This is predictable. Just as so often conservative Catholics want to deflect attention from child-molesting priests by using their crimes to smear gay people [see: Bill Donohue], Evangelical hate group spokesmouths are now taking the crimes of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State as an excuse to spew bile at gay people.

First up, Bryan Fischer:

The press has focused largely on Paterno and others in the Penn State hierarchy who covered up Sandusky’s pedophilia, some of whom even committed perjury to keep his dark and dirty secret from being exposed.

But perhaps some of that press focus is diversionary, to direct the attention of the public away from one of the darkest pathologies associated with homosexual behavior: homosexuals molest children at ten times the rate of heterosexuals.

Homosexual activists will of course lamely argue that since Sandusky is married, he is not a homosexual. Fine, call him bisexual if you will. But his sex crimes are same-sex crimes, and 10-year old boys whose bodies have been cruelly invaded could care less what label homosexual activists want to slap on their abuser.

As Tintin at Sadly, No! replies, “Sadly, No!”

Also, gay activists will not argue that due to Sandusky’s marriage, he is not homosexual. That would be lame indeed, as we know for a fact that it’s extremely common for conservative Christian men to be simultaneously married to women and also gayer than Glee. However, we will argue that the fact that he’s married and has been molesting young children means that he is a freaking pedophile, as that is what science, reality and common sense suggest.

Let me be clear. A heterosexual pedophile who committed such crimes against young girls should likewise be sent to the chair. Forcible rape of anyone used to be a capital offense everywhere in this country and should be so again.

Without getting into the argument over what punishment should be meted out for these heinous crimes, for our purposes we’ll just note that Bryan Fischer doesn’t seem to know a damn thing about the phenomenon of child sexual abuse. People who molest young kids molest young kids, regardless of the gender of the child. Bryan’s desire to use this as a way to smear gay people is disgusting.

So is Porno Pete’s:

LaBarbera: How Many Boy Victims of Penn State Homosexual Predator Jerry Sandusky Will End Up Thinking They are ‘Gay’?

Ugh. Whichever ones would have been gay anyway, you moron. Indeed, and sadly, many, many kids have been molested since the dawn of time, by people of the same and different genders as they are, and they have grown up to be straight, gay, bisexual, and whatever else in between. There is NO evidence that being molested “causes” anyone to be gay.

Many openly homosexual (“gay”) men, like CNN anchor Don Lemon, were molested as boys or experienced abnormally early sexualization. Yet many of these same men do NOT see their boyhood victimization at the hands of homosexual male predators as causing their homosexuality. (This is due partly to the success of the modern “gay” movement that falsely ascribes “gayness” to a person’s (innate) identity, and emphasizes the ambiguous notion of “sexual orientation” as opposed to behavior that is sinful, destructive and changeable.)

Don Lemon has actually talked about this in detail, so it’s a wonder Porno Pete’s so completely unwilling to listen to Lemon’s words on the subject, while simultaneously playing armchair psychologist to a man he’ll never be lucky enough to meet.

Thus, how many boy victims of homosexual predator Sandusky will end up believing that being homosexual (“gay”) is “who they are”? How many will struggle with sexual identity issues? And how many will be told by LGBT advocates and liberal-minded people just to “accept being gay” as “who they are” because they were “born that way”?

Because the media and academia have largely become apologists for the modern homosexualist movement, they downplay or ignore obvious causative factors in the formation of “gay” identity – including pederastic molestation. CNN’s Lemon is a case in point: he is now an “out gay” celebrity, yet few question the absurdity of him not associating the molestation of his youth with his later embrace of homosexuality as a positive identity.

Porno Pete is a scientist and is therefore qualified to point out “obvious causative factors in the formation of gay identity.” Oh wait, no he is not, he is an amateur fetish sex photographer who leads a very small hate group.

There IS a long history connecting homosexuality to pederasty, and a disproportionate link between homosexuality and pedophilia: why else would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual? Since cases of women molesting boys remain rare, if homosexuality were not such a strong factor, nearly all of pedophile victims should be girls, which is far from the case.

Except for the fact that there’s a hell of a lot of science on the issue, which points to many factors that lead to boy victims. One of them is ACCESS. Let us look at the Catholic Church again for a minute, please. Who do Catholic priests have the most consistent access to? Young boys! So those who are child molesters are going to go for the kids they have the easiest ACCESS to. This is science, but it’s not that damned complicated.

Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem.

No, he has a child rape problem. It’s amazing that Porno Pete has missed that child rape is the crux of the Penn State debacle, so blinded is he by his hatred of gay people.

But we’re used to this kind of crap from bizarrely gay-fixated wingnuts like Bryan and Porno Pete.

If Linda Harvey had her way, I surmise, gay people really wouldn’t be allowed to do much of anything. Unfortunately for her, lots of the best doctors in the country are gay — indeed, I would venture a guess that a gay doctor has cared for Linda at some time or another, which means, according to her logic here, that she has been influenced by the Cootie of Gay. Here is Linda Harvey of the surely-about-to-be-named-a-hate-group Mission America, commenting on how the sexuality of physicians is more important than the health of children:

How do you feel about open homosexuals tending to your child in a health care setting? Do you think these folks provide good role modeling at a time when your child is very vulnerable? I was thinking about this recently when I heard that Children’s Hospital in Columbus has a homosexual employees group called NCHARGE, which stands for Nationwide Children’s Hospital’s Advocates Representing Gay Employees. The meeting minutes of this groups reveal that they participated in last June’s gay pride parade, that they participated in a health expo on adolescent health this summer and that they’re concerned about same-sex partner benefits. They’re also planning to be identified with rainbow lapel pins.

But let’s say your eleven year-old has broken her leg rather badly and needs to be in the hospital a few days, which would you prefer: a nurse who’s proud of her lesbianism, who has rainbow identifiers on her work clothing, or a nurse who does not?

I would like to suggest that parents think long and hard about this. If you want your children to admire people who proclaim a homosexual lifestyle, they’re involvement with your child during a hospital stay is sure to be an influence. And let me be clear that folks involved in these behaviors can be certainly competent workers but they are tacking on to their workplace identity one that is highly offensive to many people and can be erroneously influential to children who won’t, or shouldn’t, see the whole picture of how this behavior really manifests itself.

Here’s what parents can do: select your pediatrician very carefully, first of all. There are a few homosexual doctors treating kids, there are far more nurses, LPNs, technicians and other health care workers in these lifestyles so you may want to consider writing a letter that you file with your pediatrician that should your child ever be hospitalized, you do not want your child to be treated or cared for by one of these members of the Children’s Hospital gay employees group except in the case of an emergency situation. But for routine in-hospital care where contact with your child would be required, your values should be respected.

Um, yeah. Along the same lines, I would also suggest that Fundamentalists stay true to their beliefs and only see doctors who believe in Creationism. I mean, it’s not like evolution is the freaking foundation of biology or medical science or anything. Here’s the video if you’re bored to death or something:

Dan Savage points out that Linda does make an exception to this rule, which truly makes me question her commitment to Sparkle Motion*:

Harvey notes that straight parents should clearly communicate that it’s okay for gay and lesbian doctors and nurses to treat their children in “emergency situations,” which can be seen as either tremendously gracious on Harvey’s part—”Well, okay, that lesbian nurse can save my daughter’s life”—or as the kind of wishy-washy moral relativism that is destroying the moral fabric of this great nation.

ANYWAY, so now you know. Fundamentalists really need to be more concerned with who their doctors and nurses sleep with at night, rather than whether they have the expertise required to care for their sick or injured children. Priorities!

*Oh, my god. I had never thought of that before. THAT is who Linda Harvey reminds me of! If you haven’t seen Donnie Darko, watch this clip, then Netflix the movie.

Having been raised in the South in a fairly conservative area, and having been raised in a fairly conservative church and, for a time, a conservative Christian school, one would think that most of the people I grew up with are fairly active church-goers. Not the case. In fact, it’s been sort of interesting to see, particularly starting with my generation [I'm an X-er, but barely], how few of them actually have remained active in any sort of “faith” community. The Evangelical Barna Group recently did a study to find out why all the young folks are leaving, many never to return. I’ll excerpt the broad headlines and let you jump over to read their explanations:

1. Churches seem over-protective.

2. Teens’ and twentysomethings’ experience of Christianity is shallow.

3. Churches come across as antagonistic to science.

4. Young Christians’ church experiences related to sexuality are often simplistic, judgmental.

5. They wrestle with the exclusive nature of Christianity.

6. The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.

Okay, so those are the broad categories. Wingnuts will ignore most of them and focus on number two, arguing that tradishnul Christianity just isn’t wingnutty enough anymore to keep the flock under lock and key [they will phrase that differently, I guess], but a couple of them merit closer examination. Here is Barna’s explanation of number three:

One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.

Shorter version of that: younger people are better educated in science these days, simply because there is far more information out there than there used to be, and it’s becoming harder and harder for them to stick their heads in the sand and deny the reality that science presents when it comes in conflict with the creation myths of ye olde time religion. Or even simpler, it’s hard to look at a young cancer researcher and say, “evolution is a myth,” when they can look back and you and say, “dear sweet moron, I’ve observed it in a lab.”

That’s also related to number four, and Barna’s explanation of their own research leaves something out that’s kind of key, as the Public Religion Research Institute points out:

But buried within Barna’s category of “sex and sexuality” is something quite specific: churches’ stances on gay and lesbian issues. Research from earlier this summer reveals that nearly 7-in-10 (69%) Millennials agree that religious groups are alienating young people by being too judgmental about these issues. Only 37% of seniors agree.

This is also part of the reality-denial thing. It is simply a bridge too far to ask a sentient, educated human being to adhere to the sorts of belief systems advocated by the Matt Barbers and the Bryan Fischers of the world. Kids these days just aren’t that stupid. They have Google at their disposals, as well as their own experiences with gay and lesbian friends and family members to be able to look at the teachings of wingnuts on these issues and say, unequivocally, “what crazy, unhinged liars.” And if their churches are pushing that crap, they’re not likely to stay around.

Granted, there are many religious people who are involved in churches and faith communities which don’t strenuously seek to deny reality at every turn, and I know many of them. If that’s your path, go for it. But I find it encouraging that, at least among the generations who will be handed the torch when it comes to determining public policy and whatnot, we’ve finally reached the point where the insanity of anti-gay, anti-science teachings just don’t resonate. Update your résumés, professional Religious Right hacks.

If I’m what Mission America priestess of hatred Linda Harvey considers evil, I don’t want to be good. Linda Harvey brought a woman who almost equals her in unbridled, unreasonable, unmitigated, dishonest hatred, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute hate group, onto the radio with her for the purpose of wah wah wah:

Higgins: Homosexual activists are deceptive in terms of concealing information. They know full well that Queer Theory, which emerges from the homosexual community, says homosexuality is not fixed, it’s not hereditary, and it’s mutable, and it’s flexible, particularly among women. So not only can they not marshal in the evidence to prove the ‘born that way’ theory there’s a lot of at least anecdotal evidence to suggest it’s not fixed and it’s not immutable and certainly there’s no genetic or biological research proving that they are ‘born that way.’ So they’re not even honest about that, they know what I’ve just said. The problem is, the mainstream public doesn’t know.

Harvey: Well and the mainstream, homosexual person on the internet who believes these evil bloggers, they are evil, these people are evil and they are purposefully deceptive. I get my comments edited all the time. These folks will believe a smidgen here and a smidgen there and think, ‘oh it’s been settled,’ it hasn’t been settled, check it out! That science is not at all settled and in fact there’s tons of evidence that people are not born that way.

A numbered list because these women don’t deserve prose:

1. Queer theory isn’t mainstream even among the mainstream gay community. Though it has interesting things to say, this writer finds a lot of it tedious and just plain wrong. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, though, gays are not a borg of groupthink, and rather feel free to argue with one another. However, it should be pointed out that Queer Theory is a very different thing from SCIENCE (!!!!), which does, yes, tend to state that homosexuality is not a choice, that it’s hereditary and that efforts to change it through outside means are ineffective and often harmful. The fact that women’s sexuality is often more fluid than men’s is in no way an argument for Linda & Laurence’s belief that homosexuality is eeeeeeeeeeevil and must be stopped. Only the truly stupid would make that connection in their heads.

2. Oh, we are so evil, making fun of you and trying to stop you from driving your own children to suicide, like you all do on a regular basis. As I’ve said before, pig ignorant bigotry is one of the only forms of “trickle-down” that actually works, and the blood on the hands crusts over thickest at the top.

3. Neither one of you has ever had your comments edited here. Indeed, one major difference between the religious right and the eeeeeeeeeeeevil (boo!) gay bloggers is that we have open comments sections, because we know that our ideological opponents are so phenomenally intellectually unequipped to handle reasoned argument that they will make fools of themselves all on their own. Moreover, we quote you people directly in our own posts, all the freaking time, and just let you damn yourselves with your own words. Why would we censor people who accidentally help our side of the culture wars with their vicious uninformed nonsense?

Alvin McEwen has a great, very important petition at Change.org that you should all check out.  In it, he is petitioning the United States Congress to subject Religious Right testimony on LGBT issues to a high level of scrutiny, based on their pattern of cravenly distorting actual research in order to further their anti-gay agenda:

In June of this year during a Congressional hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act, Sen. Al Franken exposed Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery’s attempt to inaccurately cite a study to defame same-sex households.

Earlier this year during another Congressional hearing on DOMA, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher committed the same distortion – i.e. inaccurately citing a study to defame same-sex households. Gallagher’s group (NOM) has also been called out twice by the Pulitzer Prize winning site Politifact for inaccurate negative statements it has made about the gay community.

The Family Research Council was declared as an official anti-gay hate group last year by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its tendency to spread propaganda about the gay community such as gays molest children at a high level and same-sex households harm children.

However, the head of the Family Research Council – Tony Perkins – is frequently called as a Congressional witness on many occasions from discussing issues of gay equality to the selection of Supreme Court justices.

That’s just three examples. Alvin points out at his blog that, though Tom Minnery was called out, Maggie Gallagher and Tony Perkins got away with it, and that this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Religious Right distorting the work of real, honest researchers.  That petition, again, is at Change.org, so check it out and sign it.

The other petition comes from Kathy Baldock, and focuses on the pride celebration in Charlotte, North Carolina.  If you’re not familiar with Kathy, she is a straight, evangelical woman who spends her days fighting for dignity and respect for LGBT people within the church.  At Charlotte Pride, as usual, the vehemently anti-gay activist Michael Brown has planned a counter demonstration called “God Has A Better Way.”  Brown has a distinct pattern of pretending that he is reaching out in love to LGBT people, and somehow managing to send some of the most grotesque, hateful messages possible to the gay community.  Kathy explains a bit more about the message of the God Has A Better Way people:

The stated beliefs of the backers of GHABW * with respect to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are:

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are a deviation from God’s best, God’s intentions and His design.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people can change orientation and be heterosexual with no negative effects.

If they do not succeed in orientation change, they should remain celibate in order to identify as Christians.( “Gay Christian” is always placed in quotation marks to dismiss the existence of gay Christians.)

The majority of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are inherently unhappy, unhealthy, sexually immoral or rebellious to the will of God.

Transgender people would best follow God’s plan by using hormonal therapy, prayer and counseling to overcome the issue of gender identity. Sexual reassignment surgery should never be used as an option.

Acting on same sex attraction is sinful and indicative of non-submission to God.
Same-sex attraction is a behavior, not an orientation.

In your face hateful, as usual.  These people, of course, claim that they are bringing this message in “love,” but Michael Brown has shown repeatedly that his concept of “love” is warped at best.

Sign Kathy’s petition to ask the group to cancel their nasty little counter rally here.

What is it this year with anti-gay GOP presidential hopefuls openly declaring their love for very, very gay things?  First it was Michele Bachmann queening out over Glee, possibly the gayest show on television.  Now we have Tim Pawlenty offering, seemingly apropos of nothing, his opinions on which Lady Gaga songs are the best:

In an … interview, Pawlenty told the ladies of Glittarazzi (totally unprovoked, by the way) that he loves Mother Monster, despite her weirdness and her politics. Pawlenty even said he’d watched Gaga’s HBO concert special.

“I have a question for you guys, are you ready? What’s your favorite Lady Gaga song?” The ladies made their picks before Pawlenty egged them on, “How about ‘Born This Way,’ the new one, you like that?”

The former governor of Minnesota is apparently a fan.

“In terms of the beat, you know, I like ‘Bad Romance.’ I gotta say, even though she is a little unusual, ‘Born This Way’ has got some appeal.”

Okay, so he likes “Bad Romance.” I like that one too. And I like the “Born This Way” song. Unfortunately, Tim just doesn’t seem to understand that, though it is just a mere pop song, the lyrics to “Born This Way” are actually scientifically sound. David Gregory confronted him about it yesterday on Meet The Press,* and the exchange went like this:

GREGORY: Is being gay a choice?
PAWLENTY: Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, scientists work on that and try to figure out if it’s behavioral or if it’s partly genetic –
GREGORY: What do you think?
PAWLENTY: Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard.
GREGORY: So you think it’s not a choice? That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you’re born that way.
PAWLENTY: There’s no scientific conclusion that it’s genetic. We don’t know that.

And here is that video, if you want to watch it for some reason:

Okay so, of course, the science is not in dispute. Tim Pawlenty presumably either knows this and is pandering to bigots, or he needs to spend a little time with Google and learn about these things. Or he could just read what Zack Ford said on the subject yesterday:

In fact, there is no dispute among health professionals. All major medical professionalorganizations agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American Psychological Association, the world’s largest association of psychological professionals, describes sexual orientation as “a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.” There is considerable evidence to suggest that biology, “including genetic or inborn hormonal factors,” plays a significant role in a person’s sexuality.

So there you go.  If you’re going to “defer to the scientists,” Tim, that’s what they say.  When the Religious Right talks about how they haven’t found a “gay gene,” they are either being scientifically ignorant or willfully deceptive, or both.

*The fact that I am typing words right now about a conversation that happened on Meet the Press between a journalist and a presidential candidate on the subject of Lady Gaga is absolutely insane.  Reminds me of the great 1992 Color Me Badd debate between Poppy Bush and Bubba.

There are gay conservatives.  I know this.  When I have the sense of humor for it, I try to read their words and figure out where they’re coming from, and how they got there.  There is a common, oft-repeated complaint among gay conservative bloggers and pundits [all three of them] that the Big Gay Left constantly carries water for other liberal causes.  They assume that this is something that happens without forethought, which is always strange to me, because liberalism and LGBT equality go hand in hand.

Indeed, it’s actually conservatism, with its competing strains — disproven economic theory meant to serve Wall Street and Wall Street only vs. libertarianism which hates Wall Street; making the government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub, as Grover Norquist so famously said vs. a social conservatism that hates democracy and seeks to use the government to damage the lives of LGBT people and women from coast to coast, and so forth — that is anything but an aligned movement.  Liberalism?  Not so much.

Amanda Marcotte highlights this in a larger post about John Edwards’ troubles, lamenting just how sucky it is that Edwards has turned out to be such a giant ass in his personal life, as his presidential campaign was one of the few in recent history which actually tied together all the different arms of liberalism into one defining philosophy, and who explained it in terms that made sense to the average voter.  And it really is one defining philosophy. She outlines the three major arms of liberalism and starts to connect the dots:

1) Economic justice. This is labor movements, anti-poverty initiatives, fair taxation, health care reform, social services, government that is functional, etc. Anything that helps secure the middle class, bolsters the economy, and lifts people out of poverty.

2) Social justice. Feminism, anti-racism, gay rights, anti-colonialism, things like that—anything that divides people against each other on the basis of identity hierarchies.

3) Environmentalism and rationalism. Preserving the planet, promoting science, basically using the now to work towards a better tomorrow.

Obviously, a smart person sees how these are interrelated and that you really fail at anti-racism if you don’t think about poverty and that you’re not a good environmentalist if economic justice isn’t part of your worldview, and you’re not an effective feminist if you treat science like it’s a lark.

They really all do go together. I’d add that you’re not really going to understand the gay rights struggle if you aren’t a rationalist who believes in science, and you’re not going to understand the need for marriage equality fully if you don’t understand the real economic results of policies that serve the whole population well — as opposed to just those at the top. This seems like a good time to point out that gay conservatives tend to be upper-middle class white men, or those who dream of one day being so, and are willing to overlook where they actually are in service of who they might be, maybe one day, if things go well for them. And Amanda’s right — there are a million other intersection points between those three arms.

One thing I’ve been encouraged by over the past year has been that, more and more every day, Truth Wins Out readers are coming from more and more diverse areas out of the greater liberal spectrum. Surely there is a huge case to be made for why moderates and conservatives should also support equality for LGBT people, as there is really no philosophy aside from theocracy that it doesn’t fit into. But for those who wonder why educated gay rights activists also tend to support the rest of the planks of liberalism as well, well, now you know why.

Joe has an amazing quote from Tom DeRosa, the executive director of the Creation Studies Institute.  Read it slowly, and maybe out loud in a funny voice [Foghorn Leghorn?], so you can take it all in:

“From the patriarchal days of Sodom and Gomorrah to the Law of Moses to the New Testament, God’s Word consistently declares that homosexuality is sin and warns of the condemnation it brings to the individuals who practice it and to societies that promote it. Indeed, the rampant teaching of evolution in our schools that is effectively undermining belief in God and absolute moral standards is not only creating an atmosphere of ‘tolerance’ for homosexuality, but for just about anything.

“As the truism goes, ‘Without God, everything is permissible.’ So, in reality, there’s nothing to prevent the same rationale being used today to justify homosexuality and homosexual marriage from being used tomorrow to sanction polygamy or pedophilia or, as one very honest evolutionist wrote a while back (a piece that quickly disappeared from public view), if evolution is true, then rape is a very valid and/or efficient way for a man to spread his genes. After all, why not? It’s the survival of the fittest. Of course, in a purely evolutionary world, homosexuals would naturally be bred out of existence, as well. But you won’t hear that from pro-evolution advocates.”

You see, teaching evolution, even though it is established scientific fact, creates an “atmosphere” that makes it okay to be gay.  Also, slippery slopes and false claims about morality coming from God, etc.  Tie it up with a truly stupid statement which shows just how little this “creation science” guy understands evolution, his personal boogeyman, about homosexuals being “bred out of existence” — as if science is that simple — and you have one of the best wingnut quotes I have ever seen, at least this week.  But it’s only Monday.

I suppose that NARTH was jealous that Exodus was the only “ex-gay” business being humiliated this week, and decided to thus reassert their relevance in a world that cares less and less each day.  NARTH persistently misrepresents the research of noted geneticist Francis Collins [who happens to be an Evangelical], and Collins has the audacity to respond to it forcefully, so therefore NARTH will stomp their feet like this:

The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is once again attacking the veracity of noted geneticist Dr. Francis S. Collins. For a review of the history of this issue, please see the summary and links in our previous post. The original NARTH article that started this is “Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,” Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project” from 2007.

This latest effort comes in the form of an article identified as submitted to the NARTH website by David C. Pruden, NARTH’s Vice-President of Operations. We will assume from here on out that Pruden is the author unless or until we receive information to the contrary. In it, this writer is painted as having wooed Dr. Collins into making statements favorable to a pro-gay position by “misinforming” him about NARTH. Supposedly, by not telling him what a good and wholesome organization it is (cough), we hoodwinked Dr. Collins into perverting the science in our favor.

That is how sneaky gay bloggers are! All we have to do is snap our fingers and the leading scientists of the nation do what we say! Come on, now.

David Pruden provides no evidence, or clear argument to support that I “misinformed” Dr. Collins. Dr. Collins is a smart man and can clearly draw his own conclusions. The latest article is defensive and divisive, providing nothing new. Furthermore, Pruden’s claims are not relevant because XGW is not responsible for “representing” NARTH in a way that fits their own PR. I simply asked Dr. Collins questions and he answered after reading the original NARTH article himself.

[...]

Dr. Collins stated that the words used in that NARTH piece were “juxtaposed in a way that suggest[ed] a somewhat different conclusion than [he] intended.” If Pruden had a beef with that, then why point fingers at me, rather than just go to the source?

And on and on it goes.  Read the whole thing, because it’s a demonstration of just how little of a commitment to or relationship with the truth NARTH [and all related ex-gay religious extremist organizations] have.  They simply lie, and they hope that people are dumb enough not to notice.

Well, this is a tragedy:

In a recently released song titled “Born This Way,” pop singer Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, better known to her fawning fans as Lady GaGa, promotes the cultural myth that aberrant sexual behavior is based in biology.

The most-oft repeated lyric in the tune is “I was born this way.” In the song Lady GaGa sings, “I’m beautiful in my way, ‘cause God makes no mistakes.” In later lyrics she makes it clear the intent of the song when she repeats, “Don’t be a drag – just be a queen.” The play on words is an obvious reference to homosexuality.

Good job, wingnut!

As the song progresses, Lady GaGa becomes more overt in asserting there is a genetic basis for homosexuality – really for all aberrant sexual behavior. The lyrics continue: “A different lover is not a sin,” and, “No matter gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered life, I’m on the right track baby. I was born to survive.” The song concludes by repeating the lyric, “I was born this way.”

As much as I hate to say it, Lady GaGa’s got a better grasp on the science than the Louisiana Baptist wingnut.

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic,” President John F. Kennedy once said. “Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

Sounds like a good description of fundamentalist Christian mythology.

Full text available to premium subscribers only.

Oh, that’s too bad.

I had never heard the song before, so here it is!