The Daily Agenda for Thursday, May 23
It's Not the Principle, It's the Prejudice
Congratulations Mitch!
Gay Couples Excluded from Immigration Bill Markup
How To Spot A Swivel-Eyed Loon
The Daily Agenda for Wednesday, May 22
House of Commons officially passes marriage equality
British Commons Approves Marriage Equality Bill
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.
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.
Lindoro Almaviva
September 26th, 2012 | LINK
either way, NOM is been set up for a spanking. I like the sound of that
Smith
September 26th, 2012 | LINK
Your last point is spot on. Turnout was 13% and Marchione won by just a hair over 50%. So basically, you are talking about someone who got 6.5% of the vote – all GOP voters and older and more conservative than the electorate by far.
Each of the 3 now have about $20-25,000 cash on hand. Andrews has never raised much and McDonald and Marchione exhausted their war chests fighting each other.
But going forward, McDonald is well positioned to re-stock his chest and can count on help from the NY Unity PAC, created by Paul Singer. Marchione can only be competitive if she gets significant help from the GOP senate committee. They are obligated to support her, since she holds the GOP line, but they could easily decide to send her a token check. Their nightmare scenario is one in which Marchione and McDonald are evenly matched and end up splitting the GOP vote, thus electing Andrews. So if they know that McDonald will have real money and the Cuomo endorsement, they may well conclude that they are better off not restocking Marchione’s war chest.
Nathaniel
September 27th, 2012 | LINK
Smith, I don’t follow how Andrews’ election would be the “nightmare scenario,” at least with respect to the LGBT community. I would be more afraid of McDonald and Andrews splitting the pro-LGBT vote, giving the edge to the anti-LGBT groups that wish to see Marchione elected. Even considering other factors, that would seem to be the least desirable outcome, rather than your suggestion.
If you are speaking in terms of ‘from within the party’, then I can see your point – if one supports Republicans for the sake of supporting Republicans, then it doesn’t matter what Democrat gets elected. It would be understandable, then, for the Party to maneuver in some way to ensure as much weight as possible goes to the most electable candidate, even if he is not the one ‘endorsed’ by the party. But the damage is already done; hate-mongerers have made sure the party is split around the issue of equality. That is bad maneuvering on their part in the long term, but it would still make career politicians a hair more cautious.
Nathaniel
September 27th, 2012 | LINK
Sorry, Smith. Having reread your post, I see you were positing the scenario as I described in my later paragraph. However, I am still not as confident as Mr. Kincaid that either Andrews or McDonald will successfully gather the majority of pro-LGBT support in a way that ensures the failure of the anti-equality candidate. And anti-LGBT groups are going to ensure that that is the issue that will be the deciding factor in that particular race.
Hyhybt
September 27th, 2012 | LINK
Thank you for pointing out (again) the oddity in New York elections. I’d seen a lot of headlines similar to this one today and thought it more than a little silly to endorse a candidate who’s already lost.
Robert
September 27th, 2012 | LINK
hyhybt,
Did you even read the article? He lost the REPUBLICAN primary election but was nominated by a different party. Yes, he lost to one party, but that doesn’t mean he lost the entire election. Usually one waits until the actual election to declare a winner or loser to said election. A primary vote does not an election make.
Leave A Comment