News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
|
|
The Baptist Standard calls out Texas Baptists on their hypocrisy
Canada's Anglicans oppose Uganda's 'Kill Gays' bill
A review of the Manhattan Declaration
NJ Democrats Wiggle and Waffle
Texas kid beaten with metal pole, entirely preventable
Austria gets civil partnerships
At first glance, David Benkof appears to be a young gay man who believes that same-sex marriage will damage the institution of marriage, that there are better options for gay couples than marriage, that the community should join him in prioritizing other more pressing issues, and that the marriage discussion is harming the efforts of gay couples in red states to get recognition for their unions. He also claims that he’s a gay columnist, that he speaks for an influential collection of gay thinkers, and that he is part of the gay and lesbian community and that he shares our goals and dreams. But none of that is true.
The April 2008 edition of the pay-to-publish vanity journal Psychological Reports featured a new report from NARTH. Written by NARTH president A. Dean Byrd, past president Joseph Nicolosi, and Richard W. Potts, the report carries the unwieldy but self-descriptive title, “Clients perceptions of how reorientation therapy and self-help can promote changes in sexual orientation.” While the title describes what the authors meant to show — how clients describe the benefits of reparative therapy — the report itself actually illustrates something very different: the ex-gay movement’s remarkable ability to instill an almost robot-like parroting of ex-gay rhetoric among their clients.
The Toronto Star said that a new study “discover[ed] a new strain” of a super-bug “hitting gay men.” Headlines in Britain screamed, “Flesh-eating bug strikes San Francisco’s gay community,” and anti-gay extremists across America spread the alarm that gays were introducing another plague into “the general population.” But there was a small problem with all of this: None of it is true!
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don't miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
When Karla Jay and Allan Young published The Gay Report in 1979, it quickly a favorite source of statistics for many anti-gay extremists. But before you accepts these statistic at face value, you should examine the inner workings of this survey very carefully. What you learn might surprise you.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
Many anti-gay activists complain when gay rights advocates bring up the issue of hospital visitation rights, saying it’s a red herring. But Minnesota anti-gay lobbyists apparently didn’t get the memo. The Minnesota Family Council is opposing a bill before a state Senate committee that would guarantee access for same-sex partners to their loved ones in the emergency room.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Jarrell
December 21st, 2008 | LINK
This bill is an example of something so innocent and benign, yet it’s opposed by a “family council” because it would be an acknowledgement that same-sex relationships exist. This proves they are unconcerned about actual family advocacy when that family doesn’t fit in with their narrow view. These are real people. They live, breathe, drive to work, pay taxes, and try to have some type of home life together and not bother anyone or impose upon anyone. Yet, if one of them gets sick or gravely ill, it’s not right that the other should be able to visit them in the hospital?!! Where is even the most basic of human decency in that logic?
Jason D
December 21st, 2008 | LINK
The opposition to this bill is all about maintaining negative consequences for homosexuals, and has zero to do with protecting anyone or any “tradition”. The skewed logic is that homosexuality is a choice, thus if we remove negative consequences, more people will choose that option.
What does it say about heterosexuality, though? That it’s so boring and unfullfilling that people are just chomping at the bit for something else?
But these are the same people who want us to believe that homosexuality is both considered abhorrently disgusting by most people and yet at the same time, overwhelmingly difficult to resist.
Leave A Comment