FRC President Perkins on SPLC's Hate Label: "This Type of Demonizing Must Stop."
September 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins:
"...This comes in the context of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designating FRC a “certified hate group” because of our biblically-based beliefs regarding marriage and human sexuality. We encourage love and respect for all people including those seeking to redefine marriage, and we have made clear we abhor and reject all violence directed against anyone for their sexual behavior.Yet some associate “hate group” with advocating physical harm or other deplorable actions. As we work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, we now know that the man who shot our employee was also targeting at least one other organization labeled a “hate group” by SPLC.
This war of words launched by the SPLC as cover for its allied organizations on the left has led to an open assault upon those with whom they disagree. This type of demonizing must stop.
... SPLC’s tactics are intended to intimidate and ultimately silence. Nothing could be more threatening to the future of our republic.
Combined, we three have over a hundred years of fighting for freedom on battlefields, in legislative halls, diplomatic circles, marketplaces, and the public square. We approach these matters from economic and security vantage points, not just social and legal. -- FOX News Opinion
42 Comments
Guess the CDC should be labeled a hate group then:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-homosexual-men-account-for-61-of-new-hiv-infections-but-only-2-of-popul
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html
so you are a hate group. deal with the truth. please read what you write and objectively analyze it. you won't even post this because you don't like opposing thought.
@mdecker,
The article had to do with SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) labeling the FRC (Family Research Council) a hate group because of its biblical position on marriage and the family; not NOM (National Organization for Marriage.)
But thank you for demonstrating how pridefully ignorant you are.
It is a lie to say that SPLC included FRC on the basis of biblical beliefs. SPLC defines how it categorises groups on their website. The reason for FRC being so designated is due to the lies told by FRC regarding LBGT people, not about whether the Bible condemns sodomy. Check it out for yourself.
The last time someone from FRC went on a shooting rampage at SPLC, .... oh, wait.
DoE,
How many Matthew Shepards have to die or how many young children committing suicide will it take for you to see what harm the FRC, NOM and others and religious ideology is doing to our society.
Zack said it best, how can it be hatefull if you point out the health dangers of living as a homosexual. This is no more hatefull than pointing out why you should not smoke.
The truth sometimes hurts. Therefore neither NOM or FRC is a hate group for pointing out the truth. The link between pedophiles and homosexuals is also true whether you like it or not.
Wait, them saying you're a hate group, defining what they mean by "hate group", and explaining specifically why is demonizing... but the stuff y'all did that objectively earned you that label is not?
Oh, that one, single attacker in the history of ever targeted "demonized" hate groups--targeted you for what you've actually DONE to hurt innocent people, which is the opposite of doing it based on prejudice--but let's ignore those statistics on hate crimes against (and teenage suicides among) the people that these hate groups* demonize.
Oh, and SPLC defined the term and explained why; the hate groups lie.
Oh, and a group whose sole purpose is to restrict certain people's freedom? You do not have a history of fighting for freedom. You objectively, provably, have a history of fighting freedom. You've not done anything FOR freedom.
That's not subjective. It's not up for debate. It's fact.
I know y'all don't like facts, but that doesn't change what they are.
*It has a MEANING! If you get to say you don't want that to be said just because you don't like it than I CERTAINLY get to shut these organizations down from saying anything at all--after all, not only do y'all say things about me that I don't like, the things YOU say aren't even TRUE!
"stop comparing homosexuals to pedophiles"
If two people have a mental condition that renders them sexually attracted to people that they cannot reproduce with, are they not comparable? Both pedophiles and homosexuals have a mental condition that affects their sexual attraction; one group just happens to involve attraction to people who, in current law, are unable to legally consent to the sexual activity. But they are certainly comparable.
Pat, your impassioned comment continues to ignore the fact that no one is prohibited from marriage based on sexual orientation, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior. The only individuals named and banned from marriage are close kin (whatever their sexual orientation).
Overcame,
I believe Mike's point was many on your side make the erroneous claim that gay men are more likely to molest children than straight men are, when social scientists agree that adult gay men and adult men who molest children are largely separate populations.
Bruce -
Well, there's probably some truth to the suggestion that homosexual guys are more likely to be pedophiles - in the sense that they actually succeed in engaging in sexual relationships with underage men, as opposed to being desirous of engaging but not succeeding - because of the differences in the sexual proclivities of young boys versus young girls.
Let's face it, most guys are horny and not as selective as girls when it comes to choosing a partner (hence the success of such anonymous homo-sex sites as Grindr but no such success for similar hetero-sex sites); so while perhaps both straight and gay guys have similar percentages of them who are attracted to underage would-be sexual partners, the homosexuals are more likely to actually have sex with their chosen partner.
I think that is why homosexuals are considered unusually sexually promiscuous: they have more sex with more partners because they CAN; whereas straight guys seem to be less promiscuous because women are more selective in who and how many they have sex with.
DoE, your willful obliviousness continues to be dishonest.
Also, you kinda tipped your hand that even you don't believe yourself, there--kin aren't banned from marrying, if they were nobody could marry. It's the *couples* not the *people* who are banned.
It's always about *whom* you are allowed to marry, not *whether* you are.
And your argument that people aren't banned from marriage because they can just lie and have a sham marriage is hardly demonstrative of compassion, empathy, or general not-evilness.
I can't reflect your imaginary fact, because I can think good and it breaks halfway through considering it.
And it's totally irrelevant anyway. My comment didn't ignore your imaginary fact, because it wouldn't have even been relevant to what I said if it was real.
OSSA, pedophiles go after children. Not young adults. That's, y'know, what the problem is so it's kinda an important point to remember.
And mostly they don't care what sex the children are.
Also, even if you actually knew what you were talking about, that doesn't have much relevance to the point you're arguing against.
DoE, your willful ignorance continues to be dishonest.
(I did write more, but I think we all know it's unlikely to appear.)
@Pat - I'm familiar with the distinction that homosexuals like to make between pedophilia and ephebophilia, the latter of which is still legally pedophilia and what most people are thinking of when they compare homosexuals and pedophiles. Homosexuals like to make the distinction because pedophilia is technically a non-gender-oriented compulsion to have sex with young children.
But the fact is that there are many, many underage pre-teen and teenage boys engaging in sex with young adult men, the latter of which are therefore legal pedophiles. i.e., adults engaging with minors under the age of legal consent. Clinically, these are not pedophiles; legally they are.
Pat, if you're going to call someone wilfully ignorant, you can surely provide proof:
-a piece of legislation that specifically names "gay" people as ineligible for marriage
-a copy of a marriage license application that requires proof of: sexual orientation or sexual attraction or past homosexual behavior
If you can't provide any proof, then your claims are false, and your projection of wilful ignorance remains glaring.
Pat, who said anything about a sham marriage? Don't want a sham marriage? Don't get married. Easy peasy. As for close kin not being allowed to marry, take a look:
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states
Clearly, some kin ARE barred from marriage, including mothers/ sons, and fathers/daughters, and in some states, double cousins or first cousins.
"I can think good?"
What's an imaginary fact? If it's truly imaginary, how can it be a real fact? If you concede that it's whom you may marry, and not if one may marry, then you must, in all fairness, acknowledge that laws allow a person who is gay, or a person with SSA, or a person who has engaged in homosexual behavior to marry, as long as they follow the same parameters as every other citizen. If a person does not wish to follow the rules of a given institution, they are certainly not forced to enter into said institution. We don't mandate marriages, sham or otherwise, in this country.
Eliasasm, how many more Jason Shepards?
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/shepard-vs-shephard-why-hate-crimes-laws-deny-equal-protection/
Religious ideology, eh? You mean, like, avoiding sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, as in "thou shalt not commit adultery, nor anything like unto it?" You mean like "love thy neighbor?" You mean like "thou shalt not covet?"
If you could please remind us of the virtues of homosexual behavior, your question might make more sense.
Homosexual special rights advocates declare, ubiuitously, that opposition to what they're advocating for is "anti-gay":
Go to the Southern Poverty Law Center website and click on "LGBT Rights" in the light-blue navigation column on the left.
Find this on the right:
Resources:
* 10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked
* Anti-Gay Hate Crimes: Doing the Math
* Gays Remain Minority Most Targeted by Hate Crimes
* 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda
* Essay: The Anti-Gay Movement
Note that four out of five of them use the expression, "anti-gay".
Oppose us and you're "anti-gay" by definition?
Use the same light-blue navigation column on the left, and click on "Hate Map".
In the Select a State drop down box, select District of Columbia.
Find, next to "Family Research Council": "Anti-Gay" (type).
Start reading: "Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians has been a central theme ..."
Same-sex marriage advocates declare that their campaign to redefine marriage is all about "equal rights for gays and lesbians." "Marriage equality."
Oppose the redefinition of marriage and the homosexuals, that presumably dominate and control the "LGBT Rights" and "Anti-Gay" areas of the SPLC website, attribute "anti-gay" "hate" to you.
Two-thirds of the country has defense of marriage amendments. Here in California, over 7 million voters voted that marriage was the union of a man and a woman.
SSM advocates would have everybody believe we were all motivated by "anti-gay" "hate".
Opposition to gay people is anti-gay, hun. That's an incredibly objective use of words. Yes, being anti-gay makes you anti-gay by definition--obviously?
I note that you can't argue against what they say, just say that you don't want to be called something objectively true.
Well, if we can make those demands than I don't want *any* of y'all to say the bad stuff about me you say--and since that stuff is subjective at best and much more often straight-out untrue, I think I get bonus points when making that demand.
@DoE: Gosh, I pointed out that you were being willfully ignorant by making that stupid argument (over and over despite the fact that it didn't make sense the first time) when you know perfectly well it's invalid, and you dare me to prove it by... making the same argument.
The problem is that it doesn't make sense. Just because you wrote "Straight people only!" instead of "No queers!" doesn't mean you're not discriminating.
But maybe I *am* giving you too much credit.
Oh, and yeah, if you voted just to hurt people with no benefit to yourself and anybody else, for the *sole purpose* of harming certain people and their families...
Is there a possible motivation for hurt as a goal other than hate?
Actually, Pat, you give yourself too much credit. Gay political identity myopathy doesn't lend itself to logic or clear thinking.
Pat lied. And, according to At, that makes At a hater.
The SPLC tells lies. That, according to Pat, makes the SLC a hate group.
The various advocacy groups for SSM are anti-marriage. They tell falsehoods. That, according to Pat, makes those groups hate groups.
Pat tells the same falsehoods and is anti-marriage. Pat supports hate groups.
The marriage law's bride-groom requirement is opposed by Pat because At lies to say that gay is a criterion for ineligibility (but it is not) and that straight is a criterion for eligibility (but it is not) and then falsely accuses a fellow commenter of ignorance of the law. At's lies are so deeply engrained in Pat's rhetoric and argumentation that Pat no longer recognizes truthtelling.
Pat's pro-gay bigotry is revealed by the standards that Pat hase invoked and which the SPLC has invoked.
Being in favor of the marriage idea is not hateful nor is it anti-gay. Marriage law is for marriage and not for non-marriage. The SSM idea is an outright rejection of the marriage idea. The SSM advocate is anti-marriage and is so based on the pro-gay bigotrthat asserts the supremacy of gay identity politics over and above marriage and all other considerations.
Mike, mcdecker, and Paul MIchael each provide evidence that the SPLC and the SSM campaign teach its supporters falsehoods and depend on false accusations to sell the supremacy of gay identity politics.
These sorts of lessons are not unique to hard core gay identity politics but are pro forma with all kinds of radicalized identity politics including the racist white supremacy that our society has repudiated.
"making that stupid argument (over and over despite the fact that it didn't make sense the first time"
Pat, by your own admission you fail to understand the argument. You admit your own ignorance.
"you know perfectly well it's invalid"
If you don't understand the argument, by your own admission, then how can you know it's an invalid argument? You contradict yourself.
"Just because you wrote "Straight people only!" instead of "No queers!" doesn't mean you're not discriminating."
I never said or implied that. You did. Putting your words in my mouth, and then arguing against them, and claiming a win in the argument only proves you know how win an argument against yourself.
Marriage is organized according to sex, not sexual orientation. Proof of that fact:
~consanguinity law: close kin of the opposite (or same) sex may not marry each other, even if they are heterosexual. This is not evidence of heterophobia, or hate. This is a direct correlation to the sexual, procreative nature of marriage. Obviously, same-sex persons cannot procreate; thus, there is no reason to regulate their sexual behavior, as no child can ever come of their sexual behavior.
annulment law: having to do with consummation of a marriage via coitus (impossible via same-sex sexual behavior, whether or not the two are heterosexual or homosexual).
presumption of paternity law: only applies to opposite-sex couples, since only a male and female (either gay or straight) can procreate together. Again, not evidence of either homophobia or hate.
To continue,
~a gay person is legally permitted to marry; no legislation has been or is being proposed to change that.
~groups may not marry. This is not due to hate or homophobia. There is no litmus test for sexual orientation, in order to acquire a marriage license. Sexual orientation is not an eligibility requirement in marriage.
~NOM supporters support a gay man marrying a gay woman, and thus enjoying a gay marriage.
~NOM supporters would no more support two heterosexual same-sex persons marrying than they would a sibling marriage, or two homosexual same-sex persons marrying. Wherein lies hatred, if they law is applied consistently to all citizens?
Chairm, just read the SPLC website. Tell me where it says anything about Bibilcal beliefs being a cause for hate group designation? It just doesn't.
It does list a number of egregious and harmful lies that FRC amongst others, continue to perpretrate on the gullible.
ssm supporters can read - that is all it takes to see what FRC say and how SPLC try to counter the lies.
Great posts DoE!
DoE:"~NOM supporters support a gay man marrying a gay woman, and thus enjoying a gay marriage. "
Sorry but this is just not a tenable argument. Normally you are quite considered and sensible in your posts but .... really?
Your defniition of marriage is ineluctably linked to the sexual union of complementary biologies/genders. Now you are saying there doesn't have to be any sex to have a marriage.
DoE, it's crazy. Be consistent. Do you really think that is a real marriage? I would call a sham marriage. Or indeed a shame marriage.
I'll say this one more time. The FRC hate group designation is not due to religious beliefs but due to the lies promulgated on a persistent basis by this group and its leaders. i.e. for example, DoE is not a hateful person because she has arguments that she words responsibly. She has her beliefs but I don't see her lying egregiously about LBGT persons. So she is not on the SPLC list. FRC lies, not about its religious position or philosophical objection to homsexuality but it lies about LBGT persons and so it is on the list. Simple enough?
Er, thanks Paul, for not considering me a "hater."
As for my argument, the government (we-the-people) aren't interested in promoting romance, we are interested in promoting responsible procreation, which act can only happen between a male and a female, regardless of their individual sexual orientations. However unlikely it may be that a "gay" male or female would desire a marriage, with its opposite-sexed requirement, still, it is both legal and optional. In other words, there exists no ban on gay people entering into marriage. It's not so far-fetched, either:
http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/northern-territory/1153-arranged-weddings-for-gay-orthodox-jews.html
Furthermore, marriage is considered a sexual relationship, though sex is not manditory, naturally. But consangunity and anullment laws correlate directly to the understanding of marriage as a sexual union. If a gay person doesn't want a private sexual relationship with a publicly endorsed marriage, they are not required to enter into one, and are therefore, not looking to be in a marriage. They are looking for a different kind of relationship, but it isn't marriage, though it may resemble marriage in some ways. Homosexual relationships are only one subset of a variety of one-sexed relationships involving two or more people. Neither sexual attraction nor sexual behavior is enough to dilineate them as marriages.
Please recall, too, Paul, that most of the children of so-called "gay" people aren't through adoption, or through lab work. They are the natural consequence of a heterosexual experience. We know that "gay" people can reproduce, because they have, and they do. But it is in the best interests of society to ensure all children that they have the full-time care of both their biological parents, except in cases of abuse (the fault of the parent, not the child). Only marriage promotes this kind of two-sexed commitment to offspring. SSM does not and cannot. SSM is an adult-centric union, wherein children subjected to third-party parenting relationships. Marriage is the most child-friendly institution we have, wherein husband and wife are directly tied to their children as father and mother. For life. There is no other human pairing exactly like it. The sexual orientations of either the male or female don't change that fact.
Hi DoE, I think you are still trying to have it both ways. If a marriage is more than a contract and has unique qualities open only to man-woman combo as then how would a gay man and lesbian getting "married" be a marriage? yes, it would contractually speaking qualify as a marriage but by every measure that NOM supporters define, it would not be a marriage. There is no ban on a gay man marrying a woman as a contractual state but there is neither any option open to him to form a contractual, public relationship having the qualities of love and responsibilities that are the part of ingredients of marriage.
There is no other relationship like a man-woman, of course. That relationship is of course good for bringing up kids. But marriage has functions other than that and the state has an interest in those functions.
1. stability - better to have married couples than unmarried regardless of offspring
2. health - long term stable partners are more healthy
3. adoption - better to have stable family than not for this very necessary function in any society where unfortunately not all heterosexuals make good parents
I am not convinced that 'two-sexed' or two gendered relationship is any more or less effective than same gendered. I know that social factors can influence but I speak from experience and say that the same sex parents I know are good and better than some straight parents. You can't draw some kind of black line down the middle here.
Paul McMichael, you pointed me to the SPLC website as if that would contradict what I had said in my earlier comment. But it actually provides evidence that what I said is true.
Also the SSM campaign far and wide routinely portrays the man-woman basis of marriage as a religious basis that is not a legitimate basis for marriage law.
So your reply to me is wrong in more than one way.
Indeed your comments to Daughter of Eve illustrate the progay bigotry of your view.
Another comment is in the que.
Paul McMichael please state your intended meaning for -
1) real marriage
2) sham marriage
Try not to contradict yourself.
Note that Daughter of Eve has been consistent and you have not fairly responded to what she has actually said. But in your comments you have invoked certain standards and rules of thought and argumentation. On that basis your answers will be assessed.
Is there a homosexual requirement for those who'd SSM? Obviously, no.
Is there a sexual basis for SSM in law? Nope. There is nothing in SSM law that provides such a sexual basis.
No place that has imposed SSM even has a proposed sexual basis for SSM.
No, Paul, there is no societal significance to samesex sexual behavior that would merit a special status on par with marital status.
Private significance is not sufficient.
I disagree. There are no two ways about marriage. If a male and female, of whatever sexual orientation, agree to enter into a marriage with full disclosure, and 100% commitment on both their parts, they can have a successful marriage. No marriage is without its challenges; the key to success is 100% commitment to marriage vows. No one is obligated to marry, and all marriages take work and putting the other spourse before one's self interest. It's really very simple.
Stability: marriage offers a particular kind of stability by 1) integrating both sexes which leads to another unique stability, which is 2) parent/child stability. SSM, at best, creates a 3 parent scenario for children, much like what children of divorced opposite-sexed parents give. The parent/step-parent scenario may have longevity, but longevity cannot be conflated with stability. Many relationships are stable, that still do not qualify as marriages: committed siblings, commited parent/child relationships, etc. Government doesn't license and regulate all of them as marriage.
Continuing:
The argument for SSM has lead to the 3 parent scenerio in CA, which is hardly stablizing for the children involved. Marriage between a man and a woman is the only low-conflict, longest term, sex integrating union we have, simultaneously for children and adults. Undoing that will lead to less stability, not more.
Long term health benefits: studies only confirm that for long-term opposite sex married spouses. Studies show that abstinance before marriage and monogamy afterwards are important. Studies also show that statistically, homosexual relationships are NOT characterized by either abstiance before marriage, nor monogamy afterwards. Also, homosexual relationships statistically involve much higher rates of domestic violence, which is hardly condusive to longevity of the relationship, nor stability in society. For references, please see the United Families International Family Studies issues.
Adoption: studies show that there are by far more married couples (as in male+female) waiting to adopt, than there exist adoptable children. These couples can provide what nature already gave children: a mother and a father. Most same-sex couples raising children are not homosexual, most are not same sex attracted, and most are not gay. Most are, in fact, already kin to each other. Make marriage sex neutral would still not bequeath marriage protections to these same-sexed parents.
If you remain unconvinced that both mothers and fathers are equally responsible to take full responsibility for their own offspring, it sounds as though you have more thinking to do.
Pat supports false accusations that the SPLC has spewed against the FRC. By Pat's reliance on the stated standards of the SPLC, Pat supports a hate group ... namely the SLC.
Where is Pat and is he prepared to held morally accountable for supporting that hate group?
Likewise Paul McMichael.