Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Do not censor religious right groups. Demand that they answer questions

I am in TOTAL disagreement with other lgbt activists (such as Dan Savage) who think that the news media shouldn't have religious right organizations on their shows on the grounds that their opinions are akin to those of the Ku Klux Klan.

It's not that I don't agree with the root part of this argument. Just like the Klan demonizes African-Americans based on ignorance, fear, and (in some extreme cases) religion, religious right groups do the same to the lgbt community.

But I think veteran newscaster Tom Brokaw put it best:

Asked how antigay views should be presented, he said, “You just say that they’ve got strong opinions. You treat like them like anyone else. You cross-examine and ask them the right questions.”

That's the thing which as been solely missing from this controversy regarding the religious right and the lgbt community. No one in the lgbt community has issued a clear plan of attack. It has been a morass of words thrown around, such as "bigots" and "haters, and tangents devoted to the issue of gay marriage or sidetracked to the larger issue of condemnation of the Christian religion.

And in the middle of this complicated muddle, religious right groups zero in on one issue, i.e. censorship, and begin to control the debate.

This issue is not about gay marriage per se, nor is it about condemnation of religion. It's about the intentional propagation of falsehoods and junk science in order to smear a group of people.

Therefore demanding that the news media keep people like Tony Perkins or groups like the Family Research Council off television is extremely counterproductive. It gives the inaccurate notion that somehow their ideas are so truthful that the lgbt community is fearful of letting them be heard.

Instead, we need to demand that certain questions be asked. For example:

"Mr Perkins, why did your organization freely and unapologetically cite the work Paul Cameron, a discredited researcher who thinks that gay men stuff gerbils up their rectums?"

"Why do religious right groups continue to cite a 1997 study to claim that gays have a short lifespan when in 2001, the researchers of the study complained that you all were distorting their work? To be more specific, why do religious right group ignore legitimate researchers who complain about how they distort their work?"

"Mr. Perkins, why did your organization remove several anti-gay studies from your web page on the grounds that they used outdated studies? And this being the case, why did you cite those supposed "outdated" studies in works that do appear on your pages?"

Or even better, demand that the news media interview some of us on their shows when they have people like Perkins on. The lgbt community is a bit more intelligent and sophisticated than we were in the past in terms of calling attention to how religious right groups lie. We should be chomping at the bit to confront them on national television and making them spell out in exact terms why their distortions and junk science are accurate.

But instead of relishing the thought of a public feud, we seem to be backtracking from it or trying to sidestep it.

The lgbt community should take note of the recent hell President Obama has been getting from progressives about his need to compromise with the GOP. Just like it seems that President Obama has been reluctant to get into a war with the bullies of the GOP, the lgbt community seems to be reluctant to get into a needed fight with our bullies, i.e. the religious right.

But whereas as Obama tries to compromise with the GOP, the lgbt community seem to view the media as our parents and we run to them crying that they keep the big, bad bullies of the religious right from picking on us.

The media is not the parents of the lgbt community and it's not their job to stop the religious right from picking on us via their lies. It's our job to call them out and not just with words like "bigots," but with demands that they either explain their propagation of lies (such as linking homosexuality to pedophilia or claiming that gays caused the Holocaust) or apologize for them.

But we can't do this adequately without calling them out.

Doesn't anyone think that it's time we started?

Friday, December 10, 2010

Know Your LGBT History - Dirty Laundry

Fox News try to help the Family Research Council dodge the truth and other Friday midday news briefs

The conservative movement covers for FRC at its own peril - Fox News trying to help the Family Research Council dodge its anti-gay hate group status. Isn't that like a werewolf helping a vampire to prick a neck?

Milk's friends aghast at HRC store plans - I'm sorry but I agree with HRC here. And they will be giving a portion of the proceeds away to pro-lgbt causes. What's wrong with that? Lastly, if folks are all up arms about it, then let them buy the property. Don't get me started on folks always wanting to complain about things but can never offer positive solutions.

3,000 Catholic Anti-Gay Marriage DVDs Returned to Archbishop - I can think of no better way of protesting an anti-gay dvd but to send it back to the source. Loud and heavy applause for those involved in this effort.

Let’s Spin This, and Let’s Spin it Right: Against Republicans - Zach Ford nails what the lgbt community needs to do after the failure to break the anti-DADT repeal filibuster yesterday. It's an excellent plan and VERY simple, that is if the community can get off of its bitching towels to get it done. In a war, every victory and every loss is an opportunity for a future victory. And if you don't think that getting lgbt equality hasn't been a war, then you have been asleep.

Aberdeen teen, ACLU file suit claiming years of bullying at school - Go ACLU!

Religious right doesn't want lgbt children to have parental support

A new study has come out saying that lgbt youth who receive support from their parents are less likely to engage in destructive behaviors such as suicide or substance abuse.

According to U.S. News and World Reports, the study which appears in Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing:

. . .also found that those adolescents with highly accepting families have much higher levels of self-esteem and social support when they're young adults.

The study included 245 white and Hispanic LGBT young adults, aged 21 to 25, in California who were open about their sexual orientation to at least one parent or caregiver during adolescence.

Examples of positive parental and caregiver support include supporting their gender expression or advocating for their children when they are mistreated because of their LGBT identity.

However, leave it to the folks at the American Family Association's One News Now to object to the study. And what makes the phony news publication's objection more shameful is that it doesn't even try to refute what the study says. Instead, it quotes Dr. Andre Van Mol, a private physician in California. Mol calls the study "indoctrination":

"This is ideology and indoctrination in high gear, and it carries with it the implicit [threat] 'or else your kid will kill themselves,' which is ridiculous," contends Dr. Andre Van Mol, a family physician in private practice in Redding, California.

. . . "Love is not the same as enablement and co-dependency," counters Van Mol. "A parent can fully love and accept their [LGBT] teen, give them a safe home where they know that they as a person are accepted, and still have it be known that their parents feel that acting out on that sexual orientation will be an inherently negative thing," he suggests. "I don't think that's contradictory."

The family physician goes on to tell OneNewsNow the study pushes the fruits of a strategy to take over the medical field with the ideology and indoctrination of homosexuality.

I think it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Mol doesn't know what he is talking about.

Apparently One News Now isn't alone in raising an objection about the study:

In a November commentary, Christopher Doyle of the support group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)calls efforts to scare parents into embracing their children’s sexual behavior for fear of suicide “minority stress” theory propagated by gay activists.

Even in gay-tolerant cultures, the occurrence of suicidal behavior is much higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals,” he explained.

Doyle, an ex-gay and PFOX board member, cited a 2006 study of homosexuals in the Netherlands, which was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Gay men were five times and lesbian women were 10 times more likely to contemplate suicide than heterosexuals. Another study found that a lower level of social hostility toward homosexuals in the Netherlands and Denmark compared with the U.S. was not associated with a lower level of psychiatric problems among homosexuals in these European countries.

Of course Doyle is inaccurate. The "studies" (actually there weren't two different studies. The article in the Christian Post is inaccurate. There was only one study) Doyle referred to was the work of Dr. Theo Sandfort. In an email written last year, Sandfort objected to how his work has been distorted.

On the whole, this entire needless controversy is a perfect example of how religious right groups operate. Was it really necessary for them to object? Common sense tells one that children who receive love and support from their family tend to have less problems with self-esteem. And we all know that unfortunately in some homes, lgbt children are robbed of that crucial support system because of the real fear that they will be rejected by their parents or even worse, kicked out on the streets.

The study just affirms this. But leave it to the religious right to object solely on grounds that the lgbt identity is involved. And according to them, the study has nothing to do with making sure that lgbt children are safe and sound, but some evil plan by "gay activists" to force acceptance of homosexuality.

Such an idea is devoid of not only common sense, but basic Christian decency and kindness.

The sad irony is that without parental support, lgbt children are more likely to engage in behaviors such as suicide and substance abuse, and thereby become a statistic eagerly cited by religious right figures such as Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg regarding the so-called "dangers of homosexuality."

One can't help thinking that the only reason why the religious right objects to parents giving support to lgbt children is due to the cold fact that depressed, drug addicted lgbt youth are of more use to them than happy lgbt youth.

Related posts:

One News Now, Matt Barber dehumanizes recent suicide victims

Why can't the religious right stop denigrating gay suicide victims?

Phony Christians shedding crocodile tears over the bullying of lgbt teens

Thursday, December 09, 2010

DADT repeal goes down for now but the gay community isn't beaten yet

For a group whose mantra has been that President Obama and the Democrats aren't listening to the American people, it would seem that the Republican party was committing a bit of transference.

I'm sure that the American people don't like the idea of unemployment benefits being held hostage, nor do they like the idea of tax cuts for those who don't need them.

But we definitely know that the American people favored the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy dealing with gays serving in the military.

However, the Republican Party won't even allow it to come to a vote, exercising their right to be complete hypocritical assholes.

So what's the lgbt community to do now?

Well one thing to not do is play a self-defeating game of blame. No doubt some will say that President Obama and the Democrats should have pushed for this law when they had a larger number of votes in the Senate.

I disagree. If the 2008 Proposition 8 vote in California should have taught the lgbt community anything, it's that anytime anything which benefits us comes up for a vote, it will always be a knockdown, drag out battle.

By just simply existing without shame, lgbts constantly threaten the status quo. And the status quo doesn't like that.

So right now while some of us are tending to our war-torn hair, washing our dirty faces, and trying to bind our psychological wounds which come from being slapped down yet again by the powers-that-be, let's not succumb to the temptation of enveloping ourselves in the morass of self-pity and finger pointing.

No battle is over as of yet. And this one has just started.

For one, there is the new plan by Senators Lieberman and Collins to bring up DADT on a stand alone vote.

And while that may lead to something, I prefer the petition by HRC which reads as follows:

Mr. President: Halt the discharges by the end of 2010

The Senate has failed our military and failed the American people. It's clearer than ever that we need President Obama to take action to end this law that hurts our families, our soldiers, and our national security.

Send your letter asking President Obama to honor his commitment to ending this law by giving up his Administration's defense of this unconstitutional, discriminatory law and by enacting a stop-loss order to prevent any more discharges.

Send your message now.

The link is here. Now I know some of you probably want to vent (again) at the "inaction" of President Obama and the folks at "Gay,Inc" but don't do it.

Seems to me that the most important thing is for us to get this issue done now. One doesn't stop in the heat of battle to start berating. If that first option don't work and Obama doesn't listen to the second option as of yet, then we spend 2011 agitating until he does listen.

We not only have the people on our side, but apparently the Pentagon too

The struggle for equality involves more than just putting the word "equality" in your name and spouting profanity online.

The struggle for equality involves action, patience, and an old fashioned "never say die" spirit. African-American activist Fredrick Douglass put it best:

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.”

DADT repeal, Eddie Long trying to settle sexual coercion lawsuits, and other Thursday midday news briefs

All eyes are on the Senate today as hopefully they take up discussion of DADT. Heavy prayers, people. Heavy prayers.

Ex-senator reverses opposition to gays in military - Nice reversal from the guy who led the charge to keep from serving openly in the military during the Clinton years 17 years ago.

Chaplains Worry About Careers If 'Don't Ask' Is Lifted - Poppycock!

Senator Collins, why are tax cuts for the rich more important than pay raises for the troops? - An excellent question.

WATCH: Anti-Gay Pastor Eddie Long Attempting to Settle Sexual Coercion Lawsuits - Oh really?

Social Conservative Bryan Fischer: Blame The Gays For WikiLeaks - Bryan Fischer strikes again.

Rachel Maddow gives anti-gay Ugandan enough rope to hang himself

Now see this is what a credible journalist does.

Rachel Maddow had David Bahati on her show. Bahati is the member of Ugandan Parliament who is heavily pushing the infamous "kill the gays" bill.

She didn't yell at him. She didn't interrupt him. She didn't talk over him. Maddow simply used her skills as a journalist to let Bahati show himself as the homophobic fraud that he is.

It is a big long but enjoy it. It's just too, too awesome.

Part 1:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Part 2:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Related post:

Megyn Kelly vs. Rachel Maddow - you decide who is the journalist and who is the #&^@

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Paul Cameron wants gays to go through 'public shaming' . . . amongst other things

Discredited anti-gay researcher and noted homophobe Paul Cameron has gone on record about the classification of his group, the Family Research Institute, as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It was during a very poor interview with the Colorado Springs Gazette. I say the interview was poor because the writer didn't give any detail about Cameron's dubious history of censures and rebukes by folks from legitimate medical organizations to conservative talking heads.

Of course in the writer's defense, he or she really didn't need to. Cameron came across in the interview as batshit crazy in spite of the fact that, according to the writer, he "dressed smart and had impeccable manners" and also discussed his views in a "calm, professional manner."

But how Cameron looks or professes his views is irrelevant. You really have to read some of what Cameron said:

God’s 11th Commandment is “Thou shalt not corrupt boys,” Cameron told me. He celebrated the Ugandan anti-gay bill, in which the penalty for gay activity could be death. “Whatever they decide, I’m OK with,” he said.

Cameron believes homosexuality should be criminalized in America. He proposes heavily taxing single American adults and homosexuals because of their failure to procreate. He would also like to see gays undergo a “public shaming,” though he offered no specifics.

The article also revealed some very interesting things about Cameron's group. It's run out of his home (why am I not surprised), run by private donations, has only four staffers, and has a budget of $85,000.

Now that last one really threw me. Who in the hell would donate money to this loon?

It's gets better. Cameron said the classification of his organization as a hate group by SPLC was a "left-wing" deal.

I would have loved for the writer to have questioned him about the lie he told in 1982 about a child being castrated in a public restroom by a gay man. Or that comment he made to Rolling Stone magazine about homosexuality providing one with "most satisfying orgasm one could get."

Oh well. Where the writer failed to do his or her job, Cameron definitely took up the slack:

The gay lifestyle, which he says is chosen, will lead to the destruction of the West. “Liberal minds are attracted to societal destructive things like moth to a light,” he told me. “No society can long endure that does such a thing.”

“If God has changed his mind (about homosexuality being an abomination, as written in the Bible), he must want the West to die.”

It's almost hard to believe that Cameron used to be the go-to guy for all anti-gay material used by the religious right. And if it weren't for the attention he has been receiving of late, he probably would still be.

And that is probably the main reason why those named as anti-gay hate groups, and their defenders, want to deflect the controversy to one about same-sex marriage. They are afraid to be questioned about their past affiliation with Cameron.

To be honest, I really can't blame them. Cameron is just plain crazy.

Related posts:

Homophobic 'researcher' Paul Cameron in all of his repulsive glory

More homophobic lies from the Paul Cameron Poland tour

Illinois Family Institute uses Paul Cameron's work but claims its not a hate group

Conservapedia's unbelievable defense of the discredited Paul Cameron

Why we should care about Paul Cameron

Why does Miss California's church believe that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked

Anti-gay pastor proves the far reach of destructive homophobia

I bet it seemed like a good idea at the time to those who voted for a bill pushed by El Paso, TX pastor Tom Brown to rescind health benefits afforded to domestic partners (including of course lgbt couples.)

Then they got caught in their own homophobic trap. From Think Progress:

Last year, the El Paso, Texas City Council voted 7-1 to extend city employee health benefits to their domestic partners, including LGBT couples. But while many celebrated the progressive move, the right-wing El Paso Word of Life Church’s Pastor — and self-advertised exorcist — Tom Brown slammed the council for “condoning immorality” and giving “a huge black eye to democracy.” Incensed over the idea of equal treatment, Brown spearheaded a ballot initiative to rescind these benefits, which passed this November by a 55 percent majority.

But, in his eagerness to rob gay and unmarried partners of their health benefits, Brown’s group quickly drew up the bill “wording on its own” because he “could not find a lawyer” to advise. By doing so, Brown’s blow to equal rights also doles a “black eye” to 200 El Paso retirees and public servants who will now lose their health benefits on Jan. 1 too:

[City Attorney Charlie] McNabb said his office had identified 200 people who would lose benefits under the language of the referendum that voters approved by a 55-45 percent ratio.
Only 19 gay and unmarried partners of city employees receive benefits under the ordinance voters rejected last week. But McNabb’s staff found that some retirees and others would lose their benefits because of the wording of the ballot issue.[...]
Some are spouses of deceased city employees and some are retirees with other jobs. Still others work for city agencies such as the Public Service Board and the 911 district but are not legally city employees.
In addition, City Council members have city health benefits but technically are not city employees, McNabb said.
Not only same-sex and unmarried partners, but employees of the 911 call center, retired firefighters, retired policemen, and even foster children will lose health benefits because of Brown’s bigotry. While admitting that he only intended to strip the 19 same-sex couples of their benefits, Brown said he has “no regrets” for doing “what was right,” and that city officials “have to respect the will of the public.”

That my friends is the root end of hatred, be it homophobia, racism, or sexism. It's like an ugly wildfire and sooner or later, if not stopped, engulfs everyone.

Get off your butts and call your Senators about DADT! and other Tuesday midday news briefs

DADT repeal vote could come today. The blogsphere has been going crazy over this. From Americablog Gay:

SLDN. The switchboard at the Senate is 202-224-3121. If you live in the state's of any of these Senators call them ASAP. Tell them to put equality over procedure. Senator Collins is key. If she won't support us -- having voted for DADT repeal in Committee -- it will be hard to get others. So, all you Mainers, get on the phone.

The target list:

KEY SENATORS WHO NEED TO HEAR FROM REPEAL SUPPORTERS NOW:

--Susan Collins (R-ME);

--Olympia Snowe (R-ME);

--Richard Lugar (R-IN);

--Judd Gregg (R-NH);

--Scott Brown (R-MA)

--George Voinovich (R-OH);

--Kit Bond (R-MO);

--Joe Manchin (D-WV)

--Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

--Mark Kirk (R-IL)

If you want some guidance on calling, SLDN has a sample script here.

And in other news:

Religious Right Tries to Marginalize SPLC - This makes it official - The religious right are SCARED of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Reversing Pryor reluctance: Right-leaning Dem to do fully right thing - Senator Mark Pryor (homosexuality is a sin) makes a 360 degree turn for the lgbt community on DADT. Hmmm.

Homosexuality in Leviticus - The Washington Post does right by the lgbt community (finally) by inviting The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire to write an excellent piece on those Biblical verses about homosexuality and the need for context.

Another conservative gives a poor defense of SPLC anti-gay hate groups

Another conservative recently tried to defend religious right groups designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.

And like the others, she failed miserably.

Rebecca Hagelin, a member of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank (Washington, D.C. seems to collect think tanks like a dog collects fleas) gave her opinion of the controversy in a Town Hall column, Culture Challenge of the Week: Playing the Hate Card.

You can read it if you, but allow me to break it down. The following opening is the gist of the entire column:

Children know instinctively that “hate” is a bad thing. And they understand that hating a classmate, teacher, or neighbor is nothing like “hating” the broccoli on the dinner plate. Real hate is a deliberate choice: it wishes evil and foments dark, angry feelings towards another person. And ultimately, it extinguishes any light and all love from the hater’s heart.

It’s a serious thing, hate is. And America’s own tangled history of racial prejudice, fueled by unfamiliarity and ignorance, serves as a cultural memory of the power of hate.

So it was a shocking turn of events last week when the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a long-standing civil rights group, added more than a dozen new organizations to their list of hate-mongering groups. Neo-Nazis? KKK-spin-offs? Muslim or Jew-haters? No. The new “haters,” in this era of sexual license, are those who maintain that marriage has an intrinsic meaning--the union of man and woman--that simply cannot be extended to homosexual couplings. Crying “hate speech,” the SPLC denounced “anti-gay” groups for spreading “falsehoods” that say children do best when raised by a mom and a dad, as opposed to two dads or two moms. “Falsehoods” that support traditional marriage are now “hate speech,” thrown into the same filthy bucket as KKK and Neo-Nazi ideology.

Hagelin is attempting to sell folks a weak Hollandaise sauce and stale toast claim that these groups are supposedly being unfairly silenced or "victimized."

Nowhere in her piece did Hagelin address the real reason why SPLC considered these organizations as hate groups:

Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations. Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

Hagelin's omission is intentional and it reveals the game plan on the part of those condemning SPLC for standing up to these groups.

They are sidestepping the credible reasons why SPLC has a beef with these groups (i.e. the usage of junk science, the pushing of known lies to smear the lgbt community) in an attempt to make the controversy about a backlash regarding gay marriage.

Of course this notion is false and Hagelin as well as others who would defend these anti-gay hate groups on these grounds know this.

But I guess when you are in the business of lying about the lgbt community, being deceptive in general comes easy to you.

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Matt Barber prepares Liberty Counsel for their phony SPLC martyrdom

According to People for the American Way, Matt Barber has started building the cross for the Liberty Counsel by predicting that while the organization was not declared an official hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center right now, it will be in the future:

I'll make a prediction right now. I've written several articles, I've underscored and pointed out and exposed the Southern Poverty Law Center on a number of occasions. They personally attack me in this report that they put out, but they do not classify us as a hate group yet. I think they're a little leery of doing that because I have been one person at the forefront of exposing their activities here.

But I am going to make a prediction here: they are eventually going to do that in retaliation for us pointing out what they're doing, they're fraudulent activities. They will do that and at that point the mainstream media is going to be held accountable. They will try to marginalize Liberty Counsel eventually as a hate group and we're going to hold their feet to the fire when they do that.

I have yet to see any of these silly articles Barber is referring to, but if in the future, the Liberty Counsel is declared an anti-gay group rather than profiled for its homophobia (like it was recently), it may be because of comments of Barber like the following describing lgbt relationships:

“one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love."

Of course that being the case, maybe Barber is making that cross for something other than Christian martyrdom.

I'm just saying . . . but then again I am not a psychiatrist.

Matt Barber ruminates about 'sexual deviancy' . . . again and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Liberty Counsel: DADT Keeps "Moral Perverts" Out Of The Armed Services - Matt Barber is at it again. Which of course leads me to ask again the proverbial question - If Matt Barber hates gay sex so much, then why does he keep talking about it?

Salt Lake City schools to vote on anti-gay bias - This ought to be interesting.

Seattle-Area County Swears in Gay Politician - This is good news.

STAND-OFF: Ugandan ‘Kill-The-Gays’ Author Says He Is Attending DC Conference - While Event Organizers Say The Genocidal Madman Is Barred - I almost missed this juicy controversy in the making.

More religious right attacks on SPLC fail to yield results

The attack on the Southern Poverty Law Center by religious right groups continue and like the others, the new attacks are not only pitiful, but give ammunition to the idea that the SPLC was correct in branding these organizations as anti-gay hate groups..

This time, the attacks are coming from Peter LaBarbera, head of the group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (surnamed Porno Pete by members of the lgbt community for his "penchant" of going to subcultural leather events, taking pictures, and describing in intimate details all of the "interesting" encounters he saw there between gay men while ignoring the heterosexuals attending said events) and Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute.

Conveniently, both groups have been profiled as anti-gay hate organizations by SPLC for their attempts to smear the lgbt community through junk science or outright lies.

LaBarbera said the following:

The leftist SPLC is now slandering conservative, Christian and Tea Party groups by mislabeling them as “hate groups” on a par with genuine, fringe hate groups like the KKK. American taxpayers should insist that the federal government have no role in legitimizing the SPLC, which has politicized “hate” and turned it into a fund-raising business to demonize conservatives – including mainstream pro-family groups that oppose homosexual activism.

LaBarbera's whining about being unfairly smeared for supposedly simply standing against homosexuality is rather ironic. Days before, he published the following picture on his site:

The man in this doctored photo, for those who don't know, is openly gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA). LaBarbera put this awful thing on his page to illustrate a ridiculous phony panic he made earlier about gay TSA agents getting their "thrills" by feeling up men.

Seems to me that there is no difference between this picture and a photo of a black man with a toothy grin biting into a huge slab of watermelon.

For all of LaBarbera's posturing about being "persecuted due to his supposed Christian beliefs, it's things like this picture which more than makes the case for SPLC.

Higgins (Illinois Family Institute) took it upon herself to attempt to debunk SPLC's list of anti-gay myths in a piece below LaBarbera's whining. However, she doesn't seem to be familiar the rules of debunking claims, especially the first rule that if you debunking a claim, you simply must address the claim.

You read that right. She doesn't even try to debunk SPLC's anti-gay myths more than she offers a weak explanation as to why there is nothing wrong believing these myths.

For example:

SPLC - MYTH # 1
Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

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.

Higgins - The SPLC thinks that the belief that same sex parents harm children constitutes hatred. The first problem is that Schlatter and Steinback fail to define harm. If one believes that homosexuality is morally flawed, then a household centered on a morally flawed relationship cannot be beneficial.

It is entirely possible that a brother and sister in an incestuous relationship or that polyamorist parents could raise children, providing for their physical needs, comforting them, and teaching them their ABCs. But most of society believes that such relationships would harm children because they would teach children that incest or polyamory are morally permissible. Would Schlatter and Steinback include organizations on their “hate groups” list that propagate the belief that incestuous parents or poly-parents harm children?

As I pointed out in an earlier post, in its profiles and list of anti-gay myths, SPLC cited many sources including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, The Child Molestation and Research Institute, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Organization of Male Sexual Victimization, Nicholas Eberstadt, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, The Palm Center, and Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For her supposed debunking, Higgins cited only one source (and it was the distortion of the 1997 Oxford study which supposedly said that gay men have a short life span. In an absolute bizarre move on her part, Higgins refutes her own point that gay men have a short life span by also citing the 2001 complaint of these researchers that religious right groups were distorting their work).

Higgins's entire argument seems to be "yes we say all of those awful things about lgbts . . . but . . . but . . . "

At the end of the piece, LaBarbera and Higgins tries to shift the argument by providing links to article that supposedly demonize SPLC.

But I didn't bother to read those links. After seeing the depths of duplicity LaBarbera and Higgins sunk to in order to defend their own organizations, I have a problem with believing anything they say.

You see that's the problem of being caught in a lie. People have a problem with believing anything that you say.

And it's a much deserved denouement for LaBarbera, Higgins and the rest involved in anti-gay groups.

Monday, December 06, 2010

Mike Huckabee tries to defend the Family Research Council from hate group designation and fails miserably

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Porno Pete LaBarbera proud of his anti-gay hate group status and other Monday midday news briefs

LaBarbera: "If You Are Not On The SPLC Hate List, You Are Not Doing Enough" - That's our Porno Pete. Always willing to show himself to be a complete homophobic moron. And for the edification of those not aware, I have assembled reasons why Peter LaBarbera and his group Americans for Truth (not!)should and are rightfully considered to be a hate group.

VA official Eugene Delgaudio's latest: 'homos recruit our children into their filthy perversion' - Ugh. How can you say anything when someone is so hateful. You let those words speak for themselves.

Gay and lesbian teens are punished more at school, by police, study says - This ain't good!

Christian Conservative Must Replace Jewish TX House Speaker Because Christians "Do The Best Jobs Over All" - Nothing like a little anti-Semitism to make your Mondays go wrong.

Irony alert - Family Research Council accuses SPLC of "cherry-picking" science

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is still smarting over the Southern Poverty Law Center designating his organization as an anti-gay hate group.

Perkins is of course not angry enough to address the charges head on but still angry enough to play the victim.

In an interview with a "friendlier" political journalism webpage, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, Perkins again complained about being unfairly attacked. But then he added a new charge against the SPLC:

Perkins told TheDC that the SPLC cherry-picked the scientific evidence it chose to cite against the Family Research Council and other similar groups in its related report, titled “10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked”, and ignored contrary evidence.

“We actually went through the studies they cited in their report and have seen the flaws in them, and we pointed to other peer-reviewed research,” Perkins said. “We’re not saying every homosexual has a proclivity to abuse children or that most of them do, but we are saying there is a link that is out there in the research.

Perkins did not say which studies were cherry-picked. But the comment he made to the Daily Caller does represent a retreat from a position he made during an interview on Hardball:

If you look at the American College of Pediatricians' research, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a risk to children.

Perkins did not address his citing the ACP, a sham group created to launder religious right distortions about the lgbt community.

And also in a serious irony, while he accused the Southern Poverty Law Center of cherry-picking science, Perkins never addressed the fact that he did the same thing during the Hardball interview when he cited a study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

In this study, according to Perkins, 86 percent of men who molest children identified as gay. He conveniently did not mention that in the study of 229 convicted child molesters, 63 victims were male, and 166 victims were female. Eighty-six percent of 63 isn't a drop in the bucket and it's certainly not enough to make a generalization in regards to the gay community.

Wendy Wright of the Concerned Women for America, another organization profiled by SPLC for it's anti-gay bias, was also interview in the Daily Caller article.

The Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America say the studies SPLC cites in its reports suffer from serious methodological errors and politically motivated biases.

“Liberal groups claim all of the science is on their side, and that’s simply not true,” Wright said. “They refer to studies that often were conducted by homosexual activists or people associated with the homosexual movement.

“Unbiased studies back up the fact that engaging in homosexual behavior carries detrimental consequences; oftentimes these studies were sponsored or paid for by homosexual advocacy groups.”

In its profiles and list of anti-gay myths, SPLC cited many sources including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, A. Nicholas Groth (who was ironically cited by the Family Research Council in one its past studies on homosexuality and pedophilia before he demanded that they remove his name and research from their work), The Child Molestation and Research Institute, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Organization of Male Sexual Victimization, Nicholas Eberstadt, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, The Palm Center, and Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Neither Perkins nor Wright pointed out just how these sources showed any bias or initiated studies "conducted by people associated in the homosexual movement," although Wright later claimed that lgbts have "taken over" leading mental-health research organizations.

Perkins also said the following:

The social conservative groups take particular aim at SPLC’s claim that the minority status of gays and lesbians accounts for the “higher rates of anxiety, depression and depression-related illnesses, and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population.”

Perkins points to peer-reviewed studies done in the Netherlands and elsewhere, where homosexuality is tolerated to a greater degree than in the U.S., that show gays and lesbians still suffer from these same maladies, including elevated rates of suicide, even in the absence of widespread anti-gay prejudice.

As stated many times in past posts, this position about "studies in the Netherlands" is a distortion of a study by Dr. Theo Sandfort which looked at the mental health of gay men in the Netherlands.

This is what Sandfort told me in a Jan. 2009 email:

There is a difference between the U.S. and the Netherlands in terms of acceptance of homosexuality. That does not mean that there is no homophobia (and homophobic damage) in the Netherlands. It is not clear how difference in climate affects the prevalence of mental disorders. We don't know the final answers, but in the U.S. as well as the Netherlands, homophobia is related to mental health problems.

If Perkins and Wright sought to quell the discussion on whether or not their organizations can be considered as anti-gay hate groups, again they have failed.

Instead, they seemed to have unintentionally opened up a new avenue of questions by accusing SPLC of cherry-picking studies, but not naming these studies.

I, for one, is interested in seeing their evidence of cherry-picking on the part of SPLC, that is if they have any evidence.

Related posts:

The dangers of anti-gay propaganda - A personal story

Family Research Council's Tony Perkins pushes George Rekers flavored falsehoods on Hardball

Concerned Women for America plays the race card while Bryan Fischer makes a Freudian slip

The American Family Association must address Bryan Fischer's hateful comments

Concerned Women for America - endorsing hateful anti-gay comics and bad data

The Family Research Council should be apologizing to the gay community

Saturday, December 04, 2010

If Matt Barber hates gay sex so much, then why does he keep talking about it?

One organization profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-gay dogma - but not designated as an official anti-gay hate group - was the religious right lawyer consortium, the Liberty Counsel:

Created in 1989, Liberty Counsel is affiliated with Liberty University Law School in Lynchburg, Va., a legacy of the late conservative icon Jerry Falwell. It was founded and is still chaired by Mathew (Mat) Staver, who also serves as director of the Liberty Center for Law and Policy at Liberty University, and provides legal assistance with regard to religious liberty, abortion and the family.

The organization may be best known for its campaigns to ensure that “public displays of religion” are maintained during the Christmas holiday, and it has adopted broad right-wing views, including the allegation that the Obama Administration has a “socialist liberal agenda.” But it also has focused heavily on anti-gay activism.

In 2009, J. Matt Barber, formerly with Concerned Women for America and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality joined Liberty Counsel as director of cultural affairs (also becoming Liberty University’s associate dean for career and professional development). A year earlier, Barber had argued that given “medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality,” it should be considered “criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative.”

The Counsel also has been active in battling same-sex marriage, saying it would destroy the “bedrock of society.” In 2005, the group’s blog said: “People who … support the radical homosexual agenda will not rest until marriage has become completely devalued. Children will suffer most from this debauchery.” A 2007 blog posting said same-sex marriage would “severely impact future generations.”

Like other anti-gay groups, Liberty Counsel argues that hate crime laws are “actually ‘thought crimes’ laws that violate the right to freedom and of conscience” — an opinion rejected by the Supreme Court. In fact, the laws raise penalties for crimes already on the books — assault, murder and so on — that were motivated by hatred of people based on their sexual orientation. They do not, and could not under the Constitution, punish people for voicing opinions.

Since 2006, Liberty Counsel has also run its “Change is Possible” campaign with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays to protect people who say they’ve changed from gay to straight from “discrimination” by “intolerant homosexuals.”

You will notice that the profile mentioned the name of J. Matt Barber and this is important. Barber is right-wing creation through-and-through.

In 2005, he lost his job at AllState Insurance in part for penning an anti-gay column. Since that time, the story was spun that he was fired due to his beliefs However, like all religious right stories of gay persecution, there are details omitted (such as Barber using AllState Insurance equipment to write his column or him identifying himself as an employee of AllState in the same column). To paraphrase critic Mary McCarthy's famous statement on playwright Lillian Hellman, just about all of Barber's tale of being a victim of the "gay agenda" is a lie including the words "and" and "the."

But Barber parlayed that narrative into cinchy gigs with Concerned Women for America, the Liberty Counsel, and a book deal (a book, by the way, sporting a cover which made him look like a sleazy Las Vegas lounge singer rather than an upstanding "culture warrior"). And along the way, he has raised many eyebrows with the ways he has chosen to denigrate the lgbt community, including:

saying that lgbt-inclusive anti-discrimination laws are a bad idea because:

“Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.”

criticizing Home Depot for daring to acknowledge that same-sex households exist,

slurring the name of an Obama appointee in a pitiful attempt to be clever,

defending countries that persecute lgbts,

telling a highly dubious story about a gay man sexually assaulting men in his military unit, and

comparing lgbts and progressives in general to idol worshippers and child sacrificers of Biblical times.

But it is in the area of "criticizing," i.e. talking about gay sex where Barber has made a, shall we say, niche for himself.

During one of those annoyingly dreary "God is telling us to take back America" conferences in September of last year, Barber not only used Nazi imagery* (see end of column) to describe lgbts but also dismissed notions that those arguing against homosexuality should use only religious arguments. Reportedly, he urged attendees to

. . .focus on the “ick” factor around gay sex and on claims that homosexuality is a health threat, which he called the movement’s “Achilles heel.”

And apparently he truly believes this because Barber will always be remembered for saying describing gay relationships as:

“one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love."

That comment created a very amusing feud between "ex-gay" group Exodus International, Americans for Truth, and Barber's group, the Liberty Counsel. Barber sought to end that feud by painting his own organization as liars (the Liberty Counsel initially said Barber didn't make the comment at all, but Barber later claimed that he made the comment before joining the Liberty Counsel).

If Barber continues on the road he has paved for himself, the Liberty Counsel will be considered an anti-gay hate group in no time.

* It is highly ironic that Barber used Nazi imagery to describe the lgbt community in that conference last year. In a column this week, Barber claimed that the organizations listed as anti-gay hate groups and profiled have already "won the argument" because as he puts it, "It’s often said that the first to call the other a Nazi has lost the argument."

I guess that would make Barber a loser from the offset. But of course we already knew that.