Now the Family Research Council claims that they are being attacked for espousing "mere" Christian opposition to homosexuality and marriage equality.
It seems to me that if the organization wants to continue that line, then someone needs to put a kibosh on the work of FRC member Peter Sprigg.
Sprigg, who has said that gays and lesbians should be deported and that "homosexual behavior" should be criminalized, is also known for his "reports" and "studies" about the supposed dangers of homosexuality.
However on more than one occasion, it has been pointed out that Sprigg distorts legitimate work and relies on out-and-out lies to further his theories.
In two reports he authored - The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality and Getting it Straight - it has been pointed out that (amongst other things) that Sprigg distorted credible research to make his point. It's obvious to Sprigg that complaints by doctors and researchers as to how their work is being distorted is a minor thing that should be ignored.
Specifically in Top Ten Myths, Sprigg cites legitimate research in order to demonize lgbts, but makes it a point to omit the part of said research which refutes his general argument about homosexuality being a "dangerous lifestyle."
He outdoes himself in his new paper, The Top Ten Harms of Same Sex Marriage. Sprigg fills this pamphlet with information and extensive footnotes. However, based on his past tendency to play loose with facts, one has to doubt the credibility of this pamphlet.
And Sprigg gives folks plenty of reason.
Amongst the errors, Sprigg:
1. distorts the work of Harvard professor Dr. Kyle Pruett and Judith Stacey. Both have complained on more than one occasion about how folks like Sprigg distort their work.
2. In page 10 and 11 of the pamphlet, Sprigg cites a study done by Maria Xiridou as proof that marriage will not stop alleged promiscuity amongst gay couples.
However, none of the couples in Xiridou's study were married. Her study did not look at gay marriage but was designed to "access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy."
For this study, Dr. Xiridou received her information from the Amsterdam Cohort Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and AIDS Among Homosexual Men. To gain this information, researchers studied 1,800 gay men between the years of 1984- 2000.
Same sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001, thus making the information irrelevant to points about gay marriage. Information for the Amsterdam Cohort Study is found here.
Furthermore, lesbians were not included in the study
3. Sprigg recounts the story of Massachusetts parent David Parker who was arrested for trespassing for not leaving his son's school after a meeting with school officials. Parker claimed that the school would not "allow him to opt his child out of discussions about homosexuality." Supposedly the school was breaking state law that said parents have a right to opt out their child when it comes to discussions of human sexuality.
Of course Sprigg inaccurately condensed the story. The school had already assured Parker that discussions of human sexuality were not a part of his child's curriculum, but - and they checked with district policy on this - discussions about differing families was not a human sexuality issue AND since several students in the school came from same sex households, they couldn't control these students talking amongst themselves about their families.
Sprigg also omitted the fact that the entire Parker controversy was conjured up by Parker and a Massachusetts anti-gay group Mass Resistance, i.e. Parker's goal was to be arrested in order to create controversy.
By the way, Mass Resistance is also designated as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
These are just three errors in Sprigg's pamphlet. And I will bet my tax refund that there are several more.
The sad thing is that Sprigg probably knows fully well what he is doing.
And the thing sadder than that is he probably justifies what he is doing as "clean Christian behavior."
Lastly, it's important to remember that more than once, Sprigg (or Tony Perkins of the FRC) has been invited in front of Congress to testify on lgbt issues.
Now I know some who reads this will be complaining about how can the Democrats allow this to happen. But the question should be how can the lgbt community allow this to happen?
Perhaps those in Congress who control such matters don't question FRC's participation in Congressional hearings because the lgbt community on the whole isn't raising sufficient hell about it.
How can we complain about members of Congress not holding Sprigg and the FRC accountable for the lies they tell when we aren't doing it?
It's definitely something to ponder.