RECENT  POSTS:  » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead » Congressional right wing's right-side-of-history whip count: 8–271 » NOM, Manhattan Declaration turn Unitarian's anti-slavery, anti-war into pro-discrimination anthem » Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera tease America's coming anti-gay street revolts » FRC writer: We're not all the same, 'gay agenda' is 'dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation' » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam » NOM becomes even more of a generalized anti-LGBT animus organization » Sure, NOM—I'll play your game!! » Bryan Fischer: POTUS 'stood on the graves' of Malaysia Air victims 'to promote the legitimacy of sexual deviancy'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/11/2014

FRC blatantly lies to U.S. Senators

by Jeremy Hooper

In a letter to the U.S. Senate, the shockingly duplicitous and reliably animus-driven Family Research Council uses LGBT rights as a way to trip up Michelle Friedland's confirmation to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is no huge surprise, since FRC is truly one of the most obsessively and rabidly anti-LGBT groups in all of the "culture war" kingdom. The fact that this organization maintains the access that it does is a blight on American politics.

But what is shocking is just how unscrupulously FRC lies in this letter. Here it is is full; for the purposes of this post, pay particular attention to the fifth paragraph, all about attempts to "cure" gay people:

FRC's fallacious letter opposing 9th circuit nominee

In the "ex-gay" portion, FRC makes it sound like the APA is still undecided about how to proceed with efforts to "change" sexual orientation. They yank one tiny little quote from its context to make this case.

But now look at what the the APA really said, with FRC's tiny little pull quote highlighted in red:

201404110825

The only reason they said there was "no clear indication" (which FRC changed to "no clear evidence," but whatever) is because there simply hasn't been a thorough study on the subject. The truth is that all of the studies that have been done have been conducted by the far-right for political purposes, with most of the subjects speaking more to their personal faith than to actual science. The APA knows this.

But even with in adequate research, APA still notes, in this section, that more evidence points to danger than it does to happiness. That alone speaks to the need to scrutinize rather than support these baseless practices. However, the much bigger repudiation comes later on, when the APA closes this very same document with this policy summation:

201404110835

And then the APA offers a whole host of resolutions that thoroughly repudiate everything for which the FRC stands on this and related LGBT rights matters:

201404110843

This is the kind of document that FRC should be trying to hide. Yet instead, they are twisting it to seem like it goes against Michelle Friedland's position when it in fact supports it?!

I guess FRC thinks that whole "false witness" thing was of much less concern to Jesus than were the LGBT people who he ever even mentioned.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails