Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Perkins Proves Their Point

The Family Research Council was added to the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate-group list, along with a few other anti-gay groups. It's about time.

Not surprisingly, people at those organizations complained. They are used to getting a mainstream media soapbox, and they have tried to present the idea that it is preposterous to call them hate groups when all they want is to promote good Christian family values.

The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins went on Hardball last night to complain to the American viewing audience about being branded as a hate group.

The video is HERE -- you gotta see this. I'll let Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin describe what happens and what it represents:
The Family “Research” Council’s Tony Perkins appeared on Chris Matthew’s Hardball on MSNBC today to demonstrate his outrage over the Southern Poverty Law Center’s adding his organization to their very small list of anti-gay hate groups.

SPLC’s Mark Potok explained that the FRC earned its Hate Group designation due to the FRC’s persistent acts in demonizing LGBT Americans with false research and statistics. Perkins then set out to defend his group by demonizing LGBT Americans with false research in statistics:
"If you go back to the Archives of Sexual Behavior, a peer-reviewed reviewed journal, that stated that in self-identified… 86% of men, homosexual men, or who engage… or men who engage in molestation of children, 86% of them identified as homosexual or bisexual. That study has not been refuted."

The study was not “refuted,” in Perkins’ terminology, simply because the finding was not considered to be significant, not even by its authors. The study, “Behavior patterns of child molesters” by W.D. Erickson, N.H. Walbek, and R.K. Seely which appeared more than twenty years ago (1988, to be exact), didn’t set out to determine the sexual orientation of child molesters. The study, of 229 convicted child molesters in Minnesota, (which, by the way, was never intended to be nationally representative in any way) was focused on the types of sexual contact the men engaged in with their victims — vaginal or anal penetration, oral contact, and so forth. In this particular sample, 63 victims were male, and 166 victims were female. The “finding” that Perkins and company found so exciting is encapsulated in just one sentence: “Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”

That’s right, one lone sentence out of a ten page document, buried deeply within the text. In other words, the authors themselves didn’t see it as a significant finding. And it may be because the authors didn’t delve into the adult relationship makeup of these offenders, or what criteria the offenders used in their self-labeling. Nor did they attempt to investigate whether there was any validity to their self-labeling.

And this is key, because child sexual abuse experts understand that abusers often have little to no sexual attraction to other adults of any gender, which means that in clinical terms they are actually pedophiles rather than homosexual or bisexual. And while many pedophiles will identify themselves using the language of heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual, their crimes are no more relevant to LGBT equality than the prevalence of heterosexuals among rapists are relevant to straight people.

This study did not investigate sexual orientation. It did set out to answer the questions that the investigators sought to answer, which was what kind of sexual contact did offenders initiate with their victims? FRC, however, took a single sentence from a study that did not try to investigate the sexual orientation of offenders, and amplified a throw-away line as though it were the entire study’s reason for being. And because it didn’t investigate sexual orientation, it’s illegitimate to to amplify one lone throw-away sentence into “overwhelming scientific evidence” — those are Tony Perkin’s words — that gays are a threat to children.

The reason the FRC is legitimately a part of the SPLC’s list of hate groups is their penchant for taking one line from a study out of context, and present that single sentence as being somehow more significant than the tons of studies that experts in the field of child sexual abuse have conducted through the ages. We have summarized many of those findings in our report, Testing the Premise: Are Gays a Threat To Our Children? Interestingly, that report was prompted, in part, by a specious tract put out by the FRC a few years earlier. That specific tract has been withdrawn, but not because they woke up and realized their so-called “research” was bogus. They still hold to their false linkages between homosexuality and child sexual abuse here and, more significantly, here (PDF: 312KB/22 pages).

“86 Percent” of Tony Perkins’s Statistics Are Rubbish

Thanks to BTB for doing the dirty work of analyzing obscure information consistently and well for a long time.

If you watched the video, you heard Perkins refer to warnings by the American College of Pediatricians. We have talked about them quite a bit on this blog. BTB has a nice way of describing them.
Oh, and nice touch there, when Tony Perkins adds, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a risk to children.”

The American College of Pediatricians is a rump political group formed in 2002 in response to the much, much larger American Academy of Pediatrics’ statement in support for LGBT parental rights. The AAP is made up of some 60,000 members who know more than just about anyone what’s best for children. The American College of Pediatricians, on the other hand, is made up of a couple hundred dissenters who, by judging from their web site, are mainly concerned with homosexuality more than the plethora of childhood health issues that your average pediatrician is much more likely to care about.

When the SPLC announced that they were adding the FRC to their small list of anti-gay hate groups, they cited the FRC’s “propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.” Tony Perkins responded by providing convincing proof of the SPLC’s allegations. And he did it with the slightest hint of embarrassment.

"A rump political group," I love the sound of that.

Yes, today I am simply copying and pasting from Box Turtle Bulletin, because they have done a great job of presenting and dissecting Tony Perkins' words on Hardball. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been keeping track of hate groups for a long time, they are not capricious about assigning the label. It's bound to be harder for mainstream media to propagate the messages of bigots now without saying that the group is a known hate group.

24 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And it may be because the authors didn’t delve into the adult relationship makeup of these offenders, or what criteria the offenders used in their self-labeling. Nor did they attempt to investigate whether there was any validity to their self-labeling."

Excellent point! You see, it's very difficult for sex offenders to determine whether they've had sex with men, women or both.

November 30, 2010 7:30 PM  
Anonymous all you need is love said...

"(Dec. 1) -- The Smithsonian has removed a video from an exhibit on gay love at its National Portrait Gallery after conservative groups and lawmakers condemned the art as "hate speech" intended to offend Christians ahead of Christmas.

Art historians and curators say the exhibit, which features works from artists like lesbian Georgia O'Keeffe, is simple blasphemy and includes the video, which depicts Jesus on a crucifix covered with ants.

Conservative lawmakers Tuesday threatened to pull the Washington gallery's funding. They said the video, along with the rest of the exhibit, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," is sacrilegious and a waste of taxpayer money.

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, said the exhibit was an "outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season." He called for the museum to "pull the exhibit and be prepared for serious questions come budget time."

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner said that the video was "symbolic of the arrogance Washington routinely applies to thousands of spending decisions involving Americans' hard-earned money at a time when one in every 10 Americans is out of work and our children's future is being threatened by debt." And Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said the exhibit was "in-your-face perversion paid for by tax dollars."

Catholic League President Bill Donohue agreed and called the video "hate speech" against Christians. "What concerns me is that the government is underwriting this assault on Christian sensibilities calculated to offend during the Christmas season," he said.

David Ward, one of the exhibit's curators, said of the video, "That it is violent, disturbing and hallucinatory precisely replicates the impact of AIDS on people and a society that could barely comprehend its magnitude."

Wendy Olsoff, the co-owner of the PPOW Gallery, said "This is about fear, fear of diversity. People are trying to use art to scare the public."

Michael Ward Stout, president of the Mapplethorpe Foundation, said "This amounts to the Christian Right's idea that they should become curators, and it's not acceptable in this country. Leave it in the hands of the arts professional."

Others said the outcry over the exhibit -- which focuses on the theme of gay love and features a portrait of comedian Ellen DeGeneres touching her breasts and naked brothers kissing -- reeked of homophobia. "The attack is on gayness, and images of it, more than on sacrilege," Blake Gopnik, an art writer, wrote in The Washington Post. "And the Portrait Gallery has given in to this attack."

"If they've got money to squander like this -- of a crucifix being eaten by ants, of Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, men in chains, naked brothers kissing -- then I think we should look at their budget," said Kingston.

December 01, 2010 6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"....and naked brothers kissing..."

Not to mention that it portrays Incestual Gayness Amongst Two Adult, Consenting Brothers.

Seems to me that the TTFers should be against this too.

Or is gay incest amongst adults okay?

December 01, 2010 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible

December 02, 2010 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ho ho -- that answers my question!

December 02, 2010 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Or is gay incest amongst adults okay?"

interesting that the answer to this question from a TTFer is not "no"

December 02, 2010 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

You seem to label people who might possibly disagree with you as "TTFers." Are you not such yourself, given your frequency of commenting here? Do you consider me a TTFer?

rrjr

December 02, 2010 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert,

A TTFer is not someone who merely contributes to the conversation here but someone who supports the mission of TTF.

You're a TTFer.

So is the guy who answered the question, "is gay incest amongst adults okay?", with a list of examples of incest in the Bible.

btw, what's good on the telly tonight?

December 02, 2010 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incest, like certain other human behaviors, crosses natural boundaries.

Thus, it's a certainty that not everyone will be against it.

December 02, 2010 5:11 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Or is gay incest amongst adults okay?”

“interesting that the answer to this question from a TTFer is not "no"”


More interesting that the question is even being asked, given that you already approve of God’s incestuous design for family.

December 03, 2010 6:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

".....God’s incestuous design for family."

That's right. According to the Bible, all early generations of mankind, other than Adam and Eve themselves, were the product of God-approved incestuous breeding. Many believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Incest met with God's approval when Amnon raped his sister and when Cain and Abraham each married their sisters, although Sara was only Abraham's was half-sister who sprang from the same non-monogamous father.

Does God of the BIble think incest with a half-sibling is only half as bad as incest with a full sibling?

Does Tony Perkins approve of God's approval of incestuous marriage and does the FRC intend to lobby in favor of incestuous marriage as hard as it lobbies against gay marriage?

December 03, 2010 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

quite a dodge, imp, to avoid answering this question:

“Or is gay incest amongst adults okay?”

I didn't ask the question myself but watching you bob and weave to avoid answering is amusing.

December 03, 2010 8:13 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“quite a dodge, imp, to avoid answering this question: … “Or is gay incest amongst adults okay?” … I didn't ask the question myself but watching you bob and weave to avoid answering is amusing.”

God’s already answered the question. Or do you think human opinion supersedes God’s Word on the matter?

If you do, say so.
--
“Dodge, bob and weave”

Projection. Like I said before, open a Cineplex.

December 05, 2010 11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"God’s already answered the question. Or do you think human opinion supersedes God’s Word on the matter?"

well, God's word reveals that homosexuality is wrong but since you disagree with God on that, I think the person who asked the question wanted to know if you also think gay incest is OK

If you do, say so.

December 05, 2010 8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"well, God's word reveals that homosexuality is wrong..." but since

Oh, my, Anon...thanks so much for your interpretation of God's word. Seems like you opt for selecting which of God's words you will agree to while conveniently overlooking God's word about the too-numerous sins of folks like you. The time you spend trying to "cleanse" homosexuals of their "sins" overshadows your unrecognizable attempts to fix the sins of your own kind of people. Of course, in your response, you will, as always, side-step this issue.

You really are a hypoctite!

December 06, 2010 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's "hypocrite"

December 06, 2010 9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"thanks so much for your interpretation of God's word"

it's not a matter of interpretation

scripture is quite perspicuous on the matter

"Seems like you opt for selecting which of God's words you will agree to while conveniently overlooking God's word about the too-numerous sins of folks like you."

it may "seem" like that to you but you have a false impression

scripture says all men are sinners

obviously, not all men are homosexuals so what does that tell you?

"The time you spend trying to "cleanse" homosexuals of their "sins""

in all my days, which are numerous, I don't remember ever spending any time at all doing such a thing

"overshadows your unrecognizable attempts to fix the sins of your own kind of people.""

I'm not the judging kind so I don't try to "fix the sins" of anybody

"Of course, in your response, you will, as always, side-step this issue."

what issue?

that homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in scripture?

never once "side-stepped" that

December 06, 2010 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Seems to me that the TTFers should be against this too.

Or is gay incest amongst adults okay?"

someone asked this last week, giving TTFers the benefit of the doubt

the only response was a series of attacks on the Bible and anyone who believes in it

I guess since there's been no answer to the question, we should assume the worst

December 06, 2010 1:01 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Part 1
--
“well, God's word reveals that homosexuality is wrong but since you disagree with God on that, I think the person who asked the question wanted to know if you also think gay incest is OK”

Thank you for the insight. The way you just put it makes more sense.

But don't get giddy, we'll be revisiting this soon.
--
“it's not a matter of interpretation … scripture is quite perspicuous on the matter”

Actually it’s not “quite perspicuous on the matter,” and you’d know that if you’d educated yourself on the history of the Bible. But that would require a belief in facts.

You may come to the same conclusion, but Scripture is not at all “perspicuous on the matter.”
--
friend of TTF: "Seems like you opt for selecting which of God's words you will agree to while conveniently overlooking God's word about the too-numerous sins of folks like you."
Sociopathanon: “it may "seem" like that to you but you have a false impression”

“A false impression”? Actions speak louder than words.
--
“scripture says all men are sinners … obviously, not all men are homosexuals so what does that tell you?”

It tells me that you’re a liar. It’s a great ploy, though. To claim that we’re all sinners in order to portray yourself as feeling equal to LGBT persons, when in fact, it’s just an attempt to hide your sense of superiority.

There’s a line in “Animal Farm” that nails it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Spoken: We’re all sinners
Unspoken thought: But some of us are more sinful than others.

Spoken: We’re all sinners
Unspoken thought: But some of us are more repentant than others.

Etcetera

It’s a lie of omission used to feign equality for the sake of embroidering your hateful motives with an air of humility.

December 07, 2010 9:33 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Part 2
--
Friend: "The time you spend trying to "cleanse" homosexuals of their "sins""
‘Pathanon: “in all my days, which are numerous, I don't remember ever spending any time at all doing such a thing”

Of course not, you’re too busy trying to cleanse society of homosexuals.
--
Friend“overlooking God's word about the too-numerous sins of folks like you. …you will, as always, side-step this issue”
‘Pathanon: “what issue? … that homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in scripture? … never once "side-stepped" that”

Case closed.
--
“well, God's word reveals that homosexuality is wrong but since you disagree with God on that, I think the person who asked the question wanted to know if you also think gay incest is OK”

To which I respond, via ‘Pathanon’s paraphrasing:

Well, God’s Word reveals that incest is a blessed-by-God way to procreate, but since you disagree with God on that, I’d like to know if you think heterosexual polygamy is ok.

And while we’re at it, what else to you disagree with God on?
--
“the only response was a series of attacks on the Bible and anyone who believes in it”

Until you're willing to specify what constitutes an attack, and do so with examples, your statement remains a baseless claim.
--
Commenter who never answers questions: “guess since there's been no answer to the question, we should assume the worst”

By all means, assume the worst -- that you worship a god that considers incest to be a family value.
--
But fine, I can't resist, I’ll answer it. And I think I speak for most, if not all TTFers when I say:

I DON’T SPEND MY TIME THINKING ABOUT INCEST!

December 07, 2010 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wasn't there an imp-post Part II earlier?

didn't seem to say much but odd that it disappeared

"Actually it’s not “quite perspicuous on the matter,” and you’d know that if you’d educated yourself on the history of the Bible. But that would require a belief in facts."

Yes, they are perspicuous. The only counter to the verses are along the lines of the serpent in the Garden: "God didn't really say that." The usual form of this is to say that the verses actually mean male prostitutes or some type of depravity among specific homosexuals but homosexuality itself. But there is no basis for this speculation.

I assumed you've read the passages but let me know if you haven't.

btw, I may not be an expert on Bible history but I have an above average knowledge of the subject. If there's something you think I may not be aware of, please let me know what it is.

"Actions speak louder than words."

Well since your knowledge of me is limited to my words here, you'd be well-advised to stick with what you know.

"It tells me that you’re a liar. It’s a great ploy, though. To claim that we’re all sinners in order to portray yourself as feeling equal to LGBT persons, when in fact, it’s just an attempt to hide your sense of superiority."

you probably just think that because I am so superior in my rhetorical skills to the TTFers but, no, I don't claim any moral superiority over homosexuals or, for that matter, anyone else

"There’s a line in “Animal Farm” that nails it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Spoken: We’re all sinners
Unspoken thought: But some of us are more sinful than others.

Spoken: We’re all sinners
Unspoken thought: But some of us are more repentant than others."

all of the above is baseless rubbish

"It’s a lie of omission used to feign equality for the sake of embroidering your hateful motives with an air of humility."

if only I were that clever

hey, is that feigned humility too?

maybe feigned humility is innate

December 07, 2010 11:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nothing's posting here, Jim

December 08, 2010 5:20 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

The Blogger "spam filter" seems to arbitrarily select random comments and block them. I have released the ones that were screened out yesterday. Just let us know if this happens, and one of the administrators will fix it.

JimK

December 08, 2010 7:41 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

‘Pathanon: “God's word reveals that homosexuality is wrong … scripture is quite perspicuous on the matter”

If that be the case…

Leviticus 20:13: “If a man has sexual relations with a man … They are to be put to death.”

Do you support God’s perspicuous revelation that gay men should be put to death?

December 10, 2010 4:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home