Thursday, July 06, 2006

Help Me With a Quote

Somebody help me find the source of this quote, OK?
"For nearly three decades, it has been known that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Medical and mental health professionals also now know that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be altered. Groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called conversion therapy are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to those they say they are trying to help."

American Psychological Association Executive Director Dr. Raymond Fowler.

I can find this quote in dozens of places on the Internet, but I can't find where Dr. Raymond Fowler said this. Please email me or put something in the comments, if you know where this quote came from.

Preciate it.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could not find the quote you are looking for but I did turn up this.

Dr. Raymond Fowler, CEO of the American Psychological Association, says that his interpretation of the APA's position on gender-affirmative therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client's right to self-determination.
Reported in "1999 NARTH Conference, Speech by Brent Scharman," the NARTH Bulletin, December 1999.

July 07, 2006 10:58 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Of course Anon, you can find that quote on the Concerned Women for America and every other rightwing site. Now see if you can find the place where he explains what he meant by that.


July 07, 2006 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The APA is too goddamn politically correct...and too goddamn obeisant to special interests!" said Robert Perloff, 1985 President of the American Psychological Association.
Dr. Perloff delivered those uncensored remarks during a rousing speech to psychologists at the 2001 APA Annual Convention.
In an expression of public anger and frustration, Dr. Perloff condemned the APA's one-sided political activism. Of reorientation therapy with homosexuals, he said: "It is considered unethical...That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research." (1)
Dr. Perloff is a recipient of the American Psychological Foundation's Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychology in the Public Interest. In bestowing the award, the Psychological Foundation recognized Perloff for his noted "love of social justice" and his career-long struggle to champion "the rights and dignity of women, minorities, and homosexuals."
But, Perloff asked, "How can you do research on change if therapists involved in this work are threatened with being branded as unethical?"
Contacted by NARTH, Dr. Perloff added the following comment in an interview:
"I believe that APA is flat out wrong, undemocratic, and shamefully unprofessional in denying NARTH the opportunity to express its views and programs in the APA Monitor and otherwise under APA's purview." (2)
(1) "Same Office, Different Aspirations," APA Monitor on Psychology, December 2001, p. 20.
(2) Dr. Robert Perloff, personal correspondence to NARTH, February 15, 2002.

July 07, 2006 11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was just thinking that Dr. Raymond Fowler might not have said that, and has been fraudulently miss quoted. That is one of the problems of the Internet is that people can print what ever they want. The source you are looking for might not exist.

July 07, 2006 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Third, you're barring research."

This is the important point. How can say reparative therapy has been proven ineffective? Theoretically, you could say that no method has yet been found effective (although I would debate that) but science can never prove something cannot be done.

This whole idea that reparative therapy has been proven impossible is another Twist The Fact (TTF) tactic by the fringe lunatic gay advocacy movement.

July 07, 2006 11:34 AM  
Blogger digger said...

Unnamed anonymous said:

"fringe lunatic gay advocacy movement."

Don't call names; it's not polite. Also, it doesn't help you make your point, regardless of how it makes you feel.


July 07, 2006 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'd love to make a civility pact but TTF just won't have it. Everyone who disagrees with them is "nuts", "wacko", "bigot" and "blah-blah". Think you can talk them into it?

July 07, 2006 1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"every client's right to self-determination"

Jack Kevorkian used to think his patients had a right to self-determination too, but he seems to have changed his mind.

July 07, 2006 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm"

Even in this theoretical quote from this guy, the harm is all in a person's head and completely hypothetical. No data, no studies, just...well, it MIGHT make 'em feel bad.

July 07, 2006 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

digger said...
Unnamed anonymous said:

"fringe lunatic gay advocacy movement."

National Coalition of Gay Organizations,
Gay Alliance toward Equality,
Gay Youth Caucus,
Gay PAC,
International Lesbian and Gay Association,
Project Truth, and

To name a few.

July 07, 2006 5:36 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

OK, Anon, you made me go to the Google. I thought you had me for a minute there. Now, I don't like to say it, but you've pissed me off. This is the kind of thing that makes me sorry I'm even part of this conversation.

National Coalition of Gay Organizations -- seems to have existed in 1972, no mention of them since.

Gay Alliance toward Equality -- Canadian group formed in 1971, ran a candidate in a provincial election in 1979. Anything since then? No.

Gay Youth Caucus -- Apparently existed in 1979, no evidence of them since then.

Gay PAC -- seems to have been a club at Cornell University, perhaps as recently as the 80s. Most Google entries under this are jokes of one kind or (like "gay Pac-man") another or references to various gay political action committees, but none called that, that I can find.

International Lesbian and Gay Association -- Wow, there you go! An active group, gay even! Congratulations. From their web site: The International Lesbian and Gay Association is a world-wide network of national and local groups dedicated to achieving equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people everywhere. I see they're active in protesting homophobia in Iran, Afria, Phillipines ... Anon, it doesn't look like they threaten you too much -- I don't see a mention of a single event here in the USA. Well, I guess they might do something, but it looks like they work with the UN in some way. I see a mention where they kicked out some pedophiles back in the nineties.

MARTIJN -- Oh-oh. A common Dutch name, it looks like, millions of hits on Google ... nothing about gay people ... OK, here it is, MARTIJN disbanded in 1989, but another group formed called "Vereniging MARTIJN." They are pedophiles. Nothing to do with gay activism, or whatever you said. These are Dutch pedophiles, nobody wants them around, and there's no indication they're gay.

Project Truth -- Most "Project Truths" are either churches or police investigations. I see mention that there was at one time a pedophile group called that, but it doesn't appear that they exist at this time, or ever, really, in any force. Can't find any reference to any gay organization, though.

NAMBLA -- A creepy group of pedophiles. As Wikipedia explains, Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and inquiries are rarely responded to. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings and few local monthly meetings. Is the lobby that you say is influencing all these judges?

Look, Anon, you jerk, these last three are not gay groups, they're pedophiles. They don't represent gay people any more than some idiot molesting his stepdaughter represents hetereosexuals.

I thought for sure you'd be able to list some extreme gay group, and I find it really kind of interesting that you couldn't. The first four of these groups existed in the 70s and 80s, the fourth one is an international group that works with the UN, and the last three are pedophiles.

Really interesting.

And I know you won't find what you said, you'll look all year for that gay activist judge that you're so sure is, uh, legislating from the bench.


July 07, 2006 7:58 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

BTW, Anon's comments here, and my reaction to them, are a continuation from the discussion HERE.


July 07, 2006 10:49 PM  
Blogger digger said...

Anonymous said...

I'd love to make a civility pact but TTF just won't have it. Everyone who disagrees with them is "nuts", "wacko", "bigot" and "blah-blah". Think you can talk them into it?"

He said it first, or she did it to me first, is never a good reason for our own misbehavior.

St. Paul enjoined us, when confronted with other peoples' sins, to look to our own behavior, and lead exemplary lives Rom 2:1-3)

Summer school is over. 5 weeks of vacation. Yah hoo.


July 07, 2006 11:16 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

The ACLU is defending NAMBLA in a suit brought by a the parents of a kid who was killed by wackos (gay pedophiles) who got advice on how to seduce children from the NAMBLA web site (still up, apparently).

Do you support the ACLU, Jim ?
And because the ACLU is using money to defend this horrendous organization (national man boy love assocation) do you also then support by default NAMBLA ?

And another interesting question, since you think it is okay to use the words "anal sex" in front of a 3 year old, at what age do you think it is okay for that child to began having sex ? 10 ?
And what should the acceptable age delta be between consenting kids and their partners ? 2 years ? 5 years ? And if these partners are the same sex, is that also okay ?
I mean, if a 16 year old boy is having feelings for his 10 year old cousin, is that okay for them to experiment if they both consent ?

Exactly where do you draw the line Jim....

because as far as I can tell, you don't have any rules.

Also, I want to know how you would deal with the situation I just encountered.

I have my 10 year old son's friend Tommy at the beach with us this weekend. He saw, because my almost 16 year old daughter left them out in the car, her tampons. He has only one male sibling, and has seen these in his mom's room but doesn't know what they are.
My son knows (kind of) because he shares a bathroom with two older sisters and therefore, this discussion about menstration happened already. No specifics, quite general.

My son, having been firmly told that he was NOT to explain to anyone else what he knew, simply responded that Tommy should ask his mom, it was a "girl thing".

do you believe it is okay for kids to discuss sex and at what age ?
do you believe we can tell kids that this is "private matter" to be discussed with their family or do you believe this should be openly discussed regardless of the circumstances ?

Just curious.

July 08, 2006 4:00 AM  
Anonymous Tish said...


Health-care professionals everywhere agree that jumping to conclusions is not an aerobic exercise.

First of all, where do you get this thing about anal sex and three-year-olds? As I recall, you pulled your children out of public school because you found out that the health teacher would tell the fifth graders to ask their parents about it if a child put a question about anal sex in the question box. You complaint was that an adult would say those words (anal sex) to a fifth grader, ignoring the fact that in your scenario, it was the fifth grader who brought it up.

OK, so from that have you concluded that Jim goes around saying "anal sex" to the various three-year-olds he encounters? From that, that he, or we, consider 10-year-olds to be sexually mature? That the only options are refusing to discuss sex or open discussion, "regardless of the circumstances?"

Please get a treadmill or join a gym; there are better ways to elevate your heart rate.

The proper age to tell boys about tampons is the age they are when they ask. The proper age to tell children about sex is the age they are when they ask. I am getting the vague idea that you think that telling boys about tampons will somehow "sexualize" them, and that telling children about sex will cause them to go out and have sex right away. I hope I am mis-reading you.

I have a 24-year old daughter, a 12-year-old son, and a 10-year-old son. There have been tampons in the family bathrooms all of my sons' lives. They ask what they are; we tell them. They take them apart to use the tubes in their construction; I say, "Look, guys, I told you, I need these things. Don't play with them." this is not a big deal.

I'm getting the impression that your use of "private" connotes "unmentionable," or "unspeakable." I cannot imagine a family in which tampons are treated as something to be kept secret, or worse, treated as though they are dirty.

If someone else's child asked me what a tampon is, I would tell him that it is a "grown-up lady thing" and leave it at that. Your son did the same thing. How, exactly, is one 10-year-old asking another 10-year-old about tampons, and the second one not telling him, "talking about sex"?

Theresa, I know that you're terrified of your children; you've been very clear about that. I feel sorry for you, really I do, because it takes courage to parent children, especially through the pre-teens and teens. Your children are going to grow up, no matter what you do. Growing up comes with a bottomless bag of questions and it's our job as parents to understand that the questions are natural and to answer them in age-appropriate ways.

July 08, 2006 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Christine said...

The ACLU also supports skin heads who believe homosexuality is a sin just like members of CRC do. Does that mean the CRC supports skin heads and the ACLU by default?

I don't know about "consenting kids" but here's a table that lists the "Age of Consent" in most countries around the world and US states.

The average age of consent worldwide is 16. There's a pretty wide range, from a low of 12 in Canada, Mexico, Panama, the Philippines, Uruguay, and Zimbabwe to a high of 21 in Madagascar. Within US states, the range is from a low of 14 in Iowa, Missouri, and South Carolina to a high of 18 in Arizona, California, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The 7 states with the highest age of consent include 4 red and 3 blue states while all 3 states with the lowest age of consent are red. Do you think US citizens should be able to have sex at 14?


July 08, 2006 10:42 AM  
Blogger Theresa said...

"First of all, where do you get this thing about anal sex and three-year-olds? As I recall, you pulled your children out of public school because you found out that the health teacher would tell the fifth graders to ask their parents about it if a child put a question about anal sex in the question box. You complaint was that an adult would say those words (anal sex) to a fifth grader, ignoring the fact that in your scenario, it was the fifth grader who brought it up."

Misreprentation Tish.
I pulled my kids out of public school because I found out, among other things, that the teacher would read a question "what is anal sex" to the entire health class if one kid wrote that question down. Actually, in health class they will read ANY question regardless of the question, to the entire health class at age 10/11.
As I pointed out at the time, that is bringing all the kids to the "most corrupted' - in my terms" "most educated" - in yours level.

It is a really stupid policy that I am surprised you agree with.

the rest of your post is a personal attack, something liberals resort to when they don't have a good argument to respond with (frequently).

I will not bother to respond. '

But I am surprised that both you and I agree that it is not appropriate to educate a child in your care about questions that come up about sex ed ? So why do you think it is okay for the state to ?>

July 08, 2006 12:14 PM  
Blogger JimK said...


A couple of days ago you were a tear about gay people donating blood, and you asked what I thought about it. I had not given it much thought, but did some reading, and gave you a thoughtful answer. I was very interested in hearing what you would say, but you didn't respond. Now you come back with another question about what I think and a bunch of stuff about kids where I really don't understand what the problem is supposed to be -- apparently menstruation is a secret in your house? OK, whatever. I'll answer your question. Again, this is purely my own thoughts on this, I have never heard of this case before and don't intend to become obsessed with it.

The thing I like about the American Civil Liberties Union is ... American Civil Liberties. The paradox of our freedom is that sometimes the bad guys have to get away, for the good of all of us. The laws need to be written in such a way that it is clear when they are broken, and the Bill of Rights must be supported in every instance, and that's where the ACLU comes in. If the cops could break down everybody's door and search everybody's house and listen to everybody's phone calls whenever they wanted, it is possible that every criminal would be caught and every crime would be punished, but we need to protect against that happening -- it's the thing we call "freedom" and are so proud of.

In this case that you link to, a guy read some NAMBLA pamphlets or something, went out and kidnapped a 10-year-old boy, choked him to death, and molested his corpse. Then he blamed NAMBLA.

In the courts of law, I'd say there's a reasonable argument to be made that this guy is a deranged, dangerous, perverted killer. Saying that he did these things because of something he read is nuts. Normal people read all kinds of things without losing their grip on reality. Further, most of us have not had NAMBLA literature forced on us, he must have sought it out somehow. If NAMBLA is guilty of a crime for publishing this heinous stuff, then what about other authors who write about criminal behaviors? We are guaranteed freedom of the press from the beginning, and it has been challenged many times. Great authors have been banned, and after lawsuits their books are allowed -- Mark Twain, James Joyce, DH Lawrence, Vladimir Nabokov ... There would be no way to draw the line.

Instead, our government assumes that ink on a page is not a hazard, and insists that only people whose behaviors break a law can be prosecuted. The principle is an extremely important one, all our lives are better for it, but sometimes a bad guy will get away. That's the price we pay for our freedom.

The whole idea of NAMBLA is creepy, but they have the rights to free speech and to the press that the rest of us have. Catch them molesting a kid, they've got a problem.


July 08, 2006 1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

name us one "lunatic fringe gay advocacy organization," just so we know what you're talking about.

So I named several and now you want to quantify your request? No why don’t you get off your lazzy but and look a little harder thanks for the Winkipedia source. Btw they are pederasts not pedofiles. And all the groups were part of the gay rights movements officially until the mid 1990s so they qualify as gay rights groups. I don’t know how old you are but that is not that long ago in my book. And it is not like they were kicked out of the gay rights movement because thy were not gay but form political pressure. "Gay author and activist Edmund White made the statement in his book States of Desire: "That's the politics of self-indulgence. Our movement cannot survive the man-boy issue. It's not a question of who's right, it's a matter of political naivete."" This is historical fact. If you want to reright history you had better wait till thouse of us who were alive then are all dead. Your mad am I suppose to be afraid or something.

not untill 1994, did the International Lesbian and Gay Association banished all connections to the North American Man-Boy Love Association in order to gain consultative status in the United Nations, Alen Ginsberg publicly opposed the move (together with modern gay rights founder Harry Hay). He stated that he supported NAMBLA's right to free speech, and that the hysteria over pederasty reminded him of the hysteria over homosexuality itself while he was growing up.

ILGA had passed a resolution in 1985 which stated that "young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect."

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform consider this plank from the gay rights platform created at the 1972
Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

Republican Senator Jesse Helms proposed a bill to withhold $119 million in U.N. contributions until U. S. President Bill Clinton could certify that "no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children". The bill was unanimously approved by Congress and signed into law by Clinton in April 1994.

leading gay rights figure Harry Hay held a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA walks with me" as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.

July 08, 2006 4:34 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I know you find this very interesting, but it has nothing to do with anything we discuss here. If you'd like to talk about child-molestors, there's probably a place for it, but we have never addressed the issue on this blog (we're against it).

There were two problems with the groups you listed. Half of them don't even exist, and half of them were groups of child molestors, which is very different from being gay.

Most of the groups you listed are long gone. One is actually active, and I think there should be a group that objects when Muslin countries decapitate people for being gay. The goals of that group don't seem to be outside the mainstream, they're just looking after gay and transgender people's rights. I don't know much about them, but from what I saw they're not that extreme.

As for NAMBLA, as the Wikipedia notes, they're just hanging on by a thread. If a gay person joins the group or holds up their sign, just think how you feel when some jackass molests a little girl in the park -- assuming you're straight, does that guy represent you in some way? You may find it satisfying to conflate the two topics, but they are distinct.

Oh, and you might have noticed, I got off my "lazzy but" to quote the exact same source you quoted, earlier.


July 08, 2006 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the rest of your post is a personal attack, something liberals resort to when they don't have a good argument to respond with (frequently).

And what you just used is cheap tactive often used by conservatives when they've been beaten and are lost for words. Trying to save face by giving a completely false impression. Even a child could see through such pathetic attempts.

You started this discussion Theresa, so at least have the guts to finish it properly without resorting to hypocrisy.

July 08, 2006 6:17 PM  
Anonymous Tish said...

I knew when I typed the words, "I hope I am mis-reading you," that I was lobbing a vicious personal attack--part of the Liberals' stragegy of mercilessly offering opponents opportunities to clarify their positions.

Now, I know the difference between offering an off-hand answer to a 10-year-old in a private setting in which his parents don't know that the question has come up and teaching 11-year-olds, some of whom are menstruating, about women's natural body processes in a classroom setting in which:
• Parents have received written notification that the class will occur,
• Parents have been provided meetings in which the materials are available for review and teachers answers all questions parents have( even the parents who bring up anal sex)
• (I'm back to the classroom now) all participating students have written parental permission.

I see the difference pretty clearly.

Shall I explain it to you?

Very few fourth graders (10 years old) are dealing with puberty. But just a short year later, by spring of the fifth grade (when the average age is 11), it's starting to happen for several of the kids in every class. By the end of sixth grade, the ball is rolling, especially for the girls. A few of them are menstruating, and a few more are having noticeable breast development.

Kids need to know about these vital body changes before they happen. They need to understand what's happening and that it is normal. They need to understand that there is no reason to be embarrassed by changing bodies and changing voices, or even changing interests.

Girls who have noticeable early breast development can be subjected to really nasty peer harassment. I know a girl, well she's a young woman now, who was physically bullied by the older boys at Grace Episcopal Day School on Georgia Avenue in Silver Spring. In the fifth grade she was taller than the boys in her class and she was becoming curvy. Boys would come up behind her and reach around to touch her breasts, or pull up her skirt. During recess, she was knocked down and her blouse was pulled up. The boys were sixth graders who had become very curious about breasts.

The girl's parents never got an effective response from the staff. The staff regarded it as the parents' responsibility to talk to their sons about puberty, though they did advise the parents of this tall, shy, frightened girl that she was "attracting" the attention (because she was physically growing up faster than the other girls in her class).

I don't know about the boys, but I wonder if their parents were all claiming that their sons couldn't do such things because they were still children. Children grow into adults. They start young. They deserve honest accurate and complete information.

We can't stop bullying by providing sex-ed classes. If only it were so easy! But I, for one, will not allow my sons to grow up thinking that what is happening to them or to the girls around them is dirty, or embarrassing, or something to tease people about. By the time my son had his fifth-grade sex-ed class, he had already read "What's Happening To My Body (boys edition) and "What's Happening Down There." I also read them, and when ever he felt that he needed to talk about what he was reading, either my husband or I put down what we were doing and talked.

Kids don't get what they need through a few highly scripted, carefully timed sessions of "the talk." They get it from a dialogue we willingly and honestly share from the time of their first questions until we die. If my mother were still alive, she and I would be discussing menopause from time to time.

A few weeks ago I was driving my son and his friend to the pool. They are both 12. The friend said that if he had the money he'd really "pimp up" his bike. I said, "I know that you mean that you want to add a lot of flashy modifications to your bike, but that word has a very nasty meaning, and using it that way is saying something about yourself - something I don't think you want to say." Then I told them what a pimp is. I told them that I don't want to hear them use the word about themselves or about their stuff because I know they're too good for that.

If that friend asked me what a tampon was for, I'd tell him in a heartbeat.

July 09, 2006 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JimK I think this is important molesting children was part of the gay rights movement or to be more exact ending the age of consent laws was part of the gay rights movement. Is a pederast a sexual orientation? If so than law that protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation would protect pederasts. And, you cannot deny that pederast groups were part of the gay rights movement any more than you can clam that Allen Ginsberg was not gay. Lesbians are not gay nor are bi-sexual. Transgender people are also part of the gay rights movement. Or are you saying that only gay. Just because the big gay rights groups officially distance themselves from pederasts goals. Does not mean that it is not still an issue on the back burner. Don’t get me wrong I feel the same about the girl lovers Society. But as far as I know the girl lovers Society was not part of the gay rights movement. NAMBLA was. The gay rights movement did not kick them out because of what there goals were (ending the age of consent laws) they were kicked out because of political necessity.

July 09, 2006 4:08 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon ...

The "gay rights" movement that you refer to is an amorphous collection of people and groups who are working together to get equal rights for gay people. Sometimes they include transgender issues, in fact it seems that the two groups recognize that they face many of the same obstacles and work together toward overcoming them.

Child molestors are another thing altogether. Most child molestors are not gay, and most gay people are not child molestors. You seem to enjoy confusing the two things.

As to whether somebody kicked them out of something, I don't know, I wasn't there. If NAMBLA presents themselves as a gay organization, I'm sure it hurts their cause, and it doesn't seem like they have anything in common. I wouldn't want them around if I was trying to get rights for gay people.

I admit I don't know anything about it, and I'm the last person in the world to tell you what gay people want, but I can think of two issues that could legitimately be part of the gay rights platform. First, underage adolescents who know they're gay should have access to information and support. Second, the age of consent is an arbitrary thing, as someone mentioned, and there may be some interest in defining that, for legal reasons.


July 09, 2006 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for the record, as the anon who was posting on Friday, I made my last comment at 3:24pm that day. Didn't read or comment this weekend and still haven't had the time to go through it all.

July 10, 2006 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, if I do find time to read this weekend's activity and comment, I'll sign as "Original".

July 10, 2006 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I haven't read all the posts, I did skim and saw some discussion of NAMBLA. Just as a matter of history that some may not be old enough to remember, NAMBLA was fully embraced by gay rights groups as a logical part of their cause until negative publicity from the connections led to the success of Anita Bryant's campain in Florida in the 70s. The end of the association was more a political strategy move than anything else.


July 10, 2006 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah yes, Anita Bryant. This Miss America sweetheart tops the list of gay-haters on the timeline of the anti-gay movement assembled by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

July 11, 2006 3:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home