our dignity and honor.
America had another dark moment in its history yesterday. However, the LGBT community will never give up no matter what the odds, how dark and how many obstacles placed in our way. We will fight in the courts. We will fight in the streets. We will fight at the ballot box. We will fight in our neighborhoods, schools and religious institutions. This much is certain - we will fight and we will win. Nothing you can do will stop our inevitable march to freedom.
Pam Spaulding's Blog
- Pam Spaulding's profile
- 1 follower
