Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyMay 19th, 2007
No one wants to be called a bigot. No one wants to think that their own dislikes of others is based on arbitrary presumptions or, worse yet, their own insecurities. We want to justify our feelings of contempt by blaming them on the victims of our contempt and, more importantly, defining ourselves as inherently superior.
And history is filled with just such justifications.
Invading a culture, killing all the men, and taking the land and the women requires something more than whim or need. We must say they were inferior – they worshiped the wrong gods. Enslaving people with another skin color can’t be simply based on power or greed. They are inferior, less intelligent, and therefore they should dutifully recognize our superior role. The shape of the skull or nose of a man shows him inferior and more criminally inclined and therefore worthy of a Final Solution. The economic structure of one nation is superior to that of another and justifies invasion to impose this preferable method.
So much evil starts with the image of ones own superiority. If, after all, one thing is superior to another, is it so wrong to do away with the inferior and support the superior? And doesn’t that ends justify any means – or meanness?
So perhaps it should not surprise us much that Exodus International’s Mike Ensley justifies his endorsement and support for anti-gay discrimination with this comment on Alan Chambers’ blog:
The fact is, heterosexuality is innately superior. Only heterosexual partners enjoy the complimentary aspect of their physiology, and only they can produce children.
I suspect that Mike does not want to think of himself as a bigot. And I suspect that Mike does not want to think of himself as cruel to others. So in order to justify his own personal activism in the cause of harming the lives, livelihoods, and relationships of individual gay men and women, he needs to see these lives – and the people living them – as inferior.
So he does.
(hat tip to Peterson)
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
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.
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.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Willie Hewes
May 20th, 2007
“Only heterosexual partners enjoy the complimentary aspect of their physiology,”
After all, the be-all and end-all of human sexuality is putting a peg into a hole.
*shudders*
Ew. The ick-factor reinvented.
Don Livingston
May 20th, 2007
From a strictly reproductive point of view, the statement is correct: a heterosexual couple is superior in that they might make a child from their mutual bodies, and a homosexual couple will not. But if this were the basis for defining marriage, then we would also have to prohibit infertile heterosexuals from marrying. We grant marriage status to “non-productive” heterosexual couples. There is no good reason not to grant that status to equally committed homosexual couples as well.
homer
May 20th, 2007
Homosexuals are innately superior. Only homosexual men enjoy the complimentary aspect of interior design, and only they can produce beautiful rooms for Reality TV shows.
I just feel sorry for self-haters for Chambers. Of course, when one is making a living through bigotry, you have to keep trotting out garbage every now and then.
Ken R
May 20th, 2007
Homosexuals are innately superior. Only homosexual men enjoy the complimentary aspect of interior design, and only they can produce beautiful rooms for Reality TV shows.
LOL
Did you ever wonder if Chambers and the others had their way and gays were wiped off the face of the Earth this planet would be rather dull? Who would do the interior decorating? Create fabulous designer clothes? Movie set and costumes? Not to mention the loads of other things gay men are so creative at. Ok, perhaps some ex-gays could step up to the plate and try to reach real deep and pull out some of that former homosexual creativity.
Hmmmm…..
Timothy Kincaid
May 20th, 2007
Sure, heterosexuals can father children. But without homosexuals, who would be the father of philosophy (Socrates) or the father of the systemic study of the body (da Vinci) or the father of modern physics (Newton) or the father of the computer (Turing).
I dare say that the “children” of these homosexuals have contributed more to the well being of humanity than would any natural human offspring.
John
May 20th, 2007
I found Mike Ensley’s honesty to be refreshing. I don’t think that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals, but the ex-gay movement cannont exist without those who have a deep seated inferiority complex (fostered and reinforced by certain social, political and religious dogma) about their sexuality.
Kevin
May 20th, 2007
I believe this is called heterosupremacy.
Kevin
May 20th, 2007
I wish con-servatives would make up their minds. First they bray along about how innately superior their relationships are because of the mythical “perfect fit” they pretend their equipment makes. . .then they claim that they need over 1,000 special rights laws to “encourage” them to commit themselves to such superior relationships. Then, of course, we are told they need to preserve those special rights for themselves alone to “protect” that “superiority.”
In the end, it sure doesn’t sound like they have much to act superior about. .. but they sure like the idea of manufacturing any image possible to pretend they are.
I wonder how they explain the large number of women who continue to “fake” orgasms in those perfectly superior physical positions the con-servative men keep crowing about…oh, that’s right. .. I’m sure they blame it on the woman, and just try to make sure they don’t move into a neighborhood where a Mandingo fantasy might come true for her. . .
Erica
May 21st, 2007
Thumbs up to homer for my best laugh of the morning :-)
So heterosexuals shouldn’t have sex unless they plan on procreating — only on fertile days, never while pregnant or menstruating, never using contraception… Hi, I’m a baby machine! Can I be your unpaid house slave, please? Don’t worry, I don’t have any independent thoughts or feelings for you to worry about.
Ugh.
Mike Ensley
May 21st, 2007
From a strictly reproductive point of view, the statement is correct: a heterosexual couple is superior in that they might make a child from their mutual bodies, and a homosexual couple will not.
–Thanks for acknowledging what my point really was, and not spinning it into something it’s not. I’m not saying people are inferior, I’m saying a certain sexual practice is. To take this to mean that I am for the “harming of lives” demonstrates a willful misunderstanding of my argument.
But if this were the basis for defining marriage, then we would also have to prohibit infertile heterosexuals from marrying.
–This isn’t true. Homosexual couples are not prohibited from procreating by a defect, disease or outside interference; they are prohibited by the very nature of their relationship.
Timothy Kincaid
May 21st, 2007
Mike,
You claim that a “sexual practice” is what you find inferior.
However, the legislative agenda of your organization does not punish sexual practices. It punishes gay individuals. It is gay persons that find themselves unable to adopt, or to serve in the military, or to establish kin, or to make education decisions for their children, or to have medical insurance on the same terms as their coworkers, or the many many other ways that you and Exodus champion discrimination.
None of those efforts are against a sexual practice. All of the victims of those efforts are living breathing gay persons.
So clearly, what you find inferior is not only the practice but the practitioners.
But I would not expect you to admit to that. After all, you have to love the sinner… and do everything possible to make his life miserable.
I do hope that some day you will come to realize that gay people are just that, people. And that targeting their lives and their relationships for civil harrassment is not moral. Perhaps you will at some point realize that those who are heterosexually oriented are not vested with a superior orientation. And that arguments about superiority and inferiority of others are not a legitimate basis for discrimination.
I have hopes for you, Mike.
Because otherwise you risk finding yourself amongst company that history has deemed to be monsters – those who seek to punish others for differences. History is full of them, and none are remembered fondly.
PW
May 21st, 2007
Innately superior? This line is nothing other than the old ‘well this is how God intended things to be’ line dressed up to sound non-religious. What is such a joke though is the fact that people involved in this ‘innately superior’ behavior can’t keep their marriages together, even Christians who have ‘the power of Jesus Christ’ apparently can’t stay together as God intended. But hey, I don’t see Exodus on a war path about that, funny how that works.
Liadan
May 21st, 2007
My girlfriend and I are both female, and yet I find our respective physiologies quite complementary (and complimentary as well!) despite the absence of a penis on either of us.
If the primary advantage of (hetero)sexual relations is its reproductive capacity, why is contraception so thoroughly popular? Most sexually active heterosexuals (and bisexual people in opposite-sex relationships) of my acquaintance, in or out of wedlock, seem to spend more time AVOIDING conception than courting it.
Don Livingston
May 22nd, 2007
Don wrote: “But if this [strict reproduction] were the basis for defining marriage, then we would also have to prohibit infertile heterosexuals from marrying.”
Mike wrote: “This isn’t true. Homosexual couples are not prohibited from procreating by a defect, disease or outside interference; they are prohibited by the very nature of their relationship.”
Don replies: So you’re argument is roughly, “Reproduction is the basis for marriage except in the case of couples who cannot reproduce through defect, disease or outside inteference, in which case they can marry.” Let’s think about that. If one says that strict reproduction is the basis of marriage, but one allows the infertile to marry when they cannot reproduce, then one is acknowledging that reproduction is not strictly the only reason to marry. What are the reasons a knowingly infertile couple might marry? They marry to express mutual love/support/care and to enjoy the prerogatives that formalization of their relationship entails. Is their marriage somehow a farce? Of course not. It (ideally) provides stability and a social construct for their mutual edification. If they adopt kids not produced by their own bodies, do they make their marriage a farce? Of course not. In fact they contribute to the stability and edification of society.
Similarly there is no compelling reason not to allow gay couples to do the same merely by reasoning that they cannot produce children of their own bodies. Why would a gay couple want to marry? To express mutual love/support/care and to enjoy the prerogatives that formalization of their relationship entails. Does that make their marriage a farce? Of course not. It (ideally) provides stability and a social construct for their mutual edification, and if they adopt children that other families are not caring for, they contribute to the stability and edification of those children and society as a whole.
Leave A Comment