Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
How do you brighten up a boring debate? Apparently Maggie Gallagher of NOM thinks that a comment about terrorists killing South Carolina government officials will do the trick.
I know that there was a Republican debate in South Carolina yesterday. And I also know that the National Organization for Marriage had a hand in putting it on.
I was trying to avoid it. After all, why ruin a good holiday.
From what I understand, in spite of all of the hype, it was the run-of-the-mill debate. Although, NOM claims that "the issues of marriage took centerstage," that's really not true.
But what caught my attention was a comment published by Maggie Gallagher on NOM's blog. I think it gives an indication why she has settled herself into the background of the organization:
The debate will go live in 5 minutes. The panelists just walked in. Sen. DeMint is introducing the honoraries in the audience (like the NH Speaker of the House).
The South Carolina delegation is particularly impressive. Let me put it this way: if the terrorist attack the convention center right now, it looks like the South Carolina government would be decimated!
Geez, Maggie. Way to go with the dumb comments.
My guess is that she meant to highlight Sen. Jim DeMint supposed political power in South Carolina. What she accomplished, however, was giving folks another reason to wonder about her callousness.
I guess when you push the "oh please pity us because we are being targeted" card so long, it's hard to stop even when such a thing is unnecessary.
Chinese general Sun Tzu in The Art of War once said:
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles . . .
With that thought in mind, I have tried to educate myself and others on the manipulations of the religious right. You see it's not enough to call them "homophobes" or "haters" anymore than it is not enough for a prosecutor in a trial to point at a defendant and call him guilty.
There must be some proof of the charges.
I have a theory that in this so-called cultural battle, our fight isn't totally with those who have a personal religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. It's not an idea that I prescribe to but I am of the opinion that people with differing beliefs can co-exist up to a point.
Granted there are some people who are rabidly anti-gay, but this piece isn't about them.
My theory and all of my focus have been on the religious right organizations who manipulate people's religious beliefs and personal fears to make the lgbt community the boogeymen or the "big nasty other" in American society.
I've posted in the past about their distortion techniques. I've posted about discredited researcher Paul Cameron and his relation to the religious right as to how these groups continue to use his bad data.
Today, I want to show how these groups have their own ways of distorting credible research.
I have read countless religious right papers and studies and have discovered that in many if not all of them, many of the same studies are being distorted.
It’s as if the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association and other affiliate groups have some type of file cabinet with an assortment of legitimate studies that they can pull out and distort. I want to show you just a few. Some you have already seen these before but a refresher course never hurts anyone:
Distortion - Lgbt homes are not ideal homes to raise children because gay supportive researcher Judith Stacey said so in her study:
“A study conducted by Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, sociologists at the University of Southern California, revealed that children raised by homosexual couples ‘seem to grow up to be more open to homoerotic relationships.’ The study showed that 12 percent of girls raised in lesbian homes became active lesbians themselves—increasing the likelihood of lesbianism by more than 400 percent.” - Fast Facts, Gay Adoption, Coral Ridge Ministries
Researcher Judith Stacey thinks that children do well in homosexual homes. She says her study found that girls brought up by lesbians show greater interest in masculine activities and dress and seek non-traditional female jobs. Boys in lesbian homes are more feminine and more nurturing. Children in these homes also become sexually active with same-sex partners. -Children In Homosexual Homes Become Sexually Confused, Traditional Values Coalition
Truth - Judith Stacey had gone on record numerous times decrying how her research in lgbt homes have been distorted. According to respectmyresearch.org:
. . . Stacey and Biblarz noted preliminary evidence of some “modest and interesting” differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian and gay parents, but they affirmed that “parental sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children’s mental health or adjustment.”
In addition, via this link, she calls Focus on the Family to the carpet for distorting her work.
Distortion - Lesbian and gay relationships are generally violent Part 1:
A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.” - Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples, Family Research Council
There is a higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in married, heterosexual relationships. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. - Same-Sex Parenting is Harmful to Children Says REAL Women of Canada, Lifesite News
Truth - According to the Journal of Interpersonal Violence’s own web page:
The Journal of Interpersonal Violence offers the most up-to-date information on domestic violence, rape, child sexual abuse and other violent crimes . . . Focusing on both victims and perpetrators, the journal examines theoretical links between all types of interpersonal violence, exploring the similarities and differences between these types of crimes.
In other words, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence tracks domestic violence, as well as other violent crimes.
Those surveyed in journal articles are the victims of violence, verbal or otherwise, because this is what the journal is designed to track.
However, what religious right groups are doing here is the equivalent of taking a study of domestic violence in the African-American community published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence and using it to allege that black relationships are indicative of violent behavior.
It's one of the most successful gay themed movies of all time, was nominated for six Oscars (winning one), and its title song was considered to be a comeback hit by former Culture Club lead singer Boy George.
However, based upon the reactions of some of my facebook friends, some folks don't remember The Crying Game (1992).
The Crying Game is a psychological drama which combined the exploits of I.R.A. terrorists with issues of sexuality, love, and redemption to make a movie that arguably still stands up today as one of the best.
Stephen Rea stars as Fergus, an Irish Republican Army terrorist whose group kidnaps a black British soldier (Forrest Whittaker). When the demands of Rea's group aren't met, he is ordered to kill Whittaker.
Rea can't however, because he has already bonded with the soldier. Sensing this, Whittaker tries to escape but is hit by a British armored personal carrier coming to attack Rea's group.
Before he dies, Whittaker talks Rea into looking in on his girlfriend to make sure she is okay.
Rea meets the girlfriend, Dil, and is enraptured by her.
And here is where the movie makes a huge turn.
You see, Dil (played by Jaye Davidson) is a non-op transgender woman. This is revealed to Rea's character AND the audience at the same time (because this was Davidson's first film) during a scene which leaves nothing to subtlety or the imagination.
Rea is at first repulsed, but then continues to be captivated by Dil and continues to see her. He lets it slip that he was involved in the death of Dil's boyfriend. This causes Dil to initiate a chain of events which leads to a bloody confrontation between her, Rea, and Rea's IRA buddies.
The Crying Game used a very clever ad campaign asking audience members who saw the movie to not to reveal it's "secret."
Of course this generated a lot of buzz. But here is the surprise. Even after they knew the "secret," the audiences still came because they were captivated by the excellent story and the characters.
The Crying Game was a massive hit with both audiences and critics. It received six Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director (Neil Jordan), Best Actor (Rea), and Best Supporting Actor (Davidson). It won Best Original Screenplay.
The title song was also a massive hit for Boy George, garnering him a Grammy nomination.
But much of the credit for The Crying Game's success has to belong to Davidson, the emotional center of the movie. As as I said before, this was Davidson's first movie. However you would think that he was an old pro.
He embodies the character of Dil with so much innocence and purity that even after the violent confrontation, which she initiates, plays a huge role during, and decisively brings to a conclusion, you still can't help but to root for her.
There are so many scenes in which Davidson just takes this movie and makes his own. However, the scene which stands out for me has to be when he confronts one of Rea's IRA buddies (played by Miranda Richardson) because Dil knows that she lured Whittaker to his death.
The confrontation is unnervingly violent but still poignant because Dil's words to Richardson during the scene implies that she blames herself for Whittaker's death, perhaps feeling that her supposed "lack of authenticity" as a woman led him to seek someone else.
And even when the violence ends (sorry folks but you know how I am about the need to let gay folks know when movies involving us contain happy endings), Dil still maintains enough innocence to put Rea's character - because both her and him come out alive when it's all over - on the road to redemption.
I will only say that it's a long road but as the movie ends, you get the feeling that they will both make it to the end together.
Davidson, by the way, took the new found success The Crying Game gave him in stride. He secured an agent, got a huge pay day by playing the villain in the science fiction film Stargate, and then returned to the fashion industry where he was originally discovered.
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that his short sojourn in the cinema made it a much better place.
On the National Organization for Marriage's blog, NOM president Brian Brown is raising a fuss about a disastrous debate he had on the Fox Network show Stossel two weeks ago:
Brown's biggest adversary wasn't the person he was debating, David Haryansi, but host John Stossel and the audience. And this week, Stossel continued to criticize Brown's argument and performance in a column.
Concerning that column, Brown said:
. . . don't get me wrong: I love John Stossel, and he's a voice for sanity on fiscal issues in TV Land.
But what do you say to a man who, when you point out that the reason the government is involved in marriage is that taxpayers and society have a key interest in bringing together mothers and fathers to raise their children together, responds this way:
"Again, so what? I don't care if there are three fathers and six mothers. If it's a stable relationship and the kids are connected with their parents, that's great."
That's a fantasy, not a proposal to take children's needs for their mom and dad seriously.
For the record, I'm really not a fan of Stossel. I think that he is the personification of a once proud journalist who gladly handed over his integrity at the sight of his first big paycheck.
And I really don't buy his "Im a libertarian" nonsense. I am of the opinion that calling himself that is merely a way for him to rationalize what he has become.
Having said that, Stossel rightfully panned Brown. And I am not saying that simply because I don't agree with Brown's position in the first place.
Ever since they attended this symposium, Barber has steadily been attempting to connect this symposium to either the American Psychiatric Association - even though no one from the body attended this symposium - or Barber's favorite target - the gay community.
Of course there is absolutely no connection between the symposium and the gay community. But one can count on Barber to attempt to create one.
Barber has been either writing columns about the symposium or making the rounds of religious right radio shows.
Today, according Right Wing Watch, he not only made an appearance on "Porno Pete" LaBarbera's radio show, but he also wrote a very venomous column in World Net Daily. Part of it reads as follows:
Make no mistake: Children are the target of what I call the "sexual anarchy movement." Whether it's the movement's pedophile wing that seeks to literally rape children, or its radical pro-abortion, homosexualist and feminist wings, which seek to rape the minds of children, the larger sexual anarchy movement has a shared goal: Attack, corrupt and destroy God's design for human sexuality. Children are just collateral damage.
Sexual anarchists know that to own the future, they must own the minds of our children. Hence, groups like B4U-ACT, GLSEN (The Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), Planned Parenthood and the like utilize academia from pre-school to post-graduate to brainwash and indoctrinate. Still, sexual anarchists are not restricted to the world of not-for-profit perversion advocacy. They also permeate the Obama administration.
Consider, for instance, that the official website for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently linked to "parenting tips" that referenced children as "sexual beings" and suggested that they should experiment with homosexuality and masturbation.
. . .Bolstered by support from the National Education Association, GLSEN has access to your children through sex education curricula it provides thousands of public schools across the country, and via adult sponsored "Gay Straight Alliances," hosted in those same schools.
Alas, we live in a post-Kinsey America wherein our culture, along with our Judeo-Christian heritage, rots in the heat of the day. The stench of sexual anarchy is masked by the soaring, disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance," "diversity" and "comprehensive sex education."
This need by Barber to reduce the gay community to matters of "sexual behavior" is probably not by accident nor is it pathological.
During a September 2009 religious right conference, Barber advised some attendees:
. . . to focus on the “ick” factor around gay sex and on claims that homosexuality is a health threat, which he called the movment’s “Achilles heel.”
That means every chance he gets, no matter if the issue is about same-sex households, the bullying and suicides of our lgbtq children, or probably even the issues of elderly members of the gay community, expect Barber to pull out the "gay sex" card.
This is because he has no other cards. Barber can't win the argument through logic so he is a hard advocate of the notion that "it's better to nauseate than educate."
Penn State Students Grill Alum Rick Santorum On Marriage Views - Santorum also got grilled to the ground on his statements at Penn State. Watch how he tries to attack same-sex households. And watch how students won't accept this madness. The good part starts at 8:30.
