« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/21/2009

Audio: The law, science, and now HIV. At this point we don't even trust that her name's Regina Griggs

by Jeremy Hooper

We've already told you how the recent legal "win" that the PFOX organization has been crowing about for the past few months is anything but. Our pal Timothy Kincaid wrote a great assessment of it for Box Turtle Bulletin:

And, most importantly, the judge found that it is perfectly reasonable for the NEA to exclude PFOX. Because the NEA did not exclude them for being ex-gay, but rather because they have a disruptive political agenda that is contrary to that of the NEA.



The NEA did not reject its application because PFOX’s members include exgays, homosexuals, heterosexuals, or members of any other sexual orientation. Rather, NEA rejected PFOX’s application because PFOX’s message and policies were, in NEA’s opinion, contrary to NEA’s policies regarding sexual orientation.

...

So PFOX lost.



And their only “victory” was one that most gay folk would be willing to concede: that ex-gays should not be subject to discrimination just for being ex-gay but ex-gay political groups can be excluded because of their message.

FULL: PFOX Declares Victory in Court Defeat [BTB]

Essentially, the courts found that "ex-gay" people cannot be discriminated against, in general, because they identify as "ex-gay." And we are the first to say both "GOOD!" and "DUH!" on that one. "Good," because none of us want to see anyone discriminated against for any reason; "Duh," because it's a no-brainer that "ex-gays" cannot be targeted anymore than someone who thinks that they've changed into a piece of cornbread. No gay activist wants a target on "ex-gay" people as people.

But far be it for the professional "ex-gays" to look at a legal ruling in a rational, deeply considered way. Far be it to understand the truth of the reason why we, like credible science, resist their movement. Instead, they go on programs where the hosts will buy their ridiculous claim that they gay community is fearful of the "ex-gay" community, swallow their "thousands of ex-homosexuals" rhetoric wholesale, and negligently accept their INSANELY INACCURATE and HIGHLY OFFENSIVE claims that "71% of men having sex with men are HIV positive." Enjoy:

If you made it through the whole thing, we have to commend you. If you made it through without simultaneously laughing/throwing things at your computer, then you have the fortitude of Gandhi's more patient, zen cousin!

Oh, and as for Regina's insane lie of an AIDS figure is a bastardization of a 2007 CDC report? In actuality, the report says this:

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting),even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM

So what the report says is that of HIV infections among males in 2005, 71% were MSM. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING THAT 71% OF GAY MEN ARE HIV POSITIVE!!!!!!!!! AT ALL. Whether out of her own ignorance or a deliberate disregard for data, Regina Griggs is lying through her "ex-gay" loving teeth!

And it also should be noted that worldwide, MSM account for a drastically small number of HIV/AIDS cases. So while it may be convenient for David Barton and cohorts to use Regina's unfathomably insane figure to say that this "is the laws of nature telling you this ain't right," we have to wonder why, exactly, they also see their God as hating so many of the world's heteros!

Disturbing from start to finish.

Your thoughts

Doing a little number play: We know the U.S. population is 330 Million. So say we choose 6% gay overall, we get 19,800,000. Divide in half because we want to get the men only and we end up with 9,900,000 gay men. So if HIV infections affect 71% of the 9.9 million, it means 7,029,000 are infected. Something is a little wrong with the 71% number. I think someone pulled it out of their ass. The CDC puts the number living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. at 571,378. From the CDC report there are 22,472 Male-Male infections reported per year. Out of 9.9 million that comes out to about two tenths of one percent. Someone is telling an obvious fib.

Posted by: Tony P | Oct 21, 2009 2:39:32 PM

I see that the audio clip is from David Barton's WallBuilders outfit. The average person might assume that the name "WallBuilders" might refer to Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state. The reality is just the opposite - actually, they promote theocracy. Barton may be this country's leading historical revisionist promoting Christian Nation theory. According to their website, here is the reason they chose the name WallBuilders: "In the Old Testament book of Nehemiah, the nation of Israel rallied together in a grassroots movement to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and thus restore stability, safety, and a promising future to that great city. We have chosen this historical concept of "rebuilding the walls" to represent allegorically the call for citizen involvement in rebuilding our nation's foundations. As Psalm 11:3 reminds us, "If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?" I also noticed the audio's musical intro uses the words "liberty" and "freedom." The average person may not realize that when theocratic Christians use those words they mean THEIR God ordained authority to use THEIR liberty and THEIR freedom to dominate everyone else.

Posted by: Richard Rush | Oct 21, 2009 2:40:29 PM

Oh I see what they did. They took the CDC total. But it is definitely out of sync when you match it against the estimate of the number of gay or bisexual men in the U.S.

Posted by: Tony P | Oct 21, 2009 2:41:14 PM

Tony: No, see, the CDC figure says that 71% of 2005 infections were gay men, not that 71% of gay men have HIV/AIDS. Regina flipped the script. Make sense?

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 21, 2009 2:52:46 PM

I suspect that they are using some lie like 'there are 50,000 members of PFOX', and conflating that lie into the even bigger lie that there are 50,000 ex-gays. With the lying liars, no lie is too big. And... 250 groups of ex-gays in the SF Bay Area??? The PFUX website only shows two PFOX groups(??) in California, and none in the Bay Area. They are probably counting every single church in the area, and conflating that into a colossal lie as well. And, if these guys are any indication, then 71% of all lying liars are on the radio! But I do like their seque music.. almost makes you forget that you are listening to homophobic, hatemongering liars.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 21, 2009 3:01:14 PM

Tony, on the CDC site, they also show that well over half of the 571,378 cases are not MSM. A fact that dare-not-speak-it's-name in the ranks of the lying liars as well.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 21, 2009 3:20:12 PM

It's critically dangerous all over again to misrepresent HIV infections as a gay man's issue. It was no surprise to me that new infections also affect HETEROSEXUAL blacks and Latinos (traditionally disenfranchised minorities as well) at similar rates to those MSM. Griggs and Co as typical scare mongering leverage, utilize gay male only focus when it comes to convincing young gay men to change their orientation. It was the hetero population being convinced that gay males were the only ones who were at risk and the only ones spreading the infection, that also led to black women and men in particular, believing THEY had nothing to fear from unprotected sex. And it's cost lives for that irresponsible misreporting from the homophobes out there. Apparently not Griggs, nor the FRC or FOTF has studied the parallels of HIV/AIDS and marginalized minorities. There is much to be said about lack of access to sex ed, comprehensive information and preventive measures against STD's in inner cities because there is so little caring for said minorities. There can be, and with good reason, distrust of the medical and psychiatric establishment BY minorities because of well established and documented abuses.

Tuskeegee Experiment anyone? To name just one. In any case, this distortion of figures is unforgivable. I have a few points to make about the typical ways that people like Griggs, ex gay advocates and so on, can be so contradictory. 1. Heterosexuality is no cure, or natural immunity mechanism against HIV/AIDS.

Therefore, why should anyone with a brain expect that suddenly having sex with the opposite sex is an effective shield against the infection? Testing is advisable whether you're gay or not. So is using a condom. 2. People who are celibate don't procreate either. Although faith based opinion is that gay sex is a sin. A greater concern is either gay people abstain from sex altogether, or that gay sex cannot produce children. Whether you're gay or not, abstinance or celibacy doesn't produce children. So what does it matter WHAT orientation you are? I really, really, REALLY hate it that such prejudice lowers IQ's or that PFOX believes who they are talking to can be so stupid...or innocent and naive.

And the innocent and naive would be exactly why they want to target and influence school children and their educators.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Oct 21, 2009 5:37:29 PM

Le sigh. The whole 71% of gay men/71% of men with HIV thing is 9th grade math. Logic, you know . . . I find it hard to believe that not a single one of them passed 9th grade math . . .

Posted by: Charra | Oct 21, 2009 6:15:21 PM

Regan, that's what's so outrageous about this. It's not just that they're trying to fudge the numbers on HIV in order to smear gay men. As bad as that itself is, their deceptions also help propagate the notion that HIV is only a problem in the gay community, which is demonstrably not the case and is a very dangerous perception for the public to have. The fact is, people of either gender who have unprotected sex with men are more at risk of getting the disease than those having sex with women because men are the ones more likely to transmit it through sexual contact. So yes, men are more likely to contract the virus through sex with men than through sex with women. And women are more likely to contract the virus through sex with men than through sex with women. So if HIV is an argument against men forming same-sex relationships, it is equally an argument for women forming same-sex relationships! Not only are they lying about the statistics, but they're using their lies to back up an inherently illogical argument.

Posted by: Rachel Snyder | Oct 21, 2009 8:05:22 PM

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy