Click here for a vintage homophobic hate tract from 1986. The comic book, by Dick Hafer, is titled Homosexuality: Legitimate, Alternative Deathstyle, and promises “the facts behind today’s headlines,” declaring that “what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home can hurt you!”
The back cover bears endorsements by evangelical superstar Beverley LaHaye (founder and then-President of Concerned Women for America) and the late Reverend D James Kennedy, a leading light of the Christian Right, who hails the book as “a very accurate portrayal of homosexuality and the problem which it poses to our nation and civilization.”
I wonder how many “respectable” anti-gay and ex-gay organizations would still publish stuff this bad if they thought they could get away with it?
Hat-tip to BoingBoing.
Well, on the bright side, according to this book, Lesbians like me are just fine.
I’m so tired of them getting frosted. Frosted about this, frosted about that, all this frosting and no cake.
The back cover bears endorsements by evangelical superstar Beverley LaHaye (founder and then-President of Concerned Women for America) and the late Reverend D James Kennedy, a leading light of the Christian Right
Wait a minute… there used to be an actual woman at Concerned Women of America?!
Don’t forget about Tim Todd Ministries’ “Truth For Youth” Bible which contains a variety of factually incorrect and scare-mongering comics.
https://exgaywatch.com/2005/08/afa-promoting-b/
Statistics get me off. So I just had to run some numbers based upon the 85% of gays first have sex with a man and 96% of straight guys first have sex with a woman. Assuming some truth to the stats (and no beastiality involved)….
So for the fun of it let’s just see how this figures up against your normative 100 gay men. So for every 100 gay men….
85 gay men first had sex with a man
15 gay men first had sex with a woman
So for every 100 gay men assuming a conservative 3% of men are gay. Then there must be a corresponding 3233 straight men. So based on the 96% we get….
3103 straight men first had sex with a woman
130 straight men first had sex with another man
For every 100 gay men [and 85 who first had sex with a man] there are 130 straight men who first had with another man!! That means a correspondingly greater number of straight men are having sex with men (assuming they aren’t first having beastiality) that there are gay men!!
Something has me thinking there are a lot more gay men out there than care to admit (or the LaHaye/Dobsons of the world would care to admit).
Wow, this is really kind of embarassing to think I was born in this decade…. ’89 so I guess at just the very tip…. But I think every person in america should read this book, if for no other reason than for people to know that homophobia is based on ideas that are…. well, frankly strange… I mean, the horror that gay guys kiss and *gasp* share saliva….well, that’s just weird, and although I can testify to the existence of promiscuity and fetish in the gay world, they are equally if not more prominent in the straight world… they are just more adament at keeping it hidden… I had some straight friends that were a couple, and they were into S&M… while i won’t say I’m blushing maiden in the sack… S&M is well… not my bag, and considering we’re a population whose self-respect and self-worth has been decimated for well on 1300 yrs. our meager forays into hedonism are still almost saintly. I mean really, we haven’t been respected as a community for nearly 2 millenea, and yet many of us (including me) still seek normal, hetero-esque monogamous lives…. and they still aren’t satisfied… it begs the question, just what the hell do they want from us?
This is off-topic, but I was just looking for a way to let you folks know that the website Opposing Views has a new debate up called Is Homosexuality a Sin? Opposing Views hosts debates between experts in a topic (“verified” insofar as they are confirmed real people with the jobs they say they have) and allows readers to comment on the topic and each argument made. The experts for this debate are Exodus International on the yes side, and on the no side Rick Brentlinger of Gay Christian 101.
I am in total shock. Is this comic for real?
I dunno – it’s not too far off what “porno pete” likes to spew … but I’d guess he doesn’t constitute respectable, even among the anti-gay crowd.
This is definitely going in my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars webpage timeline.
Michelle, you beat me to it–first thing I thought of was “Americans for Truth”! What I found particularly amazing was that some of those “disgusting” acts are acts that many straight guys enjoy women doing for them.
And Boo, good catch! 🙂
Oh, gag me. It looks like most of that bile came straight from the Paul Cameron “research” archive.
Beverly LaHaye is, I believe, still technically the chairman. She has been since she wrote her Christian sex book in 1979. She is now 79.
Women also hold the title positions for the organization but most of the visible policy work is left up to “like minded men”.
If McCain and Sara Palin (Assembly of God member) get into office, I think these kind of cartoons will find a new life. I checked out the Assembly of God’s website and their statement concerning homosexuality:
ASSEMBLY OF GOD – HOMOSEXUALITY
Highlights from the page include:
It should be noted at the outset that there is absolutely no affirmation of homosexual activity found anywhere in Scripture. Rather, the consistent sexual ideal in the Bible is chastity4 for those outside a monogamous heterosexual marriage and fidelity5 for those inside such a marriage. There is also abundant evidence that homosexual behavior, along with illicit heterosexual behavior, is immoral and comes under the judgment of God.
Don’t bother trying to argue with them on a theological level because:
An unbiased study of these passages makes it clear that Scripture consistently identifies homosexual behavior as sin. Not only do the Scriptures condemn more flagrant examples of homosexual violence and promiscuity, they also provide no support for the popular modern idea that loving and committed homosexual relationships between two long-term partners are morally acceptable. Homosexual activities of every kind are contrary to the moral commandments God has given us.
Maybe Sara and John should just use the cartoons mentioned in this blog topic as part of their campaign. If they win, these cartoonist might be raking in some sweet dough.
Alan, those Assemblies of God quotes don’t seem to be any more extreme to me than the guidelines used by the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, or any other conservative denomination, of which there are numerous politicians (both Republican and Democratic) in office. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that McCain and Palin would promote these kinds of cartoons or the views expressed within them, especially since so far neither of them have made social issues – including gay marriage – a noticeable part of their campaign. Instead they have mainly been focusing on the economy and the conflict in Iraq.
As one who spent my early years as a believer in the Assemblies of God but later moved to a non-pentecostal denomination, I can appreciate Palin’s similar path. Do we have any proof that she still considers herself A/G or even pentecostal? Not that this would bug me particularly, but we need to be as factual as possible — especially with all the lies flying around common to this period of an election year.
No matter which brand of faith she calls her own, it doesn’t necessarily mean she subscribes to every position espoused by it. Perhaps the ex-gay question will be asked of her during tonight’s interview, but I tend to agree with Obama that one’s family and personal faith should not be used as campaign fodder.
I’m not really sure what politics has to do with the post.
David,
This sounds ideal in theory, but I wonder how it plays out in real life? Once a person is in a position of power, things like “personal faith” can effect many people, because that same faith effects the decisions that person makes on everyones behalf. I think part of the price one pays to be a ‘public servant’ (now there’s a euphemism if there ever was one) is to be subjected to the electron microscope, to submit to examination before being chosen. If we could guarantee that that personal faith would be left out of the decision making process once that person is in power, then I agree that it shouldn’t be subject to rumination… but I don’t think we have any such guarantees.
Paul,
I hear you and even after writing my comment I thought of a few scenarios where such things might affect my decision on a candidate, but they would have to be pretty intense. Perhaps what we are dealing with here is a matter of degree, but I just don’t remember such extreme interrogation (and let’s face it, lies) over a candidate’s (particularly VP) personal faith and family before this election. It started with Obama’s pastor, though admittedly the statements in question were political not spiritual, but still) and now with Palin.
The last time I think we experienced accusations that a presidential candidate might allow their personal faith to interfere with the duties of the office was in 1960 and it was a presidential candidate, JFK. People then were concerned that the Vatican would have undue influence over US internal affairs. I’ve always heard that discussed as a rather embarrassing or shameful period, not something we would like to repeat. In any event, those fears did not materialize into fact, and I personally think JFK did a good job, human flaws and all.
I guess the best I can say is that I feel uncomfortable that the process of vetting candidates is rapidly approaching a time when no human being will be able to pass muster without successfully deceiving the electorate about issues which both share in common with most on the planet. We’ve had some pretty “human” presidents in the past and, strangely enough, they often did a rather good job.
Who knows, perhaps an equally intrusive beam of discovery would have ferreted out John Edward’s lousy nature during the 2004 campaign, but apparently even his later bid for president didn’t elicit the same scrutiny.
Jay:
Jay, I agree. But I just keep picturing in my mind that if she and McCain win, everything the gay community has struggled to obtain will be up in smoke, and we will be the ones literaly on fire.
Which for me is all the more to worry. By focusing our attention on Iraq and the economy, other issues are easily pushed aside and out of the limelight making it easier to push for legislation that could turn us from being second class citizens to third class citizens or outright outcasts.
As November draws nearer, I think we will see more of the anti-gay’s ugly head, and especially in California because of Prop 8. Cartoons are a great tool to get a weighted message across in a short amount of time. In our bumper sticker society where we cling to one-liners instead of thought out debates, it is easy to get people convinced of things that are not necessarily true. Especially in the realm of religious extremism.
My fear is not that they are necessarily making such cartoons and the like now, but that, should Palin & McCain win, we will see a resurgance of these things … on the internet, in the newspapers, probably even on t-shirts. In other words, it will be easier for those who hate homosexuals in the name of God to spread their hate to a vast majority of people making it easier to take away the fews rights we now have.