26 responses

  1. Warren Throckmorton
    August 20, 2007

    I was an invited speaker but am not going to attend the event. If I had attended, it would have been with the intent to offer those in attendance an alternative perspective.

  2. homer
    August 20, 2007

    What a bunch of miserable people. I don’t agree with the Christianist lifestyle (it’s a choice!), but I’m also not interested in telling people how to lead their lives. Except I’d really like to tell these people exactly what my opinions about their perceived moral superiority are.

  3. a. mcewen
    August 20, 2007

    i’m curious to see what “studies” they will be pushing to prove their theories about homosexuality. Will it be a bunch of new distortions or the same ones they always use.

  4. Emily K
    August 20, 2007

    Once again, this Christocrats refuse to cite sources. Of course, the only source you could find that says queers are “300%” more likely to abuse kids is Holocuast revisionist Nazi-admiring “doctor” Paul Cameron.

    “New and Relevant Research”??? Not likely.

  5. Emily K
    August 20, 2007

    Once again, this Christocrats refuse to cite sources. Of course, the only source you could find that says queers are “300%” more likely to abuse kids is the Holocaust revisionist Nazi-admiring “doctor” Paul Cameron.

    “New and Relevant Research”??? Not likely.

  6. quo
    August 21, 2007

    While most of the claims made by the people listed above are indeed hateful and false, it seems a little unfair to place them all in the category of ‘false accusations’, since a few of those claims – that homosexuals have higher rates of sexually promiscuity, for instance – are arguably correct.

    The argument that homosexuality is harmful to society can easily be made, and undoubtedly will go on being made. More would be accomplished by dealing with it seriously as an argument (and showing why it is wrong, if in fact it is wrong)than by dismissing it out of hand as ‘homophobic.’

  7. Emproph
    August 21, 2007

    Agreed. Much more better to dismiss it out of hand trippingly-off-the-tongue as “intentional dishonesty sydrome.”

    Or if religiously inclined, “intentionally bearing false witness syndrome.”

    -So much more intellectually digestible than simply saying “homophobic.”

  8. quo
    August 21, 2007

    Say what you like Emproph, but if even some of the accusations conservatives make about gay behaviour are correct, responding to theaccusations with flippancy will not do much to help.

  9. a. mcewen
    August 21, 2007

    quo, i understand where you are coming from. we should refute the religious right when they come up with their phony studies on a point-by-point basis whenever we can.

    as it is, there are no studies that say that homosexuals (and I think you mean gays and lesbians by that designation) on the whole are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. And no legitimate study has ever said that homosexuality is a “dangerous behavior.”

  10. Timothy Kincaid
    August 21, 2007

    The argument that African-Americans are harmful to society can easily be made, and undoubtedly will go on being made. Yet I will continue to battle racism.

    The argument that Judaism is harmful to society can easily be made, and undoubtedly will go on being made. Yet I will continue to battle anti-Semitism.

    The argument that Catholicism is harmful to society can easily be made, and undoubtedly will go on being made. Yet I will continue to battle religious bigotry.

    The argument that homosexuality is harmful to society can easily be made, and undoubtedly will go on being made. Yet I will continue to battle homophobia.

    And I will not be so foolish as to confuse any of the above bigotries with reasonable or legitimate claims.

  11. Keith
    August 21, 2007

    Bah, haven’t these people ever heard that those who haven’t studied history are destined to repeat it? Every time there’s something that goes against tradition, there’s much ado from the social conservatives that turns out to be for nothing. They’re just trying to keep that one straw off the camel’s back. It’s pathetic, really.

    I don’t know of any studies that show homosexuality is harmful to society. I know of some that say it’s helpful to society (not homosexuality in itself, but the things gays do that help society).

  12. Emproph
    August 23, 2007

    Quo: Say what you like Emproph, but if even some of the accusations conservatives make about gay behaviour are correct, responding to theaccusations with flippancy will not do much to help.

    My version:

    Say what you like Quo, but if even some of the accusations we make about “conservatives” are correct, responding to the accusations with obfuscation will not do much to help.

    Quo: While most of the claims made by the people listed above are indeed hateful and false

    I’m open minded. How would you better respond to hateful and FALSE claims publicly made about you?

    Perhaps you could give me some advice as to how to be less flippant in response to such public humiliation?

  13. Jason
    August 23, 2007

    Whoah guys, you both have points, and if I may, i’d like to explain them to all of you.

    One side is basically saying that to entertain notions and ideas we know, and can confirm are false is to legitimize them.

    That is very true. When discussing ethnic diversity no one would ever consider allowing the KKK or other White Power groups present their “alternatives”. We know they exist, but we do not tolerate them in public discourse.

    There is a cliche about children and information they don’t want to hear. They put their hands over their ears and start talking loudly, babbling, or singing so as to drown out and ignore whatever is being said.

    Essentially the thought is, by dismissing false research we run the risk of looking like children covering our ears and singing to drown out the message.

    The other half of the coin is listening and refuting. This is, at least, considered more respectful.
    The problem is that what is being said, what we would have to listen to, is insulting, demeaning, cruel, fabrications and lies. Nobody wants to listen to someone lie about them, their community. Certainly not time and again, the same dreary idiotic statements and falsifications. It seems more insulting and perverse to have to sit through it calmly.

    So the question becomes, which tactic is more effective in getting the truth out, and getting more people on our side?

    That’s what we want, isn’t it? People to stop clinging to lies and myths and to know the real truth? Right?

  14. a. mcewen
    August 23, 2007

    But we have to recognize that it is up to us to refute these lies. The religious right (anti-gay industry) isn’t going away and calling them homophobic without providing proof of how they lie isn’t going to do us any good.

    The proof of their lying is out there. But the only reason why they get away with so much is because no one challenges them. I hope that my upcoming book will help in doing that.

  15. quo
    August 24, 2007

    If there is proof that it’s a ‘lie’ that homosexuals tend to be more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals, why not present that proof?

  16. a. mcewen
    August 24, 2007

    it has been presented numerous times. i have, on my blog and upcoming book, talk the lies told about the alleged promiscuity of lgbts.

    And I know jim has talked about it on this site.

  17. quo
    August 24, 2007

    What I am asking for is something very specific – proof that homosexuals (and I mean homosexual men) are as a group no more sexually promiscuous than heterosexual men.

    Perhaps, for all I know, such proof has already been presented on this website, but in that case I’m afraid I missed it. Could you please tell me exactly where I can find it, a. mcewen?

  18. Emproph
    August 24, 2007

    QUO: What I am asking for is something very specific – proof that homosexuals (and I mean homosexual men) are as a group no more sexually promiscuous than heterosexual men.

    Specific? Yet as a group? What could possibly be less specific and unfair than lumping together all virginal, monogamous, and promiscuous homosexual men in the same “group,” especially in the effort to claim that male homosexuality is equal to increased promiscuity?

    Prove the relation between same-gender attraction, in and of itself, and increased promiscuity first. Then tell me how that relates to monogamous gay couples, and then we can consider your claim as being legitimate. Until then the burden of the proof lies with you.

    And make sure your “proof” of increased promiscuity exists within the context of an environment which encourages and supports same-gender relationships and same-gender marriage – just so that we can be sure that any anomaly of increased promiscuity isn’t due to a lack of familial and social support.

  19. a. mcewen
    August 25, 2007

    i have to agree with emproph there. the way you are phrasing the question is biased in a way.

    It’s the same as saying “where is the proof that black men on the whole are less criminal than white men.”

  20. Timothy Kincaid
    August 25, 2007

    Quo,

    you misunderstand the nature of debate and civil discourse.

    If you want to make an assertion, you have the burden of proof. You cannot just make some accusation and demand that others prove it wrong.

    For example, I cannot say, “Quo, prove to me that you don’t cheat on your taxes.”

    If I think you cheat on your taxes then it’s my duty to prove it, not your duty to disprove some unbased assertion.

    At this point, the thread has veered far from it’s topic. If you have anything to contribute relating to the topic at hand, please do. Otherwise I will no longer be accomodating “prove me wrong” types of arguments here about unrelated subjects.

  21. quo
    August 25, 2007

    OK, a threat of censorship. I can see that this debate is over.

    The last thing I have to say about it is that it was a. mcewen who made an assertion without proof (‘The proof of their lying is out there’). I simply asked him for the ‘proof’ in relation to one particular issue.

  22. Emproph
    August 26, 2007

    TK: “will no longer be accomodating “prove me wrong” types of arguments”

    QUO: “OK, a threat of censorship. I can see that this debate is over.”

    “Censorship?” That’s a bit of an unfair characterization don’t you think? I see it as more of an admonishment to think before speaking.

    QUO: The last thing I have to say about it is that it was a. mcewen who made an assertion without proof (’The proof of their lying is out there’). I simply asked him for the ‘proof’ in relation to one particular issue.

    Have you tried Google? You do have access to a computer don’t you?

  23. a. mcewen
    August 26, 2007

    and actually i did tell quo that proof is on my webpage AND i did say that jim has talked about distortions several times on THIS webpage.

    so to say i made an assertion without proof is not true.

  24. Zeke
    August 30, 2007

    The Family Impact Summit may be one of the largest gathering of the countries who’s who of hypocritical homophobes.
    I believe their selection of location for this summit is no coincidence. They choose the heart of Rhonda Storms and her far right wing anti-gay rights zealots base. If they believe the community as a whole will welcome them with open arms, they will be sadly mistaken.

    Although the summit is taking place in the Bible Belt of Florida, the blatant bigotry, prejudice, misinformation and
    lies that will be dispensed. Will in fact have a ripple effect on GLBT’s and communities across the country.

    In September they’ll be meeting in our backyard, but, let there be no doubt. One day in the near future, they will be spewing their anti-gay propaganda in your backyard. Do not go quietly into that good night and bury your head in the sand while these anti-gay summits continue to take place. It’s up to you to take a stand, have your voices heard loud and clear against their blatant homophobia.

  25. Emproph
    August 30, 2007

    Courtesy Citizenlink

    Alan Chambers of Exodus International will address how the homosexual agenda impacts young people.

    “We’ve got to talk about these things,” he said. “If we don’t, I think we are neglecting our kids and setting them up for a dangerous future.”

    Creep.

  26. Gloomy
    November 10, 2008

    Does anyone know where Bill Federe got his statistics (particularly the 300% more child abuse that occurs in homosexual homes)? I’m doing a report on the bent truths of straight extremist in relation to the issue of adoption. Though this website is a gold-mine for such things, I would like to know how he gets his numbers.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop