Conservative publication PJMedia digs a hole into the credibility of anti-LGBTQ hate groups

Conservative site PJMedia tried to refute the notion that the Family Research Council (top) and the Alliance Defending Freedom (bottom) are hate groups. It failed.

On Wednesday, conservative publication PJMedia attempted to prove that SPLC's claims about the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom being hate groups were false.

That was the intention. By publishing a one-sided, very shoddy article, Tyler O'Neil, the publication's senior editor, probably sought to give the groups ammunition and cover. What happened was that he inadvertently opened up a huge hole in the two groups' claims and credibility

And naturally, I had to stroll in with a few facts he conveniently sought to omit.

O'Neil's piece, 5 Reasons the SPLC Is Profoundly Wrong About Two Notorious Christian 'Hate Groups,' was the second in two weeks by conservatives trying to paint SPLC as a dangerous group out to smear Christian organizations. The first, by ADF employee Jessica Prol Smith, took a personal, but highly evasive view of the situation.

Unlike Smith's piece, O'Neil's article sought to address and refute the specific reasons why SPLC considers these organizations as hate groups. Whereas Smith was evasive, O'Neil sought to be direct. In taking this route, O'Neil committed several errors of distortions and omission.

Let's look at a few sections of his article:

The SPLC's accusation against FRC breaks down into two issues: FRC demonizes LGBT people and FRC suggests homosexuals are pedophiles. So, does this Christian organization demonize LGBT people? 

In the pamphlet "How to Respond to the LGBT Movement," FRC's senior fellow for policy studies, Peter Sprigg, lays out his organization's position on these issues. That pamphlet opens by emphasizing that "every person, no matter who they are sexually attracted to, is created in the image and likeness of God" and therefore is "equal in value and dignity and must be treated with respect." Sprigg goes on to explain that FRC does not believe that sexual attraction defines a person, so the idea that homosexual activity is sinful does not involve a degradation of dignity. 

"The key reason why FRC believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the people who engage in it is the high rate of physical health problems which are a direct or indirect result of their sexual conduct," Sprigg told PJ Media on Monday. "This is particularly true of men who have sex with men (MSM), who have dramatically higher rates of HIV and syphilis, as well as high rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and HPV. High rates of the latter cause MSM to have rates of anal cancer 17 times higher than among heterosexual men, according to the CDC." 

Physical health risks for lesbians are less extreme, but may include Bacterial vaginosis, Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and Breast and other cancers, he argued, citing Web MD. 

"Those who engage in homosexual conduct have also been shown to have higher risks of mental illness and substance abuse. Although LGBT activists blame 'discrimination' and 'stigma' for these problems, that theory is undermined by the fact that these problems have persisted at high rates even in countries that are very accepting of homosexuality, such as the Netherlands.," Sprigg added. 

"Many of these conditions put others (such as sexual partners) at risk; and governments have spent billions of dollars in prevention, treatment, and the search for cures for these diseases. This is why we believe the cost of these behaviors is also being borne by society at large," he concluded. 

LGBT activists are free to vehemently disagree with these claims, but FRC does not spread them in order to demonize LGBT people.

This entire section is a careful mischaracterization of LGBTQ health.  Sprigg's statement - Although LGBT activists blame 'discrimination' and 'stigma' for these problems is blatant cherry-picking.

The claim about how discrimination and stigma leads to negative health problems in the LGBTQ community is not an idea conjured up by activists as Sprigg implies. It is a fact which has been voiced by legitimate medical professionals on numerous occasions. As a matter of fact, they are the same medical professionals cited in O'Neil's article. The article linked to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) when giving a listing of the diseases affecting gay men. This is what the CDC also said about stigma, homophobia can lead to these diseases in gay men:

Homophobia, stigma (negative and usually unfair beliefs), and discrimination (unfairly treating a person or group of people) against gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men still exist in the United States and can negatively affect the health and well-being of this community.

O'Neil and Sprigg talked about negative health behaviors in lesbians. This is what one of the sections O'Neil linked from said:

Lesbians face unique challenges within the health care system that can cause poorer mental and physical health. Many doctors, nurses, and other health care providers have not had sufficient training to understand the specific health experiences of lesbians, or that women who are lesbians, like heterosexual women, can be healthy normal females. There can be barriers to optimal health for lesbians, such as: Fear of negative reactions from their doctors if they disclose their sexual orientation. Doctors’ lack of understanding of lesbians’ disease risks, and issues that may be important to lesbians. Lack of health insurance because of no domestic partner benefits.

Cherry-picking legitimate research to create a false narrative when it comes to LGBTQ health is an old tactic of Sprigg. I've called him out on it quite a few times. It is apparent that in his article, O'Neil engaged in the same dishonesty.

And Sprigg's citation of Netherlands studies is irrelevant because they had nothing to do with the American LGBTQ community. But it is worth noting that in 2009, the author of one of the studies, Theo Sandfort, complained about how religious right groups and activists were misusing his work to defame the LGBTQ community. (Disclosure - he complained to me in an email)

O'Neil really steps into it when he attempts to prove FRC's claims about gay men and pedophilia to be accurate:

Perhaps the SPLC's strongest argument against FRC — and the one the organization parrots the most — involves the accusation that FRC paints homosexuals as child molesters. Yet the Christian organization has set the record straight on this issue. 

"FRC has never said, and does not believe, that most homosexuals are child molesters," former FRC Senior Vice President Rob Schwarzwalder explained. "However, it is undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual. This suggests that male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse." 

"Homosexual activists argue that men who molest boys are not actually 'homosexual;' but scholarly evidence undermines that claim. It also cannot be disputed that there is a sub-culture within the homosexual movement that advocates 'intergenerational' sexual relationships. FRC's writings on this topic--unlike the SPLC's--have been carefully documented with references to the original scholarly literature," Schwarzwalder added.

First of all, the idea that "male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sex abuse" is bunk. Nonsense. You will not find any legitimate medical group saying this. As a matter of fact, the American Psychological Association said that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia.  What's worse, Schwarzwelder is distorting the study he says "documents"  FRC's point about pedophilia and homosexuality.  We know this because in 2010, FRC president Tony Perkins cited it on an episode of the news program Hardball.

At the time in which he did, the watchdog site Box Turtle Bulletin called him out:

The study, “Behavior patterns of child molesters” by W.D. Erickson, N.H. Walbek, and R.K. Seely which appeared more than twenty years ago (1988, to be exact), didn’t set out to determine the sexual orientation of child molesters. The study, of 229 convicted child molesters in Minnesota, (which, by the way, was never intended to be nationally representative in any way) was focused on the types of sexual contact the men engaged in with their victims — vaginal or anal penetration, oral contact, and so forth. In this particular sample, 63 victims were male, and 166 victims were female. 

But the “finding” that Perkins and company found so exciting is encapsulated in just one sentence: “Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” 

That’s right, one lone sentence out of a ten page document, buried deeply within the text. [Update: — and Perkins completely misquoted it. Perkins said that 86% of men who abused children — without regard to gender — said they were gay or bisexual, a claim that the authors specifically did not make.] 

The authors themselves didn’t see it as a significant finding, and there are other good reasons for it. The authors didn’t delve into the adult relationship makeup of these offenders, nor did they disclose what criteria the offenders used in their self-labeling. The authors also didn’t try to investigate whether there was any validity to their self-labeling.

Lastly, the irony of Schwarzwelder saying that scholarly evidence backs FRC on this matter is rich seeing that in 2010, FRC president Tony Perkins was complaining that researchers were not espousing the inference that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked.

And then O'Neil tried to defend the Alliance Defending Freedom from SPLC's charges that it supports putting LGBTQ people in prison:

(Jeremy) Tedesco (ADF's Sr. Counsel and VP of U.S. Advocacy) , shot down the SPLC claim that "ADF has supported the idea that being LGBTQ should be a crime in the U.S. and abroad and believes that is okay to put LGBTQ people in prison for engaging in consensual sex." 

When asked whether this is true, Tedesco merely replied, "No. And neither ADF nor ADF International are litigating any cases or pursuing any legislation that support such efforts." 

" ADF is a Christian organization, and our beliefs are grounded in our religious faith. This includes the belief that all people should be free to live and work according to their beliefs without fear of government punishment," he added. "In fact, our international arm is working in various parts of the world to stop the violent persecution of religious minorities."

However, according to another watchdog site, Media Matters for America, ADF has advocated and given legal advice and strategy to defend laws in foreign countries which would imprison LGBTQs for their sexual orientation:

Former ADF Global Executive Director Benjamin Bull applauded a 2013 decision in India to restore a criminalization statute that could punish sodomy with up to 10 years in prison, saying, “The Indian Court did the right thing.” India’s Supreme Court agreed to revisit the decision in 2018. [One News Now, 12/12/13; The Washington Post, 12/11/13; The Guardian, 1/8/18] 

In 2012, ADF officials spoke at a conference in Jamaica focused on the idea that LGBTQ advocacy in the country, including a legal challenge to Jamaica’s anti-sodomy law, threatens “human dignity.” An ADF senior legal counsel addressed the conference, saying that “retention of the legislation prohibiting sodomy is the bulwark against” the so-called LGBTQ agenda. Jamaica’s law is still in effect and can punish LGBTQ people with “10 years of imprisonment with hard labor.” [Catholic Commission for Social Justice, 12/8/12; Human Rights First, 2015; Washington Blade, 7/24/17] 

In 2013, ADF reportedly provided “advice, legal assistance and strategy” to efforts to defend a law in Belize that criminalized sodomy, punishing those involved in “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal” with imprisonment for up to 10 years. Belize’s Supreme Court struck down the law in 2016. [7 News Belize, 7/29/13; Belize Criminal Code, 12/31/00; The Advocate, 8/10/16]

With regards to the 2012 conference in Jamaica, according to the Huffington Post:

Jeffrey Ventrella and Piero Tozzi, two senior legal counsels for ADF at the time, spoke at the conference. During his address at the conference, Tozzi spoke in defense of anti-sodomy laws, touting them as a “bulwark” against an unidentified “agenda.”

In addition:

While at ADF, Tozzi repeatedly defended laws criminalizing gay sex. In 2012, he went before Congress to condemn the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child for opposing anti-sodomy laws. He criticized the Obama administration for opposing Jamaica’s anti-sodomy law, writing that the U.S. had “intervened in Jamaican domestic debates under the guise of combating ‘homophobia.’ “ And in 2008, he published an article warning that decisions like Lawrence had moved America toward “sodomizing ... itself out of existence.”

 Media Matters also points out that ADF officials supported the sodomy laws which once existed in America and fought to keep them in existence:

In 2003, ADF filed two amicus briefs in the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case, one of which called “same-sex sodomy … a distinct public health problem.” [Brief in support of respondent, Alliance Defending Freedom, 2/18/03, 2/18/03] 

ADF called the Lawrence ruling, which struck down laws outlawing sodomy, “devastating” and has used the decision to raise money for its work abroad. [Alliance Defending Freedom, accessed 7/5/15] 

In 2017, when a BuzzFeed reporter asked ADF President Michael Farris if he thinks same-sex sodomy should be legal, Farris reportedly “paused for several seconds” and simply responded, “It is legal.” The report noted that Farris was “still evasive though on just how he thinks homosexuality should be treated in the US in 2017.” [BuzzFeed, 12/4/17]

Generally speaking,  if O'Neil and PJMedia sought to refute SPLC's claims that the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom are hate groups, then they failed.  O'Neil attempted to paint a picture of an out-of-control organization out to smear and defame Christians. But his paints were flawed and his skills were poor.

I guess that happens when you are pretending to be a journalist instead of being an actual one. But I do thank O'Neil for the hole he created with his poor work. It allowed me to fill the gap.