Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
After yesterday's post spotlighting an insulting and deceptive ad supporting Amendment One, which would place an anti-marriage equality amendment in that North Carolina's constitution, I think that today I should focus on truth - i.e. the reasons why Amendment One is a bad idea - as told by other NC residents.
The difference between the three videos today and the one yesterday is that these three videos aren't deceptive messes filled with talking points about "activist judges" and poor religious arguments created from sources outside of NC seeking to exploit ignorance and fear. These three ads feature NC officials and a pastor who break it down in a common sense manner:
Amendment One is a bad idea and North Carolinians should vote NO on May 8th.
The ad above is from Vote for MarriageNC, the group attempting to pass Amendment One in North Carolina. Amendment One would place an anti-marriage equality amendment in that state's constitution.
My guess is that by using ordinary people, Vote for MarriageNC is trying to convey a "grassroots" message. However, in many ways, the ad actually makes the case against Amendment One.
Here are a few of my impressions of the ad:
1. It exploits the religious angle because there is nothing in the proposed amendment about religion, Biblical or otherwise. And it gives the false impression that if Amendment One does not pass, then established heterosexual marriages will be in danger. I mean seriously, the way one of the people in this ad is conveying her thoughts, it's almost as if there is a fear that if Amendment One does not pass, within 24 hours, gay and lesbians are going to invade homes in attempts to kidnap heterosexually married partners.
2. The ad exploits economic and racial issues. A young man at the beginning of the ad gives the impression that if the referendum does not pass, then it will be difficult to combat poverty. And then he uses the "activist judges" talking points and that really bothers me. As an African-American man I bristle when I see another African-American using the talking points of "activist judges overturning the will of the people." And while I am sure the man in question is reading cue cards (rather well I might add), someone should school him that if it weren't for supposed "activist judges," we wouldn't have the decisions of Loving vs. Virginia (which overturned laws against interracial marriage) or Brown vs. the Board of Education (which overturned segregation laws.)
3. Those children at the end? Now that was just tacky. What about the children in same-sex households who will be negatively affected should this bill pass? The irony is that if those voting against Amendment One had used children in their ad in the same manner as these folks had, it would be all over the National Organization for Marriage's blog about how "radical homosexuals are exploiting the innocence of children."
And lastly, one woman in the ad drives home the basic dishonesty of Amendment One. It begins at 1:00 when she says she is voting for Amendment One because she is married to one man for 30 years and she loves him dearly.
But she neglects to say how allowing gays and lesbians to receive that same courtesy (being married for 30 years to the person they love) would harm her marriage. And the sad thing is that I doubt that she can.
I can't help wondering how would she feel if someone told her that her marriage to her husband does not count regardless of how much love she has for him.
And I think whether she realizes it or not, she makes the case against Amendment One.
If you want to fight against Amendment One, go to Protect All Families to learn how.
Alan Turing was one of the greatest scientists of all time. He is considered to be the father of computer science and artificial intelligence. It was his intelligence which helped the Allies defeat the Nazis during World War II. And what was his reward? Disgrace and suicide simply because he was gay. Never forget our heroes.
Maybe I'm an old fashioned type of guy but it seems to me that if someone has publicly called homosexuality an "evil lie of Satan," you wouldn't necessarily believe his supposed "debunking" of a study which supports the idea of gay parenting.
Such is the case with Focus on the Family's Glenn T. Stanton.
According to Equality Matters, Stanton took it upon himself attempt to debunk a study dealing with lesbian parents. But as Equality Matters proves, Stanton did less of a good job debunking the study and more of a good job showing his anti-gay bias:
Anti-gay groups are excited about a new Focus on the Family (FoF) brief that purports to debunk a popular study demonstrating the effectiveness of same-sex parenting. The brief, written by FoF’s Glenn T. Stanton, criticizes the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) – “the longest-running and largest prospective investigation of lesbian mothers and their children in the Unites States.” According to Stanton, the NLLFS is “an orchestrated persuasion piece conducted and funded by gay-rights activists” and suffers from major methodological flaws.
A closer look at his critique, though, reveals just how desperate anti-gay groups are to attack studies about gay parenting that don’t affirm their talking points.
Stanton listed three reasons why the study should be debunked:
Study’s Authors Are Biased Activists Study’s Sample Was Too Small, Not Representative Study Contradicts Social Science On Family Structure
Equality Matters takes intricate detail in breaking down Stanton's errors and bias. For example, take Stanton's first claim that the study's authors are "biased activists:"
Stanton devotes much of his criticism of the NLLFS to pointing out the obvious – that the study was funded and conducted by groups and individuals interested in advancing LGBT equality. Stanton specifically criticizes the NLLFS’s “investigators” for specializing in LGBT studies and research:
Their professional research has been solely in the field of lesbian research. Examine the bibliographies offered in each of their published studies to date. They offer the reader no survey of the vast literature on how various family forms impact child development and well-being in varying degrees. They consult - nearly exclusively - only published studies that examine gay or lesbian issues.
Stanton also goes to great lengths to depict one of the study’s authors, Dr. Nanette Gartrell, as an “out of the mainstream” radical.
He fails to mention that Dr. Gartrell was educated at some of the nation's leading universities - Stanford, University of California, and Harvard. He also failed to mention that in her 35-year professional career she served on the medical school faculties of Harvard and UCSF, and that her published research focuses on a variety of topics including sexual exploitation of patients by health professionals.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether the NLLFS actually presents reliable information on the topic of same-sex parenting. Stanton even admits that his criticisms of the study’s authors amount to little more than an ad hominem:
But the facts that NLLFS is initiated and conducted by lesbian activists, funded by foundations backing GLBT activism and that the Principle Investigator is outside the mainstream of the lesbian community do not mean the study is not a reputable academic investigation. It only lets us know who’s behind it and their possible motivations.
What matters is the structure, execution and reporting of the study itself.
According to Dr. Gartrell, many of the researchers involved in the study are heterosexual.
Moreover, Stanton fails to mention his own “motivations” for criticizing the NLLFS. FoF’s website displays an article in which Stanton condemns homosexuality as “a particularly evil lie of Satan” which “profoundly and thoroughly” challenges the image of the “Triune God.”
All in all, the Equality Matters piece is an excellent read of the dangers of someone with whose expertise are simply "writing about family" and calling himself a Christian taking it upon himself to debunk work which he obviously doesn't know from a wart on his finger.
Stanton's pitiful attempt to debunk this study proves that he is way out of his league.
But I guess he figures he can fake it because apparently "Jesus loves him."
Last week when President Obama voiced opposition to the upcoming North Carolina referendum vote which would ban marriage equality in the state, several groups supporting this referendum voiced their displeasure.
However, the prize for bad taste and lack of subtlety goes to the Meck Deck, an official blog of the conservative John Locke Foundation for the following image which should lead decent people speechless:
The graphic, which has since been taken down, accompanied a piece which claimed that Obama was "pandering for votes." My guess is that the author was implying that Obama was offering fried chicken to African-Americans and sex to gays The awful mess was written by Tara Servatius, former right-wing radio commentator for Charlotte's WBT AM, and a former regular contributor to Meck Deck.
I say former regular contributor because she abruptly resigned. According to Pam's House Blend, John Hood, president of the John Lock Foundation sent out a press release claiming that Servatius was merely a freelance writer. He also said that he was embarrassed and angered over the incident.
"Recognize this? Hate branding, focusing on Jews, succeeded in branding them as the “enemy” in public opinion in Nazi Germany. It’s the method used today by Islamic radicals who spread ludicrous fables about Jews in many mosques."
The irony is that Harvey didn't even make GLAAD's list (jealous much, Linda?). However thanks to statements like the one above, her organization, Mission America did make Southern Poverty Law Center's list of anti-gay hate groups.
- Pushes inaccurate science: "More importantly, however, the government has an obligation to promote public policy that is best for the general welfare and to discriminate against behaviors that adversely impact society and public health. Tobacco use is heavily regulated by the state and smoking is strongly discouraged. A major study conducted by Oxford University demonstrated that homosexual conduct is three times more deadly than smoking. Homosexual behavior is fraught with adverse health affects. (sic) Again, this is not opinion, but documented medical fact." (*The researchers behind that Oxford study, conducted at the height of the AIDS crisis, havecondemnedthewayfolkslikeBauerhavetwistedtheirfindings)
- "Ex-gay" advocacy: "Story after story calls for everything from new hate crimes laws, to same-sex marriage, to pro-homosexual education policies. But policies like these would only compound the tragedy of homosexuality."
Like I said, guys. Own your statements or apologize for them. This censorship whine is old.
FRC says Kirk Cameron 'simply disagreed' on marriage, on par with Obama; is lying - For one thing, President Obama never called homosexuality destructive. And I have to say this - for someone claiming that they are being "silenced," Cameron seems to be running to every media outlet. I mean actual Christian martyrs showed more dignity at the time of their deaths than THIS bozo.
