NOM BLOG

The National Organization for Marriage Offers Prayers For "Hero of G Street," Calls for End to Harmful and Irresponsible "Hate" Label

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 15, 2012

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"Today's attack is the clearest sign we've seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as 'hateful' must end."—Brian Brown, NOM president—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C.—Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) immediately condemned today's attack upon the Family Research Council (FRC) and offered its "heartfelt prayers" for the heroic security guard who apprehended an armed assailant expressing disagreement with FRC's positions before opening fire, shooting the security guard in the process. The FBI is investigating the incident as a case of domestic terrorism.

"Today's attack is the clearest sign we've seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as 'hateful' must end," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council a 'hate group' for its pro-marriage views, and less than a day ago the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement calling FRC a 'hate group'—they even specified that FRC hosts events in Washington, DC, where today's attack took place."

"NOM has always condemned all violence and vilification connected to our ongoing national debate about the meaning and definition of marriage," Brown stated. "For too long national gay rights groups have intentionally marginalized and ostracized pro-marriage groups and individuals by labeling them as 'hateful' and 'bigoted' -- such harmful and dangerous labels deserve no place in our civil society and NOM renews its call today for gay rights groups and the Southern Poverty Law Center to withdraw such incendiary rhetoric from a debate that involves millions of good Americans," added Brown.

Brown concluded: "Violence is never the answer, and on that we all must agree, or risk the consequences."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jen Campbell (x145), jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

34 Comments

  1. Forrest
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Time to call a spade a spade and call the Democratic Party a hate group bent on fomenting such extremism and violence.
    Remember they once endorsed the OWS rejects and their violent rhetoric.

  2. Spunky
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    @ Brian Brown

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council a 'hate group' for its pro-marriage views..."
    Brian Brown

    This is simply not true. The SPLC has very clearly stated its objections to the FRC; nowhere does the word "marriage" appear. To summarize,

    1) the FRC has published numerous publications that accuse homosexuals of being pedophiles, an accusation that is known to be false. Tony Perkins defended these accusations on national television by misrepresenting studies on pedophilia.

    2) Peter Sprigg, an FRC fellow, believes homosexuality should be criminalized, something he had no problem sharing on national TV.

    3) Tony Perkins has given speeches for known white supremacist groups, although he claimed not to know their ideology.

    This is hatred by any meaning of the word. Even if you want to be stubborn and say it isn't you have to accept that many people will (justifiably) feel it is hatred, and that an organization promoting these views should be labeled a hate group.

    Brian Brown, you cannot just make up accusations against the SPLC that aren't true. You are the president of a national organization. You owe us all the truth.

    Maggie Gallagher, now that it's clear you're following this thread, won't you please correct Mr. Brown's mistake and set the record straight about the SPLC? If what they've said about the FRC is so bad, surely it's not worth lying about.

  3. John B.
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    Ms. Gallagher, I challenge you to read the comments being posted by your supporters in this blog and tell us with a straight face that there is no hateful rhetoric coming from your side. Bear in mind also that these are the comments your moderator ALLOWS to be posted, while blocking the majority of polite and civil comments from those of us who disagree with you.

  4. Jake4156
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Barb Chamberlain responds to John Colgan re: Bryan Fischer's undergound railroad tweet:

    "This isn't true, John. If HRC told you this, they're not telling you the truth."

    Actually Barb, it's 100% true. The HTC didn't tell us that, it came directly from Fischer himself: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xz2HzDE54K0/UCL1Uj4IfjI/AAAAAAABlV0/DYKZ91-RSzc/s1600/undertweet.jpg

  5. Jake4156
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Barb Chamberlain responds to John Colgan re: Bryan Fischer's undergound railroad tweet:

    "This isn't true, John. If HRC told you this, they're not telling you the truth." Actually Barb, it's 100% true. The HRC didn't tell us that, it came directly from Fischer himself: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xz2HzDE54K0/UCL1Uj4IfjI/AAAAAAABlV0/DYKZ91-RSzc/s1600/undertweet.jpg

  6. Jake4156
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    Daughter of Eve: You are a complete idiot. AIDS is not caused by homosexual behavior, it's a disease that happens to occur at higher rates among gay men. Does anything happen in your tiny little brain when you realize that AIDS has only existed for a few decades yet gay people have existed longer than Christianity? Are you so blind that you can't see the insanity of opposing gay monogamous relationships because promiscuous behavior puts gay men at a higher risk of disease? If I showed you statistics of STDs among sexually promiscuous straight women, would you use it as evidence that men and women should be constitutionally prohibited from marrying one another? Is all this logic making you dizzy? Do you need to sit down? Do you realize that ignoring facts and logic in order to distort the facts about gay people is why you and your little friends are warning yourselves the hate group labels?

  7. James
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Jake4156:

    Please explain the difference from morally right and wrong, and Hatred of gays?

    Also, please answer the following questions while you are at it:
    1. Define hate from the Dictionary.
    2.Do you define "hate group", those groups who disagree with your view on moral conduct like homosexuality or those who believe in heterosexual coupling?
    3. Are you willing to suffer the consequences that comes with wrongfully labeling groups?
    4. As a tiny minority, do you think that the LGBT community can win a "street fight" with marriage supporters?

  8. Chairm
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    Jake4156, it does not 'just happen' to occur at higher rates. The rates are behavior-specific. And I am not just talking about HIV infections.

    Facts are stubborn things. The dangers are disproportionate with certain behaviors.

    All equal, certain dangerous behaviors are far more prevalent among, say, gay men, due to the limitations and peculiarities of the all-male scenario. This was true before HIV was discovered. Thousands of years before.

    This is not just about promiscuity, by the way. So a same-sex mimicry of sexual monogamy is not the panacea you might imagine.

    I've encountered advocates who scoffed at the recurring forecast (it has held and has been tragically fulfilled for about two decades now) that 1 in 3 homosexually active twenty year-old men will be infected or dead of HIV/AIDS by age thirty. That denial of hard truths merely adds another heavy layer of danger that those advocates would rather blame on society and "hate groups".

    You might like the risks associated with the behaviors (and no one in the right mind would), but neither the message nor the messenger is hateful.

  9. James
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    Spunky @ 103:
    1) The FRC has published numerous publications that accuse homosexuals of being pedophiles, an accusation that is known to be false. Tony Perkins defended these accusations on national television by misrepresenting studies on pedophilia.

    2) Peter Sprigg, an FRC fellow, believes homosexuality should be criminalized, something he had no problem sharing on national TV.

    I said:
    Spunky, I don't see the hate for people who BEHAVE BADLY in these statements. For example, I don't like to be around people who smoke, does not mean I hate those people who spoke.
    Point 1, Tony is factually correct linking homosexuality with pedophilia, and is one of the KEY reasons why the Boy Scouts of America has just recently affirmed their BAN on homosexuality members despite the increase LGBT opposition.
    Point 2., you make in your comment: "Peter Sprigg, an FRC fellow, believes homosexuality should be criminalized, something he had no problem sharing on national TV".
    Peter Spigg "consensus" on immoral behavior compare to the same assessment made about pedephilia back in the day, is the same. This is not hate speeh,he made a legislative proposition to voters as part of governing our society, clearly legal and appropriate. Poligamy, and pot followed the same consciece view and legal process in the effort to protect the population at large.
    Viewing Peter perspective when it comes to the health risk involve in homosexuality, I agree with him that homosexuality should be criminalized( should have happen a long time ago), and the shooting incident at the FRC only strengthens this proposal.

    However, if Peter had said he wanted to take the life of those who participate in sodomy, that would be consider "hate speech" and promoting violence. The LGBT then would have a rare legit argument to go after him...

  10. A. H. Abraham
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    America is made weaker by its sins day by day. What if Islam takes over America. Uganda will be here. Wake up now or you will be hunted down.Think sharial law!! In other words think Judgment Day is near. America is a nation blessed by God. Now it has become an eyesore, and even an obamination before God.
    God created human being in a family of one man and one woman. You! Who sit on the high seat in Washington have destroyed what God made. God will surely visit your iniquities and destroy your family first. You will find no place to hide your face, you! Who have made this nation an obamination.
    Too much freedom without boundaries; freedom without responsibililty is real slavery. Slaves of sin! God is not deaf and blind, make no mistake, your blessing is about to be given to some other nation.
    Look around Judgment Day is here! So, repent while there is still time-repent!!!

  11. Kathy Baldock
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    my new post on this. I went to the offices of FRC to bring them "family research". They are NOT interested in truth. THey have participate in a form of domestic violence for twenty years. The amount of destruction they have cause with their lies is unmeasurable. They FULLY deserve the moniker of HATE GROUP. FULLY. http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/family-research-council-the-damage-continues/

  12. Spunky
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    @ James

    I appreciate that you read my comment. However, I wish you had visited the links I had provided before responding.

    Point 1, Tony is factually correct linking homosexuality with pedophilia, and is one of the KEY reasons why the Boy Scouts of America has just recently affirmed their BAN on homosexuality members despite the increase LGBT opposition.
    James

    1 a) I will again provide a link to Rob Tisinai's video "Protect the Children (and mean it)" that explains the false connection that some people draw between homosexuality and pedophilia. Here is another link to an essay by Dr. Gregory Herek from UCSD, explaining the various studies and understanding on the subject. Here is another to the site Box Turtle Bulletin, which further denounces the idea that homosexuals are any more a threat to our children than heterosexuals.

    Please spend a couple minutes on each of those sites before responding. You need to understand my position before you can argue with me about it.

    1 b) As a side note, the Boy Scouts say their ban of open homosexuals is because

    homosexuality is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed.
    BSA, 2004

    I don't have any evidence that BSA believs gays are more likely to molest children. Can you provide some?

    2) Please read the following.

    More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on, last February, to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. At around the same time, Sprigg claimed that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military would lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults.
    Peter Sprigg, 2008

    Are you really telling me none of this possibly qualifies as hate speech? If so, then fine, but I don' think you can say the SPLC is wrong for believing otherwise.

  13. maggie gallagher
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    "worthy of death"

    That comment was made, if it was made, in Spanish.
    I denounced any implication of violence here:

    I whole-heartedly and unreservedly denounce any suggestion of violence against gay people, or anyone in the gay marriage debate. Without any compulsion.

    I do not know, because I don't speak spanish, what this person said. "Worthy of death" is the standard King James translation of Romans 1: 28-32. If anyone believes this scripture means, "it's okay to commit violence against gay people" I'm here to stand with you, as an American, and as a Christian: that's totally wrong, evil, and untrue. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/gays-worthy-of-death-demand-maggie-gallagher-denounce-this-statement-from-noms-marriage-rally/marriage/2011/05/17/20380

    NOM as an organization repudiated any suggestion of violence on more than one occasion. BTW this is not "from my mouth" but that's a side issue.

    BTW, I'm not interested right now in rebutting every commenters opinions of "lies" but in your view of what constitutes "hate" from the mouths of NOM leaders.

    Calling for the death of gay people would indeed count as hate. Anyone who does should be denounced by all Christians as well as others.

  14. Chairm
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Hear, hear, Maggie.

    Yes, it is good to invite SSMers to state their view of what constitutes "hate" from the mouths of NOM leaders.

    Let's also use this moment as an opportunity to have SSMers express their objective criteria, as well, such that all organizations can be assessed -- including those that support SSM.

  15. leehawks
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    John B @104: "Bear in mind also that these are the comments your moderator ALLOWS to be posted, while blocking the majority of polite and civil comments from those of us who disagree with you."

    Then Jake @107: "Daughter of Eve: You are a complete idiot. AIDS is not caused by homosexual behavior, it's a disease that happens to occur at higher rates among gay men. Does anything happen in your tiny little brain when you.........." blah, blah, blah.

    Wow, JohnB, Jake just blew a big hole in your portrayal that your side's comments are polite and civil and it only happened 3 posts later....

  16. Spunky
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    @ maggie gallagher

    BTW, I'm not interested right now in rebutting every commenters [sic] opinions of "lies" but in your view of what constitutes "hate" from the mouths of NOM leaders.
    maggie gallagher

    I hope this is not a response to my comment #103. If it is, then I am disappointed in NOM's leadership. It is NOM's job to ensure that its statements are accurate. If you are aware that a statement made by the president of NOM is wrong, whether through mistake or deceit, it is your job to correct it (or delegate that to someone else in NOM). So far, I have seen no accountability and no desire to even attempt to correctly portray the SPLC's position on the FRC.

    Facts are not opinions. When Brian Brown says

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council a 'hate group' for its pro-marriage views...

    and I provide a link proving otherwise, you must acknowledge this.

    You must tell us the truth. You owe it to everyone--to your opponents, to the SPLC, but most of all, to your supporters who will walk through life believing falsehoods because you weren't diligent enough to tell them correct facts.

    If I mischaracterized Mr. Brown's statement as a lie when it was instead a mistake, then I apologize. I shouldn't be projecting my own thoughts onto his statements--that would be violating the very "fact vs. opinion" paragraph I just wrote. However, I do believe it is his job to make accurate statements and correct the ones that aren't.

  17. maggie gallagher
    Posted August 18, 2012 at 4:06 am | Permalink

    Fine, at some later time to discuss "truth" as you see it.

    Right now, commenters have said NOm leaders have expressed "hate"

    What is the hate, in quotes?

    Can we get to what you believe? I asked this not from a gotcha point of view but genuinely to evakuate:

    What have i or any NOm employee said that you consider hate?

    I want to know because I want to think about whether there is any justice in this.

    That's why I ask.

    No man can be his own judge. I don't believe this label is justified. But I'm asking you to help me see your point of view.

    What quote from my mouth or the mouth of any NOM employee is "hate" in your view?

  18. Spunky
    Posted August 18, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    @ maggie gallagher

    Fine, at some later time to discuss "truth" as you see it.
    maggie gallagher

    Thank you. I appreciate it.

    Right now, commenters have said NOm leaders have expressed "hate"

    What is the hate, in quotes?

    Can we get to what you believe? I asked this not from a gotcha point of view but genuinely to evakuate:

    What have i or any NOm employee said that you consider hate?

    I want to know because I want to think about whether there is any justice in this..
    maggie gallagher

    I have never accused you or any other NOM employee of expressing hate, and I don't intend to. If a person really is hateful, I wouldn't want to talk to him in the first place.

    If other commenters have accused you and other NOM leaders of hateful rhetoric, then they should be the ones backing up their claims. Jake4156 posted a link to an article claiming to identify lies you allegedly made; I'm sure there are accusations of hate in it as well. Although he didn't comment in this thread, Rob Tisinai recently posted an open letter to Brian Brown accusing NOM of supporting "violence and vilification."

    What is hate? I'll defer to the dictionary on that one:

    noun
    4.
    intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
    5.
    the object of extreme aversion or hostility.
    Dictionary.com

    If you want examples of comments I consider hateful, I'll give a few. The only time I can remember labeling a NOM comment as hateful was last month, when I cited Barb Chamberlain's "gays can only take children from others" snark. The comment has since been removed, which suggests the moderator agreed with me. Most comments made by Louis E. were hateful toward gays (including transgender children), but again, I think the moderator agreed since it appears Louis E. is banned. When Little Man fired off a comment asking "Who'd would want to be married by a queer, anyway?", that was clearly hateful language. And while it infuriated me that his comment wasn't removed, I still never accused any NOM employee of being hateful. Because that's not what I do.

    Now, it's also important to consider statements that may not be hateful but do spread hate or inspire hatred in others. So when the FRC makes unfair and untrue accusations of pedophilia toward the LGBT community (and knowing full well that most Americans hate child molesters), they are stirring up hatred. When Tony Perkins repeatedly defends this tactic, he is spreading hate, whether he realizes it or not. More people will hate homosexuals if they believe they are child predators. When the SPLC calls an organization a "hate group," it isn't necessarily because its members hate a certain group, but rather because they use cruel tactics to spread hate when none is deserved. So while I don't go around calling organizations "hate groups," I understand why the SPLC does.

    My point is that even remarks that aren't "expressing hate" still cause damage. Many people have said that the document in which NOM promoted "fanning the hostility" (NOM's words) between gays and blacks was an example of spreading hate. Given the definition posted above, they may be right. But again, that doesn't concern me. What does concern me is that we both agree this type of tactic is dangerous, hurtful, and above all, unacceptable.

  19. Chairm
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    Spunky, the three sources you offered regarding adult-child sexual attraction and sexual behavior, well, they do not suffice. The first and second are political polemics. The second describes confusion on this subject rather than clear reasoning.

    No matter. If you would stand by those as the sources that convinced you, then,there remains a considerable discrepancy between the accusation against the FRC and what the FRC has consistently reported in their policy statements.

    Something that you demanded is that others first understand your view. Well, take that as advice you can follow as well.

    Something else you can take away even from your own sources: there is plenty of confusion around terms and apt descriptions of predilictions and behaviors. The science is not decisive in this regard. And, as you might concede, science does not dictate morality and vice versa. And, you might agree, the interplay between psychology (an inexact "science" at best) and moral reasoning (too often reduced to relativism and utilitarianism) has become highly susceptible to political maniplulations. You need to guard against the political appeal of the sources you cited. I know you are all for doing so in the other direction.

    I will leave off with observation that reports of adult-child sexual behavior during childhood (particularly preteen and teenage years) are disproportionately higher (and alarming so) among adults who identify as same sex sexually attracted or homosexually active persons. That ain't nothing.

  20. Chairm
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    typo correction: the first and third are polemics.

  21. Chairm
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    Spunky, regarding your comment @117.

    The SPLC webpage to which you linked is presented as a list of "anti-gay" groups. The majority are assigned an asteriks to identify these as "hate groups". NOM and a few others are mixed in that list with groups thus labelled "anti-gay groups" and "hate groups". The list serves three obvious purposes. First to list accusations of anti-gay falsehoods; the second to list accusations of hatred; and the third to mix the two labels and sets of accusations.

    These are accusations -- as are the accusatory labels that give the list its prominence even in your own comments. Not undisputed conclusions drawn from undisputed facts. Not presented by an unbiased SPLC as is evident in the two labels.

    Supposedly there is an SPLC inspired distinction that merits an asteriks but not two different lists. But that is hardly made explicit by the SPLC webpage. The blurring of the lists is in the design of the SPLC webpage. It is as much the message as are the various accusations.

    So if you want the SPLC to be well understood, and because you present yourself as one who well understands that cited SPLC webpage, then please explain the three purposes and the vague manner in which the SPLC list portrays the distinction you wish to emphasize. I expect you might fairly acknowledge the third purpose as significant to the first two purposes. Please conform, correct, or clarify

  22. Chairm
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 1:08 am | Permalink

    Spunky, you don't do what you approve others of doing. That is not does not earn you the cover of plausible deniability. And I expect you understand that much.

    Disagreement on substance is not hatred.

    The homosexuality issue is not the marriage issue. However the SSM campaign has deliberately conflated the two issues. Homosexuality is central to the SSM complaint and proposed remedy.

    To be promarriage is not anti-gay. To be anti-SSM is not anti-gay. To be either promarriage or anti-SSM or both is neither anti-gay nor hateful.

    To be anti-samesex-sexual behavior is neither anti-gay nor hateful.

    To be against the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics is not anti-gay nor hateful (nor, for that matter, is is anti-gay-identity-politics of a less radical form).

    Yet the leaders of the SSM campaign have drawn together a long list of items that are portrayed as standing against bigotry and hatred. And that package is asserted with ways and means that vilify those who disagree with the assault on the status quo. Not just strong and rigorous disagreement in public discourse ... (what passes for discourse has been characteristically poisoned by a rapid descent into inauthentic civility) ... but an open strategy of labeling the other side as bigoted and hateful toward people who identify as members of the gay identity group.

    The vast majority of SSMers learn to do what they are shown is approved by the Pro-SSM leadership. And that means approving what others do vociferously even if the leaders put on a mask of not doing the same. For the most part the SSM establishment does work slavishly to make their anti-gay and hate labels the default charge against their political opponents.

    Again, disagreement is not hate. The labeling strategy deployed by SSMers far and wide is not conducive to understanding the actual disagreement on these contentious issues.

  23. Chairm
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    Comment in que that addresses Spunky's closing emphasis on tactics and strategies that do harm.

  24. Spunky
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 1:37 am | Permalink

    @ NOM

    I don't want to dwell too much on this, but rather on my response to Ms. Gallagher, who seemed to imply she would get around to addressing Mr. Brown's inaccurate statement about the SPLC. I hope she reads comment #119 and responds.

    @ Chairm

    I'll try to be quick about this.

    The first and third [corrected] are political polemics. The second describes confusion on this subject rather than clear reasoning.
    Chairm

    This is simply not true. All three sources cite studies by
    1) Groth and Birnbaum (1982)
    2) Jenny, Roesler, and Poyer (1994)
    3) McConaghy (1998),
    along with
    4) Stevenson (2000) (not included in Herek's article).
    These four studies arrive at the conclusion that homosexuals do not pose a threat to children, the exact opposite of the FRC's claim.

    Something else you can take away even from your own sources: there is plenty of confusion around terms and apt descriptions of predilictions [sic] and behaviors.
    Chairm

    Agreed. For example, my favorite part of the FRC document is the part where they admit that men who have sex with men do not abuse children at higher rates:

    [O]nce it is "determined" beforehand that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered gay or homosexual if they have had sexual relations with women, it is a foregone conclusion that few if any of the pedophiles -who often have girlfriends, are married, and have children - will be labeled homosexual.
    FRC

    What exactly does the FRC consider a homosexual, if not a man who primarily or exclusively has sex with men?

    You said my links were useless, yet you offered no criticism of any of the studies listed above. You must read my sources more carefully if you want to disregard them.

    I'm done talking about molestation in this thread--it's not at the heart of the matter. If you want to continue this debate, send an email.

  25. Chairm
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Spunky, the first and third links are polemics, regardless of the credibility you give those polemics.

    What you say is false is actually true.

  26. Chairm
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Spunky the bit you quoted from the FRC is not endorsing the pro-gay spin on adult-child sexual behavior.

    Consider, by that pro-gay spin there is a foregone conclusion via the political manipulation of terminology. That is the point of the bit you quoted.

    That you quoted it and thought you made a point in favor of the pro-gay spin is rather amusing.

  27. Chairm
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Readers will note that I did not say your links were useless. You misrepresented what I said. Why did you do that, Spunky?

    If you want to make this a discussion about the flaws in the studies, fine, but first you need to demonstrate that you comprehend the point that you said you had agreed with.

    To wit: " there is plenty of confusion around terms and apt descriptions of predilections and behaviors."

    Do you imagine that there are no useful studies that support the FRC's description of the issue? Really.

    Thank you for conceding that the accusation against the FRC on this is actually not the heart of the matter. The accusation is something other than the pith and substance of the "hate" issue.

    So let's move on to my comment #123 regarding the purposes of that SPLC's accusatory list of "anti-gay groups".

    That surely gets at what you think the hate label is all about, right?

  28. Spunky
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    @ Chairm, #122

    What you wrote has nothing to do with my post #117. I was expressing my frustration at the NOM staff for ignoring my repeated requests to correct Brian Brown's incorrect statement

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council a 'hate group' for its pro-marriage views..."

    If you think I am wrong about this, then please explain. Don't bring up other topics such as the SPLC's motive for the "hate" and "anti-gay" labels and expect me to follow your digression.

    Also, if and when we do discuss such topics, don't expect me to answer for the SPLC. I don't speak for them and have nothing to do with them.

    @ Chairm, #123

    I'm not sure why my name is anywhere in your comment; you're not referencing anything I wrote, and you're not even talking about me.

    You bring up marriage multiple times and rant endlessly about "SSMers" and the "SSM campaign," whereas I never mentioned any of these things. Respond to my arguments, not your own, and not those of "SSMers," whoever they are.

    *************************************************************************************************

    I still have received no response from Ms. Gallagher even though she said she would address my comment #117, even though I generously responded to her question in post #119.

  29. Chairm
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

    Spunky, you are dodging and misrepresenting. Why do you do that?

    I have not ranted, much less have I done so endlessly. Your mischaracterization is poor form.

    SSMer = SSM[support]er.

    SSM campaign = the organized political movement to promote the SSM idea as replacement of the marriage idea.

    You probably would recognize the SSMer as an supporter of "marriage equality". You probably would recognize the SSM campaign as the "marriage equality" cause. You might even recognize the concerted effort to disparage the other side as bigoted and hateful and anti-gay.

    You know, labels and epithets flung around with your understanding if not your approval. See my point about your attempt to find cover under plausible deniability in your remarks here.

    You can feign ignorance but you posed as someone well informed and as someone who understood the SPLC doing what it has done re the FRC. But then you dodged.

    My remarks shed light on your pose.

  30. Chairm
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 3:47 am | Permalink

    Spunky,in 125 you told falsehoods about the FRC and you told a falsehood about the evidence you cited. And you misrepresented what I had actually said. You had cited adult-child sexual behavior as your big example to answer Maggie. Then you said it was not the heart of the matter.

    All told you managed to dodge and to tell falsehoods and to misrepresent about six times in that one comment.

    It begins to look like a tactical digression rather than an honest contribution to the discussion.

    It is ridiculous to categorically claim that persons who experience same-sex sexual attraction are beyond acting on such attraction toward children. You erred or deliberately fudged with your misrepresentation. But you echoed a falsehood tthat you bought that was based on political manipulation of the evidence. See my remark about the progay spin.

    You also misrepresented the FRC on this evidence. Their claim is not the direct opposite even of what you claimed about the evidence. See the progay spin again.

    I did not say your links were useless. I did not disregard them. Also contrary to your false portrayal of our exchange,my remarks did not depend on some sort of extensive criticism of the studies. I described two of you links as polemics. I also highlighted the confusion with terminology and you agreed. Of course, you immediately misrepresented via your misunderstanding of that point.

    Look, you are probably looking through the filter of gay identity politics and inot through objective criteria for the use of these labels ... antigay, hate, and the like. Your remarks would spread falsehoods and do what you imagine the FRC has done.

    That is the heart of the matter.

  31. Chairm
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 4:23 am | Permalink

    Spunky, the SPLC.s webpage you linked mixed two SPLC categories: groups accused of being anti-gay and groups accused of hatred. Strongly implied is an overlap. Indeed the SPLC refers to "our anti-gay hate group list". Supposedly the distinction between anti-gay and hate labels merits an asterisk but not two seperate lists.

    You claimed that you understood the SPLC doing this. Please explain your understanding.

    Again, accusations that depend on misrepresentation and falsehoods do not advance civil discourse. You agree but only in alignment with the progay spin of the SPLC. I described this in 123 in response to stuff you said.

    But you dodged and digressed to your comment at 117.

    Tell me the distinction you understand the SPLC claims is very important: the distinction between the anti-gay and hate accusations on one hand and the marriage views of the FRC on the other hand.

    I think that the FRC is a target because it is pro-marriage. The false accusations are excuses. The way the list is setup blurs the labels and uses the labels that the SSM campaign seeks to make mainstream against the marriage defenders such as FRC and NOM.

    You want to dodge your own claim to understand the SPLC doing this. You'd rely on pro-gay spinned "statements that spread hate or inspire hatred in others." You'd rely on "unfair and untrue accusations" against the FRC (and also against me just within our exchange here). You know that such behavior amounts to "cruel tactics to spread hate where none is deserved."

    You said that you "agree that this tactic is dangerous, hurtful, and above all, unacceptable."

    Legitimate disagreement exists on the stuff from which the SPLC has manufactured its false accusations against the FRC. Their tactic is to make accusations and to make lists to promote those accusations.

    But accusations need stronger backup than cheap shots. The SPLC is not a credible arbiter of its own accusatiory lists.

    But you said that you "understood why the SPLC" did what it did.

    So explain your understanding of the SPLC acting as accuser, prosecutor, judge, and executioner. Or walk back your pose, perhaps.

    This is relevant to your question about Brown's statement. Why would you credit the SPLC's distinctions upon which your question and accon depends?

    Note that the FRC is not "guilty until proven innocent" of the SPLC's trumped up accusations. Trying to blacklist groups on such a basis ought to ring the alarms for the fairminded.

  32. Chairm
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 4:47 am | Permalink

    typo correction: Why would you credit the SPLC's distinctions upon which your question and accusation depend?

    And why should anyone else?

  33. LibButOpen
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    " Good News
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
    @Katie

    No I am not okay with it. I am okay with a country trying to discourage homosexual habit forming behavior or confusion to the 80 to 98 percent of their children who where not born that way but who can be taught that way.
    And the death penalty is a mechanism of state law, it is not arbitrary violence. Meaning that the eventual criminal would not be killed, assassinated, but would be executed. And no I would not be okay with it. But I do understand the policy of putting such a law into place whether it was to be used or not. Though I do find it excessive and not necessary. And apparently Uganda also feels it is not necessary to put such a law into place. Though the talk of it is helpful to them in keep their country from becoming a honeymoon getaway place for Western *cautelaged couples.
    More than all else I am okay with a country refusing to take away the only word that uniquely names the committed man-woman union.

    * same-sex committed union".

    Yes, thats right, because if you see something, everyone HAS to emulate it. All these kids in school who even hear about the gay lifestyle automatically transform. Um, not true. And not born that way,..I know of ppl at 8 years old who knew what sex they were attracted to, but of course, with all the programming done by organized religion, they held back what they felt, because they were made to feel ashamed by who they were and whom they felt drawn to. Yes, im sure, there's gay teachers in our schools with a row of shock therapy machines trying to convert your kids to BECOME gay. As for your subject of marriage, marriage is an age old tradition that has already changed with the times. And it doesnt mean that gays are more or less committed to one another than straight couples.

  34. Chairm
    Posted August 22, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    LibButOpen,

    Do you believe that there is such a thing as immoral sexual behavior?If yes, can people consent to immoral sexual behavior? Can people do so in private? Is society obligated to grant a special status on par with marital status based on immoral sexual behavior conducted with consent in private?

    I think if yougave this some open thought you might find that the disagreement on marriage versus SSM is quite different fro the issue of samesex sexual attraction, behavior, or gay identity.

    It is the SSMers who make their SSM idea all about their homosexual and gay emphases. So that drags into the SSM campaign the moral issue of societal granting preferential status based on either samesex sexual behavior or gay identity.

    It is irrelevant to the marriage idea: integration of the sexes combined with provision for responsible procreation within the social institution which is the most prochild we have. SSMers reject the marriage idea and insist on replacing it with the SSM idea. Their gay emphasis is their supposed justification. Hence the conflict they is far reaching and not just about supposed neutrality on homosexuality.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.