Repudiation: FRC's Fake Quiz

The Family Research Council has put together a "Quiz on Defending Family Values", complete with answers that do not agree with facts.  Sorry if you wanted to play their game, but I going to refute each of the supposed answers here and now.  Each of the five questions are supposed to be answered with a True or False.

1. Due to religious exemptions, same-sex “marriage” would not harm the rights of parents, schools, churches, or religious ministries.

Of course the answer should be true.

False. In Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” was legalized, public school children as young as first grade are taught that homosexuality is morally good, and parents are prohibited by court order from opting out their children or even being informed of when the “instruction” will occur. Further, when Catholic Charities of Boston’s adoption services refused to place children with homosexual couples, the large and respected ministry was forced to shut down. Family Research Council experts are making Congress and the public aware of such dangers, as homosexual activists work to impose same-sex “marriage” on the entire nation.

Sexuality of any nature is a fact.  For those who are heterosexual, heterosexuality is morally good.  For those who are homosexual, homosexuality is morally good.  To act differently than we are created by God would be morally offensive.

Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced to shut down.  Catholic News Service wrote at the time, Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese announced March 10 that it will stop providing adoption services rather than continue to comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt.
It was their own choice ... they were not forced.

2. Science indicates that homosexuality is likely inborn and unchangeable.

Again, the answer should be true.

False. The U.S. Justice Department recently claimed that homosexuality is unchangeable and thus refused to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. Yet the best science actually refutes this assertion. The handful of small studies that purport to show a “gay gene” have been widely discounted by the majority of the scientific community. On the other hand, decades of sociological and psychological research indicate that same-sex attraction is not inborn but is likely a product of external factors. And leading psychologists have affirmed the existence of thousands of people who changed from homosexual attractions to heterosexual. FRC is exploding the myths and making sure that lawmakers, judges, and the public know the facts.

So, why did the Justice Department make this claim?  Because major health organizations say so.  The immutable nature of sexuality is part of the statements of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and others.

The same documents indicate that the full nature of sexuality is not known.  Claiming that "same-sex attraction is not inborn but is likely a product of external factors" cannot be shown at this point in the research into the nature of sexuality. 

The claim that people change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction is fiction.  I discussed the liars behind "reparative therapy" in a recent posting.

3. Homosexual activists have grossly overstated the number of homosexuals in the population as being 10%, when surveys actually show it is only half that number, at about 5%!

This is an area where a definitive true or false cannot be stated.

False. It’s even lower! The vast majority of recent surveys put the figure at about 2%–3%. In other words, the Left is demanding that parents be forced to allow their children to learn that homosexuality is healthy and moral . . . that the 5,000-year-old-plus definition of marriage be abolished . . . that religious adoption agencies violate their beliefs or close down . . . to accommodate the behavior of 2%–3% of the population. FRC experts are forcefully making the case to Congress that this demand is unreasonable and unjust.

The origin of population estimates of homosexuals goes back to the studies of Dr. Alfred Kinsey who, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, determined that approximately ten percent of the population is homosexual.  (Really it was more complicated, but that is the simplified answer).  There are many recent studies that find between two percent and thirteen percent of the population identifies as homosexual or bisexual.  There are numerous reasons why there may be such disparity in the numbers.  Among these reasons are how the question is posed, who is posing the question, and what assurance there is that the answer will not be used against those responding to the question.  Many gays and lesbians are in the closet.  We cannot at this time know a certain number.

Perhaps more important is that the Family Research Council thinks that a smaller minority is more deserving of discrimination.  That flies in the face of fairness and decency. 

4. Members of Congress from both parties support a pro-homosexual law that could force Christians to remove family photos from their workplace.

This is absurd on its face.  False.

True. The proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)—co-sponsored in the Senate by two Republicans and two Democrats—would force most employers to ensure a workplace free of “discrimination” against homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender people. When such a policy was imposed at Sandia National Laboratories, many employees were ordered to take down Bible verses from screensavers and remove photos of their “traditional” families because homosexual employees found the images to be demeaning. FRC is in the trenches in Washington exposing the proposed law.

Absurd.  The 2009 ENDA is online.  It includes nothing about limiting family photos.  If the Bible verses on screensavers on work computers are discriminatory, then that might be limited.  In my search online for the basis of the allegation that Sandia National Laboratories forced employees to remove family photos, every source cited Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council.  There may be more evidence, but I did not find it.

5. The proposed federal ENDA law would force all employers to hire transsexuals, cross-dressers, and “drag queens” and “drag kings” for any job—including customer service jobs and ones with children, such as teachers and day care workers.

If the people are the most qualified, then they should not be discriminated against and kept from holding jobs.  This is probably the only quiz question when I have any agreement with the answer.

You are correct!True. This radical bill (H.R. 1397 and S. 811) not only mandates acceptance of all “sexual orientations,” but also of all “gender identities.” “Gender identity” is defined in the bill as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” In other words—the individual does not have to undergo “sex change” surgery. He or she does not even have to present the same “gender identity” consistently—it could change from day to day. And for employers covered by the bill, NO occupations or job positions are exempted. FRC experts are making sure that members of Congress are aware of this threat.

The threat of treating all American citizens equally.  The language that FRC uses is designed to evoke fear.  The truth is that a person's sexual orientation and gender identity do not cause them to be better or worse employees.  The truth is that FRC's campaign of fear to maintain discriminatory laws is based on lies.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Repudiation: Liars and "Reparative Therapy"

This is a little complicated.  First, we need to start with a group called the International Healing Foundation (IHF) founded by Richard Cohen to counsel homosexuals and do "reparative therapy" to convert them to heterosexual.

Before going further, let's be clear that this does not work.  The American Psychiatric Association has taken a strong stand against reparative or conversion therapy because

Firstly, they are at odds with the scientific position of the American Psychiatric Association which has maintained, since 1973, that homosexuality per se, is not a mental disorder.  The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both (10-15).  In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologize homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality (16,17,18).

The earliest scientific criticisms of the early theories and religious beliefs informing "reparative" or conversion therapies came primarily from sexology researchers (19-27).  Later, criticisms emerged from psychoanalytic sources as well (28-39).  There has also been an increasing body of religious thought arguing against traditional, biblical interpretations that condemn homosexuality and which underlie religious types of "reparative" therapy (40-46).

Further, the American Psychiatric Association is concerned about potential harm from such therapies.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.  Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction.  The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Similar positions have been taken by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

In late October, IHF issued an "apology" to the LGBTQ community.  The wording is

IHF apologized to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning) community for years of unknowingly fueling anti-gay sentiment by simply stating, “Change is Possible.”

“We at IHF wish to offer a sincere, heartfelt apology to everyone in the LGBTQ community,” said IHF founder and director, Richard Cohen. “I apologize and ask forgiveness to those who were hurt by our message.” Cohen, a leading expert in the field of sexual orientation and married father of three, knows first-hand how it feels to be ostracized having lived a gay life.

Perhaps I am missing something, but it looks like the apology is only for the wording of their message, not for the message itself.  The websites that IHF, either under its old name or its new, do not appear to be a real change.  The apology is offered at www.changeispossible.com which maintains the line for which the apology is offered.  Weird at best.

Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor, wrote a blog article giving me the heads up about the new face of IHF and expressing some additional opinions.  While Dr. Throckmorton is dubious, he seems to be giving Mr. Cohen some room for real change.

To be frank, I don't trust that Mr. Cohen has changed anything other than his marketing.  He has a long history of being part of the religious establishment that makes homosexuals doubt their self-worth as part of trying to get them into lucrative, for the "therapists", conversion programs.

Peter LaBarbera, head of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), a group recognized for its anti-gay propaganda by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has now asked Professor Throckmorton to apologize.  Let's break down his letter to the Professor.

I certainly don’t think Richard Cohen or anyone needs to apologize for stating the obvious truth that “Change [away from and rejecting homosexuality] is possible.” If we were to apologize for everything that “offends” hardened LGBT activists, we’d be apologizing 24/7.

What offends us are lies that you tell and perpetuate.  Stop lying and there is no need for apologies.  As indicated above, written by the American Psychiatric Association, that change, in the form of so-called therapies, can be harmful.  That's the problem and it must stop.  Apologies are in order.

The question is, when will YOU apologize for affirming homosexuality as an acceptable (or innocuous) identity — while claiming (falsely) to uphold biblical orthodoxy? When will YOU repent for working hand-in-hand with “gay” activists who are diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview on homosexuality as an overcomable sexual sin (and an abomination) — by actively discrediting the need AND potential for wholesome change away from same-sex behavior and indulging same-sex desires?

Homosexuality is acceptable because that is how God created a minority of the population.  One does not choose to be homosexual any more than one chooses to be heterosexual.  There is more than one way to interpret the Bible.  It is a shame that Mr. LaBarbera is so limited and bigoted.

You should either publicly apologize for undermining Scriptural (and observable) Truth — or renounce your claims to be faithful to historic Christian sexual teachings. This request is made more urgent by your employment with an evangelical institution, Grove City College, which purports to be “authentically Christian” — something few biblically-faithful observers of your recent flirtation with pro-”gay” advocacy would accuse you of being.

The scriptures say many things.  I doubt that Mr. LaBarbera follows all of the tenets of the Bible.  Some are impossible and most are disregarded by those who pick and choose which are most important to them.  Regarding "observable" truth, one only needs to look to nature to see that homosexuality is natural in hundreds of species.

I can document all the above statements concerning your conduct and “gay”-affirming advocacy, which has caused widespread consternation and confusion in Christian circles, and within the pro-family movement. You (or anyone) may publish this if you wish.

Mr. Cohen and Mr. LaBarbera are both liars about the nature of change of sexual behavior.  To put this in religious terms, they are bearing false witness (the 9th of the Ten Commandments).

Regarding Dr. Throckmorton's conduct and advocacy, given Mr. LaBarbera's focus on Christian teachings, may I suggest that Mr. LaBarbera read Matthew Chapter 7.