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.
After suffering the embarrassment yesterday in New Hampshire, the National Organization for Marriage seems to be careening to another one. The group is now taking on the company Starbucks. From NOM President Brian Brown:
Dear Marriage Supporter,
We are urging consumers across the globe to "Dump Starbucks" because the massive international corporation has taken a corporate-wide position that marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become the norm.
I emphasized that part of Brown's statement to demonstrate how much of a lie it is. Starbucks recently chose to endorse marriage equality in Washington State. At no time did Starbucks say anything about wanting "one man and one woman marriage" to be eliminated.
In stark contrast to Brown's accusatory tone, Starbucks has been very concise and cordial in explaining its position. Witness the following Q&;A between Starbuck CEO Howard Shultz and a NOM representative at the company's shareholder meeting yesterday:
And when asked pretty much the same thing by another NOMbie:
Tom Strobar is President of Citizen Action now (www.citizenactionnow.com) and author of the first shareholder resolution against child pornography, religious bigotry, fetal tissue research, abortifacient drugs and domestic partner benefits. Strobhar is the author of numerous articles on pro-life and pro-family business matters, including the only pro-life shareholder resolutions to appear on corporate ballots in 1991 through 2005. Strobhar has served as chairman of Life Decisions International (www.fightpp.org) and has been a Board member of the National Association of Christian Financial Consultants. A graduate of Columbia University, Mr. Strobhar has the dubious distinction of being described in Pat Buchannan’s newsletter as “a one man wrecking crew.” Glamour magazine described him as “The Financier,” “a major Washington power player,” and a “financial whiz.” SOURCE: SpecialGuests.com
You may accuse me of extreme hyperbole with this one but just minutes ago, the National Organization for Marriage was dealt with a tremendous upset in New Hampshire:
The New Hampshire House of Representatives has defeated an attempt to roll back the state’s marriage equality bill with a vote of 133-202. At stake first was the absurd amendment proposed by Rep. David Bates (R), which would have re-implemented civil unions and given voters a chance to weigh in on that decision in a non-binding way. That amendment failed 162-188. Then, there was a fierce parliamentary debate as to whether to consider a humorous amendment proposed by Rep. Seth Cohn (R) that would have prohibited marriage between people who are left-handed, but the effort to bring it forth was defeated. During the debate on the bill as originally proposed, Bates and other opponents of equality invoked comparisons between same-sex marriage and incest while protesting when others juxtaposed the measure with the racial segregation of the past.
NOM expected to win this one, even to the point of bragging on its blog about how the issue of marriage equality led Democrats to lose in the 2010 elections. It is true that New Hampshire has a Republican majority who was not only serious about reducing marriage equality to civil unions, but also overriding the veto threat by Gov. John Lynch.
I guess overriding the veto is not necessary now seeing that the bill FAILED!
Kudos to New Hampshire legislators for preserving fairness.
Editor's note - possibly due to unforeseen circumstances, I may not have access to push today's midday news briefs to twitter and facebook. I would greatly appreciate it if one of my readers could do that for me. Thank you in advance.
Earlier this month, Michael Fitzgerald, an openly gay California lawyer was approved by a vote of 91-6 in the Senate to serve as a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Subsequently, this makes him the the fourth out LGBT federal, lifetime-tenured judge in the nation.
And members of the religious right aren't happy over that. Brad Dacus, president of the right-wing Pacific Justice Institute, thinks its a plot by Obama - a plot of what, I'm not sure. He also thinks that Fitzgerald isn't qualified.
However if you ask me, Mr. Dacus really should have kept his mouth closed on this situation. That way, none of his ignorance would have escaped:
"This president continually appoints judges not based upon their qualifications or their skills, but instead based upon their participation in one group or another," he contends. "Political correctness has absolutely no place when choosing those whose job it is to ensure fair and blind justice for all Americans."
And that, my friends is the gist of the article. Dacus claims that Fitzgerald isn't qualified to be a judge, but he neglects to say why. Perhaps Dacus thought that he could relay his concerns via the Jedi mind trick.
Or perhaps Dacus opposes Fitzgerald being a judge simply because Fitzgerald is gay and is too chickenshit to be honest about it.
My money is on the second conclusion.
Fitzgerald was not selected by President Obama and approved 91-6 by the Senate because he is openly gay. Apparently he has the aptitude and skills to more than handle the job he was appointed to. It's a shame that bigotry blinds Dacus to this simple fact.
Will the makers of Star Wars video games
create Darth VaPaula,
a (mock) transgender version
of Darth Vader - RuPaul,
for kids to choose
as their action player?
These LGBT demands on Star Wars game maker must be opposed. Please forward this article to friends.
LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) activists are demanding that the makers of Star Wars video games add LGBT characters for kids to select as their action figure when playing the games. Previous email alerts with more information on this issue are posted below.
These LGBT activists want children and young teens to be able to choose Star Wars action characters who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. This would mean:
• Children and teens, who never thought anyway but heterosexual, are now given a choice to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in their game player.
• Children and teens, who choose non-social agenda characters, would be forced to deal with lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender characters chosen by other players.
Should BioWare bow to the demands of these LGBT activists by adding such action characters to Star Wars video games they certainly would not create game rules that would allow regular players to prohibit entry into their games by these social agenda characters. That would be discrimination (sarcasm.)
There were no LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) characters in any of the Star Wars movies. So if BioWare, the maker of Star Wars video games, adds LGBT characters for kids to select as their action figure it could be something like Darth RuPaula, a combination of Darth Vader, one of the most popular Star Wars characters, and RuPaul, the renown transgender cross dresser.
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges officials at BioWare’s parent company Electronic Arts and Lucas Films to stop any additions of LGBT content to Star Wars video games.
To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the "Send Your Message" button. Because opponents try to use our email system to send opposing messages we NO longer allow for changes in the wording of the subject line or message of the email prepared for you to send to advertisers.
According to Right Wing Watch, the Florida Family Association's claim is not an anomaly:
Religious Right groups have lately set their sights on attacking the game Star Wars: The Old Republic, which allows players to have their characters join same-sex relationships. The Family Research Council has blasted BioWare, the game’s creator, for crossing over “to the dark side” and the American Decency Association accused BioWare of pandering to “homosexual extremists.”
It's time like this when I become sacreiligous and seriously wonder just what IS Jesus saying about these folks performing all of these strange acts in his name.
- When the APA passed a resolution declaring so-called “ex-gay” treatment unethical, said: "If any of this reminds you of the tactics of Nazi Germany, it ought to. In Hitler's Germany the term for what the [American Psychological Association] is doing was Gleichgeschaltung, which means ‘forced conformity.’ If you didn't conform to the government’s point of view, you risked losing your job. That is what's happening in the world of psychology today.”
- Said being gay is a health risk more dangerous than smoking: "But homosexual behavior is also hazardous to your health. More dangerous than smoking, it lowers the life expectancy dramatically. And yet we celebrate it -- all part of so-called diversity. And now activists want to legalize same-sex ‘marriage,’ which is sanctioning behavior known to be dangerous. Many of the same people who are the most vigorous in the campaign against smoking are celebrating homosexual practices...The fact is that when we label such a relationship a ‘marriage,’ we're giving state sanction to something that is devastating to health. To ask the government to crack down on smoking and at the same time promote homosexual behavior is lunacy. Both practices damage people's health, although there is an important difference: Homosexual practices shorten a person's life expectancy far more than smoking. Of course, the hazard is also to the nation's health." (*The researchers behind Colson's findings, conducted at the height of the AIDS crisis, havecondemnedthewayfolkslikeChuckhavetwistedtheirwork)
- Compared being gay to jumping off a 10-story building: "It’s the reason sane people don’t jump off a 10-story building. They realize that doing so would be to ignore the law of gravity and risk catastrophe. Well, in the very same way, when we violate the moral laws of the universe, we are in for a world of hurt."
- On allowing gay people to serve openly in the military: "If we throw sexual lust—or eros—into the mix, we will destroy unit cohesion. The consequence will be that men will die. All for politically correct posturing that has nothing to do with winning wars.”
- Described being gay as “beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures.”
- Argued that gay relationships have “no intelligible basis in them for the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence.”
- Suggested that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shouldn’t be considered a Catholic because by signing marriage equality into law, "he has made it clear that he simply does not believe what Catholicism teaches about sexual morality and marriage."
- Said marriage equality is “about sex,” not about love, commitment, and responsibility.
- Drafted the Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto signed by Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical leaders that "promised resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same-sex marriage.”
Instead of whining about being blacklisted, these so-called Christians need to own these alliances and statements. That is unless they know that such statements and alliances fall beneath the role of being a good Christian.
Kirk Cameron Defends Comments Against Homosexuality - Now he is backtracking a bit. We get it, Kirk! You have a movie to promote. Might I suggest stripping. At least while you are talking, folks will have something to pay attention to.
In the fight of marriage equality, a lot of the talk seems to be centered at New Hampshire and a strange reversal by the National Organization for Marriage:
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is the leading group fighting the legalization of same-sex marriage around the country. It has raised and spent millions, opposing not only marriage equality but also civil unions.
Yet NOM is now backing legislation in New Hampshire that would repeal same-sex marriage but legalize civil unions, signaling a shift in its tactics as more states move toward recognizing marriage equality.
The New Hampshire House is expected to vote Wednesday on a bill that would repeal marriage equality and replace it with a civil unions law that was in effect in the state in 2008 and 2009. Same-sex marriage was legalized in the state on Jan. 1, 2010.
State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), the author of the bill, is also pushing for a ballot referendum in November asking voters, "Shall New Hampshire law allow civil unions for same-sex couples and define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?"
The referendum, however, would be non-binding so if voters opted to keep same-sex marriage, the state wouldn't necessarily have to listen. Repeal would still take effect on March 31, 2013, if Bates' bill passes.
The article also points out the several instances in which NOM has opposed civil unions:
In the past, NOM has come out strongly against civil unions. Last year, it called the potential of civil-union legalization in Illinois a "direct threat" to marriage.
After Rhode Island legalized civil unions for same-sex couples last year, Christopher Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of NOM, said it was a "disappointing and dangerous day."
It would be nice to claim that NOM is tacitly announcing that it recognizes the inevitability of laws which would protect gay and lesbian relationships and grant them "the same rights as married couples," but like the title of my post says, I smell a rat.
NOM has invested too much time, money, and venom in this fight to suddenly wave some type of white flag.
I don't trust NOM and I don't think that it is farfetched to ponder if whether or not this is a part of a larger strategy which would leave gay couples without marriage rights and civil unions.
To put it more succinctly, it would behoove the lgbtq community to do as actor and comedian Mel Brooks says at .11 seconds of the following clip:
Bob Vander Plaats of the group The FAMiLY Leader was another person who made GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project (CAP) and this video by Think Progress demonstrates why.
And it's a video coming just in time, too. According to Think Progress:
The FAMiLY Leader and its president, Bob Vander Plaats, intend to hold a rally in the Iowa state Capitol tomorrow pressuring the state legislature to take up an amendment to the Iowa constitution defining marriage solely as between a man and a woman. Along with other groups including CatholicVote.org and the National Organization for marriage, the Leader has been promoting the policy change since the Iowa Supreme Court declared in 2009 that a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In conjunction with the rally, the groups expect to deliver a petition with over 20,000 signatures supporting the amendment. The involvement of Vander Plaats in the event is especially noteworthy, as his extremism in Iowa state politics has increasingly driven even fellow Republicans and social conservatives to distance themselves from him.
First, a little comedy for your Monday. I DO NOT condone doing this in front of Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, Brian Brown, or Peter LaBarbera (who will probably take pictures). However, in front of a wacky fundamentalist preacher seeking to disrupt college campuses, have at it:
Today: Two #GLAADcap listees discuss 'ex-gay' advocacy, self-victimization - GLAAD's list has the religious right on the run. They are trying to tell the media to avoid it. Hmmmmm. I wonder if Peter Sprigg will mention the tweet I sent him this morning congratulating him on making the list and telling him that I look forward to using it against him.
On Sunday during an interview with TheChristian Post concerning the Tyler Clementi case, Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins made a comment which should lead many of us gay bloggers to scratch our heads with amazement:
"Some have even laid blame not on the actual bullies but on Christian churches and conservative politicians. It's wrong to politicize these tragedies. Instead, we should focus on preventing the bullying of young people – for their sexual orientation, appearance, religion, or any other reason."
Perkins was claiming that the lgbtq community would use the verdict of this case ( Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi was convicted Friday of anti-gay intimidation for using a webcam to spy on his gay roommate's love life. The roommate, 18-year-old Tyler Clementi, committed suicide after realizing that he had been watched) to supposedly push an alleged "gay agenda" (whatever that is).
But the irony with Perkins' statement about keeping gay students from being bullied is that FRC has never supported any anti-bullying programs geared to the gay youth
Instead, the organization nd Perkins have been extremely vocal and active in opposing anti-bullying programs which would include the lgbtq community.
In August of last year, Perkins made very negative comments about the "It Gets Better" campaign, a campaign in which gay leaders and allies of the lgbtq community created videos telling gay youth to not allow bullies to bring down their self esteem.
In the following letter, Perkins called the campaign "disgusting" and an attempt to "recruit children into the gay lifestyle:"
In June 2011, FRC issued a public prayer to God that efforts by Health and Human Services to combat the bullying of gay youth would fail:
• May God help us to not to "bully" anyone, but to graciously yet urgently speak the truth in love to young people who are hurting themselves with the "LGBT" lifestyle. May believers across America not be "bullied" by our government's efforts to promote harmful and sinful sexual practices among our youth and instead determine to stand courageously against these misguided efforts which can only lead to God's judgment!
The Family Research Council is a major propagator of the falsehood that bullying prevention initiatives are attempts by gay rights activists to “recruit” students, and lobbies states to pass laws curbing students from joining Gay-Straight Alliance clubs. Peter Sprigg, FRC’s senior fellow of public policy, authored a booklet on how the “pro-homosexual movement” is “indoctrinating impressionable school children” through safe schools initiatives and anti-discrimination rules. He regularly criticizes organizations like the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which helps formulate safe schools programs, for allegedly trying to “promote a homosexual agenda in schools.”
So basically, Perkins' comments about protecting gay students has less to with actually protecting gay students, and more of a CYA statement (cover your ass) statement in the face of this awful situation.
But words don't mean anything. If Perkins is truly sincere about protecting gay youth from bullying then he and his organization should stop creating road blocks to this effort.
Focus on the Family's Glenn T. Stanton took part in the conversation to whine about GLAAD.
Now in the course of the part that Jeremy posted, Stanton - who has been portrayed as an expert by the media on the subject of lgbtq equality - admitted that he found homosexuality to be "a particularly evil lie of Satan."
In the part I am presenting, this conversation about that label continues but Stanton is trying to play it both ways. He - and Thomas - are claiming that it's perfectly rational to label homosexuality as Satanic and also those who complain about this are in the wrong.
Take a look below at religious right hypocrisy presented live and in color The way I have noted the conversation isn't as sophisticated as Jeremy, but I assure you that no comments have been altered.:
Thanks man. I actually thought about how awesome you are and include the story of how you forced me to try Sushi in Tallahassee but didn't. Not kidding, that was a true consideration for about five minutes. I should have. Good to see you.
Glenn, you have one of the most notorious quotes of anyone! You have, quite literally and proudly, called homosexuality "a particularly evil lie of Satan." You said this, on your own accord -- GLAAD simply noted it.
And I know that people within your own movement are taken aback by this, the claim that you put on the record and that still exists on the Focus on the Family site. I'm sure that the next time you engage on mainstream media, others would like to hear it as well. And *that* is the sole point of this project: To inform. No one is trying to stop you, Jim, Randy, or anyone from obtaining a booking. That could've bee the project's ask: It's decidedly not!
Jeremy. Yes, I as a Christian believe homosexuality is a particularly evil lie of Satan. There are many. Abortion is one. Pornography is another. Sex trafficing is another. Adultery and divorce are some as well. Because they run contrary to what God created us for. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with historic Christianity. And yes, I did it literally, but certainly not proudly. Please don't pretend to know my inner thoughts.
And our opponents throw the "bigot" and "homophobe" accusations around so loosely and casually, as to apply to anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. And they do so TO the person, not their ideas. You will never find me saying anything bad about particular individuals because they identify as homosexual. But I will speak about homosexuality. Our opponents are the ones who call people names and they do it liberally.
Glenn T. Stanton If you stand by your quotes, why are you whining about GLAAD publishing them for all to see? This project is amplifying your work to people who may have missed some of your choice comments.
Honestly Scott, I could care less about them publishing quotes. I do stand by them without the slightest hesitation. And I don't believe they are out of the mainstream in the least. But I object to them using them to tell other people my thoughts are invalid and not to talk to me, which is exactly what GLAAD telling news outlets. They did the same thing when I was a guest on Dr. Phil. "Don't talk to him. He's not an authority." But they don't address what I said and why it's "wrong" only that i said it. Come on.
Glenn T. Stanton Where in the world did they say that? They're making your quotes available. You *may* get challenged on them in future appearances. Focus representatives *may* get challenged in general for misinterpreting research to suit their own purposes (resulting in the researchers asking you to stop).
Scott, you mischaracterize Glenn's response as "whining" earlier and now you come across very condescending in your statement "all of this is fair game in the public square." As if we didn't know this already? It is also fair to call out GLAAD's selective outrage and borderline bigotry in stigmatizing a group of 36 people, who run the entire length of the middle right to far right spectrum into one big ol' animus filled worthy of disdain group. I know Jeremy is pulling a CYA disclaimer by saying they are not trying to stop the media from booking these commentators but that is incredibly disingenuous. GLAAD can not honestly say that they would not be thoroughly pleased, and consider it a triumph, to effectively deter any media from ever speaking with these folks again as a result of this project.
Randy Thomas Verbatim quotes are verbatim quotes. GLAAD is posting them and yes, I'm pretty sure that if MSNBC thinks twice about having somebody on there who said them, then it would elevate discourse. It's pretty well documented that many of the people on that list speak a certain way in front of one audience (i.e. "hundreds of thousands of ex-gays") and say something completely different when a cable news camera is on them. If they don't want their church time quotes put in the public square, then they probably should think twice before they say them because people are starting to pay attention.
I've been following people like Peter LaBarbera, Ken Connor, Gary Bauer, etc. for many years and have a very good memory. The internet has a much better memory than I do.
Glenn T. Stanton Well Glenn, if you admit that you say that homosexuality is an evil lie of Satan then you have given suitable ammunition to those who characterize you as a bigot. That's a nasty thing to say. Do you feel the same way about folks who practice different religions?
Glenn T. Stanton One more thing, Glenn. You have presented yourself as an expert even though you have written pieces - Why Homosexuality Falls Short of the Ideal - with numerous errors (i.e. usage of the inaccurate term "gay bowel syndrome" and second hand citations of the discredited Paul Cameron). In addition, you were corrected for an error you made in 2008 by the American Anthropological Association. If GLAAD was calling Dr. Phil's attention to these errors you made, then the organization was totally in the right. I have a serious problem with weasel phrases such as "silencing Christians" or "silencing dissenting points of view." And the media should be presented with information which would lead them to question the motivations of someone presenting themselves as an expert on an issue not because they have done the work and have the degrees and expertise but because they have formed an opinion and have taken it upon themselves to cherry-pick legitimate work to prove that opinion. Don't get me wrong. That person should still be allowed to present his/her opinion on said interview or show but the media figure should ask questions about the person's motivations, statements, and expertise.
Let's all be clear about something. In Glenn's first response to me, he tries to act like he was simply lumping homosexuality into a mix of other things that he sees as "lies." But that is not what he said in the quote! To wit:
"All sexual sin is wrong because it fails to mirror the Trinitarian image, but homosexuality does more than fail. It's a particularly evil lie of Satan because he knows that it overthrows the very image of the Trinitarian God in creation, revealed in the union of male and female.
This is why this issue has become such a flashpoint. It will become even more contentious because nothing else challenges this image of the Triune God so profoundly and thoroughly as homosexuality. It's not what we were made for."
-Glenn Stanton, director for Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family
It's also important to note that when I pointed out his comment once before, Glenn got really snarky with me on his own blog. Then, after I objectively (if proverbially) handed him a part of his lower body on a silver platter, he, in typical far-right fashion, deleted all traces of what he (and I) said. http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/07/glenn-stanton-responds-to-my-post-gives-me-another-opp-to-highlight-his-extreme-view.html
Civility is a personally initiated courtesy ... not a reward extended to others who behave the way we want them to. The person who extends civility regardless of others behavior is operating in life-affirming relationship/communication. The person who only extends civility when another person earns it walks in life-draining self-righteousness.
Randy Thomas I'm pretty sure "civility" ended when my friends and I were called an "evil lie of Satan". It also ended when several other people on the GLAAD list made their comments. It probably didn't help when Randy had his photo (proudly) taken with Karl Rove.
Scott Hutcheson, Glenn was sharing his opinion on "homosexuality" as a spiritual issue, not you and your friends personally. As far as my picture with Karl ... really? I met him long enough to shake his hand, grin and take a picture. If that bothers you ... well... as civilly as I can say this ... tough. I will stop there and ask you to re-read my comment about civility. Civility, like tolerance and unconditional love are best expressed when extended toward those you obviously don't agree with or don't agree with you. If you can only show civility to those you accept ... there is merit in that but not the depth that a truly civil approach to dialog can bring.
Scott, Randy makes a very important point, which seems to get confuse very often in this debate. To say homosexuality is a particularly lie of Satan is not to say homosexuals themselves are an evil of Satan unless you define solely with your sexuality, just as saying abortion is a particularly evil lie of Satan, which I believe it is, is not to say that women who have aboritons are necessarily evil on themselves. Vegans think I am very, very wrong and inhumane for eating meat. I don't take personal offense at that. That is their conviction, which they have a right to...and to express. And I have mine. And Scott, can you read Randy's mind, that he "proudly" had his picture taken with Karl Rove. And is Karl Rove so evil that it is a social transgression to have your picture taken with him. Randy is about the most gracious, throughful, kind "opponent" you could have. Give him a break.
Glenn T. Stanton Both Glenn and Randy, I am sorry but you are hedging. When you say that homosexuality is a lie of Satan, you are in fact TALKING ABOUT GAY PEOPLE. And gays have justification to be offended by this just like Christians have justification to be offended if someone talked ugly about their religion. The problem as I see it is a lack of honesty, particularly on the part of Glenn. You can't have it both ways. You have every right to make all sorts of nasty and negative remarks about gays, homosexuality, whatever. But at the same time, you need to own those remarks and stop whining that you are unfairly being called a bigot or hater. Labeling a facet of someone's life as Satanic does nothing for civility. Rather, it in fact DOES make you sound like a bigot and a hater regardless of whether it's a religious belief or not. Furthermore, while you have every right to assume that homosexuality is simply about sexual behavior, you need to stop whining when those who know better than you about the subject - i.e. the gay community - lend their voices to correct your assumption. Do you really expect us to be quiet when you say such offensive things about us? Lastly on a personal level, I find it insulting that Glenn says those ugly things about gays and then whines about civility. You just threw civility out of the window. And Randy, please stop insulting people's intelligence by attempting to make sense out of Glenn's nonsense.
Oh and just in case you didn't notice, pay attention to the fact that Stanton - and Thomas - did not answer my earlier reply regarding Stanton's shoddy work.
It's just as many of us have been saying. Some anti-gay pundits seem to think that they have the First Amendment right dehumanize us and disrespect our lives. However apparently to them, we shouldn't have the First Amendment right to respond.
