Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“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…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

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

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

a. mcewen
March 20th, 2008 | LINK

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

quo III
March 20th, 2008 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

” 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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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

Sorry!

Stefano
March 24th, 2008 | LINK

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 | LINK

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.