Tuesday news briefs
According to the blogs, some folks have lost their damned minds . . .
Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay” - I talked about Scott Lively and his phony book The Pink Swastika on numerous occasions. Now it seems that he has gone off the deep end. I want to know - just who told him about "our plan."
Seriously though, if you think the headline is strange, wait till you read what he said about our "handbook."
Hat tip to Box Turtle Bulletin
Goodasyou.org gets misrepresented - One of my favorite blogs, Goodasyou.org, has reached a plateau that many have reached, even though none has aspired to - it gets misrepresented by a religious right group. Misrepresented? Hell, what was done was out-and-out lying. I wished it had happened to my blog. I would have gone for the jugular.
FRC, Focus on the Family Blame Their Victims for ‘Decline’ of Religion - From truthwinsout.org comes the news that Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council knows who is to blame for the decline of religion in America (as talked about in a recent USA Today article). And of course, the culprit isn't them, even though for 30 years they have spread lies (particularly about the gay community) designed to appeal to the egos and the fears of Christians. And of course the culprit isn't them even though they have reduced the credibility of Chrisitianity in selfish pursuits of political power.
Sexual-orientation rights bill advances - It's nice to close out the day with good news.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Gay adoption ban in Florida heats up again
The state of Florida is filing an appeal against a ruling that struck down its ban on gay adoption. And helping it will be the religious right group, the Liberty Counsel.
Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said that the state's ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional. She made that ruling in the case of Martin Gill and his partner of 10 years. Four years ago, they took in two brothers as foster children. One was four and other was four months old. The childen had come from an abused environment. Since coming to the Gill home, the two brothers have thrived tremendously. The Gills now want to adopt the boys.
Judge Lederman ruled that the state didn't make a compelling argument in keeping the Gills from adopting these boys.
Of course the state of Florida wasn't exactly helped by the "experts" it choose to defend its ban. George Rekers and Bob Schumm said that the state had a compelling reason to keep gays from adopting.
Rekers, in particular, said a few interesting comments. According the Miami Herald:
Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.
Depressed people, Rekers said, ''are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs.'' Gay people, he added, ``would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children.''
. . . Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 ''sex partners'' during a lifetime. ''I think that would be a very good social policy,'' he said in a deposition.He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. ''They would tend to hang around each other,'' Rekers testified. ``So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things.''
Needless to say, Judge Lederman didn't exactly find his testimony to be accurate:
Court documents said:
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.
Interestingly enough, these facts seem to have eluded Liberty Counsel head Matt Staver in his statement to One News Now:
Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University Law School, notes the law has been challenged many times with the court siding with the law, but he tells OneNewsNow that an activist judge has revived it.
"Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman actually wrote that the law violates the constitution of the state of Florida," he points out.
So that's it! - Florida didn't lose the case because its witnesses were awful. It was because Lederman is an "activist judge."
Staver runs the gambit of religious right talking points here:
Staver contends the Florida law soundly demonstrates the need for children to be permanently adopted into homes with stable families, including a mother and father.
What a lie! The case demonstrates that the state of Florida needs to get rid of an antiquated ban created at a time in which folks thought that gays were trying to recruit children.
Granted, some idiots still believe the recruitment bull now but it's a notion that is dying a slow, painful, and much deserved death.
And the Florida ban on gay adoption needs to die also.
The state of Florida is filing an appeal against a ruling that struck down its ban on gay adoption. And helping it will be the religious right group, the Liberty Counsel.
Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said that the state's ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional. She made that ruling in the case of Martin Gill and his partner of 10 years. Four years ago, they took in two brothers as foster children. One was four and other was four months old. The childen had come from an abused environment. Since coming to the Gill home, the two brothers have thrived tremendously. The Gills now want to adopt the boys.
Judge Lederman ruled that the state didn't make a compelling argument in keeping the Gills from adopting these boys.
Of course the state of Florida wasn't exactly helped by the "experts" it choose to defend its ban. George Rekers and Bob Schumm said that the state had a compelling reason to keep gays from adopting.
Rekers, in particular, said a few interesting comments. According the Miami Herald:
Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.
Depressed people, Rekers said, ''are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs.'' Gay people, he added, ``would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children.''
. . . Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 ''sex partners'' during a lifetime. ''I think that would be a very good social policy,'' he said in a deposition.He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. ''They would tend to hang around each other,'' Rekers testified. ``So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things.''
Needless to say, Judge Lederman didn't exactly find his testimony to be accurate:
Court documents said:
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.
Interestingly enough, these facts seem to have eluded Liberty Counsel head Matt Staver in his statement to One News Now:
Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University Law School, notes the law has been challenged many times with the court siding with the law, but he tells OneNewsNow that an activist judge has revived it.
"Last year, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman actually wrote that the law violates the constitution of the state of Florida," he points out.
So that's it! - Florida didn't lose the case because its witnesses were awful. It was because Lederman is an "activist judge."
Staver runs the gambit of religious right talking points here:
Staver contends the Florida law soundly demonstrates the need for children to be permanently adopted into homes with stable families, including a mother and father.
What a lie! The case demonstrates that the state of Florida needs to get rid of an antiquated ban created at a time in which folks thought that gays were trying to recruit children.
Granted, some idiots still believe the recruitment bull now but it's a notion that is dying a slow, painful, and much deserved death.
And the Florida ban on gay adoption needs to die also.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Whatever happened to the Day of Truth?
Apparently some members of the religious right are abandoning "Truth."
Of course according to some of us, they have abandoned the notion of truth a long time ago, but this "Truth" is the Day of Truth they created to combat the Day of Silence.
The Day of Silence is an annual student-led event created to bring attention the plight of lgbt youth in America's schools.
Participating students across the nation from middle school through college remain quiet to bring attention to harassment and violence directed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth.
Religious right organizations don't exactly like this (do they like anything that we do) so they created an event called the "Day of Truth," in which students are "encouraged" to speak the so-called truth about homosexuality. By this, I mean that students are encouraged not only to call homosexuality a sin but to repeat all of those discredited and misrepresented studies that have made our lives a living hell.
Like many spin-offs, the Day of Truth hasn't been that successful. And that is why several religious right groups are actually encouraging a "student walkout" in protest to Day of Silence:
AFTAH Joins April 17 Walkout of Pro-Homosexuality Student Day of Silence
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is part of a national coalition of pro-family organizations urging parents to call their children out of school on April 17. This is the day designated for this year’s Day of Silence when students and/or teachers will purposely remain silent during instructional time to protest so-called discrimination and gain sympathy for students who identify as homosexual or transgender.
The Day of Silence is a yearly event sponsored by the partisan political action group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is the belief of the sponsors of the Walkout that parents should no longer passively accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded public school classrooms through student silence.
The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.
There are so many things wrong that what these groups are trying to do.
The purpose of Day of Silence is to bring attention to the fact that many lgbt youth cannot function in an educational environment because they get picked on due to their orientation. It is not design to criticize personal religious beliefs but negative actions that may stem from those beliefs.
That comment about parents being forced to "accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded schools through student silence" is bad logic turned inside out. What those this mean? Let's force these students to talk because them being silent is a waste of tax dollars?
And the notion that the Day of Silence causes disruptions is a lie. Generally when students are left alone to participate, the event is a success.
If anyone causes disruptions, it is those who oppose the event, like the Rev. Ken Hutcheron tried unsuccessfully to do last year in Seattle.
This new tactic is just another attempt to disrupt the Day of Silence. And it doesn't make sense. You protest against the alleged politicizing of schools by encouraging more politicizing?
And this explanation by the so-called Illinois Family Institute is a hoot:
Parents must actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes. Please join the national effort to restore to public education a proper understanding of the role of government-subsidized schools. Please help de-politicize the learning environment by calling your child out of school if your child's school allows students to remain silent during instructional time on the Day of Silence.
That's right! Demand that students talk during class! It's not only educational, but now it's Christian.
Seems to me that the goal of these groups is to undermine the Day of Silence to the point that schools would be encouraged not to hold it.
When and if that happens, these same groups will claim that schools outright refused to hold the Day of Silence because of their Christian values rather than the fact that they were hassled to the point of exhaustion by a bunch of brats masquerading as "pro-family" groups.
And that strikes me as very untruthful.
Apparently some members of the religious right are abandoning "Truth."
Of course according to some of us, they have abandoned the notion of truth a long time ago, but this "Truth" is the Day of Truth they created to combat the Day of Silence.
The Day of Silence is an annual student-led event created to bring attention the plight of lgbt youth in America's schools.
Participating students across the nation from middle school through college remain quiet to bring attention to harassment and violence directed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth.
Religious right organizations don't exactly like this (do they like anything that we do) so they created an event called the "Day of Truth," in which students are "encouraged" to speak the so-called truth about homosexuality. By this, I mean that students are encouraged not only to call homosexuality a sin but to repeat all of those discredited and misrepresented studies that have made our lives a living hell.
Like many spin-offs, the Day of Truth hasn't been that successful. And that is why several religious right groups are actually encouraging a "student walkout" in protest to Day of Silence:
AFTAH Joins April 17 Walkout of Pro-Homosexuality Student Day of Silence
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is part of a national coalition of pro-family organizations urging parents to call their children out of school on April 17. This is the day designated for this year’s Day of Silence when students and/or teachers will purposely remain silent during instructional time to protest so-called discrimination and gain sympathy for students who identify as homosexual or transgender.
The Day of Silence is a yearly event sponsored by the partisan political action group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality is immoral. It is the belief of the sponsors of the Walkout that parents should no longer passively accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded public school classrooms through student silence.
The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking. DOS participants have a captive audience, many of whom disagree with and are made uncomfortable by the politicization of their classroom.
There are so many things wrong that what these groups are trying to do.
The purpose of Day of Silence is to bring attention to the fact that many lgbt youth cannot function in an educational environment because they get picked on due to their orientation. It is not design to criticize personal religious beliefs but negative actions that may stem from those beliefs.
That comment about parents being forced to "accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded schools through student silence" is bad logic turned inside out. What those this mean? Let's force these students to talk because them being silent is a waste of tax dollars?
And the notion that the Day of Silence causes disruptions is a lie. Generally when students are left alone to participate, the event is a success.
If anyone causes disruptions, it is those who oppose the event, like the Rev. Ken Hutcheron tried unsuccessfully to do last year in Seattle.
This new tactic is just another attempt to disrupt the Day of Silence. And it doesn't make sense. You protest against the alleged politicizing of schools by encouraging more politicizing?
And this explanation by the so-called Illinois Family Institute is a hoot:
Parents must actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes. Please join the national effort to restore to public education a proper understanding of the role of government-subsidized schools. Please help de-politicize the learning environment by calling your child out of school if your child's school allows students to remain silent during instructional time on the Day of Silence.
That's right! Demand that students talk during class! It's not only educational, but now it's Christian.
Seems to me that the goal of these groups is to undermine the Day of Silence to the point that schools would be encouraged not to hold it.
When and if that happens, these same groups will claim that schools outright refused to hold the Day of Silence because of their Christian values rather than the fact that they were hassled to the point of exhaustion by a bunch of brats masquerading as "pro-family" groups.
And that strikes me as very untruthful.
Here we go again - School tries to challenge gay/straight alliance
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- An attorney for two gay students at a north Florida high school told a federal judge Thursday they should be allowed to form a campus club promoting tolerance toward gays, despite a school prohibition.
But a lawyer for the Nassau County School Board said the group's name, Gay-Straight Alliance, is against school policy.
Yulee High School students Hannah Page and Jacob Brock, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the school board to overturn its decision banning them from forming the club at school. Yulee is about 25 miles north of Jacksonville, near the Georgia state line.
U.S. District Judge Henry Adams Jr. said he would issue a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction "as soon as I can," but gave Nassau County three days to submit additional written arguments. The students want an injunction to allow them to meet until the case goes to trial.
ACLU Attorney Robert F. Rosenwald Jr. argued that Page and Brock had been the target of anti-gay epithets and threats of violence at school and wanted to start the Gay-Straight Alliance to open a discourse among students.
Attorney Frank Sheppard, who represents the school board, said the district's main complaint is the name of the group, saying it does not approve of groups dealing with sexual orientation and noted the school has an abstinence-based sex education curriculum.
"If they change the name and comply with Nassau County School Board policies they can meet," he said.
The judge questioned Sheppard over the school's objection to the name.
"A Gay-Straight Alliance, that covers everybody doesn't it?" Adams asked.
More here . . .
The school district is wrong and will most likely lose, thanks to the Equal Access Act:
. . . (It) provides that if a school permits students to organize clubs, then school officials cannot prevent a club from organizing based upon the subject matter addressed by the club. Although the Equal Access Act does not specifically address gay clubs, the law applies to students who want to form a Gay-Straight Alliance or other gay-rights club. Students must, of course, comply with their school's rules relating to forming clubs, such as application requirements and procurement of faculty sponsors. In other words, students who want to form a gay-rights club must follow the same rules as students who form a chess club.
The irony is that the Equal Access Act was created on behalf of some students who weren't able to form a Bible Club in schools.
The irony gets better. According to Box Turtle Bulletin:
Schools with anti-gay authorities aren’t too pleased about this. And they have frequently tried to bar gay and gay-friendly students from meeting, going to court and indignantly defending their position.
They generally argue that gay clubs are sexual hook-up clubs whose purpose is to advocate for immoral sexual behaviors -and provide sex partners - and that because they are an “abstinence only” school then they have a right to deny this “sex club”. Or they may argue that there is already a generic anti-bigotry club (usually in actuality a black or Hispanic student club) so there’s no need for a club to support gay students. Some - with a perfectly straight face - will argue that if gay students identify as such they will be picked on so the school needs to protect gay students by not allowing them to meet.
These arguments tend to be recognized as the defense of homophobia that they are and judges don’t often find them very persuasive. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance in which the courts found that schools, principals, or school boards could deny equal access to gay students.
And of course, the Florida Baptist Witness gives its point of view on the case. As bizarre as it sounds, the article is somewhat (I said somewhat) fair and gives a lot of good detail.
The people at One News Now should take notes.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- An attorney for two gay students at a north Florida high school told a federal judge Thursday they should be allowed to form a campus club promoting tolerance toward gays, despite a school prohibition.
But a lawyer for the Nassau County School Board said the group's name, Gay-Straight Alliance, is against school policy.
Yulee High School students Hannah Page and Jacob Brock, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the school board to overturn its decision banning them from forming the club at school. Yulee is about 25 miles north of Jacksonville, near the Georgia state line.
U.S. District Judge Henry Adams Jr. said he would issue a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction "as soon as I can," but gave Nassau County three days to submit additional written arguments. The students want an injunction to allow them to meet until the case goes to trial.
ACLU Attorney Robert F. Rosenwald Jr. argued that Page and Brock had been the target of anti-gay epithets and threats of violence at school and wanted to start the Gay-Straight Alliance to open a discourse among students.
Attorney Frank Sheppard, who represents the school board, said the district's main complaint is the name of the group, saying it does not approve of groups dealing with sexual orientation and noted the school has an abstinence-based sex education curriculum.
"If they change the name and comply with Nassau County School Board policies they can meet," he said.
The judge questioned Sheppard over the school's objection to the name.
"A Gay-Straight Alliance, that covers everybody doesn't it?" Adams asked.
More here . . .
The school district is wrong and will most likely lose, thanks to the Equal Access Act:
. . . (It) provides that if a school permits students to organize clubs, then school officials cannot prevent a club from organizing based upon the subject matter addressed by the club. Although the Equal Access Act does not specifically address gay clubs, the law applies to students who want to form a Gay-Straight Alliance or other gay-rights club. Students must, of course, comply with their school's rules relating to forming clubs, such as application requirements and procurement of faculty sponsors. In other words, students who want to form a gay-rights club must follow the same rules as students who form a chess club.
The irony is that the Equal Access Act was created on behalf of some students who weren't able to form a Bible Club in schools.
The irony gets better. According to Box Turtle Bulletin:
Schools with anti-gay authorities aren’t too pleased about this. And they have frequently tried to bar gay and gay-friendly students from meeting, going to court and indignantly defending their position.
They generally argue that gay clubs are sexual hook-up clubs whose purpose is to advocate for immoral sexual behaviors -and provide sex partners - and that because they are an “abstinence only” school then they have a right to deny this “sex club”. Or they may argue that there is already a generic anti-bigotry club (usually in actuality a black or Hispanic student club) so there’s no need for a club to support gay students. Some - with a perfectly straight face - will argue that if gay students identify as such they will be picked on so the school needs to protect gay students by not allowing them to meet.
These arguments tend to be recognized as the defense of homophobia that they are and judges don’t often find them very persuasive. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance in which the courts found that schools, principals, or school boards could deny equal access to gay students.
And of course, the Florida Baptist Witness gives its point of view on the case. As bizarre as it sounds, the article is somewhat (I said somewhat) fair and gives a lot of good detail.
The people at One News Now should take notes.
Uganda hates gays while Peter tells us what exactly is a 'power bottom'
Scary stuff coming out of Uganda courtesy of Box Turtle Bulletin -
Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two - The Uganda anti-gay conference continues for a second day, with no further explanation on conference leaders’ endorsement of a parliamentarian proposal to upgrade Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law to include forced “therapy” on those who are convicted. Ugandan law already provides for a life sentence on conviction . . .
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three -- Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Meanwhile . . .
One of our favorite anti-gay spokesman is devoting serious time to identifying the definition of a "true power bottom."
I wonder which story will One News Now cover.
Scary stuff coming out of Uganda courtesy of Box Turtle Bulletin -
Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two - The Uganda anti-gay conference continues for a second day, with no further explanation on conference leaders’ endorsement of a parliamentarian proposal to upgrade Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law to include forced “therapy” on those who are convicted. Ugandan law already provides for a life sentence on conviction . . .
Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three -- Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Meanwhile . . .
One of our favorite anti-gay spokesman is devoting serious time to identifying the definition of a "true power bottom."
I wonder which story will One News Now cover.
Friday, March 06, 2009
'Christian' organization doesn't know the difference between a pro-family group and a hate group
Yesterday, I mentioned that the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) was miffed at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) due to the designation of several organizations as "hate groups."
The CADC is also circulating a petition asking that the SPLC stop labeling so-called "pro-family" organizations as hate groups:
Apparently the SPLC has no tolerance for Christians who speak and act in accordance with their faith. This is the typical, liberal kind of tolerance that is a one way street for those who oppose traditional Christian morality.
This brand of Christian bashing needs to be stopped. Sign our petition urging the SPLC to stop slandering Christians for their biblical point of view. SPLC’s attempt to label pro-family organizations "hate groups" must to be renounced.
Interestingly enough, the CADC doesn't give the names of these groups it claims is being unfairly labeled as hate groups.
Here are just two:
The Family Research Institute - that is the organization run by discredited researcher Paul Cameron.
You remember him, don't you?
He is the guy who has been called out or censured by individuals and groups from diverse backgrounds including the American Psychological Association, The American Sociological Association, conservative leader Williams Bennett, and anti-gay group Exodus International.
He is the guy who makes up stories about gay men castrating children in bathrooms.
He is the guy who publishes phony studies claiming, amongst other things, that gay men eat feces.
He is the guy who said the following:
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm.”
Then there is Abiding Truth Ministries - that is the group founded by Scott Lively. He is the guy who wrote that fradulent book The Pink Swastika which connects the gay community to the Nazi party. That's the book that has been repeatedly discredited. Presently, Mr. Lively is at a conference in Uganda, lending support to that country's very very strict anti-gay laws (those "convicted of homosexual acts" are given a life sentence).
In naming these organizations as hate groups, the SPLC said:
Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.
In addition, Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the SPLC said:
“we don’t ordinarily list groups that say homosexuality is wrong or see it as a sin; we list very few anti-gay groups. They have to be very extreme in their views. We see Lively the same way we see Paul Cameron; the two of them in our view consciously promote easily provable false defamations. They don’t seem to care at all what the truth is.”
Seems to me that anger shouldn't directed at SPLC for labeling these organizations as hate groups, but to CADC for calling them "pro-family."
That is if one cares about the integrity of such terms as "pro-family" and "Christian."
Yesterday, I mentioned that the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) was miffed at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) due to the designation of several organizations as "hate groups."
The CADC is also circulating a petition asking that the SPLC stop labeling so-called "pro-family" organizations as hate groups:
Apparently the SPLC has no tolerance for Christians who speak and act in accordance with their faith. This is the typical, liberal kind of tolerance that is a one way street for those who oppose traditional Christian morality.
This brand of Christian bashing needs to be stopped. Sign our petition urging the SPLC to stop slandering Christians for their biblical point of view. SPLC’s attempt to label pro-family organizations "hate groups" must to be renounced.
Interestingly enough, the CADC doesn't give the names of these groups it claims is being unfairly labeled as hate groups.
Here are just two:
The Family Research Institute - that is the organization run by discredited researcher Paul Cameron.
You remember him, don't you?
He is the guy who has been called out or censured by individuals and groups from diverse backgrounds including the American Psychological Association, The American Sociological Association, conservative leader Williams Bennett, and anti-gay group Exodus International.
He is the guy who makes up stories about gay men castrating children in bathrooms.
He is the guy who publishes phony studies claiming, amongst other things, that gay men eat feces.
He is the guy who said the following:
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm.”
Then there is Abiding Truth Ministries - that is the group founded by Scott Lively. He is the guy who wrote that fradulent book The Pink Swastika which connects the gay community to the Nazi party. That's the book that has been repeatedly discredited. Presently, Mr. Lively is at a conference in Uganda, lending support to that country's very very strict anti-gay laws (those "convicted of homosexual acts" are given a life sentence).
In naming these organizations as hate groups, the SPLC said:
Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.
In addition, Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the SPLC said:
“we don’t ordinarily list groups that say homosexuality is wrong or see it as a sin; we list very few anti-gay groups. They have to be very extreme in their views. We see Lively the same way we see Paul Cameron; the two of them in our view consciously promote easily provable false defamations. They don’t seem to care at all what the truth is.”
Seems to me that anger shouldn't directed at SPLC for labeling these organizations as hate groups, but to CADC for calling them "pro-family."
That is if one cares about the integrity of such terms as "pro-family" and "Christian."
More on HRC's End the Lies project
Yesterday, the Human Rights Campaign launched a new site that will expose the lies told about the lgbt community.
Now you can help this site by nominating your favorite (and I use the term very loosely) spreader of anti-gay lies and distortions for the Wall of Shame.
I've already nominated a few deserving individuals.
By all means, nominate a few of your own. Lord knows that there are so many out there.
Yesterday, the Human Rights Campaign launched a new site that will expose the lies told about the lgbt community.
Now you can help this site by nominating your favorite (and I use the term very loosely) spreader of anti-gay lies and distortions for the Wall of Shame.
I've already nominated a few deserving individuals.
By all means, nominate a few of your own. Lord knows that there are so many out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)