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

FRC seeks to refute that they are a hate group by illustrating that they are

Timothy Kincaid

August 23rd, 2012

Family Research Council released this “clarification” of the reasons that they are (correctly) listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Does FRC claim that “gay people are child molesters?”

FRC has never said, and does not believe, that most homosexuals are child molesters. However, it is undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual. This suggests that male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse. Homosexual activists argue that men who molest boys are not actually “homosexual;” but scholarly evidence undermines that claim. It also cannot be disputed that there is a sub-culture within the homosexual movement that advocates “intergenerational” sexual relationships. FRC’s writings on this topic–unlike the SPLC’s–have been carefully documented with references to the original scholarly literature.

We have illustrated clearly that the “scholarly evidence” refutes rather than supports FRC’s claims.

As for there being some sub-culture that advocates intergenerational sexual relationships, they must be very sub-culture indeed. So sub that no one knows who they are nor are we aware of any such advocacy.

These blatantly false claims alone would qualify FRC as a hate group.

Does FRC want to “criminalize” homosexuality?

FRC has made no effort to reinstate sodomy laws since the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. In a 2010 interview on a different topic, the question of whether we should “outlaw gay behavior” in U.S. civil law was raised not by an FRC spokesman, but by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. The spokesman affirmed that FRC (like three Supreme Court justices) believed Lawrence was wrongly decided; but the interview left some viewers with the mistaken impression that “re-criminalizing” homosexuality is a policy goal for FRC. It is not.

You will notice that they do not deny that they want to criminalize homosexuality. Because they do. It’s simply not a stated “policy goal”.

This bolsters their case for qualification as a hate group.

Does FRC want to kick homosexuals out of the country?

Just days after an interview was posted online in 2008, an FRC spokesman publicly apologized on the FRC website for having used the words “import” and “export” as metaphors for voluntary immigration and emigration by homosexuals. The interview related to legislation which would grant special preference in immigration to foreign nationals who are the homosexual partners of American citizens.

Well, now, where I come from we call that a lie. Rather than “metaphors for voluntary immigration and emigration”, what Peter Sprigg actually said was:

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.

I see nothing “voluntary” in that statement. And, frankly, lying about the original statement makes the subsequent apology somewhat suspect.

Does FRC support the execution of homosexuals in Uganda ?

This charge was refuted as soon as it appeared in 2010. FRC has publicly opposed the much-publicized bill (never adopted) in Uganda that would have imposed criminal penalties for various offenses related to homosexual conduct, and the death penalty for something known as “aggravated homosexuality.” We responded to requests from Congressional offices for advice on the wording of a resolution condemning the Uganda bill–then reported those contacts as “lobbying,” as is required by law. FRC did not “lobby” against the resolution; our advice was limited to suggestions for language that would accurately describe the Uganda bill and the state of international law.

I wasn’t in the room. But I’ll let you guess whether I believe they are telling the truth.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

DN
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

On the topic of Peter Sprigg’s apology for wanting to export gays from the U.S.:

First, he’s a Senior Fellow and a prime spokesperson – it’s his job to state the policy of the FRC. If it’s not the FRC’s policy, he shouldn’t say it.

And second, if he sincerely regretted saying it, he would have posted an apology *the next day.* Or the day after. Or the day after. But Sprigg only apologized a week later, after there was a good deal of controversy.

As my parents say, “if you actually were sorry for it, you wouldn’t have done it in the first place.” And I might add he wouldn’t have waited an entire week to apologize.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/news.aspx?id=84201

The story was posted March 19, and his apology was on the 27th.

CPT_Doom
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

As I noted over at Joe My God, the claim about child molestation does not imply that homosexuality is a risk factor in child abuse; rather it implies maleness is a risk factor for being a sexual predator,as it is in nearly every other crime known to man. Men commit nearly all violent crimes – does FRC believe all men must have their rights limited because some men are violent? I am guessing no.

Sir Andrew
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

From the article: However, it is undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual. This suggests that male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse.

Well, it is also undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of straight adult catholic males who are left-handed. This suggests that being straight, catholic and left-handed is a risk factor for child sexual abuse.

What a lot of hooey! They try to link two wholly unrelated sets of data and then draw a conclusion from the linkage. Their wording suggests that ALL gay men molest children with a few non-gays also joining in, thus explaining why one number exceeds another number. This is embarrassing to any thinking person. Which explains why it seems so correct to the loonies from the FRC.

Child molestation is not a sexual crime, just as rape is not a sexual crime. They are both crimes of assault and battery. It is this need to control a weaker being that leads to the predominance of straight men molesting young boys.

Priya Lynn
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

Well explained, Sir Andrew.

Neil
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

FRC did not “lobby” against the resolution; our advice was limited to suggestions for language that would accurately describe the Uganda bill and the state of international law.

Yet the truth is they lobbied with an inaccurate description of the bill as offering the death penalty only in the case of deliberate transmission of HIV.

The wording of that bill has been well covered. The death penalty can be levied against anyone found guilty of “aggravated homosexuality” which includes any repeat offence of being found gay.

They are either lying or dangerously misinformed.

Randy Potts
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

All I would add is that while they are so sub that they are hardly in existence anymore, we do have NAMBLA in our past, supported at one time by both Hay and Ginsberg no less. Their members no longer walk in our Pride parades but the FRC and their ilk have a long, selective memory. The lie here is the present-tense assertion that there “is” a movement like NAMBLA in the 2012 LGBT community. It’s akin to saying that there “is” a sizeable Black Panther influence in, say, the Congressional Black Caucus. No, there isn’t, even if there may be one or two members who 40 years ago marched under that banner.

Richard Rush
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

Just because we believe in our hearts that gay people should not exist, or at least not reveal their existence, it doesn’t mean we hate them. It actually means we love them because we don’t want to see anyone having to suffer persecution.

Aydin
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

It is time for LGBT persons to take actions against those that continue to deny us complete equal rights and continue to slander us. If it means extreme actions, such as that used against many of our fallen, then so be it!

Aydin
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

Persecution from people like you Mr. Rush?

Aydin
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

Well said Sir Andrew. There are five of us, three boys and two girls. My “straight” father repeatedly raped all of us for years and years. I have two step-children (my gay partner’s children) and three grand-children. I have never molested them.

Priya Lynn
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

Aydin, Richard Rush was mocking the “family” “research” council with the type of things they believe, he doesn’t believe that himself.

Priya Lynn
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

Aydin, I’m sorry to hear about the abuse you suffered, I hope the effects will lessen with time.

Timothy Kincaid
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

Aydin,

I’m sorry to hear about the abuse. It’s sickening and I hope you have made peace with your past.

However, if by “extreme actions” you are hinting at violence, please know that at BTB we oppose violence. We do NOT advocate for actions of that sort nor do we allow others to advocate for violence at this site.

Richard Rush
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

Aydin,

Priya Lynn is correct. Your response illustrated the danger of not considering the fact that there are always some new readers here who wouldn’t know that I’m gayer than gay.

I’m so sorry about your horrific childhood. You must be a very strong person to have been able to move on and thrive. I hope your four siblings are doing well.

Nathaniel
August 24th, 2012 | LINK

I’m sorry no one has talked about the “special preference” the FRC thinks multi-national gay couples are receiving. Is he referring to the easement of the application of DOMA in these cases? As far as I know, this still only applies to those who are legally married, in which case the only thing ‘special’ about the application is the “special preference” DOMA gives to legally married gay couples by breaking them up when their straight counterparts would be allowed to stay together.

Ben in Oakland
August 25th, 2012 | LINK

Aydin, I’m sorry for what you suffered as well. It sounds like you’ve reached some peace on it, but if youbhaven’t, i would urge you to do so.

Unfortunately, this is another illustration that the single biggest vector for sexual abuse is access, which is why about 75% ofthe time, the child knows the molester, who is half the time the father or step father or father surrogate.

I’ve known only two gay men in my life who were molested as children. One was my late partner, who like you, was molested by his father, who also molested his older sister. The other one was a gay man who was raped repeatedly by his father who wanted to show him what being a faggot would get him. He had made his peace with it, but would have nothing to do with dad.

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.