Saturday, September 24, 2011

Frank Turek is a liar

The National Organization for Marriage has began a new project which it calls Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance. This project will spotlight folks who are the supposed victims of imaginary gay intolerance:

“If you have been threatened, harassed, or made to feel afraid because you believe in the great, foundational truth of Genesis –we are born male and female and called to come together in love to give children mothers and fathers—Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance is here to help you: you are not alone.

We want to hear your story, connect you with others who share your deepest beliefs, with legal and other practical help, and with other Americans of good will, who (regardless of their views on marriage) want to put a stop to the shaming and the fearmongering of our fellow citizens. The goal of the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance is to create a supportive community for those who have been threatened for standing for marriage, to nip the climate of fear being created in the bud, to expose for fair-minded Americans on both sides of the debate the threats being made, to conduct high-quality qualitative and quantitative research documenting the extent of the harm, to develop legislative and community proposal to protect Americans right to engage in the core civil rights: to organize, to vote, to speak, to donate, and to write for marriage.

Isolated and alone, we can be suppressed and intimidated. Together we are too many to be treated as second-class citizens.“

In other words, this group will exploit controversies to create new religious right cause celebres who have been supposedly victimized because of their "morality" and push them hard on the American public before the truth comes out that these folks are not victims but individuals who think that their beliefs regarding homosexuality should shield them for normal consequences of acting like homophobic fools.

And first up in the MADA spotlight is a man called Frank Turek. Turek was consultant who lost several lucrative gigs because of his sidework of denigrating the gay community. Take the following video with a grain of salt.

Turek makes himself sound like a pitiful victim. I am of the belief that private companies - who employ gays - have every right to pick and choose who they have as consultants. Some may disagree.

But what we cannot disagree with is the simple fact that Turek is being highly misleading. He makes it seem that his dismissals and inability to get gigs is due to his stance on gay marriage. But he omits the time when he:

said that gays and "radical Muslims are teaming up to destroy Western Civilization because they hate "Judeo-Christian natural law"

Or the time he compared homosexuality to alcoholism and pedophilia:

[B]eing born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify the behaviors. If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean you should be an alcoholic? If you have a genetic attraction to children does that mean you should be a pedophile? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing? (Don’t blame me—I was born with the anti-gay gene!) Certainly, those that oppose alcoholism, pedophilia and gay bashing are not “bigots”—they are wise.

Or the time he compared gays to sociopaths and gay bashers:

 The question is why didn't Turek - or NOM for that matter - mention his other comments on the video.

But the real fact of the matter is this - Turek has every right to speak his mind, but no company is bound to hire him, particularly if the company has lgbtq employees.

Furthermore, if Turek had said the same awful comments about African-Americans or people of the Jewish faith, we would not be having this conversation.

Is Turek a victim of "gay intolerance?" No. He is a liar who tries to make himself out to be a victim. And he is a man who seems to think that he should be shielded from the normal consequences of being a homophobic bigot - i.e. ostracization from the job market.

Bookmark and Share


Joel said...

I'm sure they will have a facebook page. We should all post how we have been discriminated against, hated, and belittled for taking a stand for marriage equality. And if they delete the comments, we can just tag them in our own postings. I'm sure all the publicity will be appreciated.

Mary O'Grady said...

Turek's contention seems to be that a hateful fool has a right to a lucrative career as a professional speaker.
This is not true.

Anonymous said...

Have any of you even read Frank Turek's book?

Ranier said...

Gay brownshirts on the march. You must accept homosexuality or suffer the consequences. In the name of tolerance, those who are against homosexual "marriage" will not be tolerated.

BlackTsunami said...

Could you please do into detail about concerning your whine about "gay brownshirts." Of course you won't because you can't. Your need to throw out incendiary language instead of a reasonable argument speaks for itself.

Ranier said...

There is nothing reasonable about how this man was treated. The homosexual lobby wants nothing to do with tolerance. For if that was the case, they would have no issue with someone in the workplace simply having a different point of view. What the homosexual brownshirts want is forced acceptance.

I would have no problem employing someone who wrote a book about their support for homosexual "marriage" but apparently if I wrote a book against such a concept that would be grounds to fire me. Yes, that's "reasonable."

BlackTsunami said...

My friend, please stop trying to oversimplify or gloss over the actualities of this situation

It's reasonable for a gay employee of a company to lodge a complaint about hiring someone who compares him or her to sociopaths and pedophiles.

And a company has every right to decide whether or not it wants to hire someone who pushes such nonsense. Turek's religion does not make his words exempt from criticism or pushback.

It's not that Turek wrote a book against marriage equality, it's the things he said. The fact that you seem to think that gays should sit and take such vitriol is wrong. NO ONE should tolerate being compared to sociopaths and pedophiles. I repeat that if Turek had said those things about Jewish folks or black folks, we would not be having this discussion.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the reasonable consequences which come from this speech. And again, your comment about "gay brownshirts?" Hilarious.

Ranier said...

You may not be familiar with boxing. But as someone who has boxed, I can tell you that often when a boxer takes a good hit, he will smile. Your continued dismissing of "gay brownshirt" is a similar reaction.

Why? Because it hits home, just like right uppercut to the chin of a boxer. What people say on their own time is their own business. It's freedom of speech and thought. No crime in that. Actions are what matter. Mr. Turek didn't harm anyone and by all accounts has treated everyone, regardless of their particular characteristics, with respect.

Yet, he is fired because of what he thinks.

You aren't interested in tolerance. If you were, you would be fighting for Mr. Turek. No, what you want is acceptance even if it is forced.

If Frank Turek can be fired for airing his viewpoint, then I would be justified to fire you for such sentiments that you express here.

Not the society, I want to live in.

Enjoy the bed you are making.

BlackTsunami said...

Now you are talking gibberish about the brownshirt thing, but let's get back to Turek.

I find it hilarious that you tell me what I'm fighting for. I don't think you are truly interested in what I'm fighting for more than TRYING TO TELL me what I'm fighting for.

Turek may have said it on his own time, but to think that actions done and words said "on your own time" do not sometimes have a negative effect on your business is wrong.

Turek was a consultant. He was not under contract, nor bound by any rules preventing employee discrimination. He was selling his credibility. And can any company have any credibility in him when he is saying such off-the-wall things.

He proved himself to be sort of incompetent. Surely you are not saying that companies should be forced to hire incompetent people.

To wrap things up, allow me to school you about what gay folks want. We don't want your tolerance. We don't care about your acceptance. The things that we want, the things that we are going to get were never yours to give in the first place.

Ranier said...

You said..."Turek may have said it on his own time, but to think that actions done and words said "on your own time" do not sometimes have a negative effect on your business is wrong."
Sure they do. But they should not have in this case. It's only because someone who was not confident in themselves or their own beliefs felt the need to complain. It's weak of the both the person that complained and the company that let him go.

Turek was a consultant. He was not under contract, nor bound by any rules preventing employee discrimination. He was selling his credibility. And can any company have any credibility in him when he is saying such off-the-wall things.
Nothing he said was "off the wall." You see them that way because you look for things to offend you. It's how you cope. Your blog is evidence of it. Much easier to call yourself a victim than you look yourself in the face everyday and simply stand on your two feet.

Turek's point is this. If you want to claim that you are "born to carry out homosexual acts" then that opens the door for such claims in all manner of behaviors. Doesn't even remotely mean he is comparing or equating said behaviors. He is instead showing logical consistency. As a heterosexual man, I have all manner of base instincts in which I control myself in not carrying out. Unless you think homosexuals are somehow incapable of self-control, then there is nothing wrong with Turek's statement.

He proved himself to be sort of incompetent. Surely you are not saying that companies should be forced to hire incompetent people.
So saying something you disagree with equates into being incompetent. I don't think you know what that word means.

To wrap things up, allow me to school you about what gay folks want. We don't want your tolerance. We don't care about your acceptance. The things that we want, the things that we are going to get were never yours to give in the first place.
What you want is to fire people from their jobs for not agreeing with you. It's pathetic.

BlackTsunami said...

1. Your first point is specious at best. You agree with what I said regarding speech without consequences, so that's all that matters with that.

2. I think your personal attacks on me and my blog masquerading as bad armchair psychiatry more than proves my point in regards to Turek's comments. Let me just say that everything I put on my blog, I back up with facts, unlike Turek. If you can find anything otherwise, please let me know.

You say his comments were not "off the wall." Certainly you don't mean comments like claiming that "radical Muslims" and gays are teaming up to "destroy Western civilization."

That's not off the wall? Please tell me how so.

And Turek was NOT making a logical point in regards to "committing homosexual acts." Your phraseology speaks to your ignorance and homophobia in regards to the gay community.

Furthermore, I think it's dishonest of you to claim that Turek was merely making a logical argument regarding homosexuality when he is on record NUMEROUS times attacking the gay community, comparing us to alcoholics and sociopaths, attacking our families, and such.

And it does speak to his incompetence. Turek has also cited the discredited studies of Paul Cameron, a man who has been censured by folks on the left and the right for his bad research and who passes along work claiming that gays stuff gerbils up their rectums. Any company knowing this, especially if that company has gay employees, would be more than well within its rights to NOT hire Turek.

The man is claiming to talk about team building and leadership. One HAS to question his skills if he is using bad studies.

Lastly, you continue to deliberately distort the situation. Turek was not an employee. He was a consultant. I personally don't care if a company hires him or not, but I don't feel sorry for him. Nor do I think that he should play the victim if prospective clients look at his work and decide that he is not what they are looking for.

Because they definitely would have a lot to choose from in making that decision not to hire him.

Lastly, come clean my friend. I think I know who you are. And I'm surprised. You usually google your name from Liberty University, not Chesapeake, VA.

Ranier said...

Oh, you know who I am, do you?

Go ahead and tell me. I'm amused at the prospect. Are you going to guess my weight as well?

Look at you. All this attention and effort to blog about how victimized you are. It's ironic that you have become what you purportedly blog about.

Yes, Turek was making a logical argument, one I laid out for you to address. Perhaps you can't. Perhaps you born not being able to do so.

BlackTsunami said...

I suspect that you are little Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel.

1. You said that you were a boxer and it well-known that Barber was once a failed boxer (and a failed insurance salesman).

2. Your location is Chesapeake, VA. Matt Barber does work in Lynchburg, VA where he is known to google his name from time to time.

Of course if I am wrong, then what the heck. It was simply a guess.

I find it more amusing that you are attacking me personally. First you were trying to defend Turek and when I turned that nonsense aside, you choose to make comical comments about my life.

Was it because I brought up the fact that Turek was a hypocrite? Or maybe because I brought up Paul Cameron. Those on your side of the argument always seem to clam up when someone brings up how closely you all link your supposed Christian view of homosexuality to the discredited work of Paul Cameron.

It's been real fun, Ranier. A tad bit annoying but I am enjoying myself on the whole.

Ranier said...

Or alternatively, I'm a guy who lives in Chesapeake, VA who has some experience boxing. Sometimes the obvious answer is just that; the answer.

So, you seem preoccupied with personal attacks (as you call them). I suppose you means personal attacks like this contents of this entire post?

I have simply made observations regarding you and your blog that I think are germane to the subject because I think your preconceptions and state of life lead you to see things through a lens of your own creations. And that lens has caused you to dispense with logic.

So, yes I know you are self-congratulating yourself on how you "turned my nonsense aside." I can live with you believing that given this post was an opinion piece and nothing of real substance.

But here is the take away. I would defend your right to publish a book call for homosexual "marriage" without the possibility of your being fired for such free thought. You, on the other hand, would have someone firing for speaking in a view opposite of yours.

Bully and Headless monster, heal thyself.

BlackTsunami said...

The only thing you are doing my friend is holding fast to a silly argument. You ignore the points that I made when they are not convenient to the paltry comments you put forth. And then when you can't refute what I say, you make silly observations about me.

I think our conversation speaks for itself.

Anonymous said...

This author says Turek would be in trouble if he made these comments about Jews or African Americans. Apparently the author is unaware that those are ethnic groups, defined by bloodlines, whereas homosexuals are not a race. Do they have children naturally like African Americans or Jews? No, nor would homosexuals exist without the aid of heterosexual relationships. If we all decided to be gay the human race would cease to exist. What does nature prefer then, an action by a species that would effectively eliminate the species, or one that would preserve the species? Well I guess since their is only one way we know of to have a baby, we have our answer.

BlackTsunami said...

No one chooses to be gay so that direction of your argument is irrelevant. What is relevant is that turek choose to stigmatize a group of people. If he claimed that blacks were naturally violent or jews controlled the world, he would not be able to hide these prejudices behind religious beliefs like he did when it came to gays.

Anonymous said...


Biology matters.

Diversity matters.

That's why a male and a female get together and have children.

Sponsored by............

Ockham's Razor

BlackTsunami said...

You realize of course that what you said has nothing to do with the post for so many reasons, including:

a. not all heterosexual couples are able to have children.

b. Many same-sex couples are raising children.

My friend, if you are going to continue to make strange comments having nothing to do with the post, I'm not going to publish your comments.

And please don't give me that semantic crap about my so-called intolerance. I'm immune to it. If you have something pertinent to say, then I will post it. If not, I reserve the right not to.

Anonymous said...

Hey at least you're getting some comment count.

Don't worry about the intolerance issue.
There is plenty on both sides.
Being a resident of Massachusetts I've had a front row seat.

Sorry to say my experience has been that the overwhelming amount of intolerance comes from the same-sex marriage activists.

It always seems to come down to this, "agree with me" or you're a hater, bigot, etc.

Disagreeing is not hate.

BlackTsunami said...

I don't agree with you there on the simplicity of your argument. People can agree or disagree on marriage equality and respect that. What you fail to acknowledge is there are MANY on your side who dehumanize same-sex families by what they say or they make awful claims about gays harming children via marriage equality. It's not the disagreements more than its the methods of disagreements that many of us have a problem with when it comes to your side of the spectrum.

Anonymous said...

The echo chamber is alive and well on this blog.

Make sure no dissenting opinions of any kind see the light of day.

Pravda would be proud.

BlackTsunami said...

Dissenting opinions, by all means. Nonsensical statements having nothing to do with the post? Never. Show some respect to the blogmaster or leave. ;p

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality not a choice?
Life is a choice. Every action is a choice. If I choose a tall woman, short woman, white woman, black, asian or latina, they are all choices. A man with a man is a choice. Being straight is a choice. To breath is a choice as you can choose not to. Drug addiction, obesity, all choices for those who are real with themslves. The rest of you just make excuses!

Non Choices:

Hieght,ethnicity, hair type, hair color, skin type and color, your birth parents, your blood relatives,blood type, where you are born, when you're born, age, eye color and size, foot size, hand size, nose size, tenor, alto or suprano get the point.

What is suppressed is the fact that there are plenty of gays who don't agree with gay marriage, and say that being gay is a choice. They actually resent those who make excuses and fall-back on the poor victim woe is me mentality. These gays make no mamby-pamby excuses. They say they are doing what they want to do. Now, gays who are adult enough to have responsibility and accountibilty for their choices are men and women I can respect.

BlackTsunami said...

My friend, it's not about garnering your respect first of all.

Secondly, the gays who don't want marriage equality are totally irrelevant. Those of us who do, for our families and especially our children, are what matters in this situation.

On the whole, your comments make no sense and you come across like someone who was strapped down and forced to watch a 24-hour marathon of Queer as Folk. Fight against the Clockwork Orange mind control and then we will talk intelligently!

Anonymous said...

do you think a private company should be allowed to drop a consulting firm, because they employed a gay rights activist?

BlackTsunami said...

if the company is private and it chooses to, then that is the company's right. HOWEVER, just as folks made noise regarding Turek, the company shouldn't be surprised if some folks made noise because of its decision firing the gay rights activist.

Unknown said...

Most pedophiles are Sodomites. FACT. and Sodomites are vile, violent, tyrannical psychopaths.

BlackTsunami said...

Well that was the most profoundly stupid comment I've heard in a while. Allow me to count the ways. Who are the sodomites in question because heterosexuals engage in sodomy and most importantly, where is your proof of such a statement? You do know that the Jedi mind trick is fiction, right?

Ed Vaessen said...

Mr. Turek is very ill in his mind. The Bible has poisoned him.