Someone recently wrote to XGW, requesting a copy of Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality.
FRC’s description of the booklet is not encouraging: It begins by claiming to refute homosexual “myths” that were never advanced by many homosexuals in the first place, or that haven’t been advanced in a decade or more. The description deteriorates from there — grabbing politically expedient factoids out of context from a hodgepodge of medical and professional journal articles, some of which are 16 years out of date.
At first I wondered how the authors of these journal articles would feel if they knew FRC was distorting their work for political purposes. Then it occurred to me that there may be a need for independent authorities to monitor partisan political groups — liberal and conservative — for the (mis)use of professional literature.
No authority could possibly be so objective as to hold opposing political groups equally accountable for the distortion of professional knowledge. But an authority could do something much simpler: Inform the authors of peer-reviewed studies when their work is cited in the media or by public-policy advocates. Authors could then act, or not act, as they see fit.
Exiting my daydream, I referred the booklet-seeker to FRC, but added that these recent and contextually accurate resources are available for free:
Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health (Dr. Gregory Herek)
Facts About Changing Sexual Orientation
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
Bibliography for Facts About Sexual Orientation
American Psychological Association
Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
American Psychiatric Association
Gay and Lesbian Issues
Addendum: An XGW reader writes:
Actually, people HAVE told original researchers that the FRC misrepresented their findings. At least one researcher, Nicolas Groth, wrote a letter condemning the FRC and asking them to remove all references to his study.
The reader noted Groth’s open letter to FRC and the Human Rights Campaign’s press release.
Groth notes that his studies concluded the opposite of FRC: Homosexual males present a lower risk of molestation than heterosexual males. The HRC press release notes that Timothy J. Dailey, the lead author of FRC’s “Getting It Straight,” is not a medical doctor or psychiatrist; his Ph.D is in religion.
My earlier point stands, however: There seems to be little organized effort to monitor political groups for the manipulation and distortion of science, and to inform researchers when their work is misused. Whether a researcher finds out, depends on how attentive each researcher is to every political group, and whether rival advocacy groups have the time to track down every fake fact or footnote issued by ideological extremists.
The person who asked me to send FRC’s booklet had read about it in the May issue of First Things, a conservative Catholic religion journal that spoke approvingly of the booklet. The journal author, Richard John Neuhaus, writes with a tone varying between thoughtfulness and sarcasm and, in his eagerness for pro-family factoids, apparently took no time to verify whether the “experts” really said what FRC claimed they said — or when they said it.
What’s terribly sad is that if one has any experience with the science and the research into the subject of homosexuality, based simply on the sources the FRC quotes in their excerpts from the book, you’d realize how tragically wrong and misleading their book happens to be. The first cite on their page is 11 years old, the last 16. Given the amount of work and data collected on sexuality alone, and homosexuality in particular, in the last two years — physiological, psychological and genetic — the Ph.D who authored the text should have his degree rescinded and the authors whose studies were cited should sue.
But then I’m wacky like that.
This is very strange. I have read this post a couple of times. Why would someone write to ex-gay watch for a copy of a publication from the “Family” Research Center.
Pardon me while my “this doesn’t make any sense” goes into overdrive.
John Diggs, MD IS a medical doctor and has dealt with many homosexual men in his practice. His booklet located at
https://www.sbministries.org/GaySexHealthRisks.pdf
is chillingly accurate medical information on how dangerous homosexual sex is. The writer of this opinion peice continues to perpetuate the obsession with death the gay community is trapped in. It would be a much better use of space to tackle the deep bondage crystal meth has on the gay community.
DL Foster
Actually, outside of noting the new rise in HIV infections among gay men, his pamphlet is far from “chillingly accurate.” He takes liberties with many of his sources, concluding that cancers and diseases present in HIV positive men are the norm for people who are not so, as well as citing several sources from the 70’s, sources since modified, in alarmist terms. His conclusions on the etiology are far from accurate, leaving out so much information as to render his conclusions partisan at best.
Best to just delete the PDF and move on.
The works of Dr. Hereks are no less politicised and misleading doublespeak than those he seeks to refute. While seeing this side may provide “balance” to the FRC publications, they put us no nearer to the truth of the matter. And more and more, the APA has proven it has no interest in finding that Truth.
Difference is, Marty, that Herek’s information is well sourced facts, backed up by data and research. The Ex-Gay folks never seem to understand that, and go to great lengths to get the information they present factually wrong.
I read FRC’s booklet when it came out this spring and found it as pathetic as you do. Thanks for the excellent review and links. btw Neuhaus is a luzer.
Sorry, Marty, but I have a hard time buying “research” from someone at the “Stephen Bennet Minstries” particularly the kind of drivel that Dr. Diggs is providing. There is nothing in what he says that means being gay = health problems. He brings up issues with promiscuity, which also affect straight people (remember, HPV, which causes cervical cancer, is the most commonly transmitted STD in America, and it’s largely a straight problem), specific sexual acts (ignoring the fact that being gay is far more than a sexual act, and that the risks of those sexual acts is identical for gay and straight people) and mental/health substance abuse issues. These latter issues, even though they are related to being gay, are not caused by our sexual orientation; they are caused by our rejection by family members and neighbors, by growing up in a society that tells us (or at least told us) we’re diseased, disgusting and immoral.
The most important piece missing from his analysis, which is the real difference between Diggs and Herek, is that the “pro-family” movement in general refuses to acknowledge that one can be gay, emotionally healthy, in a strong and loving relationship, and have a good life. There is no research that proves all gays are unhappy, miserable, disease-ridden people, but that is the stereotype that this “research” tries to promote.
CPT:
You are spot on. It is an article of faith to them that gay = death. It is on about the same level as that of the Trinity and the substitutional atonement. Really. Why do I say that? Because of the slavish wooden literalism they attribute to the “clobber texts” use to bash gay people. They take that interpretation of scripture and elevate it to the level of the central canons of the faith. They are not the first to do this. The anti-misogynist, segregationist, and pro-slavery heresies are all predecessors.
If the anti-gay crowd somehow doubted their perversion of scripture, even for a minute, they feel their faith will collapse like a house of cards. They have painted themselves into an ideological corner. At its core it’s an emotional stance. It is not assailable by logic. However, like the anti-misogynists, segregationists, and pro-slavery heresies, in time the anti-gay heresy will similarly fade.
>The most important piece missing from his analysis, which is the real difference between Diggs and Herek, is that the “pro-family” movement in general refuses to acknowledge that one can be gay, emotionally healthy, in a strong and loving relationship, and have a good life.
Well, of course the “pro-(some peoples’)-family” movement refuses to. If they were to, it would mean having to give up a lucrative source of funds.
Besides, they, and the sheep who they fleece, are too busy–uhh–kissing Hank’s ass. https://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv Certainly the fleeced sheep are.
This might be worth a read
“What Science Tells Us About Same-sex Unions”
https://www.theinterim.com/2004/apr/01whatscience.html
Marty:
Why is it that anti-gays like you can only focus on male homosexuals, and why is anal sex the only sex act you can focus on?
By your science, lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex.
And no, you can’t watch.
Marty, with out being needlessly cruel, do you time-share on those neurons or was the renovation of your axions conducted by the lowest bidder? Either way, you are getting gyped. That article says nothing about gay marriage.
Same immunosuppression occurs in the vagina. Hell, it occurs in the eye if you squirt semen into it (something my female straight friends indicate hurts about as much as it does gay males). But the two, anal sex and civil marriage rights, aren’t related. Your argument is specious and that’s being charitable.
Theology isn’t a science.
Sharon B, i honestly do not know why lesbains are less offensive to the general public than gay men. Perhaps it’s because lesbains don’t have bathhouses, or meet anonymously for sex in public restrooms and parks, and don’t habitually mix sperm with feces. Maybe it’s not so hard to figure out after all…
Marty:
Are you on the record as being more accepting of lesbians, then? Your retort seems to so indicate.
Three additional points:
1) As the gay males here can probably testify, the bathhouse and park phenom is a symptom more of promiscuity or sexual addiction; syndromes of irresponsible behavior that affect hetero as well as homo sexual communities. In the hetero community it takes form as prostitution, and other forms as I am sure you are well aware, and propriety bids me not address.
2) When the authorities “sting” the bathhouse and park scenes, an amazing number of allegedly ex-gay, bi-sexual, or nominally married hetero men are involved. This suggests a dynamic more complex than simple promiscuity explains, and is beyond comprehension as simply a gay issue.
3) I daresay, but cannot speak from experience, that anal sex is not the sole expression of gay male sex. It is also a confusion of a sex act with affection (love) that your argument manifests. You appear to abhor a specific sex act, which is not the sole expression of love between gay males. Is your abhorrence of gays based solely on a particular behavior? If the gay males do not enjoin in anal sex, is your objection to them removed? Or is it a flawed premise on your part that allows for no gay males to have genuine affection on a level independent of certain sex acts?
Furthermore, if your moral objection is against the behavior of anal sex; surely you realize it is not the exclusive enclave of homosexual men. Many heterosexuals engage in this behavior. Would you be against civil and religious rights for them? How would you empower the police powers of the state to investigate / enforce this?
All good and fair questions. Perhaps i’ll have time to address them soon, but i suggest we start a new thread. My blog or yours?
This blog is about ex-gays, and I would like for this discussion to be about ex-gay use or misuse of science.
The unflattering and bizarre caricatures of gay men in this discussion have not been linked to any legitimate science, nor do they seem particularly on-topic to me.
I believe they are appropriate for some other blog.
This question is for those who are against the “anti-gay” literature by FRC or the other ministries:
Do you know of any literature which you believe accurate that has all negative or mostly negative findings regarding homosexuality; or do you equate negative findings with falseness?
David Treibs,
Let’s not deal with hypothetical research. If you have specific findings to post for debate, then do so.
I’m not wanting to post literature, because I just started researching the topic, but I’m wondering if you know of any negative research that you accept as valid. I don’t know of much data on either side of the debate.
You are welcome to come back when you have found specific issues to discuss. If you do, you might want to find a more recent topic on which to post – this one is over two years old and mainly for reference.
David Treibs,
Literature that is all negative should be treated as suspect for two reasons:
1. No rational person thinks that all gay people behave in the manner described by negative stereotypes. So any piece that seeks to portray gay people as monolithic and only in a negative manner is by definition inaccurate. Just as a piece of literature that described Democrats or Methodists or Used Car Salesmen in all negative terms would by definition be inaccurate.
2. Those who compile anti-gay lists do not tend to be individuals that are searching for factuality. They start from a position of animus and are thus eager to believe and include anti-gay “research” no matter how patently ridiculous it is. They also tend to phrase things dishonestly. For example, although compelling scientific research indicates that for at least some gay people genetics plays a role in their orientation (currently it looks like several genes in conjunction), anti-gay activists will say, “there is no gay gene”. While technically “true” (there is no single gene that turns on orientation like a light switch for all people) the overall message is dishonest.
There may be some listing of negative portrayals somewhere that is factually correct (though inaccurate in its onesidedness) but I am unaware of any.
I suspect that you are wanting to find some list you can use to debase gay people and say “even the homosexual militants activists say its true”. While I would encourage you not to do this (because its immoral to do harm to your neighbor) I doubt I can stop you.
I just caution you to be very careful. Avoid any “research” by Paul Cameron as it is generally considered to be fraudulent. Also make sure that the person you end up quoting isn’t just passing through their statistics from a Cameron piece.
Also avoid “a homosexual activist said”, as you can find individuals who say just about anything. Also anecdotal stories (I had a woman tell me that gay people like rose scented perfume because she sat behind one in a theater once and he was wearing it) have little to no value. Also be wary of “statistics” that are geographic or time specific. For example “AIDS is a homosexual disease” may have been true in the USA in the 80’s and 90’s, but globally AIDS is overwhelmingly heterosexual and even in the US it is becoming more so.
In your quest to defame gay people, use caution and a healthy dose of skepticism. Otherwise you will quickly be disregarded as nothing more than an uninformed hater.
I hope this answers your question.
Oh, and I apologize if I misrepresented your intentions. I was pretty quick to assume and that may not have been fair.