Ex-Gay Watch

Laumann and team termed it same gender attraction, and they did measure it and also sexual identification as well as behavior.

Actually, the stats are higher for men that had ever experienced some attraction to the same gender – 6.3%.

See for yourself – http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA311&lpg=PR9&dq=%22Laumann%22+%22The+social+organization+of+sexuality:+Sexual+practices+…%22+&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html

And John, stop insinuating that I’m a liar.

And John, stop insinuating that I’m a liar.

There you go again Karen, please calm down. I think he was questioning the study, not you. These sorts of surveys often times do tend to yield questionable results, and you were the one that said you would have to view what Warren said through the “lens” of his being “invested” in the issue.

I’ll try to look this up tomorrow and see how it stands. Depending on the questions asked, I can see the response being something like that. But with the kind of information that gets thrown around as fact, it is important that we request sources for statements such as this. Otherwise we could end up starting, or contributing to, bogus “facts.”

If someone else has the time and ability (and cares to), feel free to check it out. Just the facts, please.

Thanks for the cite.

Karen, I should have asked this earlier but could you explain the purpose of bringing this to the discussion? What point were you trying to make?

From a very brief scan, it seems they have recorded a percentage of people who have had sex with another of the same sex at some point as well as the percentage of those who actually have a homosexual orientation (or at least were comfortable at that time making that admission). I’m trying to understand your point. Thanks.

David, trust me, I’m calm.

John said, “I suspect these studies, particularly the direct question being asked, are being misrepresented.” Yeah, maybe he was just generally referring to all the many people out there who are talking about the Laumann study. I don’t think so.

I brought them into the discussion quite a bit ago in response to a comment of Emily’s that I may have (probably did) misinterpret. I think she said she was referring to change of orientation while I thought she was talking about lack of choice in behavior when one experiences attraction to the same gender. The point I would have been making is that (at least in this study) there are men and women who experience SSA and don’t go on to identify that as homosexual orientation.

Emily is the one who brought up science, and I think both of us kind of acknowledged it didn’t have a whole lot to do with the CT article.

Just so it’s out there publicly, now that I’ve read the full bill, I am also opposed to the 7 years imprisonment (or any imprisonment for that matter) for any of the behaviors cited in this bill. When I made my earlier post, I was only aware of the life imprisonment and capital punishment penalties.

Now I am leaving this thread, and it’s not because I think I am a victim. I’ve been on the receiving end of far uglier stuff than what was dished out here. It comes with the territory.

It’s because I sincerely wanted help in thinking through the whole idea of criminalization because I didn’t personally have clear answers, and if I do decide to try to do something in the Methodist Church (which would be in opposition to the bill) I need more wisdom on how to do that and what theologically to say. (Sociological information or passionate arguments from personal experience will not be enough.)

But that can’t be done here without a great deal of hostility directed personally toward me, and honestly, you guys who administer this site do little or nothing to mitigate that.

For the part that I played with my opening harsh post, I’ve already apologized, but will do so again if necessary. I’m sorry. But without an assumption of mutual good will, I don’t have time to sort through the rants to get to the parts that might “build bridges.”

Good for you, Ms. booth. you are opposed to crminal sanctions.

There’s a smart post over at Street Prophets about the curious timing of all this criminalization talk; if David Roberts doesn’t mind, I’d like to link to it:

http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2010/2/12/15308/7036

I think the author as a real point, both about the likelihood that this is being carefully orchestrated (whether or not every single participant realizes it), and about it’s potential for inciting violence.

A lot of information has come out in the last few years about the secret meetings that took place in the early nineties at Glen Eyrie Castle (near Colorado Springs), where professional far-right activists planned a centrally organized anti-gay PR campaign that was meant to look like a spontaneous grassroots movement. Thanks to Mel White and others, the transcripts of those meetings have been made available, and they have been exposed as the early astroturfing efforts they really were. (I’m sure none of this is news to the authors or readers of this blog, but I mention it anyway for context.)

I suspect there’s a trail of breadcrumbs here leading back to a small group of professional homophobes, and I hope that someone will follow it.

Ben, thanks for the compliment, which I return.

The time for debate and discussion over the Uganda legislation was a year ago, not now. Karen Booth’s belated efforts to drive the bill’s opposition in endless circles should be ignored.

And the time for debate about criminalization in the U.S. ended even longer ago. There is nothing to be gained by reopening matters that have been settled in the favor of liberty for all.

Karen Booth,

You did misrepresented both Lauman’s book as well as the Hunter College poll. You did so in your first posting and then did it again in your clarification. This would be the clarification when you told me to stop insinuating that you are a liar.

In the Hunter poll the words “same sex attraction” do no appear once in the 37 pages. Further, the letters SSA only show up once as part of a citation that includes the word MaSSAchuessettes.

In the Laumann book, which I am not going to buy for $36 paperback to chase your particular diversion, the page that you link to does not contain the term “Same Sex Attraction” “SSA” or “Same Gender Attraction” or “SGA.” On page 311, there is a table, where one of the heading is “Sexual Attraction.” The following catagories are listed under the heading of Sexual Attraction: Opposite gender only, Mostly opposite gender, Both genders, Mostly same gender, and Only Same Gender.

The table is descriptive of who participants in the study are attracted to. It does not use the ex-gay invented pathologizing terms of Same Sex Attraction, SSA, Same Gender Attraction or SGA. These terms were invented by the exgay movement to label gay peolpe with a condition, Same Sex Attraction, that requires treatment. It is also used so that exgays can say that they aren’t gay, just suffering Same Sex Attraction, in an effort to give the false, untrue, dishonest impression that they were no longer gay.

SSA and Same Sex Attraction are terms that are only used by exgays, and they are meant to pathologize and insult gay people. Legitimate researchers and pollsters (ie. those not linked to the dishonest exgay movement) do not use these terms. I think it is a dishonest, untrue misrepresentation to imply that these researchers and pollsters share your pathologizing terms about gay people.

I apologize if anything in the above 5 paragraphs insuated that you are a liar.

After a short sojourn, we arrive back. And feel suitably ill.

Karen, if this is your honest opinion…

“I sincerely wanted help in thinking through the whole idea of criminalization because I didn’t personally have clear answers

Backed up by….

I haven’t read or heard anything persuasive from a Christian/Biblical/Theological perspective about the “criminalization” aspect.

… you stand condemned.

There will be no bridge to a person who needs ponder that question. That would be a bridge to my own persecution. It is not a question that should ever be posed.

Karen, you need to consider how grotesque your very questioning is. You have violated the Golden Rule from every point on the compass.

I am a person. I am not a debate. Take sides, or stand aside.

Thank you grantdael. A much shorter version of what I was trying to say.

I would like Ms. booth to respond to my post, but I don’t think she would. I’ve noticed that when you call these people on their easy solution to the Gay Menace, they either disappear or claim it wasdn’t what they meant.

I am glad to hear that she is opposed to imprisonment.

What are the chances that she will declare on her Transforming Congregations website that she opposes criminalization?

None.

What are the chances that she will emphatically oppose criminalization the next time a Christian Right “news” service asks her?

None.

What are the chances that under the pretence of “just asking a question” she will permit a putrid sewer to flow from her mouth?

Every. It’s how she operates.

The term Nasty Church Lady was invented for a reason, and I have no time for her type.

although I realize that this comment thread has been hijacked (and the focus taken away from what was said in Dave’s actual post), I’m surprised that nobody has commented on the way CT portrayed Scott Lively – as if he were involved in some kind of legit ministry.

They did so by avoiding any mention of what he actually believes and publishes on and speaks about.

CT has taken a very hard right turn over the past couple of years, but to mention Lively in this piece *and* to publish it unsigned is just…. typical, I guess, for the current editorial team.

It’s saddening, because in their less-read outlets (like Books and Culture), CT has actually been publishing articles where a lone voice (or two) in the wilderness has been speaking for the inclusion of gay people in churches – and not as “SSA ‘strugglers,’” either.

That all leaves me wondering what the hell is going on over there (and other things, too, but they’re not germane to this discussion….).

… a link to Books and Culture piece Handel – Another Gay Anglican? for your perusal…. I was genuinely surprised by some of the things the author said, in a good way.

@ Dave: well, the “immoderate editorial stance” started during the early days of campaigning for the 2008 presidential elections, which is hardly (imo) coincidental. And some of their slurs – for they are slurs – have been really awful. (An incredibly biased piece that claimed that 90% of African Christians practice “witchcraft,” for example… even though many African Christians – and others – protested both the form and content of the article, the editorial team refused to publish any retraction, apology, or *clarification.* I personally think the piece was not only poorly researched and presented – by choice – but openly racist, *and* it was planted in the mag/on the web at a crucial time for Obama’s campaign… a slur by implication, I believe.)

And yet, a few years ago CT was publishing anti-torture editorials, as well as pieces on the last Israeli war against Lebanon that were 1st-hand reporting and comment from Lebanese citizens (most of them Christian).

I’d love to know who highjacked the CT empire, and why… and where the money’s coming from. (Sorry to sound cynical, but I can’t help it, given the piece you linked to plus their recent willingness to publish an “editorial” by 2 prominent members of The Fellowship that basically trashed Jeff Sharlet and his research, albeit in a polite way.)