The Family Research Council's deceptive use of social science to defend DOMA

With news coming out of Washington  from Speaker of the House John Boehner that Congress may take up the defense of DOMA and recent comments from the Family Research Council stating that they are in talks in helping with that possible defense, one has to ask will the propaganda and anti-gay points in yesterday's post and today's post be a part of that strategy.

On its Defend DOMA web page, the Family Research Council has another link, Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same Sex Marriage which supposedly speaks against gay marriage. While this piece isn't as guttural as Q&A What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?, there still remains a number of misdirections.

In the piece, Family Research Council is basing the argument against gay marriage on the claim that "children need both a mother and a father."

FRC makes the claim that lesbians household "raising children without a father" is wrong because according to them:

Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.

And gay households "raising children without a mother" is wrong because:

fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family.

However, very little (if any at all) of the literature/studies FRC cites to make these conclusions have anything to do with same-sex households.

When the organization does address the studies involving same-sex households, it throws out an insulting addendum:

A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:

Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.

This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.

There is a huge problem with FRC citing Nock's testimony. He gave it in 2001. Since that time, there have been numerous other studies , as well as personal stories from children in same-sex households which back up the conclusion that same-sex households are a perfectly fine place to raise children.

Also, Nock's testimony was rejected by other researchers. (*see below)

Christian foster parents will most likely be the new religious right cause celebre

Something happened today overseas which I know will play out in this country:

Mr and Mrs Johns said they could not tell a child homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle.

Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, of Derby, said the city council did not want them to look after children because of their traditional views.

They claim they were "doomed not to be approved" due to their opinions.

The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers.

They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.

At the High Court, they asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values.

But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

They said that if children were placed with carers who objected to homosexuality and same-sex relationships, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of looked-after children".

And while we know the religious right will be chomping at the bit over this (Lifesite News has already started), the situation to me is not as simple as folks will most likely make it.

While I have nothing against the couple, I do have a problem with their failure to acknowledge the plain possibility that one of the children they seek to foster may turn out to be an lgbt.

And then what will happen to that child in that environment?

This isn't a matter of the lgbt community trying to strong arm the law in our favor. It's a matter of a creating the best environment for a child to be nurtured.

 And  no matter how Christian and nurturing as the Johns family claims to be, the chance that an lgbt child may be placed in this unaccepting household is a chance that shouldn't be taken.

The words of Robert Pigott, BBC religious affairs correspondent, says it better than me:

The case is likely to be seen as a landmark decision, as senior judges ruled so decisively against any idea that attitudes might be justified purely because they were Christian in origin.

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not.

Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.

Will the House of Representative defend DOMA with FRC lies? and other Monday midday news briefs

To Block A Gay-Straight Alliance, Texas High School Shuts Down All Extracurricular Clubs - Just unbelievable how some people will stoop. Was all of this really necessary?

John Boehner: I'd Be Very Surprised If The House Doesn't Decide To Defend DOMA - Given what I said in my post this morning, one has to wonder if the House does defend DOMA, will it adopt the Family Research Council's propaganda against the lgbt community.

Black, Gay & Elderly - A VERY important documentary which should have a wider audience.

Right-Wing Commentator Calls Marriage Equality "An Act of Societal Suicide" - They just can't help themselves with their rhetoric.

Hey CBN: Why not ask Peter Sprigg about 'exporting' or criminalizing certain humans? - If Peter Sprigg wants to "debate" then why does he keep running away from the debate?

Family Research Council pulling the 'gay = promiscuous pedophiles' card to defend DOMA

Audacity is always rooted in what someone feels he or she can get away with.

In other words, if no one calls you out for lying then you are mostly likely going to do it again.

It's helpful to keep this in mind while perusing a Family Research Council's website directed solely at Defending DOMA.

One has to hand it to the organization for not letting a moment - in this case, the Justice Department saying that it will no longer defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in court cases - go by without using it as an opportunity to  fund raise.

But in attacking the decision not to defend DOMA - and gay marriage in general - FRC uses the page to push incredibly ridiculous arguments having nothing to do with gay marriage.

And when it does attack gay marriage head in, the organization uses tactics which led to its being called out several times in the past (most recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center) for deliberately passing along awful anti-gay propaganda and distorting legitimate science to quantify this propaganda.

Two sections of the webpage (Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage, and Q&A What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?) are rife with deception.

For today, let's look at Q&A: What's Wrong with Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?

A following passage in this piece is a perfect example of the low road FRC has chosen to travel in order to defend DOMA:

Do homosexuals pose a threat to children?

Homosexual men are far more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals. The evidence for this lies in the findings that:

·  Almost all child sexual abuse is committed by men; and

·  Less than three percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual; yet

·  Nearly a third of all cases of child sexual abuse are homosexual in nature (that is, they involve men molesting boys). This is a rate of homosexual child abuse about ten times higher than one would expect based on the first two facts.

These figures are essentially undisputed. However, pro-homosexual activists seek to explain them away by claiming that men who molest boys are not usually homosexual in their adult sexual orientation. Yet a study of convicted child molesters, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (W. D. Erickson, M.D., et al., in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:1, 1988).

This does not mean that all, or even most, homosexual men are child molesters--but it does prove that homosexuality is a significant risk factor for this horrible crime.

That's right. FRC is pulling the homosexuality = pedophilia lie and distorting legitimate work prove this point.

Know Your LGBT History - Never Too Young To Die

Allow me to apologize in advance for this segment of Know Your LGBT History because I have a feeling that it will offend a lot of folks.

But today's clip is a good reason why I began these posts a while back. A lot of young folks know Glee, TransAmerica, Brokeback Mountain, and The Kids Are Alright. But many of them don't know the road that the lgbt community traveled to get positive portrayals of ourselves on television and in the movies. A lot of these young folks aren't aware of the controversy caused by that awful film Cruising in the early 80s or why The Killing of Sister George received an X rating when it came out in the 60s.

The lgbt community have fought very hard for our public dignity. And as recent incidents show (i.e. that awful SNL skit attacking the transgender community), we still have a long way to go. But still, it's a long way from where we were when the following came out:

Never Too Young To Die (1986) was a hideous movie with a terrible plot. All you need to know is that John Stamos is fighting to save the world from the evil mastermind who murdered his secret agent father.

And this criminal mastermind is Van Ragnar, an intersexed rock star-cum- showgirl out to poison the world's water supply.

Just awful. By the way, the female interest in this movie was played by former Prince protege Vanity (Denise Matthews). Matthews is now a Christian minister.

After a movie like this, I would have hands laid upon me too. The following clip features the "best" of Gene Simmons as Van Ragnar played to the song Ladies Room:



Past Know Your LGBT History Postings:

Why is Mike Huckabee declaring war on lgbt families?

Mike Huckabee has attacked lgbt families again. This is what he said recently on CNN:

"I believe that we're in denial about potential problems as we see more and more homosexual couples raising families. Essentially, these are experiments to see how well children will fare in such same-sex households. It will be years before we know whether or not our little guinea pigs turn out to be good at marriage and parenthood."

Personally, I think the only person dealing with denial problems is Huckabee. If he had any true questions regarding same-sex households, there are a plethora of studies out there which prove that same-sex households don't pose a danger to children.

But let's be honest there. Huckabee  has no interest in educating himself on same-sex households.

He just doesn't like same-sex households just as he has proven that he has a serious disdain for the lgbt community in general.  His comments are obviously carefully measured soundbites designed to bash same-sex households while simultaneously making himself sound like a reasonable person.

No matter how nice he tries to make them seem, they still add up to ignorant homophobia of the highest level (yes I know I am using an oxymoron but it best describes the depths that Huckabee stooped to in this attack). 

Huckabee comes across as a bully, not a presidential candidate.

And by the way, just in case you need to keep score, in the perfect world of Mike Huckabee, a same-sex household who takes in children, thereby giving them the love and support they need to get through life is wrong:

However, mingling with an anti-gay hate group who claim that lgbts are trying to sexualize children when we aren't pushing gay marriage to open the door for bestiality, that's right:

A bizarro world indeed.

SPLC puts Cliff Kincaid's homophobia on centerstage

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media

The Southern Poverty Law Center has given a "much deserved" spotlight to another purveyor of  homophobic propaganda - Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (AIM).

In the newest issue of its Intelligence Report, SPLC documents Kincaid's history of lies:

 Cliff Kincaid is one of the American far right’s most energetic and obsessive propagandists. For more than 30 years at Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing outfit opposed to the “liberal” media, Kincaid has cranked out reams of material — rife with innuendo and speculation but light on facts —aimed at buttressing his far-right, xenophobic and homophobic views.

Regarding the lgbt community, SPLC had this to say about Kincaid:

He has blamed gays for corrupting the military and making America more vulnerable to terrorism. He says the “pro-homosexual media” has created the false perception of “overwhelming public support” for repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. “Establishment journalists,” he has written, “are aligned with academia” (“sexual perverts masquerading as scholars”) in supporting transgendered individuals — “a cruel hoax to undermine the already shaky foundation of the traditional family.” He can’t contain his rage at the Republicans for not expelling gays from their ranks, titling a recent article, “Is the GOP becoming the Gay Old Party?” And he has been one of the staunchest defenders of a draconian proposed law in Uganda that would impose the death penalty on large numbers of gay men — a proposal so radical that even many hard-line U.S. anti-gay groups have felt constrained to denounce it. To Kincaid, the proposed law seems merely “designed to send a message to … the foreign homosexual lobby to keep their hands off Uganda’s families and kids.”

Kincaid has taken his anti-gay message on the road recently, participating in an August conference put on by the hard-edged Americans for Truth about Homosexuality where he promised to expose “gay influence on the media” and “the homosexual drive for the ‘right’ to donate possibly infected and contaminated blood to the nation’s blood supply.”

Believe it or not, there is worse stuff in the article regarding Kincaid's "crusade" against the lgbt community, including his bad attempt at smearing Obama appointee Kevin Jennings as a pedophile; a crusade which backfired in his face.

The article sounds like there may very well soon be a new addition to SPLC's list of anti-gay hate groups.

And based on Kincaid's past behavior, it would be a welcomed addition.

Related posts:

One News Now and Cliff Kincaid demonstrate homophobia, ability to lie

Family Research Council distorts British article in attack on gay soldier


Anti-gay 'Truth Academy' on deck for this week


Cliff Kincaid's International Gay-Bashing

Cliff Kincaid: Outcry against Ugandan bill a conspiracy to save Kevin Jennings


From 'Fistgate' to 'NAMBLA-gate' - The attacks on Kevin Jennings get stranger and stranger


Cliff Kincaid: Outcry against Ugandan bill a conspiracy to save Kevin Jennings

Right-wing site removes post calling Kevin Jennings a pedophile