More questions, more answers (part 2)

Rob Tisinai

February 19th, 2015

This is part 2 of my answers to questions posed by Jason Salamone, who “is a former liberal agnostic, but surrendered to Christ on April 7th, 2011.” You can find part 1 here. It covered his first 11 questions, so let’s pick up with #12. (And I’m afraid this time I wasn’t able to hold back the snark he provokes as we get closer to the end.)

(12.) Not every marriage produces children, but every child has a biological mother and father. By redefining marriage to mean that those biological connections as unnecessary, are we not teaching society that children are commodities for adult desires, and that marriage is not about the children’s needs?

I don’t know what you’re asking. You worry those biological connections are unnecessary to…what? To marriage? But of course, you already severed any necessary connection between procreation and marriage by letting the elderly marry, or by (in some states) only allowing first cousins to marry if they can’t procreate.

Or do you worry these biological connections would be thought unnecessary to raising children? I’d point out this would not be an argument against same-sex marriage, but against same-sex adoption. Or adoption in general, actually. This is awfully tricky territory for you to navigate. Jennifer Roback Morse already attempted a better, more thorough exploration of this and fell flat on her kiester. Check it out here; scroll halfway down the page. Spoiler: you’ll see every “biological children” argument against marriage equality is also an argument against adoption in general.

By the way, I just realized I’m being too easy on you by (yet again) refuting an argument you haven’t bothered to flesh out. Can you explain why a same-sex couple rearranging their entire existence to create a home for an adoptive child sends the message that marriage is not about children’s needs? Especially when just about every court decision in favor of marriage equality highlights the importance of marriage for the children of same-sex couples?

Yeah, I didn’t think this through enough before answering, and now that I have, it’s clear you haven’t thought this through at all.

(13.) Homosexual activists like to point to man-woman dysfunctional marriages, rampant divorce, and abusive man-woman parents. How does that argument justify homosexual practice and redefining marriage?

Oh, come on. This just makes you look bad. You can only be asking this out of either rhetorical dishonesty or such an aversion to gay people that it interferes with your ability to reason (that’s why we call homophobia a psychological disorder). No one thinks that rampant divorce is a reason to have gay sex. Here’s how this conversation actually goes:

Your side:  Look at that terrible homosexual! He proves we shouldn’t permit same-sex parenting or marriage.

Us:  Here’s an example of a terrible heterosexual. By your reasoning, we shouldn’t allow opposite-sex parenting or adoption.

Your side:  How does that bad heterosexual justify same-sex marriage???

In other words, we’re not pointing out opposite-sex abuses to make a case for marriage. We’re trying to point out the bigoted fallacy in your side’s argument against us (and yes, smearing an entire group by the actions of a few members is bigotry, especially when you don’t do the same thing to your own group).

(14.) If it is true that there is an epidemic of victimization and violent persecution of people with homosexual inclinations and behavior, how does that justify homosexual practice and redefining marriage?

Again…what? Who exactly is saying that persecution of gays means that people should have gay sex? Or get gay married? I think you once again have misunderstood the issue.

The fact is that certain groups have a history of stigmatization and legistlatively-imposed oppression. Our court system recognized this generations ago and decided it might be a good idea — a compassionate, prudent idea — to subject laws affecting those groups to a higher standard of scrutiny. This is a general legal principle, not something specific to gays. You can learn more about it here.

(15.) If you’re only attracted to one sex and not the other, you are admitting that there is a difference between male and female. While this truth is self-evident, same sex “marriage advocates imply that there is really no difference between the two sexes when it comes to parenting. So how can you acknowledge there’s a difference between the sexes when it comes to your romantic and sexual desires, but not when it comes to child-bearing and child-rearing?

Now you’re just being creepy. Having sex with someone is different from parenting someone. My god, you must know that. What did I say moments ago? You can only be asking this out of either rhetorical dishonesty or such an aversion to gay people that it interferes with your ability to reason. I’ll double down on that here.

(16.) Should the burden of proof be on the people who believe that a loving home with a mother and father is best for children, or should it be on the people who believe that a “loving” home that DELIBERATELY denies a child of either a mother or father is best for children?

In a free country, the burden of proof is on those who would deny freedom. Always. In the U.S., protecting children from harm is one of the most compelling reasons for restricting the freedom of adults, but we generally require that harm, or at least a reasonable risk of harm, be proven first.  And we know that your side has failed miserably at this.

(17.) Does anybody remember when people with homosexual attractions were taken from their homeland in massive numbers, sold like property, systematically dehumanized, forced to sit in the back of the bus, forced to use separate water fountains and bathrooms, attacked with fire hoses, forced to work in fields or be beaten/killed with impunity, denied their right to vote, systematically segregated by force of law and denied services, and tortured & lynched in daylight public spectacles with the whole town turning out, women and children included, to cheer it on, take body parts as souvenirs, and pose for pictures, smiling next to the remains. Does anybody remember that? So the one man and one woman marriage requirement in marriage licensing are JUST LIKE what the Loving v. Virginia case struck down? Is melanin a feeling like homosexual attraction? That is, since homosexual attractions when acted out results in kissing, touching, and sexual behavior, can you please tell us what black skin color results in when acted out?

How proud you are of your ignorance. How self-righteously you drag it out and parade it for all to see. Your side speaks of hating the sin but loving the sinner, but do you care about gay people at all? Or truth? Gays and lesbians have been beaten, castrated, murdered, and lobotomized. We’ve been imprisoned, forbidden to congregate in public, and banned from federal employment. And much of that hasn’t been merely the actions of a lawless few, but official government policy. If you genuinely cared about the people you consider sinners, you would know this and not spout such uncaring nonsense.

And by the way, no one says Loving v. Virginia is “JUST LIKE” banning same-sex marriage. We’re saying the reasoning and precedent apply. As for what skin color looks like “when acted out,” sometimes it looks like interracial marriage and the resulting children, whom your ideological forebears regarded as abominations, or at least tragic mistakes, to be prevented by banning some kinds of marriage.

(18.) I understand that “sexual orientation” refers to romantic or sexual preference. So what scientific method is used to show that “sexual orientation” is real? That is, what is the empirical evidence that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, has its own DNA, that sexual attraction never fluctuates, and homosexuality can easily be measured? Where is “sexual orientation” located? On the liver? The earlobe? The pancreas? If we have a “sexual orientation” why can’t doctors identify our “sexual orientation” when we are born? Do I get it at Walmart in a bucket? Can I get prescription shots of it at my local pharmacy? And does proof of the existence of “sexual orientation” mean that the behavior that flows from it, should be affirmed, encouraged? If “sexual orientation” exists, can you please show me a picture of one? If it is invisible, what kind of instrument do you use to measure it? Electricity is measured by voltage meters. Thoughts can be measured with lie detector devices, and with medical equipment. Meteorologists have instruments to measure wind. Where’s the MRI and/or CAT scan data for “sexual orientation?”

Now you’re just ranting. Please never confuse overblown rhetoric for actual argument. And so much for your oh-so-earnest declaration that “I’m also respectfully challenging them to ponder these questions.” There’s no respect here. That’s obviously a lie.

Meanwhile, what fun you’d have had with the Declaration of Independence: “What is this pursuit of ‘happiness‘? Where be it located? Canst thou acquire it in a bucket? Apply it as a salve? Be it uniform across all souls? Prithee, hast thou a drawing?” Why, if you were around in 1776, you could have stopped the Revolution! (See, I wisely never promised to be respectful of arguments that don’t deserve it.)

You seem to have a greater fetish for science than most atheists. Sexual orientation is something we perceive through direct experience. It’s like color: I couldn’t be sure my experience of color is the same as yours, and we had little scientific understanding of it before we discovered wavelengths, but anyone with typical vision knew color existed because, damn, there it is!

Furthermore, it’s hilarious that you ask about MRIs. If you really sought answers, you’d have easily discovered studies like this one, which contain sentences full of really hard words, such as:

As compared to viewing sexually neutral videos, viewing erotic videos led to a brain activation pattern characteristic for sexual arousal in both groups only when subjects were viewing videos of their respective sexual orientation. Particularly, activation in the hypothalamus, a key brain area in sexual function, was correlated with sexual arousal. Conversely, when viewing videos opposite to their sexual orientation both groups showed absent hypothalamic activation.

If you want to avoid future embarrassment, you might want to try this. Though I’m beginning to suspect it may be an insoluble problem for you.

(19.) Can you really not see you have placed blind faith into something very abstract and highly ambiguous? Can you really not see that “sexual orientation” is a concept that takes more faith than logic and reason to believe in? Can you not see that “sexual orientation” is essentially a magic skydaddy?

We just demolished the basis of this question. What’s worse, though, is that we know even you don’t believe what you’re saying. Just a few hundred words earlier you wrote:

When you ask the rhetorical question “when did you choose to be straight?,” can you please tell us how does pointing to something that has never been under dispute…

So you’re acknowledging the existence of sexual orientation right there, even saying it’s beyond dispute.

(20.) Keeping the above questions in mind, how is the homosexualist worldview not a selfish and self-defeating worldview?

We’ve shown your above questions are nonsense. And I don’t even know what the “homosexualist worldview” is. But if it were “selfish and self-defeating” we wouldn’t be debating same-sex marriage. Selfish people don’t expend time and money fighting for the right to commit to another person the way we have. And as I’ve written before, we only ask for the rights because we’ve already accepted the responsibilities.

(21.) Finally, if anybody bothers to read articles with comment sections from pro-homosexual sites, you’ll notice Christians and others who disagree with homosexual practice and redefining marriage rarely to never post comments under the articles on their sites. The fact that almost every conservative Christian site receives an onslaught of attacks (ad hominems, straw man, non-sequiturs, name-calling, etc.) on their comment sections and Facebook threads, how does that not show the foundation for their worldview is on shaky ground? How does that not reveal that they are the ones with a lot to prove, even though they disingenuously act as if the burden of proof is on that which has never been under dispute?

You know, I started compiling some hateful, disgusting, anti-gay comments that have appeared on my own website and on my youtube channel. I thought about recapping all the straw men and non sequiturs in your own piece. And I considered going into detail about the fact that the website that published your column has now twice had to withdraw articles when it realized the authors want gays put to death.

But then I thought: How petty. Are we really going to critique each other based on the rudeness of Internet commenters? Internet commenters? That’s like denouncing opera because you don’t like Justin Bieber. Only a person whose worldview is on shaky ground, a person who knows he can’t even begin to meet a burden of real and substantive proof, would resort to such an unintentionally hilarious gambit.

And that, I think, pretty much says it all.

Steve

February 19th, 2015

This is called JAQing off and a classic troll technique. Being an asshole and insulting people by pretending to just ask questions. But the questions are worded in a way to make their answer on them clear.

Ben in Oakland

February 19th, 2015

” So what scientific method is used to show that “sexual orientation” is real?”

Is he truly saying that a heterosexual orientation isn’t “real”?

Let’s see. the Mormon Church and the catholic Church insist it’s real. The testimony of millions of gay people and billions of straight people insist it’s real. The statements of virtually every single scientific organization even remotely concerned with the question insist it’s real.

I’d say, the overwhelming evidence is that it’s real.

On the other hand, we have only Jason salamone’s and rob’s testimony that salamone is real. And both of them are obviously biased.

I’m going to believe that he isn’t.

Brian Bauer

February 19th, 2015

Rob-
A tour de force reply.
One can always hope that Jason and his colleagues are reading your thoughtful analysis with an open heart and an honest intellect…

Yeah, right.
Sadly.

Ben in Oakland

February 19th, 2015

Brian, if they were interested in an open heart and an honest intellect, they wouldn’t be producing the crap they do.

MattNYC

February 20th, 2015

Please tell me that a guy who says he “surrendered to Christ” didn’t really start babbling about a “magic skydaddy.” There are plenty of people of other (and no) religions who would say the same thing about him.

Rob, I am not sure whether to admire your ability to read this crap in the first place (plus ATTEMPT to deconstruct it) or whether you should be put in a rubber room for trying to argue with a moron.

This kind of b.s. reminds me of a great quote by James Carville, “Newt Gingrich is a perfect example of what an idiot thinks an intelligent person sounds like.” They vomit out lots of syllables and “intellekshul werds” to make their audience wonder why they aren’t winning Nobel prizes.

CPT_Doom

February 20th, 2015

Here’s a thought experiment for #18 above. Replace “sexual orientation” with the word “intelligence” or “IQ.”. Amazing how that concept becomes just as amorphous. Whether Salamone has any intelligence simply cannot be proven.

As for the offensive race comparison, someone needs to get Salamone to define ” race.”. Is it only skin color? So African-Americans who can “pass” as white aren’t black?

The irony is that scientists cannot create a clear classification system to define “race.”. Skin color, hair texture, other physical characteristics that allegedly define “race” exist on a continuum, so there is no clear line you can draw where one race starts and another begins.

enough already

February 20th, 2015

This was well done.
Personally, I just tell the hate-driven Christians that they’ve chosen to define their love of God through hatred of me.
This invariably results in the ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ nonsense.
At which point I just smile and say: If you meant that, you’d act towards gay people the way Jesus acted towards tax collectors and prostitutes.
You don’t, you’re a liar, you know it, I know it and there’s no point pretending this isn’t anything but hatred.

It always leaves them absolutely furious and not infrequently verbally abusive. Hate-driven Christians aren’t followers of Christ, they’re followers of Paul.

Richard Rush

February 20th, 2015

Re: Question 12 . . .

Hey Jason, there’s no need to worry about gay people “teaching society that children are commodities for adult desires, and that marriage is not about the children’s needs?”

Multitudes of biological mom/dads have been teaching society that lesson throughout human history. They have been producing children accidentally or simply because their church tells them to, children with only one parent in their lives, children who they abuse, children shuttled between homes of divorced parents, and producing children when they are woefully unprepared due to severe poverty, lack of education, criminality, psychological issues, drug addiction, or being hooked on toxic fundamentalist religion.

Ben in oakland

February 20th, 2015

Right on, Richard? How many times have we heard of hetero couples have a baby in order to save ERI marriage, please the grandparents, or doing what their church tells them.

Richard Rush

February 20th, 2015

Question 18 is almost comical coming from someone who “is a former liberal agnostic, but surrendered to Christ on April 7th, 2011.” So, I want to ask Jason . . .

What scientific method is used to show that “God” is real? That is, what is the empirical evidence? Where is “God” located? In the sky? The ocean? Another planet? If you had a “born again experience,” why can’t doctors identify the source? Did you get it at Walmart in a bucket? Can you get prescription shots of it at a local pharmacy? And does proof of the existence of a “born again experience” mean that the anti-gay behavior that flows from it, should be affirmed, encouraged? If “God” exists, can you please show me a photograph? If a “born again experience” is invisible, what kind of instrument do you use to measure its existence? Electricity is measured by voltage meters. Thoughts can be measured with lie detector devices, and with medical equipment. Meteorologists have instruments to measure wind. Where’s the MRI and/or CAT scan data for a “born again experience?”

Nathaniel

February 20th, 2015

RE #19

At first I laughed. “Did he really go there? Is he really that stupid?”

Then I got to “magic skydaddy.” This makes me think he was trying to dig at what he believes is the average homosexual (i.e. amoral and atheist). Of course, this usage falls flat. He’s not trying for a live-and-let live argument (i.e. I have my skydaddy and you have yours, so can’t we just get along), because he is clearly arguing for a world where he gets his, and to hell (literally) with the rest of us. He does seem to be trying to get ‘those atheist gays’ to abandon their ‘commitment’ to their orientation via the same route they ‘abandoned’ faith in God – reasoning away all the “magic” until nothing is left. But since his own beliefs about orientation (the ones he is pushing, not the ones he actually believes, as revealed by rhetorical analysis of his questions) are based on his own “skydaddy” faith, the tactic fails, because it really sounds like he is asking ‘those atheist gays’ to abandon one made-up belief for another. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are Christian gays, who’s faith is being denigrated at least twice by someone who would claim he is defending it. But that, of course, raises further questions. Particularly, it makes me wonder if he is just Christian-for-pay (i.e. he doesn’t believe anything he is doing or saying, but as long as it earns him $$$, what does he care).

Nathaniel

February 20th, 2015

Don’t be lazy, Richard. I am sure there are MRI scans of religious experience, you just need to Google them. But, I suspect they wouldn’t help his case any more than brain scans, etc. of LGB people.

Lord_Byron

February 20th, 2015

Regarding #17 I always bring up that if they want to start a discrimination olympics they will lose this. Gay people have been persecuted since pretty much when christianity got a stranglehold on wherever it came to be. So Gay people have been persecuted and discriminated against for 1600-1700 years and more likely longer. I am not trying to diminish what black people have experienced, but in terms of scale LGBT people have them beat.

Ryan

February 20th, 2015

Nearly all of the “questions” were actually statements with a question mark thrown on at the end. Not really worth the effort to respond since he couldn’t first backup any of his statements to begin with.

William Fisher

February 21st, 2015

What I find interesting, looking at some of Salamone’s comments elsewhere on the Internet, is that he cites both the Spitzer study – he roundly denies that Spitzer’s repudiation of his original conclusion affects its validity – and the Jones & Yarhouse study in support of his position.

Leaving aside criticisms of their methodology and evidential value, I find it remarkable that he should be appealing to studies which purported to establish that it is possible (albeit only seldom) to change something, viz. sexual orientation, which he is trying to tell us does not really even exist.

Ben in oakland

February 21st, 2015

David pickup does the same thing. Ignores j&Y, claims that Spitzer couldn’t retract his study.

William Fisher

February 21st, 2015

Yes. That is, of course, just a dishonest evasion of Pickup’s, and he’s just one among several peddlers of the ex-gay delusion to have used it. No, you can’t retract a study – although Spitzer made it plain that he wished that he could. What he did do was to retract, publicly and in no uncertain terms, the conclusion that he originally drew from his study, and to apologize to all those who had been misled by it into frittering precious years of their lives on the ex-gay wild-goose chase.

That people like Pickup, Salamone etc. still find it necessary to try to support their position by citing this study is eloquent testimony to the extreme flimsiness of their case.

Nathaniel

February 23rd, 2015

William Fisher, it is a matter of slinging dung at the wall and seeing what sticks. Some of Salamone’s readers will readily accept sexual orientation as a real thing, but only in the same way that an infection is a real thing, which must be treated, or the patient quarantined. Other readers, however, may still cling to the belief that ‘orientation’ is really another name for ‘chosen behavior’. But why alienate one or the other trying to make valid arguments, when you can instead throw enough meaningless quips around to satisfy everyone. Thus, the battle is lost on two fronts: there are no valid arguments, and even the semblance of validity is lost in the failure to commit to a single idea.

Josh

February 24th, 2015

While I basically agree with Rob, I figure it’s only fair to critique the critique a bit.

12) (Re: biological connections/adult desires.) You misunderstood the “question”. It’s talking about how society views marriage (keep in mind people are irrational), whereas your response discusses the logical incoherence of requiring biological connections in marriage and adoption. These are different things. It’s possible a significant number of people will in fact take the “lesson” of gay marriage to be “children are not the focus”. So what? A lot of people think a lot of things that shouldn’t affect the law. (You also missed a typo: “as unnecessary”->”are unnecessary”.)

13) (Re: dysfunctional heterosexuals.) Salamone likes to say what homosexual activists say without quoting them. The rebuttal is then frequently “those people don’t exist”, which is close to Rob’s reply here. I’m sure pro-gay marriage people have made atrocious arguments involving dysfunctional heterosexuals–we’re far from perfect. Rob’s reply does better than Salamone’s questions in that it at least makes up a sample conversation, though it’d be stronger if it quoted a real one since the “your side” responses would be a bit more believable. Rob also busts out an ad hominem (rhetorical dishonesty … homophobia), which is probably wiser left unused if only because of how utterly unproductive it is.

15) (Re: difference between sexes.) While I agree with your reply, every single sentence except possibly the second is emotion-laden, which weakens it. You decided to do these responses; you can point out that the questions are getting progressively sillier, but don’t vent at them for it. I’d also add that I think there are general differences between how the sexes parent, though with many exceptions and overlaps. However, concluding from there that one mother and one father is optimal is a huge leap. I imagine many parenting structures are on a large scale basically indistinguishable as far as child outcomes are concerned, and individual variation is enormous.

17) (Re: mistreament of blacks; Loving.) Your reply is remarkably calm given how incredibly offensive the “question” is. Nonetheless, the question lists bad things that happened to blacks historically and mostly did not happen to homosexuals. Your reply says bad things have happened to homosexuals. The question tried to never say otherwise. (For some overlap, homosexuals have been publicly tortured, eg. the pillory.) As for “what black skin color results in when acted out?”–hip-hop music? Just kidding.

18) (Re: sexual orientation not real.) “There’s no respect here. That’s obviously a lie.” I take exception to the “lie” bit. People are very often inconsistent, so don’t mistake incompetence for malice. My guess is Salamone just got carried away at the end since it was more respectful to start.

20) (Re: homosexualist worldview; selfish and self-defeating.) You paint a rosy picture of gay activism’s lack of selfishness, though quite a bit of it has gone towards societal acceptance, which is clearly at least somewhat selfish. This is not a bad thing, it’s just not utterly selfless. Also, “homosexualist” gets a pass?

21) (Re: comment sections.) That he asked such a silly question doesn’t necessarily imply his worldview is on “shaky ground” (“Only a person whose worldview is on shaky ground … would resort to such an unintentionally hilarious gambit.”) I have no reason to doubt Salamone’s sincerity and I imagine he feels his worldview is on very solid ground. I also strongly doubt he is “a person who knows he can’t even begin to meet a burden of real and substantive proof”. I think he’s incompetent rather than dishonest. Then again, perhaps you have more evidence of his dishonesty? If so, you should have included it.

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.

 

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.