Does SPLC encourage hate?

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228
Does SPLC encourage hate?

By defining groups they disagree with such as the Family Research Council as hate groups are the SPLC themselves encouraging hate?

An FBI affidavit in the investigation of a shooting Wednesday at the downtown Washington, D.C., offices of the Family Research Council says the accused gunman uttered a statement to the effect of, "I don't like your politics," before reaching into a backpack for a handgun and opening fire.

Perkins gave his first interview to Fox News' "America Live." He made it clear that he blamed the suspect for the shooting, but said he was "given a license" by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which labeled the Family Research Council as a hate group.

"I think it's time for people to realize what the Southern Poverty Law Center is doing with their reckless labeling of organizations that they disagree with," he said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center declined an interview request from the program.

Corkins had volunteered recently at a community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Two law enforcement officials said Corkins was carrying sandwiches from Chick-fil-A, a fast-food chain whose chief executive?s public opposition to same-sex marriage led to a heated national cultural debate, including boycotts and events held in support of the Atlanta-based chain.

Read more: Accused gunman ripped Family Research Council policies before opening fire, sources say | Fox News

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Hate against who? Against hate groups? No, I don't think that identifying a hate group is the same as like, being a hate group. If I say "The KKK is a well known hate group" would you really think that I'm "encouraging hate?"

Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

No, I think this individual was disturbed. I don't think he was given license by any group to attack people.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I dont believe that assigning labels encourages hate. I do not like assigning labels like the SPLC does though

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

For many years now, Focus on the Family (FOTF) has been one of the most respected and influential evangelical ministries in the country, and so it came as quite a shock when, earlier this month, FOTF’s traditional, pro-family views were deemed so extreme that TOMS Shoes founder Blake Mycoskie, himself a member of an evangelical church, decided to break ties with them. He stated, “Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family’s beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event.”

Prior to his apology, Mycoskie had been blasted for his association with FOTF, and a blogger on the radically leftist Daily Kos website complained “that Mycoskie and his company TOMS supports one of the quintessential hate groups, Focus on the Family, which was named as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” Focus on the Family a “quintessential hate group”?

If it’s any consolation, FOTF is not alone. When Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced a stadium prayer event to be held on Aug. 6, he came under heavy and immediate fire, not just over an alleged violation of the separation of church and state, but also because he was cooperating with the American Family Association (AFA), another so-called hate group. Yes, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has branded the organization founded by Don Wildmon, best known for his calls for boycotts over morally offensive programming and advertising, as a hate group. (To be technical, the SPLC labeled them an “anti-gay group” but featured them on the same list with the other “hate groups.” Since then, the liberal media, almost without exception, has labeled the AFA an SPLC-designated hate group. And because the SPLC in the past labeled FOTF an “anti-gay group,” they too are considered to be on the SPLC’s hate group list.)

What is the SPLC’s criteria for such extreme charges? It claims that the groups in question (which include the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America) knowingly disseminate false information and demonizing propaganda about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, as documented by them (I use the word “documented” lightly) in their report “10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked,” published late last year.

And while the report itself is nothing new, what is new is that its findings are now coming to national attention through these recent events. And many people, rather than questioning the SPLC, are instead questioning these venerable family organizations. Perhaps it is time to ask this question: Is it the SPLC that should be designated a hate group? Are they the ones spreading false information and demonizing propaganda about other groups, thereby defaming their good names and placing them in the ranks of the KKK and neo-****s?

It should first be recalled that the actual SPLC report was terribly flawed, as I and a number of others pointed out. For example, based on the report, if you state that kids do best when raised by a mom and dad (as opposed to two moms or two dads), you are propagating a known falsehood. Or if you agree with the many therapists and psychologists who argue that a child’s upbringing and early-life experiences (including being sexually abused) play a major role in the development of his or her sexual orientation, you are propagating a known falsehood. The same is true if you claim that hate crime laws could lead to the arresting of pastors who criticize homosexuality (this has already happened in Sweden, England and Canada), or if you argue that it would be detrimental to the military to have gays serving openly. Yes, according to the SPLC, disseminating such views officially constitutes “hate.”

All of which begs the question: Is the SPLC, by its own criteria, the real hate group? It still carries weight in plenty of circles here in America, and so when it categorizes an organization as a hate group, many people of good conscience are influenced by that designation, one which is quite stigmatizing and destructive, as evidenced by the recent events involving FOTF and AFA mentioned above. Yet it is the leaders of the SPLC who are either irresponsibly attacking other fine organizations, or worse still, knowingly defaming them.

Who then deserves the title of “hate group,” Focus on the Family or the Southern Poverty Law Center? Who has been guilty of demonizing others and spreading hurtful, inaccurate information? Whose actions and words have been hateful? The record speaks for itself.

Southern Poverty Law Center: The Real Hate Group?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

t should first be recalled that the actual SPLC report was terribly flawed, as I and a number of others pointed out. For example, based on the report, if you state that kids do best when raised by a mom and dad (as opposed to two moms or two dads), you are propagating a known falsehood. Or if you agree with the many therapists and psychologists who argue that a child’s upbringing and early-life experiences (including being sexually abused) play a major role in the development of his or her sexual orientation, you are propagating a known falsehood. The same is true if you claim that hate crime laws could lead to the arresting of pastors who criticize homosexuality (this has already happened in Sweden, England and Canada), or if you argue that it would be detrimental to the military to have gays serving openly. Yes, according to the SPLC, disseminating such views officially constitutes “hate.”

Same old "Don't call us bigots just because we act like bigots! That makes YOU the bigot!" nonsense as always. Here is the article they're saying is spreading hate. More like countering hateful nonsense with actual research and facts. :rolleyes:

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked | Southern Poverty Law Center

Ever since born-again singer and orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant helped kick off the contemporary anti-gay movement more than 30 years ago, hard-line elements of the religious right have been searching for ways to demonize gay people — or, at a minimum, to find arguments that will prevent their normalization in society. For the former Florida beauty queen and her Save Our Children group, it was the alleged plans of gay men and lesbians to "recruit" in schools that provided the fodder for their crusade.

But in addition to hawking that myth, the legions of anti-gay activists who followed have added a panoply of others, ranging from the extremely doubtful claim that sexual orientation is a choice, to unalloyed lies like the claims that gay men molest children far more than heterosexuals or that hate crime laws will lead to the legalization of bestiality and necrophilia. These fairy tales are important to the anti-gay right because they form the basis of its claim that homosexuality is a social evil that must be suppressed — an opinion rejected by virtually all relevant medical and scientific authorities. They also almost certainly contribute to hate crime violence directed at the LGBT community, which is more targeted for such attacks than any other minority group in America. What follows are 10 key myths propagated by the anti-gay movement, along with the truth behind the propaganda.

MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

THE ARGUMENT
Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children."

THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

Some anti-gay ideologues cite the American College of Pediatricians' opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association as non-factual. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said Facts misrepresented their findings. "It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality," he wrote. "The information they present is misleading and incorrect."

MYTH # 2
Same-sex parents harm children.

THE ARGUMENT
Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.

THE FACTS
No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009.

The American Psychological Association found that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation."

Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."

MYTH # 3
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

THE ARGUMENT
Many anti-gay rights proponents claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will." A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study arguing that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children.

THE FACTS
No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.

The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues that "no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse." The fact sheet goes on to say that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.

Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that someone can make another person gay or heterosexual.

With regard to Schumm's study, critics have already said that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, a biased sample that invalidates his findings.

MYTH # 4
LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay organizations want to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice." Furthermore, the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians are often offered as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.

THE FACTS
This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled, "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from gay newspapers, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.

Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."

However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."


MYTH # 5

Gay men controlled the **** Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.

THE ARGUMENT
This claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the **** Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.

The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the **** party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims.

"While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in ****sm," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in **** Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"

These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.

THE FACTS
The Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a line-by-line refutation of an earlier (1994) Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the **** Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.

The myth that the ****s condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the ****s as a slander against **** leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst R?hm, was gay. (R?hm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The ****s considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.

When the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the **** regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.

In 1942, the ****s instituted the death penalty for gay men. Offenders in the German military were routinely shot. Himmler put it like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."

MYTH # 6
Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."

In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.

THE FACTS
The claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The Constitution provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected. (Note from Alissa: Sweden, Enlgand, and other countries do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution and thus may make different laws than we do.)

Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) — "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined by the American Psychiatric Assocation, are disorders characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at nonhuman objects or non-consenting persons like children, or that involve the suffering or humiliation of one's partner.

Even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.

MYTH # 7
Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civilian society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.

THE FACTS
Gays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and September 2011, they could not serve openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries, including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.

A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would not re-enlist if the DADT policy were repealed. That would mean some 228,000 people may leave the military in the wake of the 2011 ending of that policy. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.

MYTH # 8
Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice" — even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-gay groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-gay rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.

THE FACTS
All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.

Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."

MYTH # 9
No one is born gay.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.

THE FACTS
Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." One of the more recent is a 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) that appeared in The Archives of Sexual Behavior and concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors."

The American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Still, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a study showing that gay parents produced far more gay children than heterosexual parents. He told a reporter that he was "trying to prove [homosexuality is] not 100% genetic." But critics suggested that his data did not prove that, and, in any event, virtually no scientists have suggested that homosexuality is caused only by genes.

MYTH # 10
Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.

THE ARGUMENT
If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.

A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, plainly states, "You don't have to be gay!" Another, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."

THE FACTS
"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric, and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.

Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Alan Chambers, current president of Exodus, said in 2007 that with years of therapy, he's mostly conquered his attraction to men, but then admitted, "By no means would we ever say that change can be sudden or complete."

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

t should first be recalled that the actual SPLC report was terribly flawed, as I and a number of others pointed out. For example, based on the report, if you state that kids do best when raised by a mom and dad (as opposed to two moms or two dads), you are propagating a known falsehood. Or if you agree with the many therapists and psychologists who argue that a child?s upbringing and early-life experiences (including being sexually abused) play a major role in the development of his or her sexual orientation, you are propagating a known falsehood. The same is true if you claim that hate crime laws could lead to the arresting of pastors who criticize homosexuality (this has already happened in Sweden, England and Canada), or if you argue that it would be detrimental to the military to have gays serving openly. Yes, according to the SPLC, disseminating such views officially constitutes ?hate.?

Same old "Don't call us bigots just because we act like bigots! That makes YOU the bigot!" nonsense as always. Here is the article they're saying is spreading hate. More like countering hateful nonsense with actual research and facts. :rolleyes:

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked | Southern Poverty Law Center

Ever since born-again singer and orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant helped kick off the contemporary anti-gay movement more than 30 years ago, hard-line elements of the religious right have been searching for ways to demonize gay people ? or, at a minimum, to find arguments that will prevent their normalization in society. For the former Florida beauty queen and her Save Our Children group, it was the alleged plans of gay men and lesbians to "recruit" in schools that provided the fodder for their crusade.

But in addition to hawking that myth, the legions of anti-gay activists who followed have added a panoply of others, ranging from the extremely doubtful claim that sexual orientation is a choice, to unalloyed lies like the claims that gay men molest children far more than heterosexuals or that hate crime laws will lead to the legalization of bestiality and necrophilia. These fairy tales are important to the anti-gay right because they form the basis of its claim that homosexuality is a social evil that must be suppressed ? an opinion rejected by virtually all relevant medical and scientific authorities. They also almost certainly contribute to hate crime violence directed at the LGBT community, which is more targeted for such attacks than any other minority group in America. What follows are 10 key myths propagated by the anti-gay movement, along with the truth behind the propaganda.

MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

THE ARGUMENT
Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality ? and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children."

THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester ? the stereotypical pedophile ? cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

Some anti-gay ideologues cite the American College of Pediatricians' opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association as non-factual. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said Facts misrepresented their findings. "It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality," he wrote. "The information they present is misleading and incorrect."

MYTH # 2
Same-sex parents harm children.

THE ARGUMENT
Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children ? although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.

THE FACTS
No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009.

The American Psychological Association found that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation."

Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."

MYTH # 3
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

THE ARGUMENT
Many anti-gay rights proponents claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will." A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study arguing that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children.

THE FACTS
No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.

The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues that "no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse." The fact sheet goes on to say that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.

Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that someone can make another person gay or heterosexual.

With regard to Schumm's study, critics have already said that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, a biased sample that invalidates his findings.

MYTH # 4
LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay organizations want to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice." Furthermore, the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians are often offered as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.

THE FACTS
This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled, "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from gay newspapers, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.

Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."

However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed ? most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."


MYTH # 5

Gay men controlled the **** Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.

THE ARGUMENT
This claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the **** Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.

The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the **** party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims.

"While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in ****sm," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' ? the notion that all homosexuals in **** Germany were persecuted ? we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"

These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.

THE FACTS
The Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a line-by-line refutation of an earlier (1994) Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the **** Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.

The myth that the ****s condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the ****s as a slander against **** leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst R?hm, was gay. (R?hm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The ****s considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.

When the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the **** regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.

In 1942, the ****s instituted the death penalty for gay men. Offenders in the German military were routinely shot. Himmler put it like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."

MYTH # 6
Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality ? part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act ? signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 ? would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."

In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.

THE FACTS
The claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The Constitution provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected. (Note from Alissa: Sweden, Enlgand, and other countries do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution and thus may make different laws than we do.)

Neither do hate crime laws ? which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) ? "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality ? not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined by the American Psychiatric Assocation, are disorders characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at nonhuman objects or non-consenting persons like children, or that involve the suffering or humiliation of one's partner.

Even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law ? and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere ? that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.

MYTH # 7
Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civilian society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.

THE FACTS
Gays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and September 2011, they could not serve openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries, including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.

A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would not re-enlist if the DADT policy were repealed. That would mean some 228,000 people may leave the military in the wake of the 2011 ending of that policy. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.

MYTH # 8
Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice" ? even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-gay groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-gay rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.

THE FACTS
All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society ? and not LGBT identity itself ? that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.

Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."

MYTH # 9
No one is born gay.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay ? in the same way people have no choice as to whether they are black or white ? discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.

THE FACTS
Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." One of the more recent is a 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) that appeared in The Archives of Sexual Behavior and concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality ? the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here ? heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors."

The American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Still, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a study showing that gay parents produced far more gay children than heterosexual parents. He told a reporter that he was "trying to prove [homosexuality is] not 100% genetic." But critics suggested that his data did not prove that, and, in any event, virtually no scientists have suggested that homosexuality is caused only by genes.

MYTH # 10
Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.

THE ARGUMENT
If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.

A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, plainly states, "You don't have to be gay!" Another, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."

THE FACTS
"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy ? the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement ? has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric, and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.

Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Alan Chambers, current president of Exodus, said in 2007 that with years of therapy, he's mostly conquered his attraction to men, but then admitted, "By no means would we ever say that change can be sudden or complete."

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Hate against who? Against hate groups? No, I don't think that identifying a hate group is the same as like, being a hate group. If I say "The KKK is a well known hate group" would you really think that I'm "encouraging hate?"

So would YOU classify the KKK the same as the FRC?

Who is next? The boy scouts?

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/boy-scouts-of-america-policy-embraces-anti-lgbt-prejudice

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

This is the issue that I have with the SPLC and the way that they label groups. The KKK and groups like this serve the sole purpose of hating others. Groups like Focus on the family or the like are groups that may have one faction the SPLC does not like, but they do not focus solely on hating others.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So would YOU classify the KKK the same as the FRC?

Who is next? The boy scouts?

Boy Scouts of America policy embraces anti-LGBT prejudice | Southern Poverty Law Center

Kind of, yeah. Certainly the KKK's methods were historically worse, but the aims were pretty much the same. They were both angling to keep a certain group of people second class citizens both in society and under the law. I don't believe that the FRC is or will be physically violent, but they certainly actively work to suppress the legal rights and societal acceptance of gay people, which is a page right out of the KKK's playbook.

Boy scouts - no, not unless they actively campaign to deny homosexuals equal rights. Don't get me wrong, I think they are also discriminating, and I would never ever EVER allow my son to be a part of them (for more reasons than just the gay thing) but I wouldn't go so far as to call them a hate group.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

I don't see how the SPLC is not a hate group based on thier own definition.

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

What good could possibly come from SPLC designating a hate group? The real hate groups like KKK could care less. Designating groups like FRC or FOF just incites other groups of people to hate those groups. I think the SPLC has just cheapened the designation to the point that no one takes them seriously anymore. There is no way that anyone can claim that they are objective. They are nothing more than a political group.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

What class of people are the SPLC singling out for harm? Don't say Christians, because there are tons of Christian groups out there that are not "singled out" by the SPLC; the only Christian groups they point to are the ones that are actively trying to oppress homosexuals. I would also argue that the SPLC does not cause people to "hate" the hate groups. The actions of the hate groups themselves are sufficient for that. I mean, I think most of us have serious issues with the Westboro Baptist Church (an extreme example of this) and would have problems with them even if the SPLC said nothing about them.

I think it's good that we have a watch group that educates people about the actions of groups actively working to hurt their fellow citizens. If people are going to donate money, buy products, et cetera from these groups, I think it's good that they know what "causes" their money is actually going to fund. My guess is that people who support these groups also could care less that the SPLC calls them a hate group. I assume that if you support FOF and the FRC center, you will continue to do so tomorrow, correct?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

What class of people are the SPLC singling out for harm? Don't say Christians, because there are tons of Christian groups out there that are not "singled out" by the SPLC; the only Christian groups they point to are the ones that are actively trying to oppress homosexuals.

Not according to their definition. All you have to do is have a belief that differs from theirs. So pretty much any group that doesn't conform to their view could be on the hit list next. So lobbying against gay marriage is oppression now?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So lobbying against gay marriage is oppression now?

Yes, absolutely.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Yes, absolutely.

Wow. Way to marginalize the truly oppressed.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Who am I marginalizing? I'm not sure who you're specifically referring to, but if you mean it like "Group A is more oppressed than homosexuals, way to minimize their oppression" then I would say that it's okay to acknowledge that more than one group can be oppressed, and in different ways.

Denying people equal rights and protections under the law is absolutely oppression. Per dictionary.com

op-pres-sion

noun

1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

I have literally zero qualms about defining the anti-gay marriage lobby in this way. It's pretty much a perfect description.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

Ok. I'm sure the sister wives will be stepping up next to complain about their oppression. Then the single people who are being oppressed because married people are given rights they don't have. The line is going to get pretty long.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Okay. I really don't want to get super off topic by discussing something completely aside from the SPLC, but for the record, if there was a way to do it while protecting children from "grooming" and abuse, I would be fine to legalize polygamy. I'm of the firm opinion that legislating the love lives and family situations of consenting adults is really none of the business of the US Government.

I just did a quick search of marriage rights to look to see which rights single people are missing out on. I know there are some which could be argued fairly (like tax benefits) but most of them are kind of nonsensical without a partner. Also, if gay marriage were legalized as well as straight marriage, presumably any single person who had a partner and wanted to avail themselves of these rights could do so, by marrying the partner of their choice.

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: [TABLE=width: 100%]

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]joint parenting;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]joint adoption;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]crime victims' recovery benefits;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]loss of consortium tort benefits;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]domestic violence protection orders;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

[TD=width: 42]

[TD=width: 100%]and more....

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

But even if Sister Wives and Single People are being oppressed, that does not mean that gay people are not. Like I said, more than one group can be oppressed at once.

Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I absolutely think denying citizens of legal age equal rights is oppressive. I do believe that that line of thinking is just as wrong and bigoted as what the KKK stands for. I do not believe, like Alissa, that they would resort to violent tactics like the KKK would.

Gloria, your levels of oppression reminded me of something which I think I may have shared here before but it bears repeating. When I had my m/c I was gutted. Then I said to my mom, how can I feel like this when I was early on in a pregnancy and people lose theirs later on, at birth, children etc. That's much worse than this. My mother's response? YOUR pain is just that YOUR pain. You get to feel bad about it and should not compare to others. Others will have it worse than you but it doesn't diminish your feelings. Same thing here.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I just stumbled across this article about how in 2010 the FRC lobbied congress against adopting a resolution condemning Uganda for instituting the death penalty for homosexuality.

Right Now - Family Research Council lobbied against resolution condemning Uganda anti-homosexuality law

Gay City News and blogger Joe My God dug into the lobbying records of the Family Research Council and found that among the "Civil Rights/Civil Liberties" issues that the FRC's Tom McCluskey and David Christensen lobbied on was HR 1064, a resolution condemning Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality bill. That's the bill that would assign a seven-year sentence for "homosexuality" and a possible death sentence for "aggravated homosexuality."

Should this come as a surprise? Well, it's the only issue under the "Civil Rights/Civil Liberties" heading that doesn't actually touch on a change to American laws. The resolution, proposed by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Ca.), spends most of its length arguing that Uganda's efforts to fight AIDS would be impeded by the law and proclaims that "all people possess an intrinsic human dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, and share fundamental human rights." In the FRC's report, this resolution is short-handed as "pro-homosexual promotion."

Here, below the fold, is the FRC's lobbying report. I've put in a call to one of the lobbyists on this and will update when I hear back. Also below the fold is the resolution, which is stuck at 62 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

(You can see a copy of the lobby paperwork at the link.)

Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council also publically criticized President Obama for denouncing this law and in effect defended the law here:

Family Research Council

Does civility require the acceptance of all behavior? Hello, I am Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council. At the recent National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama took the podium calling for greater civility in Washington, which in my opinion is a laudable goal. However, his comments quickly turned to his preoccupation with defending homosexuality. The President criticized Ugandan leaders for considering enhance penalties for crimes related to homosexuality. The press has widely mischaracterized the law which calls for the death penalty, not for homosexual behavior which is already a crime, but for acts such as intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS, or preying upon vulnerable individuals such as children, which has been a problem in Uganda for years because the large number of orphans. The President said that "We may disagree about gay marriage, "but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are." Mr. President as long as you characterize efforts to uphold moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable, as attacking people, civility will continue to evade us.

Commentary about that here:

Why Would a

(Note: I admit that Right Wing Watch isn't exactly a non-biased source)

Dana Milbank writes in a column in today’s Washington Post, “Hateful speech on hate groups,” that the Southern Poverty Law Center “should stop listing a mainstream Christian advocacy group alongside neo-****s and Klansmen.” He’s talking about the Family Research Council, which he describes as “a mainstream conservative think tank founded by James Dobson and run for many years by Gary Bauer” which “advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia.” Going further, Milbank says it’s “reckless” for groups like SPLC to designate FRC as a “hate group.”

While reading all of this, I couldn’t help but wonder why a “mainstream conservative think tank” would defend a bill in Uganda that would put gays and lesbians in prison for life and put them to death for “serial” offenses, among other things. If Milbank had done his homework before writing his column, he would’ve been wondering this same thing.

The reality is that FRC is not a “mainstream conservative think tank.” That’s why FRC is one of only a handful of the many, many groups that oppose equality for gays and lesbians to be designated a “hate group” by SPLC. There’s a big difference between being conservative and being an extremist, but many in the media are missing the distinction. Kyle and Peter have already written about FRC’s history of extremism and SPLC’s criteria (here and here), but I’d like to focus on one particularly outrageous example here.

Back in June of 2010, FRC president Tony Perkins praised the infamous “kill the gays” bill in Uganda, referring to it as an effort to “uphold moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable.” The bill that Perkins defended called for life in prison for having sex, even once, with a member of the same sex, or touching someone of the same sex with the intention of having sex.

The bill went further, calling for the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality.” To be clear, Perkins defended a bill that called for people to be put to death for the following (among other things):

  • having sex with someone of the same sex multiple times (a “serial” offender)
  • having sex with someone of the same sex who is your employee, student, or otherwise under your authority
  • having sex with someone of the same sex who is under the age of 18 (regardless of the age difference, e.g. a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old)
  • having sex with someone of the same sex that you got drunk
  • having sex with someone of the same sex who’s blind or deaf
  • having sex with someone of the same sex if you’re HIV+, even if you use protection and the virus is not transmitted

You can read the text of the bill here. I’m not exaggerating one bit.

When President Obama criticized the bill, Perkins devoted his weekly radio alert to attacking him over it, citing Obama’s “preoccupation with defending homosexuality.” He went on to mischaracterize the bill, claiming that it only called for the death penalty in instances like “intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS,” and was notably silent on life imprisonment for a single homosexual “act.”

FRC was eventually caught lobbying Congress on a resolution to denounce the “kill the gays” bill. They took pains to say they did not support the bill or the death penalty and were merely lobbying Congress to make the resolution “more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill, and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.”

Ok, so FRC didn’t support the “kill the gays” bill. Instead, FRC’s president devoted his weekly commentary to defending and praising the “kill the gays” bill and attacking President Obama for criticizing it. And FRC lobbied Congress to make sure that the “kill the gays” bill wouldn’t be mischaracterized.

Here’s what Perkins said, followed by the text of the “kill the gays” bill:

(Click the link to see Perkins say what he said, and see the content of the bill.

FRC responded to the accusations to the accusations here:

Right Now - Family Research Council explains: It lobbied for changes to Uganda resolution

Inaccurate internet reports have been circulating indicating that the Family Research Council lobbied "against" a congressional resolution condemning a bill proposed in Uganda. The Uganda bill would have provided for the death penalty for something called "aggravated homosexuality." Unfortunately, those spreading these false rumors deliberately failed to obtain the facts first.

FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution. FRC's efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill, and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.

FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality -- nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct.

I don't know if you can say for sure that since the FRC lobbied against a resolution against the death penalty for homosexual behavior, that means that they support the death penalty for homosexual behavior (and in fairness, they deny it), but it's certainly logical to suspect. Otherwise, why bother lobbying against this particular resolution? I don't really buy their explanation that they wanted to make sure that the law wasn't "mischaracterized" and it seems in awfully bad taste to be lobbying against gay positive language in a resolution against literally killing killing people for being gay.

So, does any of that make it seem any more like the FRC is a hate group (for those that think they aren't)?

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

this is another example of what's wrong with the us today. wtf did the "resolution" get time/money/resources spent on it when we have issues they Should be dealing with that actually can be fixed if the idiots would just concentrate? and putting crap in there they know people won't sign off on so they can advertise that the group wants homosexuals to get the death penalty? shame on them.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Shame on Congress for writing a resolution condemning Uganda for passing a law that threatens homosexuals with the death penalty????

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Here is the text of the Resolution that they were lobbying against.

Right Now - Family Research Council lobbied against resolution condemning Uganda anti-homosexuality law

A RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' under consideration by the Parliament of Uganda, that would impose long-term imprisonment and the death penalty for certain acts, threatens the protection of fundamental human rights, and for other purposes.

Whereas, on September 25, 2009, legislation was introduced in the Ugandan Parliament entitled the `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' to strengthen and expand existing anti-homosexuality laws to prohibit any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex;

Whereas the legislation would severely punish `homosexual behavior' and individuals who `attempt' homosexual acts, including by life in prison or the death penalty;

Whereas the legislation creates offenses and penalties for Ugandan citizens and other individuals who fail to report `homosexual behavior' within 24 hours of acquiring such knowledge, and imposes stiff fines and up to three years imprisonment for community members who fail to report suspected cases of homosexuality;

Whereas the legislation creates an offense of `aggravated homosexuality' that would impose the death penalty for certain same-sex acts, including acts in which the partner is HIV-positive;

Whereas the proposed legislation could severely curtail the ability of public health institutions and nongovernmental organizations to address effectively HIV/AIDS among vulnerable groups such as men who have sex with men (MSM), by subjecting such institutions to the revocation of their registration, certificates, and their directors to seven-year prison terms;

Whereas the proposed legislation would nullify any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements, and any other legal instruments signed by Uganda whose provisions `are contradictory to the spirit and provisions enshrined in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009', such as those that protect the rights of individuals regardless of sexual orientation;

Whereas the legislation provides for jurisdiction of Ugandan courts in cases of homosexuality, including extra-territorial jurisdiction to cover Ugandan citizens outside of the geographic boundaries of Uganda, an extreme measure that currently only applies to severe criminal offenses in Uganda's penal code, including treason and terrorism;

Whereas the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Five Year Strategy released on December 1, 2009, asserts that `PEPFAR's prevention strategies must be responsive to the drivers of the epidemic and address the needs of most-at risk populations', and specifically prioritizes MSM as an at-risk `strategic population' in need of prevention, care, and treatment programs that are free from stigma and discrimination directed towards clients;

Whereas under PEPFAR, Uganda received approximately $91 million in fiscal year (FY) 2004, more than $148 million in FY2005, approximately $170 million in FY2006, $237 million in FY2007, $284 million in FY2008, and $286 million in FY2009 to support a comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment program;

Whereas United States assistance to Uganda to combat HIV/AIDS has resulted in 145,000 individuals receiving antiretroviral treatment as of September 2008, 393,200 HIV-positive individuals receiving care and support, 754,000 orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) served by an OVC program, 2,076,300 pregnant women receiving HIV counseling and testing services for the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT), 104,000 HIV-positive pregnant women receiving antiretroviral prophylaxis for PMTCT, 20,043,400 counseling and testing encounters in FY2008, and 6,256,800 individuals reached with community outreach HIV/AIDS prevention programs that promote abstinence or being faithful and condom use;

Whereas, according to the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR), in low- and middle-income countries, MSM are 19 times more likely to be infected with HIV than the general population;

Whereas the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) identifies elevated risk of HIV infection among MSM as one of the 6 key, overarching themes identified in the 2009 AIDS Epidemic Update, and asserts that `programmes to prevent new infections among these key populations must constitute an important part of national AIDS response';

Whereas a 2009 joint report by the Uganda AIDS Commission and UNAIDS specifically called for a review of legal impediments to the inclusion of most-at-risk populations in the national AIDS response;

Whereas countries whose laws do not criminalize homosexuality are generally regarded as better able to curb the transmission of the virus, and the ability to more effectively address HIV was a pivotal factor in the recent decision of the High Court of New Delhi to repeal section 337 of the Indian penal code outlawing sodomy;

Whereas both Democratic and Republican United States lawmakers have called on President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda to oppose the proposed `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' and, in a December 2009 letter, several Congressional leaders stated that the legislation is antithetical to the foundational belief in the `inherent dignity and worth of all men and women';

Whereas Champions for an HIV-Free Generation, a group of former African Presidents and other influential persons, has called for the withdrawal of Uganda's `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009';

Whereas a broad range of religious leaders, including Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Evangelical leaders, have condemned publicly the proposed legislation;

Whereas the Catholic Bishops of Uganda have described the bill as `at odds with the core values of the Christian faith';
Whereas President Barack Obama has stated that he `strongly opposes efforts, such as the draft law pending in Uganda, that would criminalize homosexuality and move against the tide of history';

Whereas in December 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke out against the bill stating that `law should not become an instrument of oppression';

Whereas the United States has declared its commitment to working internationally to end violence, detention, and execution based on sexual orientation; and

Whereas the proposed legislation violates the spirit of Article 2 of the African Charter of Human and People's Rights adopted in 1981 and entered into force in 1986 that states, `Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) strongly believes that--

Angel all people possess an intrinsic human dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, and share fundamental human rights;

(B) the `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' introduced in the Ugandan Parliament, which includes the extreme penalties of death and life in prison, poses a serious threat to the life, liberty, and security of the person and, if enacted, would set a troubling precedent for other countries; and

(C) the requirement that individuals report suspected homosexual individuals to the Ugandan Government could undermine Uganda's efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, and interfere with care and counseling by family members, doctors, pastors, teachers, and others; and

(2) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to--

Angel impress upon the Ugandan Government the United States belief in the intrinsic human dignity of all Ugandans, regardless of sexual orientation;

(B) express unequivocal United States opposition to the `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' introduced in the Ugandan Parliament; and

(C) ensure that resources committed to the global HIV/AIDS response are utilized in a manner that is efficient, effective, and appropriate to the local epidemiology of the disease, including in Uganda.

ETA: I don't see anything in there that a reasonable person (i.e. one not rabid with hatred) would object to. It doesn't say anything particularly pro-gay :rolleyes: except that they, like all people, have intrisinsic human dignity and worth. Extreme!

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Here is the text of the Resolution that they were lobbying against.

Right Now - Family Research Council lobbied against resolution condemning Uganda anti-homosexuality law

ETA: I don't see anything in there that a reasonable person (i.e. one not rabid with hatred) would object to. It doesn't say anything particularly pro-gay :rolleyes: except that they, like all people, have intrisinsic human dignity and worth. Extreme!

The law in Uganda was only intended for someone who rapes children in the first place. I'm not so sure they don't deserve the death penalty.

Where is the Congressional resolution against countries like Iran that actually do kill people just for being gay?
Four alleged gay men sentenced to death in Iran

It doesn't exist because it is all political.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The law in Uganda was only intended for someone who rapes children in the first place. I'm not so sure they don't deserve the death penalty.
.

That's just not true. Here is the content of the law (my comments in red)

PART II — HOMOSEXUALITY AND RELATED PRACTICES.
[INDENT]2. The offence of homosexuality (Note that the crime of homosexuality carries a life sentence) .
(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-

Angel he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;

(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;

(c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

3. Aggravated homosexuality. (Aggravated homosexuality carries the death penality)
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the

Angel person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years; (this law makes no effort to sort out examples where, for example, we are talking about an 18 year old having consentual sex with a 17 year old. Even in more extreme cases, let's say a 30 year old having consentual sex with a 16 year old, while that should be a jailable offense, can you really say that you would advocate for the death penality? You might agree with the death penality in the case of child rape, but would you really feel the same way about someone in their late teens having consentual sex with someone who is over 18?

(b) offender is a person living with HIV; This law makes no differentiation for if the partner knows that the person is HIV positive and chooses to take the risk anyway, or if the person is unaware that they themselves are HIV positive. And again, we are talking about the death penalty. This law makes it that much more likely that people will not seek medical treatment and testing for HIV, because if they are found to be positive, they can be put to death for having sex with a willing partner.

(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed; This comes closest to what you were talking about, but I'm still not certain that the death penality is appropriate. Then again, I'm anti-death penalty in general, so I admit I may be biased about this one.

(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed; Again, they both could be consenting adults. Position of authority is very vague; it could be something as simple as a boss beginning a relationship with an employee. That may not be the best of work ethics, but yet again, the death penalty????

(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability; Doesn't specify what kind of disability, and whether the disabled person is able to give consent. For example, I would think that a blind person or a deaf person, or a person in a wheelchair, as long as they are mentally "able", would be able to give consent just fine.

Give rose offender is a serial offender, or AKA someone who has gay sex more than once, aka ANY gay person who wishes to act on their sexuality, just as you or I act on ours by sleeping with our significant others more than one time.

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex, I would agree that getting someone drunk and having sex with them when they are unable to consent is rape, but I don't know about the death penalty unless you believe we should enforce the death penalty on all rapists.

(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status
[/INDENT]

http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

I would be just fine with it if Congress wrote a resolution against people being sentensed to death in Iran for being gay. What do you bet FRC would lobby against that one too?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

That's just not true. Here is the content of the law (my comments in red)

http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

I would be just fine with it if Congress wrote a resolution against people being sentensed to death in Iran for being gay. What do you bet FRC would lobby against that one too?

I doubt it

There are many laws that the wording is not perfect even in the U.S. That does not change the intent of what the law was for. They already had a law requiring the death penalty for rape of females under 18 and no one has created a resolution against that. Why Not?
I wonder if anyone is going through the exact wording on that law?
Isn't it a good thing that they are trying to protect young boys in the same way girls are protected?

Homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda long before this bill came up.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I doubt it

There are many laws that the wording is not perfect even in the U.S. That does not change the intent of what the law was for. They already had a law requiring the death penalty for rape of females under 18 and no one has created a resolution against that. Why Not?
I wonder if anyone is going through the exact wording on that law?
Isn't it a good thing that they are trying to protect young boys in the same way girls are protected?

Homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda long before this bill came up.

I agree that it's good to try to protect children. I disagree that "protecting children" is the only thing this law is trying to do, since only 2 of the bullet points in the law even really deal with protecting children.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I agree that it's good to try to protect children. I disagree that "protecting children" is the only thing this law is trying to do, since only 2 of the bullet points in the law even really deal with protecting children.

It all has to do with rape in various forms except for the HIV part, even in the U.S. we have laws where people have been sent to jail for knowingly exposing people to HIV. The fact that the wording is vague says more about the failure in writing of the bill than the intent. I am curious if the legal language in all the other bills in Uganda are much better and don't provide the same vagueness.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

It doesn't all have to do with rape. The "serial offender" thing alone is enough to send every single actively gay person in Uganda to the chair (or whatever they use there) The rest of it says nothing about consent, which is what would make it "all about rape."

I can't believe you're defending this law. My mind is seriously blown.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

It doesn't all have to do with rape. The "serial offender" thing alone is enough to send every single actively gay person in Uganda to the chair (or whatever they use there) The rest of it says nothing about consent, which is what would make it "all about rape."

I can't believe you're defending this law. My mind is seriously blown.

I am defending the intent of the law. I agree it was poorly written. I don't know how well most of the laws in Uganda are written do you? I doubt most of their laws are up to our legal standards. I think it has been seriously overblown for political reasons by gay activitsts. As I said, where is the outrage for female rapists that could be put to death, or the resolutions to congress for Islamic countries where gay people are killed just for being gay. It is all a political game. Wierd how everyone says we need to keep out of other countries business except when something like this comes up.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't know how you can judge the intent of the law, except by what is written. The first part talks about punishing homosexuality, the second part talks about the death penalty for "aggrevated homosexuality" which makes zero clarifications about age, consent, and even says straight out that anyone who engages in homosexuality multiple times should be put to death. I don't see how you can say that this law is all about rape the way it is written. To me, it seems very clear that the intent of the law is to punish homosexuality, and as harshly as possible. What are you looking at that I'm not seeing that clarifies that it is all about protecting children from rape?

RE: the rape thing. My personal outrage over the death penalty for people who rape females isn't really there, just as my outrage over the death penalty for male rape also isn't really there. I don't really like the death penalty, but if you're going to give it to anyone, a rapist gets low priority for my sympathies. My outrage over this law has very little to do with rape, and very much to do with the fact that I see it as a way to imprison and even kill consenting adults.

Again, I would welcome resolutions against killing gay people in the middle east.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't know how you can judge the intent of the law, except by what is written. The first part talks about punishing homosexuality, the second part talks about the death penalty for "aggrevated homosexuality" which makes zero clarifications about age, consent, and even says straight out that anyone who engages in homosexuality multiple times should be put to death. I don't see how you can say that this law is all about rape the way it is written. To me, it seems very clear that the intent of the law is to punish homosexuality, and as harshly as possible. What are you looking at that I'm not seeing that clarifies that it is all about protecting children from rape?

RE: the rape thing. My personal outrage over the death penalty for people who rape females isn't really there, just as my outrage over the death penalty for male rape also isn't really there. I don't really like the death penalty, but if you're going to give it to anyone, a rapist gets low priority for my sympathies. My outrage over this law has very little to do with rape, and very much to do with the fact that I see it as a way to imprison and even kill consenting adults.

Again, I would welcome resolutions against killing gay people in the middle east.

We can know the intent when the pastors who proposed the law have given that as their reason.
Uganda: child abuse rampant : Headlines : News : World Vision UK

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

We can know the intent when the pastors who proposed the law have given that as their reason.
Uganda: child abuse rampant : Headlines : News : World Vision UK

BS. It was already against the law to rape a child of either gender in Uganda. They didn't need a special law for homosexual rape. The only thing this law did was expand the prosecution of homosexuals.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

BS. It was already against the law to rape a child of either gender in Uganda. They didn't need a special law for homosexual rape. The only thing this law did was expand the prosecution of homosexuals.

Actually it isn't.

SECTION THREE

THE LAW RELATING TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, RAPE AND DEFILEMENT

(i) RAPE

The offence of rape is defined in Section 117 of the Penal Code Act (Cap.106 of the Laws of Uganda). "Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threat or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of bodily harm, or means of false representation as to the nature of the act, or in the case of married women, by personating her husband, is guilty of the felony termed rape". Section 118 of the Penal Code act prescribes the punishment of rape and it provides thus: - " Any person convicted of rape shall be liable to suffer death

The Penal Code act also provides for attempted rape. Under section 119, it is provided that: - " Any person who attempts to commit rape is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life, with or without corporal punishment.

(ii) DEFILEMENT

Section 123 of the Penal Code provides for defilement of girls under 18 years of age. Section 123(1) states that: - " Any person who unlawfully has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an offence and is liable to suffer death."
Sub-section 2 of Section 123 of the Penal Code provides for attempts to defile a girl under the age of eighteen years. It states that: "Any person who attempts to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for eighteen years with or without corporal punishment".

Q.15 Has the legal system taken any step to help the boy child in case of sexual Abuse?

ANSWER
The Ugandan Law Reform Commission recommended that in the upcoming Sexual Offences Bill, the offence of Indecent Assault should be revised to cater for the boy child too. It was suggested that any person who performs a sexual act with a boy below 18 years of age commits the offence of defilement.

Slum Aid Project - SAP

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Your link says that raping a boy under 18 is currently called Indecent Assault (which IS against the law, although it carries a lighter sentence), and that they are working on a Sexual Assault Bill that will make it equal for both boys and girls, which is exactly what they should do. However, that still doesn't mean that they need a special homosexual rape law, it means that they need to make it an equal offense to rape either a boy or a girl, no matter who is doing the raping. Which it sounds like they are doing, aside from the "Kill the Gays" law.

I still can't believe this law (or it's intent) is a-okay with you. I think I'm going to have to leave it here, to be honest.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4228

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Your link says that raping a boy under 18 is currently called Indecent Assault (which IS against the law, although it carries a lighter sentence), and that they are working on a Sexual Assault Bill that will make it equal for both boys and girls, which is exactly what they should do. However, that still doesn't mean that they need a special homosexual rape law, it means that they need to make it an equal offense to rape either a boy or a girl, no matter who is doing the raping. Which it sounds like they are doing, aside from the "Kill the Gays" law.

I still can't believe this law (or it's intent) is a-okay with you. I think I'm going to have to leave it here, to be honest.

They couldn't get this law passed because of the political pressure so they are putting it in a different bill which is The Sexual Offenses bill that they are talking about. That doesn't change that the reason this bill was initiated to begin with was to protect boys from rape.

Box Turtle Bulletin ? Uganda Cabinet Suggests Alternatives to Anti-Homosexuality Bill