News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
|
|
"Not Equal" Flag Debuted in New York DADT Protest
"Not Guilty, Not Ashamed, and Not Finished"
Anti-gay general's comments infuriate the Dutch
ENDA Sit-ins Result in Arrests in DC and San Francisco
Schumer Argues for LGBT Incusion in Immigration Reform
Ex-Gay Ministry Admits Sexual Abuse; Grateful At Not Being Found Out
Lt. Daniel Choi Arrested In DADT Protest At White House
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 two hundred 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.
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.
No, that’s not a real headline. But
When was the last time you heard of an activist for the other side being accused of the mirror image of what is now a list longer by one GOP senator from Idaho? Which would be, I guess, a putatively gay man arrested for trying to hire a female prostitute.
Have I missed that headline?
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
quo
August 28th, 2007 | LINK
What is this supposed to prove?
Emproph
August 28th, 2007 | LINK
Exactly.
Jim Burroway
August 28th, 2007 | LINK
It’s not supposed to “prove” anything. I just wanted to provoke some thoughts. Maybe it speaks more to how my brain works than anyone else’s, but I looked at it as an interesting thought experiment.
When I read the headline, my first thought was that of course, such a headline is ridiculous. And that led me to ask why? Why did I find it ridiculous? (And did anyone else jump to that reaction or was their reactions completely different. And agin, why?)
I know that it’s relatively rare for men in general to be busted for hiring a prostitute. Some cities may institute crackdowns here and there, but generally What’s more common is that prostitutes are arrested but the Johns often aren’t targeted. Why is that? Is it some sort of male priveledge?
And speaking of priveledge, what about the heterosexual priveledge that some people mention? We can intellectually understand that the story behind the headline would be just as “bad” as Sen. Craig’s problem: Someone advocating one thing but doing something else in a very shade manner. But would a gay man hiring a female prostitute be seen as a betrayal for other gay men? Is it an act of hyporcrisy, or would it be seen as “proof” that even this hypothetical gay man is seeking a kind of “normalcy.” Would it even be celebrated in some quarters the way Mike Glatze is? Would this story gain the same visceral reaction of Sen. Craig’s? Would it gain the same visceral reaction as Mike Glatze’s?
Or would the hypothetical gay John get some kind of a pass overall because, well, what do you expect from homosexuals? Are gay men seens as being so far outside of “family values” that such a headline would be somehow less shocking than Sen. Craig’s? and If so, what does that say about society’s attitudes and expectations towards gay men?
I could go on with a whole bunch of questions and possibilities. I am barely scratching the surface. But the upshot of this is that I often find it interesting to examine situations by asking what if the opposite happened? That’s all. What if instead of Sen. Craig caught in a men’s restroon, it was Barney Frank on the D.C. Madam’s list? Would the reaction be different? I think it would be very different. And if I’m right, what would that say about our society?
Lith
August 28th, 2007 | LINK
^^ I guess the difference would be that the gay activist isn’t attempting to subjugate heterosexuals, but the antigay activist is? Thus the hypocrisy is more intense, as it were?
Emily K
August 28th, 2007 | LINK
Brilliant. All of it.
Emproph
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
Sorry Jim, I should have clarified.
You were pointing out a potential double standard here.
Then we have quo taking offense, not to a double standard, but to you having brought attention to it. At least that’s the way I took the “what are you trying to prove” line.
Considering that quo finds it perfectly acceptable to conclude without “proof” that gay men “as a group” are more promiscuous than straight men, yet demands “proof” to show differently – I find this to be a double standard.
So for quo to consider your legitimate attention to a double standard to be something that you are somehow unqualified to suggest, is a reaffirmation of a double standard on quo’s part. Basically proving your point.
This is what I meant by “Exactly.”
..I probably should have said all that the first time. ;)
Jeffrey Weiss
September 3rd, 2007 | LINK
Thanks for noticing my question. I intended it just as you took it — a prompt to think about these questions.
Leave A Comment