A new low for the anti-gay right - 'Jerry Sandusky bill?'

Matt Barber

On his Americans for Truth webpage, Peter LaBarbera features a column by the Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber which can probably be considered a scientific breakthrough in that it proves that things lower than snakes can put together a column.

It was originally featured on World Net Daily, but since I ran out of holy water, I have avoided that site.

And this column proves that holy water is needed.

Allow me give some background. In California, the legislature passed SB1172, which keeps minors from being exposed to the fraudulent "reparative therapy," or therapy which would attempt to turn them from gay to straight. Several medical groups, including the American Psychological Association, have called "reparative therapy" useless and dangerous. CA Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill in September.

However, since the religious right have never let anything such as truth stand in their way, they have been vocal in opposing SB1172. Barber's organization, the Liberty Counsel, is suing against the law.

According to Barber, in his column, "reparative therapy" is important because:

Thousands of people, many of whom once identified as “gay,” have received positive, life-changing benefits from such counseling. Yet, among other things, the fact that people can, and do, leave homosexuality bulldozes the politically motivated, scientifically discredited “born that way” meme.

Naturally, Barber doesn't provide any proof for this. Barber, by the way, is not a medical professional. He has no degree nor any background in medical research. He is a failed insurance salesman who lucked into his status in religious right groups.

Subsequently, that's probably why he didn't provide proof of the above claim. Barber is unable to. Rather, he relies on written vitriol to shock his readers. Such as the following claim that SB1172 will expose children to being molested:

Despite intense, politically motivated denials from many on the left, research has established the astonishing frequency to which a “gay identity” or “sexual orientation” stems from childhood sexual abuse.   Sandusky Laws abuse these children all over again.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for instance, found that “gay” men are “at least three times more likely to report CSA (childhood sexual abuse).”

The Archives of Sexual Behavior determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”

The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable.

It doesn't take a palm reader to figure out that Barber is misrepresenting several studies. First of all, he gives the impression that the CDC is saying that child sexual abuse leads to a gay identity. The CDC has not at any time ever connected the gay identity with child sexual abuse.

Furthermore, check out how Barber describes the 2001 Archives of Sexual Behavior study. This how he describes the results of the study:

The Archives of Sexual Behavior determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile:

Then he tells us what the study actually said:

“46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”

The phrase "homosexual pedophile" in this case seems to be a creation of Barber's. We don't know if the perpetrator in this case identified themselves as gay or if they molested other children of a different gender.

Barber is implying that if a molester abuses a child of the same gender, that automatically makes him/her gay. This is simply not true. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

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.

It is clear that Barber's attempt to turn a phrase in describing SB1172 as a "Jerry Sandusky" bill  as well as distorting legitimate studies to prove his point (Jerry Sandusky is the former Penn State College employee discovered to have molested a multitude of children) is simply an ugly act by a desperate man aligned with a desperate group attempting to protect a bad practice from its appropriate demise.

Know Your LGBT History - World AIDS Day

One of these days, we are going to beat AIDS, but until that time, let's not forget the talented souls we lost and also those who continue to be affected by it.

Past Know Your LGBT History posts:

'Hate group leader Tony Perkins lied about support of Ugandan anti-gay bill' and other Friday midday news briefs

FRC denies it ever supported Uganda bill; so here, again, is now-scrubbed audio of Tony Perkins saying bill 'uphold[s] moral conduct'- How did I miss this while writing my morning post about Perkins and the Family Research Council? Jeremy Hooper has proof that what Perkins said about not supporting that awful Ugandan bill was a LIE. He has the original audio of Perkins voicing support of the bill

In other news:

 Jackie Speier Introduces 'Stop Harming Our Kids' Resolution, Hits 'Ex-Gay' Conversion 'Quackery' - And slowly, the noose of truth closes around the neck of that awful practice of "ex-gay" therapy.

  Fox News Has A Meltdown Over Gender-Neutral Marriage Licenses In WA - The existence of Fox News will be one of those moments when our children and grandchildren look at us and ask "how could you have let IT happen?"

 Man fights to clear gay criminal record from 1950s - This story is incredible. All this man did was BE in a gay relationship.  

Religious Right Groups Work to Defeat Treaty on Rights of People with Disabilities, Falsely Claim it Sanctions Abortion - First they came for the gays . . .

Hate group exploits Ugandan anti-gay bill to attack press, liberals

Recently, the Family Research Council came under fire because its president, Tony Perkins, sent out the following tweet:

Many of us took it to mean that Perkins was supporting Uganda's anti-gay bill, a bill which has generated a lot of negative press.

Yesterday, Perkins attempted make the claim that folks were overreacting and thus mistaking his tweet:

 With fewer journalists able to separate the news from their personal politics, groups like FRC are no longer fighting bias--but outright deception. If you read Monday's Update or follow me on Twitter, then you know that FRC was highly complimentary of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who took the bold step of leading his country in a public prayer of confession for a multitude of sins Uganda committed over the last 50 years, including the genocide of Idi Amin. "We want Uganda to be known as a nation that fears God and as a nation whose foundations are firmly rooted in righteousness and justice..." Not surprisingly, the U.S. media wasn't nearly as impressed by this gesture as FRC--a fact I alluded to in a tweet that same day. "American liberals are upset that Ugandan Pres is leading his nation in repentance--afraid of a modern example of a nation prospered by God?"

Fair enough for Perkins. However, there are two things wrong with this:

1. Why did Perkins wait so long to give an explanation about the tweet?
2. Most importantly, the tweet itself was inaccurate. Many of us "American liberals" were not aware of Museveni's prayer. So how could we have gotten upset over it? The controversy itself speaks to that.  If we had knowledge of Museveni's prayer, how could we have mistaken Perkins' support of it as support for that dreadful bill?

But leave it to Perkins to milk the situation:

 . . . as we learned two years ago, if you want to get the press's attention, just say the word "Uganda" and wait for the firestorm. For years, the African nation has been condemned for its severe laws criminalizing homosexuality. Despite allegations to the contrary, FRC has never supported that policy--or any policy that imposes the death penalty on homosexuals. What we do oppose is the suggestion that gay and lesbian acts are universal human rights. So when Congress introduced a resolution in 2010 denouncing Uganda's punishment for homosexuality, FRC fought--at the request of some Members--to strike the pro-homosexual "human rights" language from the final measure. Several liberals, including David Weigel at the Washington Post, chose to misrepresent our involvement as an indication that we opposed the entire bill! "Family Research Council Lobbied against Resolution Condemning Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Law," Weigel's headline read. It was a convenient storyline for extremists like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who resort to demonizing FRC when they can't compete with us ideologically. Although Weigel later posted a retraction, the damage had already been done. Now, more than two years later, the lies about FRC's position have resurfaced. After Monday's story, HRC had the audacity to post that by applauding President Museveni, FRC was "praising the 'kill the gays' bill." I challenge anyone with a half a brain to read my tweet or Update story and conclude that FRC is any way supporting the death penalty of homosexuals. But gay activists have their hooks so deeply in the mainstream media that reporters no longer bother to check their facts.

As Right-Wing Watch points out, Perkins is obviously misrepresenting FRC's position on the bill:

 . . . in 2009 the FRC admits to having spent thousands of dollars lobbying for Congress trying to revise and muddy the resolution condemning the bill because they said it would entail “pro-homosexual promotion.” “We didn’t necessarily lobby against or for the resolution but tried to work with offices to make the language more neutral on homosexuality,” FRC’s Tom McClusky said at the time, “the original language was incorrect on what Uganda was doing as well.”  

And there are two things wrong with Perkins's present explanation:

1. The current legislation still contains the provision about the death penalty for gays.
2. And regardless of that provision, Perkins didn't say a word about the other awful provisions of that bill, including the portion which makes homosexuality itself a crime for which Ugandans can receive life in prison.

Lastly, Perkins really takes the cake with the following statement:

Americans need to understand that this cozy relationship between the liberal media and unreliable sources like HRC is fostering a culture of hatred and violence--that same culture that led to the attempted mass murder of the entire FRC office. 

 The sad irony is that if Perkins was not so invested in exploiting that near tragic situation, he would have more of an understanding as to how real cultures of violence and hatred are fostered, such as how the idea for that awful bill in Uganda came to being via American religious right activists.

As it is now, Perkins either has no idea or simply do not care.

'Christian' program pushes poor, biased segment against gay adoption

This piece should get you angry. From CBN's 700 Club comes an attack on gay adoption:



There is a little shuck and jive in the middle of this video.

You will notice at 1:15 of the video, a woman, Lynne Kohm, is introduced as a "family law expert." Supposedly she has a 'mountain of research' which speaks that gay adoption is not necessarily the best idea for a child.

Pause the video at 1:27.

The words under her read Lynne Kohm,  Regent University School of Law.

Regent University is a "Christian university" which was founded by Pat Robertson, the man who also owns CBN and The 700 Club. And Robertson isn't necessarily an pro-gay advocate.

And nowhere in the segment is Kohm's connection to Robertson is revealed.

In general, the segment does a poor job in attacking gay adoption.

You will notice that no gay couples with children were talked to.

It also bothers me that the heterosexual couple featured in the video allowed themselves to be used. Certainly they should be commended for taking in abused children and giving them a good home. But the point is so do gay couples. And there is no difference between the two. If we are to have a genuine discussion on gay adoption, then there needs to be a more credible report than the one offered up by CBN.

Raging homophobe Matt Barber makes point about 'War on Christmas'

Sometimes Matt Barber - raging homophobe that he is - makes sense.

 Right-Wing Watch breaks it down:

Every year, a handful of conservative pundits and Religious Right activists launch a "war on Christmas" to pressure retailers to use the word "Christmas" in their advertising and displays instead of phrases like "happy holidays" on the grounds that not mentioning Christmas is wildly offensive to Christians. So it is more than a little ironic to see Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, one of the leaders of this annual "war on Christmas" crusade, complaining about companies and municipalities that bow to the "tyranny of the minority" by changing their holiday displays "in order to not offend a kind of obnoxious few people who are looking around every corner to find some reason to be offended":

My guess is that Barber didn't mean for his words to be a dig against the 'War on Christmas' crowd.

But isn't it nice when some people commit Freudian slips?

Editor's note - If  you see that this post has a problem with an extraneous overlap, click on "links to this post" link below and you will be able to read it in its entirety.

Hate group is livid over SPLC's lawsuit against 'ex-gay' group

News that the Southern Poverty Law Center is suing the 'ex-gay' group JONAH for consumer fraud has literally sent the Family Research Council into orbit. The organization made the following statement its Washington Update on Wednesday:

 . . . In its lawsuit, SPLC says that reorientation therapy "has no basis in scientific fact." As FRC's Peter Sprigg will tell you, there's an abundance of scientific and anecdotal evidence that the therapies do work--although critics are reluctant to acknowledge it. NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) has cited "600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients--primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals" which show that "reorientation treatment has been helpful to many." The left-leaning American Psychological Association (APA) says there is "no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." 

But the APA isn't claiming that there's no evidence change is possible--only that the evidence out there is "not sufficiently scientifically sound." In other words, it doesn't meet all the criteria for "gold standard" social science research: random samples, a prospective and longitudinal design, and use of a control group. Of course, a lot of pro-homosexual social science research doesn't meet those standards! And even when studies do meet that criteria (like Mark Regnerus's recent homosexual parenting study), the Left races to discredit them. More and better research would be great--but the same people who say the research is inadequate also adamantly oppose doing more studies on the topic! In this lawsuit, SPLC also strongly suggests that reorientation therapy is not only ineffective, but harmful. What's their evidence for that? Well, it's entirely anecdotal--the same kind of evidence they refuse to accept with regard to the effectiveness of the therapy!

The bottom line is that SPLC doesn't seem interested in helping people. Their actions and bank accounts show that the organization is more interested in profiting from them. If the Left truly had homosexuals' best interest in mind, they would recognize that for many, these attractions are unwanted. For those who struggle, hope is not in limiting avenues for change--but encouraging them. 

FRC's statement is full of distortions and misrepresentations. Let's break them down in a simple fashion:

1. According to FRC, its spokesman, Peter Sprigg, can point to an abundance of "scientific and anecdotal" evidence that "ex-gay" therapy works. I've never heard of anyone grouping scientific work with that of the "anecdotal" nature. But more to the point, where are the links to Sprigg pointing out this supposed evidence. For that matter, where is the evidence of FRC's claim that NARTH (an organization with NO credibility) has provided proof that "ex-gay" therapy works

2. FRC claims that a "lot of pro-homosexual social science research" does not meet the standards of credible social science research. Fair enough, but a classic misdirection. Not only does FRC neglect to mention said studies, but also does not mention just what does these alleged studies have to do with the lack of credibility of "ex-gay" studies.

3. FRC claims that the recent study regarding gay parenting by Mark Regnerus does in fact meet the criteria of credible of social science research. Not true. Regnerus' study has been blasted as faulty and flawed - not by "the Left" -  but by credible researchers for its myriad of errors, particularly its definition of what constitutes a "same-sex" household.

4. Lastly, FRC omits the simple fact that SPLC is pushing this lawsuit on the behalf of four ex-clients of JONAH, all of whom were the victims of the faulty belief that their sexual orientation needed to be changed:

The complaint outlines some of the bizarre treatment the men were subjected to in sessions with JONAH counselor Alan Downing and others:

• remove all clothing during both individual and group therapy sessions including an instruction to Levin to hold his penis in front of Defendant Downing,
• cuddle and intimately hold others of the same-sex including between young clients and older counselors,
• violently beat an effigy of the client’s mother with a tennis racket,
• go to the gym more as well as bath houses in order to be nude with father figures, and
• be subjected to ridicule as “faggots” and “homos” in mock locker room and gym class scenarios.

Michael Ferguson, one of the four young men SPLC is representing in the case, recalled his own experiences under JONAH’s care:

I watched as grown men were frenzied into fits of emotional rage against their mothers and encouraged to act out physical violence against their parents, in order to access their so-called ‘true manhood’ and become more heterosexual.

… In another exercise, a man had to break through a human barricade that I was a part of in order to seize two oranges that were meant to symbolize his testicles. He was then frenetically instructed to squeeze the juice from them and drink it and to put the oranges in his pants in order to represent ‘gaining his testicles’ the symbolic absence of them supposedly being the cause of his homosexuality.

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/nj-reparative-group-jonah-forced-clients-into-stripping-beating-effigies-of-moms-other-bizarre-therapies-20121128/#ixzz2Da26LFYi

Someone should ask FRC just how does the above help anyone regardless of what their sexual orientation may be.