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:
Cole
August 18th, 2009 | LINK
Election officials are RIGGING the election.
Don’t be surprised tommorrow when the percent of rejected signatures goes down. According to their math they looked at 7,225 more signatures today yet the percent of rejected signatures has remained the same, 11.03%. Doesn’t make sense. The election officials want the rejected signature percent well below the 12.43% so that it looks like the election wasn’t rigged.
8/17/09 – 58,306 signatures counted – 11.03% rejected
8/18/09 – 65,531 signatures counted – 11.03% rejected
I urge everyone to copy the secretary of state’s page since they continuously take down the old fixed numbers and put up new fixed numbers. How to copy web pages:
1. Press the Windows and Print Screen/SysRq buttons together.
2. Open windows paint or adobe photoshop or a similar program.
3. Press paste.
4. Save.
Timothy Kincaid
August 18th, 2009 | LINK
Cole,
There are monitors from both camps reviewing every accepted or rejected signature. Unless you are willing to believe that those gay supporters who oppose this referendum are really super agent secret spies in on a grand conspiracy, then the election officials are not rigging the vote count.
Cole
August 18th, 2009 | LINK
I’m not saying there is a conspiracy. Heterosexuals have a millenia long hisotry of oppressing gay people. The heterosexual “checkers” aka fixers will look at these signatures with prejudice. Heterosexuals believe it’s their job to vote on gay people’s rights. Why do you think the rejected signatures in the first 33,000+ batch got at least four looks while the accepted ones did not? You have to remember that on day five this referendum was NOT going to make it on the ballot then suddenly master fixers came in and “readjusted” the numbers by more than 19% thereby putting this referendum back in play. Gay people raised concerns about the process and guess what the election officials did? Looked at the same rejected signatures again. And you know what the rejected signature percent went down another 10%. Here we have the same rejected signatures looked at at least FOUR times with FOUR massively different numbers. The process is RIGGED to get this anti-gay referendum on the ballot so haterosexuals (just like those counting these signatures) can take away gay people’s rights.
The secretary of state spokesperson, David Ammons gave a flip and disrespectful answer as to why the rejected signatures have gotten so many looks while the accepted signatures have not. He said basically gay people ain’t worth looking at the accepted again because of tax payer expense.
David C.
August 18th, 2009 | LINK
Cole, I think it is more reasonable to think that the process has been designed to favor placing initiatives on the ballot, not just this initiative, and appears designed to increase the probability that a signature will be accepted if possible. The most basic tests for duplication and validity of registration are applied to every signature, and after that the signature itself is checked, possibly multiple times.
Look at it from another perspective. Suppose that a group of gay activists were trying to prevent from being made law legislation they felt to be discriminatory. Wouldn’t you want every signature to be given the benefit of the doubt? Doing so translates to ensuring multiple looks at the one thing that is somewhat subjective: the signature, and if one is suspect, it is most likely rejected until someone with enough experience can verify the rejection or reverse it. This is not being done in secret: representatives of both interest groups are there observing the process.
In a petition drive, there are no “negative votes”, that is, people don’t check a box that says they do not want a referendum: there exists only a critical threshold for the number of valid signatures that must be reached to cause a measure to be placed in front of the voters.
The real deal, if it happens, is the vote, and the numbers so far say that it might not. The history of petition drives like this in Washington state says it might or might not, but the process of counting the signatures is being conducted in as transparent and precise a way as anybody might reasonably expect. Most states would use statistical sampling, but not in this case: every signature is being verified as belonging to a registered voter.
Had a judge not interfered with the process, all signatures would have been made public. The missing transparency is due solely to that. There is no conspiracy, except perhaps by those that would see their hands hidden behind the curtain, and even that attempt to hide is likely to ultimately fail, and was certainly not a policy of the state.
You may argue that a bias favors placing an initiative before voters. I think that is true. But once again, it is the vote that matters. Instead of wringing our hands over the petitions, we must all prepare ourselves to support our gay brothers and sisters in Washington state as they work to get R-71 approved if it comes to a vote of the people.
Leave A Comment