Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
Who would have thought that from a quick slip of the tongue, Brown undermines the entire argument for passing laws against gay marriage and becomes the gay community's unwitting ally in the cause for marriage equality.
How quick will it be before he and NOM scramble to correct the public image damage of this one?
A week after the defending the Family Research Council from the claim (from the Southern Poverty Law Center) that it is a hate group, he sat down with Michelangelo Signorile to discuss his piece.
In a spirited interview, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank defended his stance that the antigay Family Research Council should not be listed as a “hate group” by the venerated civil rights group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, because they wear suits and “don’t wear white sheets,” and some of their founders and officials are “respected” individuals.
Milbank was invited on my SiriusXM show to discuss the column he wrote last week which has generated much controversy on social media. In the comments section on the Washington Post’s web site and on Twitter and Facebook, many criticized Milbank’s defense of the FRC as a “Washington think tank” which thus shouldn’t be called a hate group, and his calling the Human Rights Campaign and the SPLC “reckless” for terming the FRC a hate group. The controversy reached a point where Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jonathan Diehl sent a tweet out defending Milbank, but that only inflamed the controversy as Dielhl referred to "idiotic' emails he had received on the topic.
Apparently Signorile took Milbank to task big time because the columnist complained later to The Advocate magazine. According to Signorile:
After the interview, Milbank told The Advocate that the interview was “an ambush and unfair,” and made the same comment in a email he sent to another SiriusXM host which he cc’d me. That is patently untrue: Milbank was not asked to come on the show under any false pretenses. He was invited on the show to discuss the controversial column he’d written, and he accepted the invitation.
What do you think? Did Signorile ambush Milbank or is Milbank being too sensitive?
Editor's note - Personally speaking, what I think of Milbank's piece and then his appearance on Signorile's show can't be repeated because I am trying not to "lose my religion."
While I despise the circumstances which led to this discussion (i.e. last week's shooting), I think it is good that we are having a discussion because finally, the ways the Family Research Council demonizes the gay community is seeing some mainstream light.
A lay Catholic in California put together a graphic showing why debating marriage can be "fraught with peril" -- it also underscores how central to society the meaning and definition of marriage is.
First of all, what's wrong with debating marriage? Most importantly, however, the creator of this chart is making many unfair assumptions as to why gays want to get married? He/she makes it seem that gay couples have no idea of commitment or loyalty to each other and that we view marriage as a toy for something like sexual gratification.
It's a huge contradiction to reality. Gays and lesbians wouldn't be fighting so hard for the right to marry if we viewed it as a hedonistic thrill.
And then there is the subject of same-sex families:
The saddest thing about the way some folks attempt to demonize marriage equality is how they deliberately omit any discussions of these families.
It's as if they don't want these families to exist. Or think that these families are so irrelevant that they don't deserve a mention.
As you read in the last post, the Family Research Council did in fact come up with a point by point refutation of the SPLC's charges. The link I received was a bad one.
However, based upon what I read, that bad link would have been just as good as FRC's refutation.
Let's look at what FRC said (along with my corrections):
In November 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing fundraising powerhouse, announced that it considers Family Research Council (FRC) to be an "anti-gay hate group"--lumping us together with neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Ever since, the charge that FRC is a "certified hate group" has been used by the SPLC and other groups--such as the Human Rights Campaign and Campus Pride--in an attempt to discredit FRC's work and cut us out of public policy debates and media coverage over homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." Ironically, the unfounded "hate group" label has deepened hatred toward FRC, which has now resulted in violence--a shooting in the lobby of our headquarters building on August 15, 2012, in which one of our employees was wounded while courageously defending his colleagues.
Instead of being chastened by these events, the SPLC has merely repeated its defamatory accusations against FRC. Here are brief answers to some of the distortions of our positions by the SPLC and those who have embraced the "hate group" charge:
Does FRC claim that "gay people are child molesters?"
FRC has never said, and does not believe, that most homosexuals are child molesters. 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.
FRC distortion - FRC will have you to believe that if a man molest a boy, then the man is automatically gay. This is not necessarily true. Please note that FRC said the following - Homosexual activists argue that men who molest boys are not actually "homosexual;" but scholarly evidence undermines that claim - but does not provide proof of this. SPLC, on the other hand, does provide proof:
According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.
Does FRC want to "criminalize" homosexuality?
FRC has made no effort to reinstate sodomy laws since the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. In a 2010 interview on a different topic, the question of whether we should "outlaw gay behavior" in U.S. civil law was raised not by an FRC spokesman, but by MSNBC's Chris Matthews. The spokesman affirmed that FRC (like three Supreme Court justices) believed Lawrence was wrongly decided; but the interview left some viewers with the mistaken impression that "re-criminalizing" homosexuality is a policy goal for FRC. It is not.
FRC distortion - FRC conveniently omitted the fact that Chris Matthews pointedly asked the FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg does he think that "gay behavior" should be outlawed. Sprigg said yes:
Does FRC support the execution of homosexuals in Uganda ?
This charge was refuted as soon as it appeared in 2010. FRC has publicly opposed the much-publicized bill (never adopted) in Uganda that would have imposed criminal penalties for various offenses related to homosexual conduct, and the death penalty for something known as "aggravated homosexuality." We responded to requests from Congressional offices for advice on the wording of a resolution condemning the Uganda bill--then reported those contacts as "lobbying," as is required by law. FRC did not "lobby" against the resolution; our advice was limited to suggestions for language that would accurately describe the Uganda bill and the state of international law.
FRC distortion - Nothing in the SPLC statement FRC linked to said a word about FRC and the Ugandan bill. However, it is worth noting that FRC did voice support for the bill, claiming that it "upholds moral conduct". The audio of this support was removed from FRC's webpage but was saved by Jeremy Hooper of Good As You.
Does FRC want to kick homosexuals out of the country?
Just days after an interview was posted online in 2008, an FRC spokesman publicly apologized on the FRC website for having used the words "import" and "export" as metaphors for voluntary immigration and emigration by homosexuals. The interview related to legislation which would grant special preference in immigration to foreign nationals who are the homosexual partners of American citizens.
FRC distortion - SPLC has never said that FRC as an organization want to kick gays out of the country. However, the organization has pointed out numerous times that it was a statement made by a member of FRC (i.e. Peter Sprigg).
Does FRC "hate" homosexuals?
As a Christian organization, we have an obligation to love our neighbor--including our neighbors who experience same-sex attractions. However, we believe sexual acts between persons of the same sex are objectively harmful to those who choose to engage in them and to society at large, in addition to being forbidden by Scripture. Since the essence of love is to desire the best for a person and act to bring that about, we believe the most loving thing we can do is discourage such self-destructive conduct, rather than affirm it. We are happy to debate those who disagree with us regarding the harms of homosexual conduct, but there is no justification for anyone to impugn our motives with false labels such as "hate."
FRC distortion - The vast majority of the statement is a distortion. Here is what SPLC has accused FRC of:
The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage . . . The FRC routinely pushes out demonizing claims that gay people are child molesters and worse — claims that are provably false.T\
In addition, SPLC has made a list of these distortions which it has accused FRC - and other groups - of passing along, including:
Same-sex parents harm children.
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parent .
LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.
Now whether or not FRC hates gays is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is in spite of all of its whining, the organization has YET to answer specific charges as to the claims it has made about the gay community.
Even after promising to do so in 2010, FRC has yet to come up with a detailed response to SPLC's charges. Instead, the organization continues to play hit-and-run with sad pieces which dances around the issue rather than address it.
I was all excited because finally, I thought, the Family Research Council was going to submit its long-awaited refutation of the reasons why the Southern Poverty Law Center dubbed it as a hate group.
The Family Research Council has been promising this "detailed response" ever since SPLC gave them that designation in 2010.
FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg said the following in December 2010:
We will be preparing a more detailed response to (SPLC Chairman and CEO J. Richard) Cohen’s charge that FRC spreads “falsehoods” in our well-documented research, which does show that certain harms are associated with homosexual conduct.
Since that time, FRC has been dancing around the issue, providing hit-and-run statements and claims which not only were not a detail response but also did a lot to prove SPLC's argument that the organization distorts facts and passes propaganda about the gay community.
After reading today's tweet, I was looking forward to finally seeing how FRC would refute SPLC's charges.
I should've known that it was not to be. If you click on the link to the tweet, you will be directed to an empty page on the Family Research Council website which says the following:
We're sorry, but the page you're looking for is no longer available.
If you are not automatically redirected to the homepage after 5 seconds, click here
Damn.
FRC got me all ready to refute its mess and then it pulls the information away. What a tease.
So in spite of its whining about being unfairly targeted by the SPLC, FRC has yet to provide a detailed refutation of SPLC's reasons as to why it is a hate group.
And it's been two years since we have been promised a "detailed response" of these charges.
I have the sneaky suspicion that by the time FRC does provide a detailed refutation to SPLC, "my credit will be good again."
FRC