Something worth knowing about NARTH

NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) is one of those religious right organizations masquerading as legitimate purveyors of science.

Amongst other things, it espouses reparative therapy, or the belief that homosexuality can be changed.

Recently Dr. Phil had the founder of NARTH, Joseph Nicolosi, on his show as a credible voice regarding gender identity.

Naturally a lot of us weren't exactly happy over this. Despite the fact that Nicolosi demonstrated his abject ignorance and was destroyed on the air by the mother of a transgendered child, the fact that he was deemed an expert didn't sit right with a lot of us.

And as far as I'm concerned, it still doesn't.

For the record, NARTH have been in a few controversies regarding the theories of its "experts."

In 2006, NARTH had two major controversies. In the first, psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, a member of their “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children.

In the second controversy, Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, also a member of NARTH’s “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a polemic on the group’s website that seemed to justify slavery.

(NARTH founder Joseph) Nicolosi is also known for his strange theories, such as encouraging his male clients to drink Gatorade and call friends “dude” to become more masculine. He also believes that “Non-homosexual men who experience defeat and failure may also experience homosexual fantasies or dreams.”

Schoenwolf, by the way, continues to be a member of NARTH's scientific committee.

And so does George Rekers.

You remember Dr. Rekers, don't you?

In 2004, he was an expert witness in a case involving gay adoption in Arkansas. The state had banned gays from adopting in 1999. In January 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled against the state of Arkansas. Furthermore, he called Rekers' testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."

In 2008, Rekers was also an expert witness in a case defending Florida's gay adoption ban. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she 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."

Despite this, not only is Rekers currently a member of NARTH's scientific advisory committee, but he is also listed as one of the organization's officers.

Now some people may think I'm trying to "kill the messenger because I don't like his message," but that's a serious breach of logic.

Rekers has been discredited by two different judges in two different cases, but NARTH seems to think nothing of having him as not only an officer but a scientific advisory committee member.

What's next? The APA having a purveyor of lobotomies on its committees?

My links to Rekers are here.

Family Research Council teaches us how to stigmatize lgbts

In commenting on the recent controversy regarding Portland's gay mayor Sam Adams and an admitted affair with a young man, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins said the following:

Another openly gay politician is snared in a sex scandal with a teen. Portland's first openly gay mayor, Sam Adams --- who just took office earlier this month --- has now acknowledge he lied to cover up a sexual relationship he had with a young man he was "mentoring" in 2005.
This is reminiscent of former Congressman Mark Foley, who was caught hitting on male teens who served as pages on Capitol Hill.

While I know that not every homosexual person preys on youth, it sure seems that many of the sex scandals involving homosexual public figures disproportionately involve young, easily influenced and impressionable teens.

Talk about your generalizations, especially in light of a recent incident:

A former Regent University law school assistant dean has been indicted on 13 felony sexual assault charges involving two girls, according to court records.

The allegations against Stephen L. McPherson, 39, of Chesapeake include object sexual penetration, forcible sodomy, and taking indecent liberties with a child by a custodian.

The charges, reported to Chesapeake police in July 2007, stem from events between May 2000 and May 2002, according to the indictments handed up Tuesday by a Chesapeake grand jury. The girls' ages weren't available Friday.

Using Perkins's power of logic, I guess we need to keep children away from religious right-oriented universities.

That is other than the usual reason that they teach distortions in the name of God.



Mike Huckabee pushes one-sided drivel - Good As You takes him down

Last weekend, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee featured Liberty Counsel lawyer Matt Staver in a one-on-one propaganda smear of President Obama's Administration.

I am ashamed to admit this but I refused to watch the show because I knew it would be biased -it was on Fox and Staver seemed to be the only guest.

I figured no sense in pissing myself off over the weekend.

But another on-line friend watched the show.

I have to commend Jeremy from Good As You for his refutations of Staver's lies as well as his strong stomach and disposition to sit through the nonsense.

And it reiterates several points I like to make.

LGBTs have truth on our side in this so-called cultural war, but all of the truth in the world won't help us if we are not permitted to get our stories out to the public.

Here you have Huckabee with a show where he does not have to be fair or accurate. And his guests are pushing bad information.

Where are our shows?

Several things Jeremy says includes the following:

FACT (:12): Including LGBT people within the realm of normalcy is unifying, Mike. Not to you, maybe. But to those of us who have been long-stymied under the cruel thumb of persecution, the idea that LGBT people will be respected as part of the world's spectrum represents both "change" and "unity."

FACT (3:04): The "fluidity" of gender identity is a ridiculous straw (trans)man! An inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination Act would prevent public employers from casting aspersions on the basis of an employee or potential employees' identity. For this purposes, it doesn't matter how "fluid" that concept may be for a particular individual. What matters is that merit, and not gender identity, will be the basis for employment decisions!

FACT (6:15): The Ocean Grove, New Jersey pavilion was NOT a church! The pavilion was open to public usage, without any hesitation in the matrimonial process until gays and lesbians wanted to start using the building for same-sex civil unions. So it's not a religious matter -- it's about allowing the heterosexual public to use your facility, but not the homosexual public!

FACT (6:36): The primary photographer in the New Mexico case is actually a she, not a he. And she was fined for refusing to shoot a gay couple's civil union because her business is a public accommodation (registered with the state as an LLC), much like a restaurant or any other store. Rather than say she wasn't available or make up an excused, the photographer expressly stated that she would not photograph a same-sex ceremony. This led the New Mexico Human Rights Commission to act in the only way they could under fair application of the law: To determine that the public accommodation was being unfair to a certain segment of the local public. If the commission had determined differently, then that would have set a very dangerous precedent (i.e. Could allow this public business to deny other types of faiths, deny on the basis of race).
**It should also be noted that the photographer has every right to file a lawsuit and challenge the constitutionality of the commission's findings.

For a complete breakdown go here.

Okay, you got two gay guys running for the same office. Which one do you focus on?

Two men are running to succeed the anti-gay Robo-bathroom Mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Jim Naugle.

Apparently one has an alleged penchant for porn and bondage. Leave it to our friend, P. LaBarbera to say a few words about it:

“What makes Earl different from others?” Earl Rynerson asks on his campaign website. Well, for one, he’s sure to be the only candidate for mayor of Ft. Lauderdale whose credit card records show a connection to the International Masters Association, an organization created because “there was no one place where a Master or a slave could go and learn from the other members of his community.” Rynerson needs God to change him before he tries to change

OK, can we all agree that its fair to call a man with ties to a sadomasochistic “master-slave” group a “pervert,” or has that word been banished by the Gay Thought Police (GTP)? Good, then at the risk of offending the accomplished whiners at GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), here are some excerpts from a FOX News story about Earl Rynerson, one of two homosexual men running to succeed pro-family hero Jim Naugle as mayor of Ft. Lauderdale.

Now that homosexuality is “out of the closet” in such a big way, think about how much of their related perversions are also out in the open. Deviance begets deviance, and it’s all about the behavior (as opposed to that strategic euphemism: “orientation”). Note Rynerson’s lack of shame below.

Peter gleaned his commentary via an article about Rynerson that he also posts. I found that commentary about homosexuality and perversion very interesting because of the article's ending:

Rynerson isn’t the only candidate who was stirred by Naugle’s comments to run for office. Dean Trantalis, a former city commissioner and local gay activist, has also thrown his hat in the ring.

All of this build up about Rynerson and his alleged perverted habits and all of this commentary and linkage between homosexuality and bondage. And when another gay candidate is introduced who doesn't seem to have the same "interesting" background, LaBarbera says nothing about him.

Why should he? It would ruin the smear.

Peter, dearest - you simply must do better than that if you want to keep up with Matt Barber.

More on affair le Barber - Did he say homophobia is a made up term?

I was so busy trying to defend the actions of Wisconsin teacher Sarah Arnold from Matt Barber's ridiculous attack in my last post that I neglected to talk about the inanity of his comments:

"The term 'homophobia' is a made-up term, made up by homosexual activists, that has no scientific value, no clinical value whatsoever. It's merely a propaganda term."

Is he for real?

Well I guess the cat is out of bag.

All of those times lgbts have been beaten and murdered for our orientation,

All of the times that lgbts have been kicked out of our homes,

All of the times we have been accused of having a short life span, having too much sex, molesting children, stuff gerbils in our rectums, beating the hell out of each other because we had nothing better to do.

All of the times our lives and relationships have been devalued are the result of a huge plot from the Mothership coming from the planet Homosexual.

If Barber keeps this up, he will most likely do more to help our cause than we ever could.

Matt Barber attacks an educator for doing her job

Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel seems to be positioning himself as the go-to anti-gay spokesperson of the religious right.

I bet Peter LaBarbera would love that.

Several times, Barber has been throwing himself in the limelight to comment on things such as President Obama's embracing of lgbt rights and this recent situation in which he criticizes a Wisconsin English teacher's fight against homophobia:

According to LifeSiteNews.com, Sarah Arnold created the curriculum called "Exposing Hidden Homophobia" when she noticed what she calls "anti-gay undertone[s]" in student conversations. The regimen asked students to examine depictions of homosexuality in mass media, to view numerous homosexual-themed films, and read pro-homosexual books and novels. Arnold even issued questionnaires to the students that featured questions that are commonly asked of homosexuals but instead were given to heterosexuals, such as "When did you decide to become heterosexual?"

Nothing wrong with that, is there? Except of course in Barber's eyes:

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel says the program is really intended to indoctrinate children into thinking that homosexual behavior is okay. "The term 'homophobia' is a made-up term, made up by homosexual activists, that has no scientific value, no clinical value whatsoever," he contends. "It's merely a propaganda term."

Barber, who has absolutely no training or expertise in this sort of thing, seems to think that he can prognosticate why Ms. Arnold chose to create the course. It's a part of the big homosexual agenda conspiracy, he says.

God forbid she, as an educator, notices how her students are saying ugly things with anti-gay undertones.

God forbid she, as an educator, takes steps to divert a potential situation in which a child is being bullied.

And God forbid, she, as an educator, takes proactive steps to prevent a potential situation in which violence may be the outcome.

All that seems to matter to Barber is that students can't be permitted to say ugly anti-gay words without recourse.

Friends, Barber typifies the lunacy and hysteria of the religious right.

A little note to Barber and company - everything that is pro-gay need not be taken as an attack or an assault on you or your beliefs. We occupy this nation too and we have a right to take steps to ensure safety in our homes and in our schools.

We have a right to protect our children.

And if an educator wants to help us with this, then that educator should be given a medal, rather than be made the central figure in a conspiracy theory sprung from a bad X-Files episode.

BTW - here is a better article regarding the situation.

AFA on Facebook - big deal

I am trying something new - posting at least three times a day rather than once a day. There will still be huge posts (how can I keep away from my friends in the anti-gay industry) but there will also be small posts which will include my take on lgbt issues.

So the American Family Association has gone and joined Facebook.

I know some of us want to either laugh or wring our hands over the new development.

Neither action is necessary. I say let them have their facebook page with their 30,000+members (yes I know that's a lot of folks).

There are so many other lgbt friendly facebook pages with good information about our community and about the lies of the religous right.

Rather than gripe about the AFA, let's make it a point to join these pro-lgbt facebook pages. Some of which are:

Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters - You really didn't think I wasn't going to include my page, did you? Soon to be adding a discussion board.

Good As You

Truth Wins Out

I know this isn't all of the groups. Never fear because I will give a near to complete listing at a later date.

Remembering TVC's lies about hate crimes legislation

Last week, I emailed the Traditional Values Coalition about their usage of a Family Research Council study, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse .

The problem with this study, amongst other things, is that FRC removed it from its webpage because of "outdated sources."

Despite this, the study remains on TVC's webpage as a part of its Homosexual Urban Legends portion (rest assured, there are plenty of distortions there including citations from Paul Cameron, which I will talk about at a later time).

Including a discredited study is just par for the course when it comes to TVC.

This organization thinks nothing of using the words "she-males" and "crossdressers" as verbal weapons against the lgbt community. So why should a little bad study be a big deal?

That being the case, with hate crimes legislation possibly returning to Congress, a small controversy that erupted two years ago is important to remember.

In 2007 when Congress was considering adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation, TVC sent out a bulletin claiming that this action will lead to pastors being arrested for preaching against homosexuality:

Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the bill. It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13.

Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana offered the important amendment on Freedom of Religion. “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.”

A number of Republicans spoke in support of it. But the Democrats Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Chairman John Conyers kept evading the issue.

Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”

Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.

The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”

And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”

However TVC distorted Gohmert's question. This is what he actually said (and it changes things considerably):

Mr. Gohmert: . . . And if I understood the gentleman's amendment—and I will put the question back to you—if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?

On its webpage, TVC now terses the exchange as such:

Furthermore, Representative Davis admitted during the markup that the legislation will not protect a pastor from prosecution under this bill. During the debate, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) forced Representative Davis to admit that if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation causes bodily injury to a person, that the sermon or teachings could be used in evidence against the minister.

In short, Rep. Davis has admitted that H.R. 1592 could be used to prosecute pastors for their sermons if they incite or are an “inducement” to violence. This threat applies to S. 1105.

For example, a pastor can be targeted for prosecution if his sermon somehow “induced” or “counseled” a member of his church to go out and commit bodily injury against a homosexual or a cross-dresser. Bodily injury can be something as simple as touching or brushing up against a homosexual protester. Under both H.R. 1592 and S. 1105, bodily injury is considered violence—and is prosecutable.

With enemies like this, it's going to be a looooong year.

Jeremy from Good As You has an excellent breakdown of what happened.