LaBarbera Award: Peter Sprigg

Jim Burroway

March 20th, 2008

The LaBarbera AwardThese awards have been coming fast and furious lately. It must be spring fever or something. Or Sprigg fever.

Current immigration laws which deny the foreign partners of gay Americans the ability to immigrate to the U.S. A bill is stalled in Congress which would address this problem which forces families apart. The Family “Research” Council’s Peter Sprigg was asked about it and said this:

I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.

Certified CameroniteThis “kick them out” kind of sentiment is definitely worthy of the LaBarbera Award. And today, we get a two-fer. Spriggs is also a Certified Cameronite for citing Holocaust revisionist Paul Cameron’s discredited research in his and Timothy Dailey’s 2004 book, Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality.

See also:
Family Impact Summit: A Lesbian Shows Peter Sprigg How To Debate

a. mcewen

March 20th, 2008

that’s the first time someone has won both. and trust me, sprigg is very deserving.

quo III

March 20th, 2008

The ‘export homosexuals from the United States’ part of Sprigg’s comment probably wasn’t meant to be taken literally. It looks like a misguided attempt at humour.

gordo

March 20th, 2008

Let’s try something:

“I would much prefer to export blacks from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe blackness is destructive to society.”

Yes, quo III, as the exercise above clearly shows, Sprigg’s comments were meant to be taken as humor.

Jason D

March 21st, 2008

Gordo,
I’m not apologizing or defending, but quo III has a point.

Some people still feel it’s perfectly acceptable to make jokes at the expense of gay people. Whereas most people (even those that are racist) know better than to try and make one at the expense of black people (unless you happen to be black, and even then, thin ice).

William

March 21st, 2008

If the first clause had stood on its own, then it might have been reasonable to interpret it as an attempt at humour – albeit a poor one – but the addition of the second clause, “because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society” makes this interpretation look pretty implausible.

Stefano

March 21st, 2008

Current immigration laws which deny the foreign partners of gay Americans the ability to immigrate to the U.S. A bill is stalled in Congress which would address this problem which forces families apart.

I’m assuming the “bill” being referred to is the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

Medill reports that gays are pressing for changes. I’ve made an assumption that these changes are separate from those of the repeal of the HIV+ travel restriction ban.

But what I’d like to know is what specific ammendment to the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is being alluded to and who is sponsoring it, if anyone, and of course how this language is to read.

I haven’t been able to find on a google search anything other than similar vague allusions that Medill has made.

Timothy Kincaid

March 21st, 2008

I believe the bill is the Uniting American Families Act. It has 92 sponsors in the house and 13 in the Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02221:@@@P

Stefano

March 21st, 2008

Thank you!!!

Sorry, if this may have been mentioned in the videos, but I’m on an outdated system with dialup that makes it impractical to stream the videos. :(

Appreciate the info and quick reply.

Stefano

March 21st, 2008

Yes. That would be the one.

This is the language I was trying to find…

Section 101(a) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended–

(1) in paragraph (15)(K)(ii), by inserting `or permanent partnership’ after `marriage’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(52) The term `permanent partner’ means an individual 18 years of age or older who–

`(A) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment;

`(B) is financially interdependent with that other individual;

`(C) is not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone other than that other individual;

`(D) is unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act; and

`(E) is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual.

`(53) The term `permanent partnership’ means the relationship that exists between two permanent partners.’.

Joel

March 22nd, 2008

I was asked, “whats the diference between pseudoscience and true science?”… i had no definitive answer to that, so can some1 please explain it. That way, next time you award the humoroustic Certified Cameronite title ill understand. Oh, and im far from being the only one that doesnt get the distinctive difference you see.

Timothy Kincaid

March 22nd, 2008

Joel,

pseudoscience is something that is masquerading as science in order to dishonestly influence opinion. It usually pretends to use the Scientific Method, but when inspected it turns out to either be contrived to produce a desired result or draws conclusions that are not supported by the data.

Ben in Oakland

March 22nd, 2008

” contrived to produce a desired result or draws conclusions that are not supported by the data.”

…or they just make something up and say that scientists say that…

something like, i’n not a doctor, but i play one on TV, so you should buy this (fill in the blank) becasue I look like a doctor.

Joel

March 24th, 2008

Aight, thank you. A second question would be, is the APA and other psychological associations officially against Cameron research?

WOuld also like to know if there are any other pseudoscientific research thats prolific(or not) amongst conservative brochures, conferences, etc… other than cameron research. I had(PC broke) a document that i obtained from a random internet blog that was filled with footnotes. It had everything ive heard, in a more straightforward and grotesque way(with a few suprises here and there) that seemed very much like Cameron research. Oddly enough, after sifting through the references I couldnt directly link any to Cameron research. I know Cameron abundantly uses footnotes, so that wasnt really what seriously caught my attention, but the dates that these footnotes had ranged to 2005 and that got me thinking.

Stefano

March 24th, 2008

Aight, thank you. A second question would be, is the APA and other psychological associations officially against Cameron research?

In a word? Yes!

Let’s put it this way

the American Psychological Association (APA) on 2 December 1983, voted to drop from the membership “for lack of cooperation with the Committee on Scientific and Professional Ethics and Conduct” (a copy of this letter is posted online at University of California – Davis

Stefano

March 24th, 2008

Whoops. The link to the copy of the letter seems to no longer be valid.

Sorry!

Stefano

March 24th, 2008

Hmmm. Maybe I fubared the link when I posted it. I did a google and the link worked from google.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Cameron_apaletter.html

Stefano

March 24th, 2008

Sorry for the multiple posts…

Joel, also try this one:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html#note5_text

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1951: California Gay Bars Given Very Brief Reprieve

Today In History, 1965: Gay Rights Advocates Picket the State Department

Today In History, 1987: Arsonists Burn Florida Family Home of Three Brothers with AIDS

Born On This Day, 1825: Karl Heinrich Ulrichs

Born On this Day, 1921: Nancy Kulp

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 2006: NARTH Official Recommends Peer Shaming for Gender-Variant Elementary School Children

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

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.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

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.

Paul Cameron’s World

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.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

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"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

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.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

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.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

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.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

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.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe 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.