Believe it or not, I’m at low-risk for demonic possession.  That’s a surprise and relief.  More details coming soon.

How’s this for a plan:

1.  Send people letters and email, pleading for money to fight a terrible (yet non-existent) danger.

2.  Use that money to finance another round of dishonest pleas for money.

3.  Repeat steps 1 and 2, month after month, year after year, while taking a “management fee” for my efforts.

Nice, huh? Actually, I didn’t invent it. I’m trying to figure out if that’s what anti-gay activist Eugene Delgaudio is doing.

Eugene Delgaudio

Delgaudio is kind of a joke, known for extreme, over-the-top, even messianic fundraising appeals. On the other hand, he’s an actual elected official, and pulls in well over a million dollars a year in donations. He’s also in the news right now, because he rented the Weekly Standard‘s email list to send out an anti-gay fundraising request so appalling that the conservative magazine has actually issued a statement of regret.

For some reason, I’m on the mailing list for Delgaudio’s organization (“Public Advocate of the United States”). Last month he asked for money with a novel and ballsy approach. He was about to file his 990 with the IRS (a financial disclosure form) and he was short of his 2011 fundraising goal. This would devastate the nation:

If I fail to raise $46,359.17 by December 31st, I’ll be forced to broadcast our weakness and vulnerability to the Homosexual Lobby…

…if they see Public Advocate’s treasury depleted they will see an opening to ram through the Gay Bill of Special Rights, the Homosexual Classrooms Act and the repeal of DOMA…

No wonder they’ll be pouring over my finance report like demented hyenas cackling as they stalk their prey, ready to rip it to shreds…

Robert, that’s why your emergency gift of $50, $100 or $200 is so important.

Without it, the Homosexual Lobby will be able to show Public Advocate’s 990s to moderate politicians as proof there is no effective opposition to their agenda.

His chutzpah is breathtaking, as he pretends NOM, AFA, TVC, FRC and a host of anti-gay groups don’t exist. But that’s not even the ballsy part: Delgaudio is openly asking for money just for the sake of having money!

He’s not even saying what he plans to do with it. But that’s not important — all that matters is making sure everyone knows Eugene Delgaudio has your money. Literally, that’s his pitch.

Delgaudio’s been sending me junk for months, but it never occurred to me “scour” his 990s until he brought them up. Then I figured, Why not? What does he do with all this cash? I’m no accountant, but I can read a 990. Let me walk you through what I found. And I’ll try not to cackle like a demented hyena stalking its prey.    Read more…

I’m a dope, a patsy, a dupe. Or at least tragically naive: Somehow, it seems, I’m once again surprised by the unabashed dishonesty of our worst anti-gay opponents.

This time it’s Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons of NARTH, writing a long piece about same-sex adoption. It has a small section titled, “The children do suffer,” with this opening:

There are strong indications that children raised by same sex couples fare less well than children raised in stable homes with a mother and a father.

He brings up two studies to support this, one of them by Seton Hall professor Dr. Theodora Sirota, and then regretfully tells us:

Not surprisingly, there are scholars who oppose this weighty evidence.

I know something that might surprise Fitzgibbons:  One of those opposing scholars is — have you guessed? — Seton Hall professor Dr. Theodora Sirota, the source of his weighty evidence.

Actually, I take that back. Fitzgibbons won’t be surprised at all, because Sirota has already written to him, complaining that he has “mis-reported and misrepresented the results of my 2009 research in this blog.” Not surprisingly, Fitzgibbons has yet to correct his article.

I know this because Dr. Sirota (whom I’ve never met) contacted me herself yesterday, asking for help in exposing what he’s done.    Read more…

JoeMyGod alerts us to Paul Angelo, a gay matchmaker who wants us to stop having anal sex:

Angelo explains that receptive anal sex decreases self esteem by forcing the person to assume a submissive position during an act of pleasure. This confuses the brain to believe that a feminine-like behavior is appropriate for a man and in turn reduces the man’s assertiveness, confidence and will power.

I’m a little embarrassed for Paul Angelo. Apparently no one’s ever taught him that when you say stuff like that, you’re just revealing your own damn issues.

Actually, Paul does try to make a case for his, er, position. He  invokes neuro-linguistic programming:

The fastest way to increase satisfaction and self-esteem is to align the thinking with the position/movement of the body, commonly referred to as a mind-body connection. This is often achieved through physical exercise, meditation and affirmations.

For example, if you say to yourself – ‘yes I can do it’ and if you flex your arm, clench your fist and bend your knees all in one move – you get a strong feeling of power.

Poor Paul. Somebody needs to tell him that flexing your arm, clenching your fist, bending your knees, and saying, “Yes, I can do it!” is often how anal sex begins.

I'm butcher than a demon. And my cross is FABULOUSSS!

This is Reverend Bob Larson.  He makes (or has made) over $1.2 million a year. And for just $9.95 he will tell you if you have a demon:

Taking the Demon Test® may be the most important spiritual decision you make. This Test is the result of more than 30 years of research and thousands of hours in personal ministry with troubled souls. Through this vast experience we have been able to design this test so that we may quickly determine an individual’s spiritual condition.

Yes, the Demon Test® is a registered trademark. Or Bob simply thinks the ® looks cool.

The Demon Test® is just a first step, of course. What happens after you answer its 21 questions?

If you are concerned about your test score, we highly recommend that you schedule personal one-on-one time with Bob Larson. You may choose a one-hour Encounter Session or a full or half-day Intensive Session.

Encounter Session or Intensive Session — how to choose? It’s like picking between a happy ending and full release.

I have to admit, I’m fascinated. So here’s the deal: If I can get just one of you to sponsor me in the next AIDS/LifeCycle for $10 (or more), I will take the Demon Test® and report back on it, complete and replete with screen shots and frank analysis of my Demon Test® status (obviously, my strategy is to have LOTS of you donate $10, but don’t tell anyone I said that).

And then, along the way, perhaps we can answer the truly important question:

Is Rev. Bob Larson tougher than...BUFFY?

$10, folks. That’s all I ask.

H/T to slacktivist.

I got a call from the Democratic Party asking for money. I told the phone solicitor I was supporting individual candidates and ballot measures, but I wouldn’t be sending any contributions to the party itself  until it came out firmly in favor of marriage equality.

He started yelling at me.

Yelling.

So just a quick note to anyone asking for money:  Listen to me before you yell at me. And then don’t yell at me.

File this under, “Everything I learned about fundraising, I learned in kindergarten.”

NOM reports that 61% of New Hampshire voters want to repeal the state’s recognition of same-sex marriage. Disappointing, but we have to remember that even this represents progress when compared to public sentiment a decade ago, so –

Wait, hold on, let me check…

So sorry. My mistake. NOM is reporting that 60% of New Hampshire Republicans want to repeal same-sex marriage.

Only 60%.

Of Republicans.

I’m thrilled with that number. And NOM’s happy about it, too?  That’s quite revealing. Apparently they’ve set themselves a new, lower threshold for what constitutes good news. Perhaps something like:

Yay! Our base is merely eroding quickly rather than extremely quickly.

Or:

Hoorah! 61% of the most conservative 28% of New Hampshire voters haven’t abandoned us yet!

Or:

Yippee! Because, well…yippee!

Actually, they think of it like this, spinning the result in a fashion that blows away any attempt to parody it.

“With more than 3 out of 5 New Hampshire Primary voters favoring the restoration of marriage, the verdict is in: Republicans are united in the fight against the national agenda of wealthy, gay marriage lobbyists,” said Jason Rose of the July Fourth Forum PAC.

Emphasis added.  Anyway, Merry Christmas.  From NOM.

Lucas and Chloe look up from their naps just long enough to wish you all a happy holiday.

I’ve written about anti-gay activist Janice Shaw Crouse in the past.  More than once, in fact. Her arguments tend to be so off-the-mark it’s hard to decide whether she’s deliberately dishonest or just heroically incompetent.

She’s at it again. In the midst of a calm, measured, and false presentation against homosexuality, she says this, as if it were significant:

Homosexual relationships generally last only a fraction of the time that most marriages last. Very few homosexual relationships last longer than two or three years. In fact, it’s rare that they last more than one and a half years.

She doesn’t say where she got these numbers.  Perhaps she doesn’t want her viewers to find out she commonly uses obsolete data in ways that piss off her sources.  The problem in this case, though, is that Crouse is comparing relationships in general to marriages in particular. And if you do that, you can just as easily say:

HETEROSEXUAL relationships generally last only a fraction of the time that most marriages last. Very few HETEROSEXUAL relationships are long-term relationships.

Half of women don’t marry until after their 26^th birthday. For men, it’s even later.  And you know what?  Before that, they date, having relationships that last a few weeks, a few months, occasionally a few years. As a result, the great majority of their relationships don’t last as long as most marriages.

How many three-month relationships can you have in your twenties?  And how many twenty-year marriages can you have in your life?  This isn’t about hetero/homo — it’s about arithmetic.

I’m sure Janice Shaw Crouse knows arithmetic. She’s got a Ph.D. in, well, something, and she’s a paid expert on, you know, stuff, so she ought to understand the gross error in comparing length of relationships to the length of marriages.  Hell, even Herman Cain understands the difference between apples and oranges.

And that brings us back to the original question: Is she dishonest or incompetent?*

Believe it or not, I’m now  leaning toward incompetence. I’m reading Thinking, Fast and Slow, by psychologist (and 2002 Nobel Prize winner in economics) Daniel Kahneman. He demonstrates that humans are bad intuitive statisticians. Instead, we makes sense of numbers by inventing causal explanations even when they don’t belong — especially if the explanations fit our pre-existing bias. Then, once our brains have come up with a story that feels coherent, we interpret all information in light of that story, avoiding or rationalizing away any contrary logic or data (the book is fascinating; I’ll be writing more about it in the next few months).

This isn’t a conservative trait or a liberal one — it’s universal and human. The only way out of it is to bump up your own self-awareness and deliberately apply some critical reasoning to your own bias-ridden intuitions.  That’s hard (it’s hard for everyone) but not too much to expect from a Ph.D. writing a statement she’s planning to read on camera. Apparently, though, this is something Janice Shaw Crouse is unwilling — or unable — to do.

*I understand this is not an either/or proposition.