Speaking of Destroying Civilization

Jim Burroway

March 12th, 2012

Well since you asked, I’ll tell you: I think Christianity is irrational. I think that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization. There’s never been a country ever in history that has embraced Christianity and survived. If history is any guide, the same thing’s going to happen to us as happened to the Roman empire, the Papal States, Byzantium, and the Holy Roman Empire, just to name a few.

But I’m not judging anyone. I’m speaking as a man who, as a human being, believe that all of us are flawed. I could stand at the top of the list and say that I need an overhaul of the heart more than anyone.

But I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand in America. I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been suppressed in Western civilization for 2,000 years without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach “love” that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.

I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect. I’ve been encouraged by the support of many friends (including Christian friends, incidentally).

The few facts – the very few facts – briefly mentioned above are both literally correct and easily rebuttable. Many of the opinions derived from those facts are both supportable and refutable. But the overarching conclusion is as ridiculous as it is commonplace among those who make the very same arguments with only a few judicious substitutions here and there.

Of course, I’m speaking of Kirk Cameron’s interview with Piers Morgan last week, which is very similar to views expressed by many others (including, in this example, by Pat Robertson last summer). I find it incredible that people like Cameron can say things like this and then act surprised when others are deeply offended.

Because here’s the thing: either the above statement is rightly offensive to self-respecting Christians or it isn’t. I’m willing to let Christians make the call on that, but if Christians agree that those sentiments are offensive and worth condemning, then those who are a part of the subset of Christians who agree with Cameron need to explain why Cameron’s statements aren’t offensive with at least a passing nod toward consistency.

They can’t of course, although I’m sure many will try. And if they do, I would recommend remaining firm, but also (most importantly) patient, because

…many of us know how heart-wrenching it is to watch those affected by Christianity, especially when they are our loved ones, as they struggle with their unwanted cognitive dissonance. Most Christian-identified people are so wrapped up in their Christian identity that it’s important for you to not allow that to be the central focus of your conversation or relationship with them.

Because with patience and kindness, you can become an instrument of healing and change. Let them know through your friendship that you see beyond their Christian identity; just as there is more to you than your struggles, attractions, and feelings. There are thousands, tens of thousands, even perhaps even hundreds of thousands of former Christians who have found freedom after having been trapped in the Christian lifestyle. I’ve never met an ex-Black, but I know a lot of ex-Christians. People who are personally affected by these issues are free to determine their own identity, and can choose to pursue freedom and change, as evidenced by the many people who have successfully done so.

You see? There’s nothing offensive or patronizing at all in any of that, is there?


March 12th, 2012

I love you, Jim Burroway. From now on we must call out every reporter or talking head on TV, or religious pompous ass who begins this discussion with the assumption that they hold the moral high ground. They don’t. There is nothing moral about treating our neighbors like second class citizens. Too often the playing field starts with them supposedly representing morality. That needs to end today. We are working for justice and equality. We are behaving justly. They aren’t.

Lindoro Almaviva

March 12th, 2012

I’ve never met an ex-Black

uhmmmm, does the name Michael Jackson mean anything to you?

Timothy Kincaid

March 12th, 2012


Michael Jackson is an amusing, though tragic, example of someone who never could accept himself and – overburdened with opportunity and lacking proper influence – destroyed himself in his drive to change into something else.

But someday someone will research and write about the real ex-blacks – folks who started life in one race and ended in another, along with those who – like Lena Horne – who for a while “passed”. I imagine that the price they paid was very high.

Like ex-gays, the decision to go down this road is personal and there is no morally correct answer. And, sadly, the reasons for going are too often based on others.

I don’t condemn the decision to be ex-gay or ex-black, for those go that direction. But I do condemn those who demand – overtly or through social pressure – that they do so.


March 12th, 2012

Kirk Cameron? Really? When MSNBC continues to give Tony Perkins a platform, and refuses to acknowledge the error of giving a hate group free reign?

Kirk Cameron? Seriously?

I had to read the by-line twice to be sure this wasn’t the resident contrarian.


March 12th, 2012



March 12th, 2012

Why would anybody care what Kirk Cameron thinks? He pretty much destroyed the show that made him famous by being a self-righteous jerk and has gone from shitty project to shitty project ever since, succeeding only because Fundamentalist Christians who are just like him pay for the inferior product that he puts out there. If the “Christian” entertainment industry had the sense to turn out decent movies he’d of faded into obscurity like most of the rest of the 80’s child actors.

So outside of the “Christian” media, logically no one should care what he thinks. WTF??

Regan DuCasse

March 12th, 2012

As I have sometimes mentioned, there are Christians who use that identity as if a character reference unto itself. That it’s what identifies their morality, rather than their actions that stem from it. There is a dishonest quality coming from people like Cameron, who chooses to ignore significant RECENT historical context in which religious belief has been used to ABUSE minorities and women.
While at the same time, he benefits and always has, from the very Constitution and Bill of Rights he’s content to deny other specific people.
Insisting that gay people are a detriment and that hets are a superior member of our species, is just as much folly as white supremacists asserting the same about blacks.

Religion is not only strictly a cultural construct, but it’s changes in language, interpretation, in expansion an influence has evolved and modified for centuries.
Homosexuality, is a factor of human life, universal and an essentially unchanging, consistent and pre religious aspect since human life began.
And deserves far more consideration as a fact of life, that doesn’t challenge the quality of life anyone will have, as much as the MORAL and ETHICAL responsibilities other people have in how they are to treat gay people.

I find that those who resist the very ethical and simple ideal of doing so, to be INEVITABLY hypocritical, inconsistent, irrational and utterly selfish. The tendency is to project values and behaviors on homosexuality, that more appropriately belong to religious identity.

I have seen some FB cheering coming from some young Christians that I know personally. I was disturbed, but not to surprised.
They are insulated, isolated from any real integration and diversity in their own lives, and don’t have to think at all about the impact of discrimination or systemic bigotry on someone else, let alone never, EVER having to deal with it personally.

In other words, it’s easy to be all morally full of yourself when there isn’t much that’s going to test it. Morality IS about how you treat another person.
Not just CASUALLY in ways you’re not that invested or involved in that person’s life, but also POLITICALLY where you’re the recipient of the lion’s share of rights and privileges you have yet to appreciate because none have ever been a risk, for real. Nor have you had to fight for them or to keep them, for real.

Cameron lives in a very abstract life, he’s privileged already just by being a het, Christian, white man.
It’s easy for him to think himself blessed and special and deserving of what he’s got.
And it’s also easy to think that he can trust himself and those just like him to take care of all of it, without being challenged by anyone else.

A MAJOR challenge to HIM, is to be asked such impertinent questions as Piers was asking.
And Cameron’s defenders, like Michael Brown’s article did in a recent TownHall.com denigrated GLAAD and other gay advocates as ‘disagreeing’, are dishonest all over again that their words, and consistent defamation and denigration of gay people has negative impact on gay lives.
Lives they can easily blame as responsible for the negative things that occur.

Altogether, the cowardice and ability to bald face lie, slander and most of all, be indifferent to the real and justified anger, pain and threat to gay people is to me, the real character of control freak religious fundamentalists. I know a good Christian when I see one, and a bad Christian when I see one.
And the bad ones, balking at the character assessment THEY are judged on, is too damn bad.


March 12th, 2012

What we need is for DAVID PAKMAN to interview Kirk Cameron. DP is cuter and smarter, and he’s on our side!


March 12th, 2012

I am a Christian, and the irony is that I was nearly all the way through the quote before I realized it was a rephrasing of Kirk Cameron’s words, only pointing them at Christians. And while I bristled at the “irrational” in the first paragraph, I really can’t say I was *offended* by the comments because, frankly, Christians have done so many horrible things in the name of our supposed God that we kinda deserve it.

The same can not be said for LGBT people, to whom Mr. Cameron’s comments were actually directed. And if someone wants to assert their right to free speech by denouncing someone else’s morality, he doesn’t get to play the victim when the response is to denounce *his* statements as immoral.


March 12th, 2012

@ Timothy Kincaid – Actually, there was a book a couple of years ago that did just that – at least from the perspective of one family. The book is “One Drop” by Bliss Broyard, whose father, Anatole, passed as white for his entire adult life. Bliss only found out her father’s secret when he was about to die of cancer. The price he and his other family members who passed was great indeed.

@ Kelly – you bring up a good point, which is that the institutions of Christianity – particularly the leadership of the Catholic Church (of which I was once a member) – have committed acts and conducted themselves throughout history in ways that can and should be criticized (to be fair, these same institutions, with other leadership, have also done great good in other spheres and at other times). The criticism Cameron levelled – as do many in the “pro-family” movement – make it clear the existence of homosexuality itself is the problem, not specific acts conducted by specific institutions or individuals.

Of course, the other big difference between being gay and being Christian is that it doesn’t take an entire “ex-gay” movement and junk science to leave Christianity. There are thousands of us who have made the “lifestyle choice” to leave our churches, and I have to admit I don’t ever feel any temptations to go back.


March 12th, 2012

I agree with you Timothy, but your words will never penetrate the skin of the morally challenged.


March 12th, 2012

Uhm…er…ah…Jimothy…yeah that’s it, pardon my “typo”

*slinks,red faced, behind the couch*


March 12th, 2012

There are thousands of us who have made the “lifestyle choice” to leave our churches, and I have to admit I don’t ever feel any temptations to go back.

All’ ex-christians’ say that, then next thing you know they’re caught in a Christian bar doing coke off a priest’s ass!

Timothy Kincaid

March 12th, 2012


You refer to Jim and I as Jimothy, which I assume means that you think that we are interchangeable or lacking in differentiation. (Or you’re being amusing and I’m reading too much into it – but I think this comment is worth saying anyway.)

Jim and I have significant differences in writing style, political position, approach to stories, and application of snarkiness. So much so that some readers can barely bring themselves to read one or the other of us (okay, really just me).

I’m a moderate conservative and Jim’s a flaming liberal. I’m a believer in the teachings of Jesus and Jim is agnostic about the whole god thing. I am more inclined than Jim to take strident positions but somewhat more likely to see the good in people whom our community sees as an opponent. I leave my life off the page to a very large extent (with a few exceptions) and Jim often shares anecdotes, experiences, and personal observations. It might be fair to categorize my writing as sometimes preachy and Jim’s as sometimes folksy. While we both enjoy analysis of studies and reports, I veer towards pieces heavy on opinion and Jim towards pieces heavy on information. Reading this paragraph, it would seem that we have little to keep us united.

But what we share is a quest for equality for our community and a commitment to writing as honestly as we can without spin or hypocrisy.

And a firm belief that we need not agree on everything in order to respect each other or to value the opinions that have resulted by each other’s perspectives and experiences. This is Jim’s site, but I never worry that my views – including those that disagree with his on issues he cares deeply about – will be disallowed or edited.

If you wish to think of us as interchangeable, I’ve no problem with that. It means that, for the most part, our voices – our responses to situations in the news or around us – are consistent and not overly influenced by personal differences.


March 12th, 2012

Actually I was trying to cover my mistake on the name with small humor.

Timothy Kincaid

March 13th, 2012


Yep. I read too much into it…


March 12th, 2012

Transposing the word homosexuality with Christianity actually makes Cameron sound reasonable, if rather boldly assertive. It makes me wonder how much views such as the ones he expressed about homosexuality mark an example of projection.

This boogie man view of homosexuality is so overstated and defensive in quality it seems like a lack of faith in the magisterium of Christianity itself. It’s as if there are serious doubts about the capacity of the deity to order his universe.


March 12th, 2012

Wow, how can any Christian not see how incredibly condensending and offensive this is? All the explanations in the world fade away to meaninglessness when his comments are read in this context. God help us.


March 12th, 2012

Great take. I think it might also be worth noting that all Kirk Cameron Christians are going to hell, mainly because they are so busy assurping *god’s* job by being so flagelently judgmental, that, well, *god* would never allow such stinking thieves in heaven. *God* would certainly not want such competition! Heaven hath no fury like a *god* bescorned. Youch.


March 13th, 2012

Very well observed about Cameron.

I tend to translate the current anti-gay speech into the language of anti-Semitism of the first half of the 20th cent: it’s an exact and, I think, more pointed parallel.

Unfortunately, people like Cameron and Perkins are unreachable with reason. They make their livings this way and can only be shamed into leaving the stage.

If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, religiosity is perhaps the weapon of the moral imbecile.

Paul in Canada

March 13th, 2012

Interchanging homosexual with christianity is an interesting exercise in enlightening how and what we say and how it is perceived by others.

EXCEPT, here’s the problem: living a certain type of religious faith IS a choice, sexual orientation is not. So it falls apart for me on that point. And it’s that point exactly, that the fundamentalists want to stay away from at all costs!

But an interesting and thought provoking article, as always. Thanks.

Big Al

March 13th, 2012

I assume you’ve heard of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins? They wrote best selling books which talk about the “poison” that is Christianity. Nobody, including Christians, interprets these books as hate speech. Why not?? Think. There are books on shelves right now which trash Christianity inside and out and people are upset over one guy who makes a few comments one day on a tv show? Please.


March 13th, 2012

“Nobody, including Christians, interprets these books as hate speech. Why not?? Think.”
Try making true statements if you’re going to ask me to think about something you’re saying. Actually, Big Al, Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins regularly get (or got, in Hitchens’ case) hate mail and even death threats from some “Christians” who couldn’t handle their books. Plenty of people have interpreted their books as hate speech. Also, many anti-gay people who call themselves Christian make negative blanket statements that dehumanize LGBT right and left, and when they are called out on their prejudice, lack of intelligent argument, and hypocrisy, they whine and cry that those LGBT who spoke specifically against their homophobia, are simply being intolerant and using anti-religious hate speech. Do some people sometimes bash religion out of frustration when it is used to justify prejudice? Yes. I am guilty of it myself. Because a lot of it is unproven by evidence, such as just how much a “prophet” actually communicated with a divine spirit, and got the creator(s) words on what is and isn’t moral. Logic tells me, same sex relationships are morally-neutral. So to have religion brought into a modern day discussion on sociology and human sexuality and politics and morality is really really quite tiresome.

Anyway, don’t pretend the anti-gay religious side is taking the high road here. Many of us are guilty of not arguing our case in the most constructive of ways, but as far as dehumanizing, stereotyping, scapegoating , and all out irrational rhetoric goes, the religious rights has any group of outspoken gays beaten by a long shot.

Timothy Kincaid

March 13th, 2012

1. It is fair to say that hate speech exists in all communities. It is directed at Christians by atheists, by atheists at Christians, and by Christians at each other (and probably by atheists at each other).

Interestingly, those quickest to dish out hatred of others are often the quickest to object to those others because “they hate people like me”.

2. Just about the worst possible excuse for bad behavior is “but the guy I’m behaving badly towards engages in bad behavior”.

Yet to those who love hating, there is a strange notion that when the other guy is behaving badly that’s an indication of his lack of character but when I engage in bad behavior it’s because he deserves it.

Timothy Kincaid

March 13th, 2012


“…as far as dehumanizing, stereotyping, scapegoating , and all out irrational rhetoric goes, the religious rights has any group of outspoken gays beaten by a long shot.”

Just some food for thought: almost every religious gay person will tell you that they receive far more stereotyping, dehumanizing, and scapegoating from anti-Christian gays than they ever do from anti-gay Christians. But even it the opposite were true, it should not matter.

I think that it is not constructive – or logical – to excuse our incivility. If it is wrong to dehumanize, then it is wrong no matter whether the people we dehumanize are “using religion to justify prejudice” or not. Our own character is based in what we do, not in what they do.

If we go down that road we end up with policies that argue that torture is inhumane… unless it is of radical Muslims. Or that we celebrate the freedom of speech… unless it offends gay people/ religious people/ tall people/ black people/ or any other excuse we wish to make for silencing others.

The downside of having freedom is that we also afford it to those we don’t like. The downside of behaving with character and dignity is that we must allow others to behave with incivility and not stoop to their level.

If we base our behavior and our standards on others, then we give them the power to define us rather than own it ourselves.

Priya Lynn

March 13th, 2012

Timothy said “It is fair to say that hate speech exists in all communities. It is directed at Christians by atheists, by atheists at Christians”.

Looks like a freudian slip.

Timothy Kincaid

March 14th, 2012

Priya Lynn, oh how I tire of your unpleasantness.


March 13th, 2012

So how far would you allow freedom of speech to go, Timothy, and how could we protect the gay teenagers from all those vile things they can hear and read in the media?


March 14th, 2012

I disagree with your premise. I don’t believe that anyone is protected when speech is restricted by the government (outside of ‘no yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater’). Already the anti-gays have managed to convince a large number of conservative Christians that the mainstream press doesn’t report or under-reports successful ex-gay conversions. Should we start to restrict speech then we’ll just be granting credence to the idea that ‘a liberal conspiracy’ is trying to suppress something important. Under a restricted speech regime conspiracy theories will not only thrive they’ll gain greater legitimacy. For example, consider where holocaust denialism is stronger &, consequently, where skinheads & neo-nazis are a more pervasive social phenomenon.

Don’t mistake driving ideas underground with refuting them. Think of how hard it has been to kill obviously false conspiracy theories: the birther conspiracy, or the 911 ‘Bush did it’ or the ‘Roosevelt knew about pearl harbor’ or the ‘Obama’s a Muslim’ conspiracy. These theories don’t gain greater social traction Stateside thanks to the foolish arguments the proponents have to make in public. If we don’t force the proponents of conspiracy to make fools of themselves publicly then we’ll have little material to refute them with. If we force arguments underground without refuting them the arguments fester and could reemerge in a much more dangerous manner.

Also, don’t count out the kids. We were all 15 once. We were all pretty good at detecting BS. We were all better at understanding the world around us than politicians, parents, & teachers gave us credit. Let’s not make the mistakes of older generations: Children don’t need to be coddled. Let them see the arguments, the full arguments, and let them come to their own conclusions. Some teenagers will be convinced by faulty arguments, but most won’t. Overall, they’ll be fine.

Timothy Kincaid

March 14th, 2012


The freedom of speech is not about the ability to say words, it’s about the freedom to hold views that are unpopular and to say so. It’s the right to dissent.

Protecting children from words is invariably a cover for protecting them from ideas. This is exactly what is going on in Uganda and Russia. Authority figures fear that the next generation will adopt attitudes and beliefs different from their own – and rightly so – and are passing laws banning “homosexual propaganda”.

The rule of thumb is this: in the marketplace of ideas, ultimately that which is best will win. Perhaps not immediately, but eventually. And when one side seeks to silence an opposing idea it is usually because they know that it has greater appeal.

I try to always side with the freedom of thought and expression. And if something to if is being said to gay teens, rather than silence the speaker I work to counteract their idea and prove it false.

Kids will think it anyway. Better it be said and refuted.

Priya Lynn

March 14th, 2012

Just having a little fun, Timothy, surely you can acknowledge that was a bit of an amusing mistake on your part (or at least I assume it was).


March 14th, 2012

Timothy, I don’t think I ever argued against freedom for people I don’t like. I also said I’m aware some gay people don’t always use constructive rhetoric, so I wasn’t really trying to excuse them when they do. I was responding directly to Big Al and his implication that gays are the ones being unreasonable in this particular argument and his incorrect claim that no Christian takes critiques of his belief system as hate speech. But you wrote something else that I feel I have to address: I am having a hard time lending validity to this idea that there are a significant number of anti-Christian gay people. Maybe some gay people really do have a problem with anyone who is Christian just because they are Christian, but I’m guessing most of them have no problem with Christians until their teachings are cherry-picked and used as an excuse to be homophobic.

Priya Lynn

March 14th, 2012

Erin, given that 70% of gays are christians your point is well taken.

Timothy Kincaid

March 14th, 2012

Priya Lynn,

Yes, it was a typo.


It is true (as Priya Lynn pointed out) that most gays are not anti-Christian. Hell, most atheist gays are not anti-Christian.

But anti-Christianity of the most virulent type is given a pass by our community far more than I like. Read the comments at JoeMyGod or Queerty or Towelroad.

There is an understanding that this form of hate speech is acceptable. And you seem to be excusing and forgiving it under the assumption that its okay because the other guy did it first.

That doesn’t fly with me.

I have no use for a principle that says I treat people a certain way – so long as I want to. Or that hate is bad – unless I do it. If I wanted to make up excuses for being a vile person and praise myself for it I’d just join the hardcore rightwing Christians.


March 14th, 2012

Timothy and Blake, I’m a volunteer who works with gay teenagers. I’ve seen what internalized homophobia can do to a 14-year-old boy who is predisposed to depression, and it wasn’t pretty at all. I can’t help thinking exactly of these kids who are more vulnerable than the average, the ones who are likely to even kill themselves before they learn better than “I’m not normal”. I’m not saying that they should be sheltered to such an extent as you say, but I still can’t help wanting some degree of protection for them. Or are there enough people with enough time and energy to refute everything on popular enough platforms?

Do I just live in a culture where it doesn’t occur to people to yell “fire” in crowded theatres (or whatever crowded buildings)? This proverbial American example has always puzzled me. What is notoriously prohibited here is calls to physical violence no matter against whom.

The local versions of neo-Nazis can freely march in the streets of Bulgaria, but they are prohibited from loudly demanding the death of whatever minority group is their current “enemy” and they are unhappy with even this limitation of their freedom of speech. So should we give it to them? This is a honest question.

And oh, conspiracy theories still thrive here because “if it wasn’t for those Gypsies who live on welfare we wouldn’t be so poor, but the Jews of the world are conspiring to keep us poor anyway and the gays are to blame for our low birth rate and all the ethnic minorities can’t wait to take over the country when our children turn all gay and stop reproducing.”

Richard Rush

March 15th, 2012

Blake said, I don’t believe that anyone is protected when speech is restricted by the government (outside of “no yelling ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater”).

Like Darina, I, too, always find that a puzzling example. Assuming that it’s meant literally, lets take a closer look.

Building codes regulate the units of egress required for the orderly evacuation of buildings. The higher the occupancy, the more units of egress required. That, combined with the fact that people would not be smelling smoke or seeing flame, yelling “FIRE” falsely seems unlikely to produce panic that could cause injury. The incident would certainly be inconvenient, but that’s about it.

The force-feeding of hate speech to vulnerable people by bullies has certainly caused much lasting psychological injury to many, whereas falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater seems likely to be little more than an inconvenience.

My issue with “freedom of speech” is not with the freedom to express one’s beliefs/ideas/opinions, it’s with the assumed freedom to force-feed that speech to people who don’t want to listen to it.

Priya Lynn

March 15th, 2012

Richard said “That, combined with the fact that people would not be smelling smoke or seeing flame, yelling “FIRE” falsely seems unlikely to produce panic that could cause injury.”.

I don’t know about that. Years ago in the middle of the night my ex-wife jumped out of bed and started yelling “Fire! Fire!”. I jumped out of bed all panicked and looking around frantically terrifed that I couldn’t tell where it was. Not smelling smoke and not seeing flame didn’t stop me from believing there was a fire.


March 15th, 2012

Like I said Timothy, I’m not excusing any sort of non-productive arguments or hate speech from any side.


March 27th, 2012

Great article on NOM by John Shore.


March 30th, 2012

I went looking for a response to today’s Chuck Colson Breakpoint commentary and I must say, Jim, you nailed him. Thank you.




March 31st, 2012

I’m sorry to report that Chuck Colson is in the hospital. He was in town for his “Breaking the cycle of silence” Wilberforce conference. On Friday night, the opening night of the conference, he was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery. He’s recovering well. The ChristianPost has a report.

ricky lee

April 2nd, 2012

Your first mistake is thinking you could ever have a Christian as a friend and be a Real gay person! Real gays would never work for the enemy like that! If you have a Christian friend then you might as well work for Fox News already since that makes you a far right conservative by assoaciation! Didn’t you get the memo that we gays are to stand up in unified athiesm and denounce anyone with any faith in anything other than themselves?!? Some gays think that other people are allowed to be different and have their own opinion. That’s soo wrong! If you are not with us you are against us! No matter what!

Timothy Kincaid

April 2nd, 2012

ricky lee,

You have the nuance of a sledgehammer.

Slow down on your quest to fight the Librull Gehys for a moment and you might find that no one at BTB is saying what you flitted around various threads accusing us of saying.

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, never shared)

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


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

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.