Friday, June 04, 2010

PFOX Complains Because the PTA Doesn't Want Them

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) lives to feel sorry for themselves. Oh, pity those poor straight people who used to be gay, nobody recognizes them as a special group, everybody picks on them. Now it's the PTA. Here's a whiny Chistian Newswire account of their latest boo-hoo:

CHICAGO, June 3 /Christian Newswire/ -- Charles ('Chuck') Saylors, hailed as the first male president of the Parents Teachers Association (PTA), has rejected a pro-family organization's request to exhibit at the national PTA convention. Although the PTA allows gay rights groups to exhibit, Saylors rejected the exhibit application of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX).

PFOX is a family organization that educates the public on the message of hope and support for students, families and educators affected by homosexuality, gender confusion, and school bullying.

According to the PTA's website, Saylors is a Southern Baptist deacon, attends Forestville Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina and is the past president of the South Carolina PTA.

"PFOX emailed the PTA for eight months while seeking a response to our request for an exhibit booth at the annual PTA convention," said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX. "We also left voice mail messages for Saylors."

"But Saylors chose not to speak with PFOX. Instead, he sent an email accusing us of not meeting the PTA's 'Diversity and Inclusion Policy.'" (See Saylor's email at

"Why is it gay groups meet the PTA Diversity and Inclusion Policy but our families do not? 'Diversity' and 'inclusion' should mean exactly that -- diversity and inclusion of everyone," said Griggs. (See PFOX email to PTA at

"Instead, gay groups like PFLAG that deny public access to ex-gays and disrupt church events welcoming former homosexuals are approved by the PTA while ex-gay groups are not," said Griggs. PTA Says PFOX Families Not Welcome at PTA Convention

Good for the PTA. PFOX is an anti-gay group with a superficially clever angle that might sound reasonable to someone who is not paying attention. They insist that gay people can stop being gay, which is incorrect if you mean that sexual orientation can really be changed. Then they go a step further and complain that gay people who become straight are discriminated against. PFOX then demands equal rights for "ex-gays," often going to court, almost always losing.

They can complain about this, but it has been tested in court and the principle is easy to understand. PFOX's core beliefs are the opposite of the inclusive principles that the PTA adheres to as a matter of policy. The PTA accepts people of all sexual orientations, and PFOX, no matter how cheerily they phrase it, opposes gay people. If there are ex-gay people, their sexual orientation is heterosexual, not an issue.

You gotta love that question, though: why do gay groups meet the inclusion policy and anti-gay groups do not? (Hint: it's called an inclusion policy.)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

both Christopher Hitchens and his brother, Peter, have books out this summer

I'll probably read both but make sure not to miss Peter's, which describes why disbelief in God cannot be maintained by the intellectually honest

June 04, 2010 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Environmentalists aren't the only ones to blame. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.

June 04, 2010 11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department's laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among those bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP's inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to "push them out of the way."

"To replace them with what?" asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep out-of-control oil well.

Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on "for a decade or more" -- translation: Bush did it -- while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem "from the day he took office."

Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior's Minerals Management Service of understating the "risk and impacts" of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.

In the end, speeches will make no difference. If the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August -- it will become Obama's Katrina.

That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.

Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."

Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn't be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides.

June 04, 2010 11:37 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Look who is asking to pay higher taxes to support an Obama led federal response to a private industry's catastrophic failure.

A misinformed one, who thinks environmentalists are to blame for the oil industry's greed.

You should read this one: Unstoppable Oil: Gulf Catastrophe Has Political Fallout in California

Californians have poor public transportation, pay some of the highest gasoline prices in the nation, and are so dependent on their automobiles that the prospect of an energy shortage is frightening. The thirst for oil here is so considerable that in recent years it has caused Californians to rethink their traditional opposition to offshore oil drilling.

Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a green advocate in other respects, backed a plan for drilling off the state's scenic Santa Barbara coastline. The plan was the brainchild of environmentalists who since the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 have considered oil rigs the work of the devil.

But all previous bets are off in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. This faraway BP disaster prompted Schwarzenegger to scuttle the deal negotiated by environmentalists with the oil company PXP. Another oil drilling project in the sleepy coastal town of Carpenteria, a few miles south of Santa Barbara, is on the June 8 ballot and in jeopardy.

This proposal, known as Measure J, would allow the oil company Venoco to build a 17-story on-shore drilling rig that would extend pipes deep into the ocean floor. Although there have been no published opinion polls, supporters have acknowledged that the prospects of Measure J have been damaged by the BP gulf spill. A recent Los Angeles Times-USC survey found that half of California's voters oppose new oil drilling off the state's coast; in 2008 and 2009 this survey found a majority of public support for such drilling.

The plan that Schwarzenegger jettisoned last month in the wake of the BP spill was known as the Tranquillon Ridge Project or T-Ridge. Under the terms of an elaborate agreement negotiated by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and PXP, the oil company would have given up long-term rights to drill in nearby federal waters in return for a short-term lease to drill in state waters from an existing oil platform.

The agreement divided local environmentalists, but on balance it seemed a win-win for everyone...

...But in the aftermath of the BP spill, Schwarzenegger, an actor who appreciates the power of visuals, was having none of it. A few days after the Deepwater Horizon blowout, the governor said at a Sacramento press conference, "You turn on the television and see this enormous disaster; you say to yourself, 'Why would we want to take on that kind of risk'?"

He did not mention -- nor was he asked -- about what the EDC sees as the greater risk of drilling in deeper federal waters, as PXP is now free to do. Typically, as a governor who acts on impulse without informing his allies, Schwarzenegger did not give the EDC or the oil company advance warning of what he was going to say...

The California GOP idea to change the constitution so Arnold, who helped them oust Gov. Gray Davis, could run for President seems so long ago...

June 05, 2010 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well...looks like the wacko "Anonymous" is back with us!
Once again, we have to be subjected to rants and raves that are entirely off subject, not to say irrelevant and preachy.
I wish the moderator would take control and eliminate these rogue commentaries when they do not pertain to the subject, which, in this case was: "PFOX Complains Because the PTA Doesn't Want Them"

June 05, 2010 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe you should start a blog, Dio

then you could control all thought in a small little universe of your own

June 05, 2010 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

They may be off topic, but Anon's comments reflect the same mindset as Regina Griggs' IMHO. Both of them repeat their lies over and over in hopes that someone will buy what they are selling, which is nothing more than dangerous misinformation.

Regina does spreads misinformation because she wants her son to become ex-gay. I have no idea what motivates Anon. But it's important to point out the flaws in fact and logic of their mindset, IMHO.

Regina spreads her notion gay people should become straight. I've never heard of her lobbying for gay people's equal rights, even though the name of her organization, PFOX, was changed to imply they support rights for both gays and ex-gays. (Note: they still call it, "PFOX.") In fact, she lobbies against full civil rights for gays with articles about topics like Same-Sex "Marriage.", with scare quotes included, on the PFOX website. The **only** rights I've ever heard Regina lobby for are rights for ex-gays.

I find Anon's comments interesting because s/he is suggesting that "the few" inhabitants in the Arctic should be willing to sacrifice potential environmental degradation for "the whole," yet Anon also feels "the few" richest Americans (like billionaires, for instance) should not sacrifice a thing for "the whole" of America.

in the Arctic, where there are practically no people

Well, Anon, here's what a single resident of Alaska has to say about that in today's WaPo:

Keep the Arctic off limits to oil drilling

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Charles Krauthammer's May 28 column on the gulf oil spill, "A disaster with many fathers," reflected significant ignorance about the Arctic in its call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Much of the public has been led to believe that the Arctic is a barren white nothingness. This couldn't be further from the truth.

The people of the Gwich'in Nation have lived south of the Brooks Range in this region for 20,000 years. We call the coastal plain of the refuge "the Sacred Place Where Life Begins" because it is the birthing grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd.

Since 1988, the Gwich'in have opposed oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge, which not only contains the most biological diversity in the circumpolar north but also constitutes the 5 percent of Alaska's North Slope not already open to development.

A few days after the spill began in the Gulf of Mexico, I visited Mississippi and Louisiana. The people I met, whose lives are intertwined with their ecosystem, are no different from the people in the Arctic. They are salt-of-the-earth people who just want to enjoy the bounty of the land and sea in peace.

America consumes 25 percent of the world's oil production but contains only 3 percent of its oil. Conservation, improved technology and alternative energy are long overdue. We don't need more development on lands or in waters that sustain so many of us.

IMHO 95% of the North Slope is plenty of access for oil exploration. We should allow the long-term residents of the area to keep the remaining 5% of their lands pristine!

June 05, 2010 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PFOX post;
There you go again, being hateful toward people that think differently than you. Where is do unto others as you would like for them to do to you?

June 05, 2010 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PFOX is hateful to gays.

They reap what they sew.

June 05, 2010 1:03 PM  
Anonymous Research Paper said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

June 05, 2010 2:18 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I am considering that last comment to be spam.


June 05, 2010 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

PFOX continues to hate anything and anyone that is pro-equality for gays. The organization´s name is a complete sham. I have to hand it to them, though; they sure do know how to make those who don´t know better that they are a legit organization. I am just waiting for the SPLC to tag it as a hate group, which it would embrace.

June 06, 2010 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PFOX is the subject of "hateful" comments?

Poor babies...try going through life being the subject of vile lies, hatred, bigotry, physical attacks, imprisonment; being the subject of attempts to deny equal/legal right...the subject of outright distortions of scientific findings in pamphlets distributed to kids in schools; the focus of votes on whether rights (although guaranteed by the Constitution) be put to public vote because of a minority status...on and on and on.

And you weep for a bogus organization whose prominence as a spokesperson for that organization belies her own hatred for her gay child?

Yes, indeed...they reap what they sow.

June 06, 2010 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Re: PFOX post):

"There you go again, being hateful toward people that think differently than you. Where is do unto others as you would like for them to do to you?"

The irony of using that Biblical injunction to advance your cause to do harm to GLBT people is incredibly astounding, insensitive, and stupid - to say the least!

June 06, 2010 12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the fact remains that when the tactic of a side, such as liberals use now against PFOX, is to silence rather than disagree, it amounts to a concessions that you can't counter their ideas

doesn't take an Einstein, or Michelangelo, to see that

June 07, 2010 6:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It becomes a moral imperative to oppose evil and hatred whenever and wherever it exists.

No one silences the voice of everyone else in this country, they have the freedom to espouse their lies and bigoty to whomever will give them an ear. As with the Phelps clan in Kansas, they have the right to do this.

Speaking out against their lies is also a right guaranteed by the Constitution and if that is perceived as being "silenced" that is their unfortunate conclusion and a distortion of reality.

Using your "logic", should we assume that you would have been a supporter of Fr. Couglin in the 1930's in his virulent antiSemitic speeches, radio broadcasts, and other airing of his hate speech? Would you have labeled those who opposed him, and said so publicly, anti-Free Speech Americans who were silencing him?

When you expose your ideas and programs to public scrutiny and debate, you cannot expect a "Get Out of Jail" card to protect you from those who disagree with you.

June 07, 2010 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

PFOX is called "Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays" largely because in their non-lobbying affairs they are a support group for parents who don't accept their LGBT children, and give advice on how parents can feel good about rejecting their kids.

June 07, 2010 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Speaking out against their lies is also a right guaranteed by the Constitution and if that is perceived as being "silenced" that is their unfortunate conclusion and a distortion of reality."

speaking out is fine

the tactic here is to prevent the opposition from speaking

it's a common tactic of gay advocates

it indicates they fear they will lose any fair debate

which they usually do

when you're wrong, you fear the fair

June 09, 2010 6:42 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

the tactic here is to prevent the opposition from speaking

Nobody is stopping PFOX from speaking. PFOX's website remains up where they freely speak their mind about why gays should try to change to ex-gays.

The court ruled a victory for PFOX:

OHR’s determination that a characteristic must be immutable to be protected under the HRA is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. . . . Indeed, the HRA lists numerous protected categories such as religion, personal appearance, familial status, and source of income, which are subject to change. . . . Pertaining to sexual orientation, moreover, the HRA in §2-1401.02(28) defines sexual orientation as “male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, by preference or practice.” Thus, the HRA’s intent and plain language eschews narrow interpretation.

In other words, ex-gay people are entitled to the same protections gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are entitled too, and visa versa.

But the court also ruled against PFOX's attempt to force the NEA to let them set up a booth at the NEA convention because of the NEA's view of PFOX's hostility "toward gays and lesbians," just as the NEA is free to deny booth space to any group that disagrees with the NEA's positions, as follows:

The Court affirms OHR’s ultimate determination that PFOX’s application was denied legally. In NEA’s judgment, PFOX is a conversion group hostile toward gays and lesbians. Thus, even though PFOX vehemently disagrees with NEA’s characterization, it is within NEA’s right to exclude PFOX’s presence at NEA’s conventions. . . . Indeed, the HRA would not require NEA to accept an application from the Ku Klux Klan or a group viewed by the NEA as anti-labor union or racist. . . . Similarly, military organizations and the Boy Scotts of America are excluded from renting exhibit space at the NEA Annual Meetings because of the positions those organizations take with regard to gay and lesbian rights.

. . . Thus, PFOX’s arguments miss the point. The NEA did not reject its application because PFOX’s members include exgays, homosexuals, heterosexuals, or members of any other sexual orientation. Rather, NEA rejected PFOX’s application because PFOX’s message and policies were, in NEA’s opinion, contrary to NEA’s policies regarding sexual orientation.

June 09, 2010 10:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home