Hot Or Not?
Jim Burroway
July 10th, 2009
According to New York Times columnist David Brooks, a certain unnamed Republican Senator just couldn’t help himself.
News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoricMormon/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
Ex-Gay Ministry Admits Sexual Abuse; Grateful At Not Being Found Out
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.
According to New York Times columnist David Brooks, a certain unnamed Republican Senator just couldn’t help himself.
Lynn David
July 11th, 2009 | LINK
Sounds like a job for BlogActive’s Rogers.
Burr
July 11th, 2009 | LINK
$20 says it’s Lindsey Graham.
That said, why didn’t Brooks DO something about it? I don’t mean outing him or anything, but you know.. tell him to stop instead of waiting through the whole dinner apparently, unless I’m wrong?
I dunno, maybe he’s just full of crap as usual.
homer
July 11th, 2009 | LINK
Lindsey Graham was my guess too.
Swampfox
July 12th, 2009 | LINK
I agree, why didn’t he remove the hand? If Brooks wants to out a Republican Senator, get some better information and then do it. I am a South Carolinian. I think it would not shock too many in South Carolina that Graham is gay. We have survived the sex drive/lives of Thurmond and Sanford.
John
July 12th, 2009 | LINK
In David Brooks’ defense.
He is a columnist which means he prizes access. He probably didn’t want to risk the wrath of someone who could provide him with a quote and some information when the time is needed and humiliating the senator by removing that hand might risks his access to him.
Besides he may have, at the time of the incident, he gave the senator the benefit of the doubt (he thought the act was unintentional) but after giving it some thought in hindsight he changed his mind.
Who is he talking about? I don’t know but he obviously is a Republican and a hypocritical religious nut job that deserves to get caught.
Swampfox
July 12th, 2009 | LINK
“Who is he talking about? I don’t know but he obviously is a Republican and a hypocritical religious nut job that deserves to get caught.” – John
Graham is no religious nut job. He has been accused of being gay by the local Democrats since he first ran for the Senate. He deftly just runs around the issue.
AJD
July 12th, 2009 | LINK
Another thing is that Brooks has no physical proof that this senator actually put his hand on his thigh, which would be an act of sexual harassment. Identifying the senator in print or on the air could invite a libel suit.
Swampfox
July 13th, 2009 | LINK
AJD, could this be act be seen as an act of sexual harassment? I don’t see it. And, it is no longer considered libel to infer or say that some one is gay. The odd thing is that Brooks brought up this event at all without naming the Senator.
RC
July 13th, 2009 | LINK
Me thinks David Brooks might have surprisingly enjoyed it?..and so, he “protests too much”? The act might have been shocking at first, and then some latent curiousity might have stirred him….maybe that’s why he did not remove the Senator’s hand
Swampfox
July 13th, 2009 | LINK
I wonder how long Brooks can keep this man’s name a secret? He does work at the New York Times, surely he will be hounded by his fellow news people for the name.
MR Bill
July 14th, 2009 | LINK
I think John is on what is important here: a nationally known journalist might not feel able to object to the prehaps unwanted familiarity from a powerful Senator.
And that ‘access’ is worth more than dignity or respect is really, really sad.
Of course, I remember the pre-Gannon days when ‘media whore’ was only a metaphor.
Leave A Comment