NOM Commits Sodomy
The Daily Agenda for Saturday, February 11
The Daily Agenda for Friday, February 10
Again anti-gays blindly and gleefully shoot themselves in the foot
Rep. Walsh leads with her heart
Advocate, WaPo, AP Get it Wrong On Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Uganda Executive, Parliament Tussle Over Anti-Homosexuality BIll
The Daily Agenda for Thursday, February 9
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 450 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.
David Benkof: Behind the Mask
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.
“Repeat After Me”: The Reparative Therapy Echo Chamber
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.
Testing the Premise: Is MRSA The New Gay Plague?
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!
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.
Review: The Gay Report
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.
Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count
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.
News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Pomo
April 26th, 2009 | LINK
I just took it. It was short which was nice but many of the questions wern’t clear and I didn’t think they were well thought out. For example it asks about “my religion” The answer to those questions vary depending of if its talking about my view of the bible or my church or christianity as a whole…
dawn
April 26th, 2009 | LINK
I took it – I agree with Pomo, some questions were kind of vague but I answered as best as possible. It didn’t ask for the religion of my partner which suprised me, only mine.
gordo
April 26th, 2009 | LINK
I was stumped – when I got to the question asking about my religion it didn’t give me the option to say no religion. From there on, all the questions pertaining to the effect of my religion on my relationship made no sense.
David C.
April 26th, 2009 | LINK
Yes, I think this study’s design, or at least this survey, is a little flawed. I had the same problem with the religion questions. Survey design is not for amateurs and requires experience to get right if meaningful information is to be gained.
tonykw
April 27th, 2009 | LINK
The study is highly flawed. It’s impossible to answer any of the later questions because they take for granted that you have a religion.
This is supposed to be for a doctorate?
David C.
April 27th, 2009 | LINK
I think we should differentiate between “the study” and “the survey”.
I’m not a social scientist, I don’t even play one on TV, so I’m not qualified to nor do I have knowledge of the study methodology itself. I can say that the survey appears to be ambiguous and it’s design does not appear to take into consideration the respondent not having a religion. There is (or at least was when I took the survey) also a reference to a “Question 11″ in an item about ethnicity/cultural background, but as I recall the questions weren’t numbered.
Were I to offer an explicit recommendation, it would be to fix the reference to the question number, and explicitly cover non-identification with particular religious categories. One might offer the choice “spiritual but not religious” or “not affiliated with an organized religion”. Then design the rest of the survey to either exclude participants that did not fit the target groups of the study itself, or group and control for their responses separately.
Lewis
April 27th, 2009 | LINK
I agree with everone that noted the missing, “I have no religion”, option and follow up questions. This was very poorly constructed…or…the author only cares about collecting data that restrictivly supports their personal position. Not scientific nor unbiased
Eddie89
April 27th, 2009 | LINK
I was able to sort of use the [What religion are you practicing now?] question to indicate my preference. There was no “Other” as a valid choice. So, I just left it blank.
Then under this question there is a space to fill in called “Other (please specify)” This is where I filled in my choice as an “atheist”.
Keeping “atheist” as my religion, I then answered the questions appropriately, from an “atheist” perspective and how “atheism” views same-sex relationships, etc.
Diego
April 28th, 2009 | LINK
I wish the survey was a lot more in-depth. I don’t know what kinds of conclusions can be drawn from those kinds of questions. It would have been nice to have more demographic questions to draw more linkages to the impact of religion on relationships. Maybe its just a pilot, because I’m sure a ethnography would have more room for detailed inquiry and open ended questions for unique experiences.
scott boscoe-huffman
April 28th, 2009 | LINK
As the survey author, I greatly appreciate the feedback. David is correct in identifying that the survey is a part of the study. This particular quantitative survey examines the impact of religion for those who still consider themselves to be involved in organized religion in some way (even minimally).
The scope and design of the survey would be inappropriate for atheists and those with no involvement in religion. This will be addressed in the limitations section of the survey findings. I am collecting qualitative statements of the impact of religious teachings on this latter population to include in the study. If anyone would like to be included in this qualitative portion, you can e-mail a statement about your opinion of what affect (positive or negative) religion has had on your same-sex relationship as an atheists or someone who has completely separated themselves from organized religion. Thank you all for your opinions. Every bit of data and feedback helps me to hone the quality of information gathered.
Please write to scobohu@yahoo.com
werdna
April 28th, 2009 | LINK
“This particular quantitative survey examines the impact of religion for those who still consider themselves to be involved in organized religion in some way (even minimally).”
Where is this made clear? The survey page says: “The purpose of this survey is to explore the impact of organized religion’s positions regarding same-sex relationships on the support and maintenance of same-sex relationships.” If you are looking only for people who are themselves involved in organized religion this should be made explicit.
Leave A Comment