News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
|
|
New Hampsure results silence NOM's Maggie Gallagher
Mormon/Boy Scout sexual abuse problem
"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
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.
I’m still trying to figure out how anyone can have a “wide stance” when their trousers are gathered about their knees. That’s okay though. I won’t have to think about it any more. News media everywhere are reporting that Idaho Sen. Larry Craig will resign tomorrow, leaving the GOP’s double standard intact. I’m glad he’s resigning, but the GOP’s business isn’t done. Wouldn’t you agree?
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Robguy
August 31st, 2007 | LINK
I’m happy to see Craig go – even though what he did (tapping his foot and swiping his hand) would hardly be illegal out of context. Too bad Vitters (who actually got to use his willy) doesn’t leave as well.
I guess the real crime is “teh gay”. (yet, the like-cock-republicans wonder why we have so little respect for them).
werdna
September 1st, 2007 | LINK
If your pants are around your knees you can still spread you feet pretty wide. If they’re around your ankles, that’d be tougher.
Oh, what? The substance of the post? Rank hypocrisy and political calculation from the GOP? How terribly surprising! Glenn Greenwald has a good post about how “family values” are deployed tactically and cynically against gays: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/30/craig_vitter/index.html
(you’ll have to watch a short ad if you’re not a subscriber, sorry!)
David
September 2nd, 2007 | LINK
The last time I commented on this topic Jim Burroway accused me of splitting hairs. I will now risk further such accusations by insisting that no double standard is evident.
Senator Vitter was not accused of any criminal offense, did not plead guilty to any crime, and did not make any flimsy excuses when his actions became public. Senator Craig did. Hence there is no double standard for homosexual as opposed to heterosexual misbehavior.
On her web log, Michelle Malkin notes that is was Lousiana Republicans who first pointed out Vitter’s extramarital activities. Quoting from the Daily Advertiser:
“Christopher Tidmore of Metairie, now a Republican candidate for the state Legislature, wrote the Louisiana Weekly article five years ago about Vitter’s relationship with Canal Street brothel prostitute Wendy Cortez. Vitter continuously denied any relationship. Tidmore said Vitter has tried to sabotage his career since he wrote the article.” See http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/11/very-disappointed-in-vitter/
Malkin thinks that those “who keep harping on double standards conveniently forget” all of this.
Nevertheless, Jim Burroway will ultimately be pleased by Malkin’s view on the Vitter affair. She writes:
“So far, Vitter has managed to avoid further questions about his admission of “sin.” He better enjoy the Labor Day holiday. When he gets back to Washington, I have a feeling he’ll be feeling the post-Craig heat.” See http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/01/craig-press-conference/
Jim Burroway
September 2nd, 2007 | LINK
Actually, if you will look closely, Vitter did admit to a criminal offense long after the statute of limitations passed. That’s the ONLY reason he didn’t even have a chance to plead guilty to a crime. But when his name appeared on the madam’s list, he admitted to it and got a round of applause.
Both crimes were misdemeanors. So yes, in my view justifying Vitter’s staying in office while calling for Craig’s head, is a double standard. Saying that somehow I “forgot all this” is a strawman.
David
September 2nd, 2007 | LINK
Did Sentor Vitter deny any wrongdoing with flimsy excuses? Did he accuse a police officer of lying?
In order for there to be a double standard vis-a-vis Vitter and Craig the two situations have to be the same except for the homosexual/heterosexual angle. But they aren’t.
Of course, Tidmore’s accusation of career sabotage against Vitter are worth being investigated by the Senate.
Ben in Oakland
September 2nd, 2007 | LINK
david: just so you understand it better, here is the double standard explained in a letter i wrote to the SF Chronicle:
What an amazing display of double standards.
The family-values Republican leadership forced Larry Craig to resign his Senate seat because he plead guilty to tapping his foot in a restroom. Perhaps he intended to dishonor the sanctity of his marriage by committing adultery. Perhaps not. David Vitter actually did commit adultery, yet he was welcomed back to the Senate with nary a peep heard about how he dishonored the sanctity of his marriage, let alone a call for his resignation.
Could it be that Craig’s actions had a whiff of lavender about them, while Vitter was just a good ol’ boy doing what good ol’ boys do? Could it also be the Craig’s likely successor would be a conservative Republican, while Vitter’s would most likely be a Democrat? Why is it that McCain and Giuliani, both of whom have adultery and divorces in their resumes and both of whom oppose marriage for gay people, are given a free pass by the Republican leadership?
Perhaps it is time to admit that “the battle over same-sex marriage” has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with power, money, and prejudice. The Republican Party denounces and demonizes gay people and our lives, and yet is virtually silent about other issues obviously more relevant to marriage and family life, such as high heterosexual divorce rates, multiple marriages, adultery, out-of-wedlock births, guaranteed health care especially for children, family planning, and the number of children in foster-care and orphanages– for a start.
If the GOP actually showed some real concern about families and started moralizing about those issues, they would probably lose many of their “values voters”. Anti-gay moralism costs its supporters nothing, and is much more of an electoral winner.
David
September 3rd, 2007 | LINK
Ben in Oakland:
I understand the double standard you and Jim claim is present. I’m saying that the the two situations are not similar enough to demonstrate any double standard.
Jim Burroway
September 3rd, 2007 | LINK
Well then I can’t help but go back to my earlier comment. In my opinion, a lot of people are splitting hairs in comparing the two. Both senators admitted to breaking the law in misdemeanors involving allegations of sexual misconduct. Only one has been pressured to resign.
So no, that’s not entirely correct: two situations don’t have to be exactly the same for a double standard to exist. There will never be two situations precisely alike. The world just isn’t as clean as all that. And so for that reason, there will always be the convenience of a hair’s worth of difference to merit a double standard. The only difference here I can see is that Vitter was able to deliver a pursuasive speech in a closed session of his caucus that earned him a round of applause. I’m not so sure there is anything Craig could have done to earn the same thing, not even on his best day.
Ben in Oakland
September 3rd, 2007 | LINK
David: I would say that you arem ost likely not gay and are a conservative chrisitian against full inclusion of gay people and an end to prejudice. given your ideological starting place, it is not surprising that you don’t see a double standard here. you probably also don’t think that gay people have anything to complain about, andthat whatever the hetero majority does to us is justified because 1) we ar going against god’s will 2) hey, it’s their sincere religious beliefs, so it really isn’t just plain old prejudice and bigotry 3) it’s the will of the majority, so the rights of the minority do not need to be respected, because we have no rights. It’s a democracy, right?
Let me tell you something. as long as you (or GOP, or KKKristians) say that I can be treated differently than you for no other reason than you don’t like what makes my dick hard, than we are talking abouit prejudice. And as long as we continue to deplete our national will and energy over whether i get to live my life as I see fit, we will continue to elect the same bunch of idiots and moral degenerates, and bring aqbout the fall of the american empire.
homer
September 4th, 2007 | LINK
Craig also had poor bathroom etiquette, he didn’t flush! Per the police report. I wonder if he washed his hands?
Timothy Kincaid
September 4th, 2007 | LINK
Ben,
Your wild assumptions about David and the accompanying insults are inappropriate for this site.
We don’t know David’s orientation or what he believes about gay people.
I, for one, am a gay person who fully supports inclusion of gay people and the end to prejudice. And yet I can see David’s point.
He acknowledges the facts of the situation and simply states that he doesn’t see a double standard in those facts. That doesn’t make him a bigot.
I think that a double standard does exist and I think it comes into play in the response of some people. But I can also see that there are adequate differences so that others may legitimately not think this a double standard, or not enough of one to get upset about. While it may seem like splitting hairs, and I’m not stating I agree with all of this, I can see how some folks don’t see a double standard:
1. Plead guilty. Yes, it’s just because of statute of limitations that Vitter didn’t, but some folks think that a guilty plea is cause for resignation while an accusation is not.
2. Public v. Private. Many people (me included) don’t much care what goes on behind closed doors whether it’s the “horrible crime” of prostitution or not. But we all kinda cringe at the idea of sex in a bathroom in a VERY public place like an airport where we know kids are in and out all the time. So for some folks, it isn’t about adultery or sin or values, but simply that the creepy guy lurking in the bathroom has to go.
3. Timing. Vitter’s infidelity is supposedly in the past and he’s sought counseling for it. Craig’s infidelity was recent and he show no intention of doing anything about his preclivity for toilet cruising. Some people find it easier to forgive the guy who admits his fault and has already taken steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again as opposed to the guy who says, “I didn’t do it” when clearly they did.
Personally, I see them the same because they both sold themselves as one thing to the voters but were something else entirely.
Ben in oakland
September 4th, 2007 | LINK
You are correct, timothy. I apologize to you and to David. I went back and read his remarks again, and I realized that I had misread several words and taken it that he was saying something that he clearly was not. So again, I apologize.
However… there is a very clear double standard here in the repub’s actions, since the are the party of family values. The forgive one indiscretion, and force a resignation on the other.
David in Louisiana
September 9th, 2007 | LINK
I don’t think it was double standard while i don’t believe in what he done i will still vote for him he is not for giving our country away like lot of the senators most of them Dem. open borders let the illegal stay here no mater what they have done or almost everything like senator Craig for giving our country a way senator Vitter is for strong defense. i can live with what he done can not say that about lot of the other senators. i know this is not what you want to hear also i dont think you will print
Leave A Comment