Family Research Council giving spotlight to flawed study

Peter Sprigg of FRC

 (The following is a repost from three years ago, but since the Family Research Council has not corrected this study and instead has moved it into a spotlight position, this repost is needed.)

On its webpage, the Family Research Council has what it calls "resources" to supposedly "defend marriage."

However, like so many other things FRC pushes, the "resources" are rather flawed.

A perfect example is a pamphlet on the page entitled The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality.

According to its author Peter Sprigg:

The homosexual movement is built, not on facts or research, but on mythology. Unfortunately, these myths have come to be widely accepted in society—particularly in schools, universities and the media. It is our hope that by understanding what these key myths are—and then reading a brief summary of the evidence against them—the reader will be empowered to challenge these myths when he or she encounters them.

According to Sprigg, these "myths" include the following:

• People are born gay.
• Sexual orientation can never change.
•  Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.
• Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

Sprigg isn't necessarily unbiased when it comes to the lgbt community. At one time he said that "homosexual behavior" should be declared illegal. Another time before that, he publicly said that lgbts should be exported out of the United States.

However, even excluding  Sprigg's dubious comments, there is enough problems with Ten Myths to question its credibility.

At first glance, Ten Myths looks legitimate. However, a more intensive look reveals it to be a mishmash of inaccurate theories, cherry-picked work, and studies taken out of context created to justify homophobia

The following are just a few of the problems with Ten Myths:

1. Ten Myths repeats the lie that the Robert Spitzer study proves that homosexuality is changeable, excluding the fact that Spitzer has said on more than one occasion that his research was being distorted. Spitzer later disavowed this study and apologized to the lgbt community for creating it.

2. Ten Myths utilizes the work of  the organization National Association for  Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The website Truth Wins Out calls NARTH  a discredited “ex-gay” fringe organization that peddles fraudulent “cures” for homosexuality.

According to Truth Wins Out, several NARTH members have been embroiled in controversies including:

Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, a member of NARTH’ “Scientific Advisory Committee,” who wrote a piece on the group’s website that seemed to justify slavery

NARTH psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, another member of its “Scientific Advisory Committee,” who wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children.

Also, according to Truth Wins Out:

NARTH’ co-founder, Joesph Nicolosi encourages male clients to become more masculine by drinking Gatorade and referring to friends as “dude”. NARTH therapists have been known to practice rubber band therapy, where a gay client is made to wear a rubber band and snap it on his wrist when sexually stimulated. It is a mild form of aversion therapy meant to “snap” the client out of the moment of attraction. NARTH members have also been known to practice “touch therapy”, where a client sits in the therapist’ lap for up to an hour, while the therapist caresses him.

Earlier this year, another member of NARTH, George Rekers, resigned from the organization after caught coming from a vacation overseas with a "rentboy."

3. Ten Myths cites Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse as proof that people can change their sexual orientation. However in 2009, the American Psychological Association repudiated this study for bad methodology. Furthermore, Ten Myths does not address the conclusion by the APA last year that programs created to change a person's several orientation does not work.

4. Ten Myths pushes the inaccuracy that a man who molests a boy is automatically gay even though the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that the homosexuality and pedophilia are not linked

5. But the most egregious inaccuracy in Ten Myths - and also something that says a lot about the mindset of its author, Peter Sprigg - is the following passage:

Even the pro-homosexual Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) acknowledges:

• “Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population . . .”
• “Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate . . . .”
• “ . . . [G]ay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse . . . .”
• “ . . . [G]ay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men . . . .”
• “Problems with body image are more common among gay men . . . and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder . . . .”

The GLMA also confirms that:

• “ . . . [L]esbians may use tobacco and smoking products more often than heterosexual women use them.”
• “Alcohol use and abuse may be higher among lesbians.”
• “ . . . [L]esbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women.”

Homosexual activists generally attempt to explain these problems as results of “homophobic discrimination.” However, there is a serious problem with that theory—there is no empirical evidence that such psychological problems are greater in areas where disapproval of homosexuality is more intense.

So Sprigg's point is that the lgbt orientation itself is indicative of negative behaviors (i.e. drug and alcohol abuse) and not the homophobia that lgbts face.

But strange enough, the source which he cites - the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association - says that homophobia is the reason for many of these health problems. Sprigg deliberately omits information pointing this out:

Sprigg:

“Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate . . . .”

GMLA:

Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns.

Sprigg:

“ . . . [L]esbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women.

GMLA:

Research indicates that lesbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women. This may be due to added stressors in lesbian lives from discrimination. Lesbians need support from each other and from health care providers to find healthy releases, quality recreation, stress reduction, and coping techniques. 

So basically The Top Ten Myths of Homosexuality is a fraud.  And the mythology that Sprigg spoke of has nothing to do with lgbts but with the mindset of anyone who takes his paper seriously and sees it for more than what it is - blatant homophobia wrapped up in phony science.

Robert Jeffress : tone-deaf homophobe for Christ?

We all know what the religious right and those who are anti-gay say about the lgbt community. We all know the lies and the distortions they stoop to in order to demonize us. But what if, just what if, they were challenged on these distortions with the facts? Would they attempt to refute with other facts? Would they agree that they were wrong? Or would they stick to their guns under the mistaken idea that being "Christ-like" is refusing to admit you are wrong even in the fact of being pointed out that you are wrong. Robert Jeffress, who has been in the news lately because of the Tim Tebow controversy, is the test subject to my question. Watch what he does when he is presented facts about the lgbt community which refutes his conjecture.



Where to start? First of all, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in 1973, not 1976. And research was involved thanks to folks like the late Evelyn Hooker who was a pioneer in the study of homosexuality.

The basic point is that Jeffress is a sad man. He reminds me of the pharisees and the Sanhedrin council who spoke out against Jesus and plotted his death. He wraps himself so hard in the phony guise of being a steadfast warrior for good that he has abandoned all humility and common sense.

He thinks he is so close to God that he has become interchangeable to God. Jeffres forgets that he is just a man and as such is subject to mistakes in thought and actions. And when confronted with these mistakes, he refuses to yield just a little. He refuses to say "maybe I should take a look at this" or "perhaps I am wrong." He holds firm to his beliefs, which can be at times can be an admirable quality.

However, in this juncture, it's not so admirable. In fact it demonstrates a prime reason why so many are leaving the Christian religion. Jesus called men to preach the gospel, not be stubborn jackasses.

Too many "Christian" pastors have mistaken one for the other.

Hat tip to Jeremy Hooper.

'Murder of black, gay politician is sad learning experience' and other Friday midday news briefs

Marco McMillian's Death Highlights Mississippi's Slow And Inconsistent Evolution - The sad case of murdered black gay politician raises questions about Mississippi's evolution.

 Bryan Fischer: President Obama should be impeached over DOMA - Bryan Fischer is ALWAYS good for a laugh!  

Bigotry On Display: Mississippi Students Protest Transgender Classmate - Sad things happen when children are not properly educated. 

 Colorado Civil Unions Bill Passes House Committee With One Republican 'Yes' Vote - Good news from Colorado.

Anti-gay leader Tony Perkins whines about 'Jewish lobby'

The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins seems to skirting on the lines of Anti-Semitism with his comments about the Democrats and the Jewish community:

Transcript:

But here’s the irony. Is that the Democratic Party and the Democratic senators that supported Hagel, in spite of the fact that he has a record that’s deplorable on Israel, it comes from Democratic senators who are mostly aligned with a lot of the Jewish lobby here in Washington and around the nation, enjoy the money coming from the Jewish community. The Jewish community tends to be liberal, not all, but a lot of it is, and it supports Democratic candidates. But yet the Democratic Party works against the benefit of Israel in many ways, and this is an example of it.

Right Wing Watch breaks down the interesting "significance"  of Perkins' words:

Speaking about the confirmation of Chuck Hagel, Perkins mused about the ‘irony’ that Hagel, whom he considers to be anti-Israel, was backed by Democratic senators who are “mostly aligned with a lot of the Jewish lobby” and “enjoy the money coming from the Jewish community.” Hmmm, “Jewish lobby,” where have I heard that before? Hagel has been savaged in recent weeks for having used the phrase in a 2006 interview. He has since apologized and said he should phrased his comments differently. In case it isn’t obvious, the ADL’s Abe Foxman explains the many problems with saying “Jewish lobby.” Notwithstanding Hagel’s apology, Sen. Lindsey Graham grilled him about his use of the phrase during his confirmation hearing. FRC also cited Hagel’s use of “Jewish lobby” in its background document opposing his confirmation. Meanwhile over at the website of the American Family Association, which broadcasts Perkins’ show, David Limbaugh railed against Hagel’s “bigoted accusation” about the “Jewish lobby” and said he failed to provide a “satisfactory explanation for his disgraceful terminology – because there is none.” “Bigoted” and “disgraceful” sounds about right, but don’t hold your breath waiting for conservatives to denounce Perkins’ comments.

My guess is that since it's rare that lgbt organizations call out Perkins for his continuous spoutings of homophobia, maybe he is getting so bold that he thinks the Jewish community will act the same way.

Let's hope not. 

President Obama, sociological association deals Prop 8 case a one-two punch

The case for Prop 8, the California law outlawing marriage equality in California received a serious one-two punch today courtesy of President Obama and the American Sociological Association. Both the Obama Administration and the ASA are filing briefs asking the Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.

First from the Obama Administration:

California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriages in the state, should be overturned, the Obama administration plans to tell the Supreme Court.

An administration official confirmed that the Justice Department will file a brief in the case today. Officials would not discuss the legal arguments the brief would contain. The decision to enter the case comes despite the president’s past position that marriage rights should be a state matter. In recent weeks, however, Obama increasingly has referred to same-sex marriage as an issue of civil rights.

Other administration officials have taken the same stance. In a television interview to be aired next week, for example, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder said that he saw marriage equality as “really the latest civil-rights issue.”

The American Sociological Association has already filed its brief and it destroys claims made that same-sex households are inferior when it comes to raising children, which is a major argument for those pushing Prop 8. The ASA especially calls out the Mark Regnerus study, which is the recent controversial study claiming children raised in same-sex households suffer adverse efffects. Supporters of Prop 8 made this study a huge part of their arguments in spite of fact that it has been discredited.

ASA said the following about the Regnerus study in its brief (pgs. 26-29):

 First, the Regnerus study does not specifically examine children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, but instead examines children who, from the time they were born until they were 18 or moved out, had a parent who at any time had “a same-sex romantic relationship.” . As Regnerus noted, the majority of the individuals characterized by him as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite- sex unions whose parent subsequently had a same-sex relationship. In other words, Regnerus did not study or analyze the children of two same-sex parents.

Second, when the Regnerus study compared the children of parents who at one point had a “same-sex romantic relationship,” most of whom had experienced a family dissolution or single motherhood, to children raised by two biological, married opposite-sex parents, the study stripped away all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the opposite-sex group, leaving only stable, married, opposite-sex families as the comparison. . . Thus, it was hardly surprising that the opposite-sex group had better outcomes given that stability is a key predictor of positive child wellbeing. By so doing, the Regnerus study makes inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons.

Third, Regnerus’s first published analysis of his research data failed to consider whether the children lived with, or were raised by, the parent who was, at some point, apparently involved in “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex” and that same-sex partner. Instead, Regnerus categorized children as raised by a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship regardless of whether they were in fact raised by the parent and the parent’s same-sex romantic partner and regardless of the amount of time that they spent under the parent’s care. As a result, so long as an adult child believed that he or she had had a parent who had a relationship with someone of the same sex, then he or she was counted by Regnerus as having been “raised by” a parent in a same-sex relationship.

 Fourth, in contrast to every other study on same-sex parenting, Regnerus identified parents who had purportedly engaged in a same-sex romantic relationship based solely on the child’s own retrospective report of the parent’s romantic relationships, made once the child was an adult. This unusual measurement strategy ignored the fact that the child may have limited and inaccurate recollections of the parents’ distant romantic past.

Finally, the study fails to account for the fact that the negative outcomes may have been caused by other childhood events or events later in the individual's adult life, particularly given that the vast majority (thirty-seven of forty) of the outcomes measured were adult and not childhood outcomes. Factors other than same-sex parenting are likely to explain these negative outcomes in the Regnerus study. Regnerus himself concludes that “I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent.”

 In sum, by conflating (1) children raised by same-sex parents with (2) individuals who reportedly had a parent who had “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex,” and referring to such individuals as children of “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers,” the Regnerus study obscures the fact that it did not specifically examine children raised by two same-sex parents. Accordingly, it cannot speak to the impact of same-sex parenting on child outcomes. 

The fact that President Obama is supporting efforts to overturn Prop 8 is a major deal, but the ASA denunciation of the Regnerus study is also a huge victory for the lgbt community. When religious right groups find a piece of information to use against the lgbt community, they tend to use it continuously. Thanks to the ASA, whenever they cite the Regnerus study, the lgbt community now have a huge caveat we can make use of. 

'AFA: Gay-Muslim-Atheist Alliance trying to destroy America' and other Thursday midday news briefs

'Project 2026' to Fight the Gay-Muslim-Atheist Alliance Destroying America - Say whaaaat!? Aw hell, I betcha i was the gay folks who told them. We just can't keep secrets.

 Minnesota Republican Legislator: Homosexuality Is A ‘Sexual Addiction’ And An ‘Unscientific Lie’ - Every time someone says we should ignore comments by the AFA's Bryan Fischer or Linda Harvey, or Matt Barber, I like to include a new brief like this one. You can't ignore it when state legislators say the same trash.  

Pediatrician On CNN: Transgender Girls Will Walk Around Bathrooms With Their Genitals Exposed - Vile lie for which he got called out for. And for the record, when I used the boys bathroom in school, I never walked around with my genitals exposed and neither did anyone else I knew.  

FRC prayer: Marriage equality = 'onslaught of evil' - The Family Research Council routinely lies and bears false witness against the lgbt community, yet it feels it can go to God and repeat its slanders. The old African-American phrase "they are going to bust hell wide open" comes to mind. 

 House Dems to urge Supreme Court to strike down DOMA - Good for House Democrats!

NOM's bought and paid for African-American group to lead march

Bill Owens

In its upcoming supposed "March for Marriage," the National Organization for Marriage is pulling out all of the stops, including teaming up with several religious right groups, such as the Family Research Council, having Catholic dioceses bus members to Washington, and this very interesting last item via press release:

Civil Rights activist Reverend Bill Owens has joined with the National Organization for Marriage to promote and lead the March for Marriage occurring in Washington, D.C. next month. 

 . . . Gay activists are wrong to claim the mantle of the civil rights movement in their push to redefine marriage for all - the most important civil right related to marriage is the right of every child to a mother and father," said Rev. Owens in a Feb. 25 statement.

Owens is the founder of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, a group that describes itself as "a grass-roots movement of Christians who believe in traditional family values such as supporting the role of religion in American public life, protecting the lives of the unborn, and defending the sacred institution of marriage."

He also was a participant in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s in Nashville Tennessee.

 

So in order to give some degree of historic relevance to its march,  NOM is including its own bought and paid for African-American leadership to participate.

Owens and CAAP are not necessarily independent participants. 

 

We already know that Owens is NOM's liasion to the black churches. We also know that NOM was using CAAP last year in a failed attempt to sabotage President Obama's African-American support during the 2012 election.

Owens has admitted to being paid by organizations like NOM ($20,000), the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association to be a shill.

And to make matters worse, there have been serious questions - which Owens has never answered - as to whether or not he actually marched or participated at all in the Civil Rights Movement.

But it really doesn't matter. In this age of Obama, some folks have no problem with cashing in on their black skins. No matter how much of their integrity it costs them.