Family.org’s magazine, Citizen, recently published an article responding to some of Soulforce’s claims of spiritual violence. Their response, however, requires a very illogical manner of thinking to debunk anything.
1. “DOBSON SAYS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER CAUSED BY FAMILY
PROBLEMS AND BAD PARENTING.”
Facts:
Soulforce greatly distorts Dr. Dobson’s views on the root causes of homosexuality. In fact, Dr. Dobson and many others in the mental health field see homosexuality as a developmental condition stemming from a combination of
factors—including, but not limited to, dysfunctional familial relationships.
The fact is, Citizen isn’t debating anything here. The point of Soulforce’s claim is that Dobson sees homosexuality from a clinically false viewpoint – that it is a changeable condition. So arguing about the exact semantics of it is pointless.
Thousands of men and women who have left behind their gay and lesbian identities are living testimonies of the reality that homosexuality is a condition which can be overcome.
Really? Thousands? Wasn’t it hundreds of thousands? And where are they, and where are their testimonies published and reviewed as clinical evidence?
Even the pro-gay American Psychological Association admits that the current scientific consensus is that homosexuality results from a combination of biological, psychological and social/environmental factors.
Does the APA admit that homosexuality is a changeable condition that people should undergo therapy to rid themselves of? Again, semantics.
More homosexuals than heterosexuals engage in smoking, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, mental illness and promiscuity.
Where do these numbers come from? How does one define “promiscuity?” How exactly does one “engage in” mental illness?
Recent studies in the United States, New Zealand and the Netherlands reveal a link between homosexuality and mental illness. Gay researcher J. Michael Bailey says “these studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology” and that homosexuals are at “substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, anxiety disorder, and nicotine dependence.”
Is this the same J. Michael Bailey that was linked to the Human Biodeiversity Institute and eugenics? The one who lost his chair at Northwestern amid allegations of sexual misconduct? Now, where were those other studies published?
Honestly, the whole article goes on like this. Spitzer is cited, non-sequitor questions are asked, and other malfunctions of logic are presented as arguments. They deride Soulforce for refusing to debate with them. Get the July 2005 edition of Citizen Magazine to read the whole thing; or don’t waste your time.
It seems to me that Focus is using propaganda tactics to fight the idea that homosexuality should be tolerated. They repeat, over and over, the same distortions, half-truths, discredited ‘facts,’ and outright lies in the hopes that people will believe them. Whether the research is good or not, whether the arguments are valid or not, Focus is hoping to get their ideas across through constant, loud repitition. Unfortunately, the only way to answer such a tactic is with repitition of our own, using facts and valid arguments to counter the propaganda that Focus is spreading.
For previous XGW coverage of Focus responding to Soulforce:https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/05/focus_issues_a.html
Unfortunately for us, too many people believe this nonsense. It makes sense when you point it out to people, but they have a much larger “audience” that hears their side of the story (and wants to hear facts to back up their prejudice) than we do.
I remain amazed that Christian groups can publish this stuff and other Christians don’t call more often for truth in this debate.
Theme of my blog (by accident more than anything)-If being gay is a sin, let it be a sin, but don’t resort to lies, half-truths, and distortions to try to make gays sound evil as a way to prove your point.
Exactly, Andrew!
FOTF a few years ago had outright libelous language in their pamphlets and newsletters on the motives and abilities of gays and lesbians regarding marriage and family and parenthood.
Compared to tracts from the initial Nazi or Klan, or Citizen’s Council publications archived at the Museum of Tolerance, we had proof that their speech was comparable to traditional hate speech.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has picked up on this (religious groups will not escape accountability) and is acting accordingly on behalf of gay and lesbian concerns.
The Anti Defamation League, The Museum of Tolerance interfaces with SPLC and other anti hate advocates.
The continued papering with false information, for outright political agendas has a legacy no different from that of Anti Semitic or anti integration agendas.
If these groups like CWA, FOTF and FRC don’t like to be called bigots, or feel some religious justification based on moral objections, then their selective commitment to holy writ for ALL citizens is glaring as well.
The consequences of THEIR actions, is the isolation of children like Zach and Maya Keyes.
I work with gay children and young adults abandoned by their parents to the mean streets that put their lives at risk.
The murders or assaults of kids is real, not an abstraction.
The abstraction is the information continually put out that gay people are dangerous-not just to themselves, but society at large.
There is a history of this against other minorities, and you’d think that the general public would be wary of being led so easily in the same way as prior populations.
It’s horrible to know that the enduring presence, talent and considerable compassion of gays and lesbians is distorted into invasion, menace and evil.
The Jews have a word ‘shoah’. Remember.
We see now that NOT remembering the recent past, is revisiting us all…as we speak.
The anti gay groups, if you’ll notice…forget.
Revise and forget history and the context of it and try to make others forget as well.
Skipping over recent history to favor ancient, thousands year old observations that no one witnessed or can dispute as easily.
Thus you get raging stupidity like the ‘intelligent design’ theory over the facts of evolution.
It’s the cowards who want a past that’s a place they wouldn’t and know they never will have to live in.
Instead of a future where they will have to have their truths and power disputed and progress and freely accessed information ultimately will reject in the end.
try this for an example of how the religious right likes to lie. This about Timothy Dailey’s (Family Research Council) citations on studies regarding lesbians:
“The majority of Dailey’s citations concerning gay men have to do with sexual irresponsibility, no doubt playing up to the stereotype of all gay men being promiscuous. He also produces negative statistics on lesbians. Much of his data having to do with them involve violence or substance abuse, like the following:
‘A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.’
From this perspective, it sounds as if lesbians have a problem with partner violence. But another look at where the research is derived gives an entirely different perspective. According to the website, https://www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=108:
‘The Journal of Interpersonal Violence offers the most up-to-date information on domestic violence, rape, child sexual abuse and other violent crimes.
Focusing on both victims and perpetrators, the journal examines theoretical links between all types of interpersonal violence, exploring the similarities and differences between these types of crimes.’
In other words, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence is a booklet that tracks domestic violence, as well as other violent crimes. Of course those surveyed in it had been recipients of violence, verbal or otherwise, because this is what the journal is designed for. It tracks all cases of domestic violence, be it heterosexual or homosexual. It is not meant to be a survey of the lesbian population at large. By not giving a proper description of the journal, Dailey gives the impression that lesbians have a high incidences of domestic violence (no doubt playing on the stereotype of lesbians as violent, aggressive women who really want to be men, i.e., Knight’s description of them.)
What is done here is the equivalent of taking the rate of domestic violence in the African-American community cited in the journal and judging that entire community solely on it.” – taken from the book “Greedy for Unjust Gains”
From Citizen (as quoted above):
“Even the pro-gay American Psychological Association admits that the current scientific consensus is that homosexuality results from a combination of biological, psychological and social/environmental factors.”
This mimics the APA answer to the question, What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
The answer then continues: “There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
Well, how convenient to pull out one sentence from the answer and neglect the sentence which is directly opposed to what is being suggested. And by shifting the word order, it’s not being quoted directly, so no referrence is required!
This is “quote mining” at its worst. Pick out a few words that appear to support one’s contention from a paragraph which actually concludes just the opposite.
The APA also answers:
“Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?” No
“Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?” No
“What About So-Called “Conversion Therapies”?” Well, I think the “So-Called” and the quotes give a hint about this answer. But please see the full answers for yourselves. I wouldn’t want to be accused of “quote mining.”
AM, thank you for that analysis.
And this rearranging the study results like that is exactly what’s so damaging to gay and lesbian concerns when it comes to equality.
This goes to the same bias in the reporting on Scandinavian marriage and family trends.
The new studies on gay and lesbian civil unions and adoptions were skewed as meaning that since gays and lesbians participate in ‘marriage like’ relationships, it’s turned off heterosexual Swedes and Norwegians to being married.
Anyone who has tracked social programs anywhere, including the US, would notice that the welfare and publicly funded childcare facilities or subsidized custodial parents take marital responsibility out of the hands of individual and into that of the government.
Anyone with a brain would also see that said government is rendering marriage and parental support UNNECESSARY.
But, the conservatives will find a way to make it the fault of gays and lesbians.
It’s been stated ad nauseum to the courts and legislatures here, that gay and lesbian couples and parents require marriage in the STATE’S interests of family requirement for responsibility.
That is the law of marriage in America, two consenting non related adults taking custody of spouse and children instead of the government being required to in case of crisis, in particular.
I can’t say it too often: gays and lesbians are literally the ONLY human beings kept from their spousal and parental responsibility by marriage.
When heterosexuals abdicate this intent and promise and abandon their own to welfare or foster care, or any other tax funded program, the state can do nothing to prevent it or protect the familial unit from this eventuality.
So, just how does our government justify requiring gays and lesbians to participate in COLLECTIVE protection of their fellow citizens through taxation and other social support, but not for their INDIVIDUAL responsibility for spouse and children?
I am SO ready to head to the Supreme Court and slap them up with that fact of life.
“Thousands of men and women who have left behind their gay and lesbian identities are living testimonies of the reality that homosexuality is a condition which can be overcome.”
A careful read of the above sentence tells the whole story: if you redefine the words you can claim anything.
“gay and lesbian identities” is mirrored with “homosexuality is a condition”.
In other words, if you no longer identify yourself as gay, you have overcome the condition of homosexuality. The “condition” is nothing more than a self identification.
Not only has the word “homosexuality” been redefined to have no independent meaning, the word “condition” is redefined. By anyone else’s definition, “condition” is an identifiable aspect of something. You might have a medical condition, a political condition, or a financial condition.
By the anti/ex-gay dictionary, a condition is a chosen identity. By their logic, saying “The middle east is at peace” would leave behind the condition of war. Or saying “I’m perfectly healthy” would leave behind the medical condition that was diagnosed by a doctor. Or telling the IRS that you had no profit would leave behind a rosy financial condition (until you had a stockholder’s meeting, of course, where that condition would be reestablished).
Do they know that they are changing definitions and distorting reality?
You betcha!!
And of course, there is the worst aspect of this slanting of evidence and propoganda development -the absolute refusal to see gay people as individuals, and to recognize that there are healthy, well-adjusted, happy gay people and couples all over the nation. Using these “statistics” is not only immoral because they are so often misquoted and misunderstood, but also because it assumes all gay people are so similar that these “statistics” are in fact predictive of the consequences for any gay person of living an openly gay life. That, of course, is bunk.
Interesting, as an aside, that the vote yesterday on marriage rights in Mass shows again what happens when the stereotypes about gay people are confronted by the reality of our lives. The people of Mass, who were decidedly NOT in favor of gay marriage in 2003, when the courts ruled in favor of the gay couples, are now in favor of, or indifferent to, gay marriage rights. The overwhelming vote in the legislature against the anti-gay amendment reflects the fact that when people get to know gays and lesbians and see their lives up close, as has happened during the marriage battle in that state, the reality is not the frightening situation painted by FOTF and their related groups.
Regarding CPT’s point, the recent vote of the Connecticut legislature in favor of at least civil unions has been credited on the court decisions in VT and MA in favor of CUs/marriage, respectively. Others (Steve Miller at IndeGayForum) have decryed the court activities in VT and MA, but the legislative activity in CT would not have happened but for the court decisions in VT and MA.
I’m a resident of MA. I check the condition of the sky every day. The sky has remained up there every day since Oct 17 2003, when the SJC released its decision in Goodridge.
Why rely on second hand quotes…This is Dobson himself…
And on the subect of deliberate distortion…
Those familiar with the truth will know that the vote of APA members was INITIATED and FORCED by a small group of disgruntled conservatives lead by Charles Socarides (a founder of NARTH) and Irving Bieber (today, viewed as an almost comically ignorant “expert” from the dark ages).The usual process of review was for an expert group to make recomendations to the DSM committee. This lead to the deletion from the DSM. Socarides and Bieber were so outraged that they set about gathering (I think) the 200 members needed to force an over-riding vote of the total membership. They lost that as well. They never accepted this, and the APA changed it’s voting rules to make sure that such a highjacking could not occur in the future.The NGLTF paid for a mail-out as part of that voting. Big whoop. They would not have needed to do that if Socarides and Bieber hadn’t forced that voting in the first place.And note the Focus non-response to the accusation of a “sin of omission”.Did we get a few examples of when Focus has talked about happy gay couples or presented a happy gay couple to, say, their Love Won Out conference? No, we did not — and the reason is plain… Focus has NEVER presented such a couple to their audience.This is of course, exactly what a sin of omission is. Focus stands guilty as charged.I don’t even have the time to go through the rest of lies and distortions in a piece that is meant to show that Focus don’t lie and distort. Of itself, alone, that response to Soulforce proves the accusation.
The thing that Dobson and others of his ilk seem to ignore is that there never was any evidence that homosexuality should have been considered a mental disorder.
I’m not going to mince words. Dobson is a liar. And there is nothing to debate.
Home run raj!
There never was a reason to consider it a disorder in the first place.
Ask a heterosexual how they came to their orientation, there might be a few seconds taken to ponder-but they don’t know where their’s comes from either. Or the answer is ‘it just is’.
When a gay person says, I’m the same as you, it just is:
How the HELL can a heterosexual argue about it whatsoever?!
There is a bit of a difference. Heterosexuality serves a biological purpose; homosexuality serves none.
Gay pride is a bigger problem because it closes your mind to the obvious: homosexuality is a disorder plain and simple.
It isn’t simply a matter of diversity. Grow up gentlemen.
John R. said:
Heterosexuality serves a biological purpose; homosexuality serves none.
I suppose if one assigns no more value to human love and companionship than one does to the urge of dogs to mate, this could be so. That’s a pretty sad viewpoint, however, and certainly not one I could not ascribe to as a Christian.
David
David, you actually hit on a serious biological point too (don’t know if you meant it!).The human, as animal, is a species most reliant on bonds of companionship and altruism to raise their offspring. We don’t just drop spawn off onto rocks and wizz off to the next feeding frenzy. Nope, there’s a good few decades before the child is able to support themself — education, language, relationship skills. Understanding Paris Hilton :(Homosexual bonding is just one aspect of human bonding (something I would argue has a solid biological foundation). Apart from that — who in their right mind would want to argue that gay men and women haven’t made their share of contributing to society; including helping to raise children?
The problem with all pro-homoseual arguments is they are not made from reason. They are anti-rational, and self-delusional. Love is irrelevant where homosexuality is concerned besides the appeal to emotion is one of the gravest of logical fallacies.
Christ rejected fornication as a grave sin, and show me where Christ said homosexual conduct was Okay. Trying to weasel out of the other verses in the Bible that explicitly condemn homosexual activity, bar none, is another logical fallacy: the appeal to silence.
Supporting homosexual conduct or any form of fornication is Un-Christian. Silence in the face of another’s sins is a grave sin.
Sort of like saying Napoleon never said anything about eating dog feces; therefore, Napoleon believed eating dog feces was part of a balanced breakfast.
Homosexual parenting is not about children, it is about self-centered homosexuals trying to assert their “normality.” It is sort of like a duck running around trying to tell the swans it is a swan because it imitates a swan. Like it or not, the swan still is a duck.
When you learn how to think rationally and to stop rationalizing your behavior, then give me a good argument.
So far, you have failed miserably. Appeals to love, feelings, etc., don’t cut the muster.
Hey Andrew, where is the clinical evidence that we are actually gay? You guys point a lot of fingers at the other side and fail to see that you are just like them….there ain’t no proof any of us are really gay other than the behavior factor.
John,
I think you are having difficulty in identifying reason. Reason uses observable and demonstrable fact to draw a conclusion. It does not simply state a conclusion and demand that it be believed without support.
For example, the following is a reasoned position: “The point of Soulforce’s claim is that Dobson sees homosexuality from a clinically false viewpoint – that it is a changeable condition. So arguing about the exact semantics of it is pointless.” As you can see, it points out a demonstrable fact (the point of Soulforce’s claim) and draws a conclusion.
An example of an un-reasoned position is: “Homosexual parenting is not about children, it is about self-centered homosexuals trying to assert their “normality.”” This was presented as a conclusion without anything supporting it. What evidence is presented that homosexual parenting is not about children? None.
So while I agree that one must be reasoned in their debate, you clearly have failed your own test.
Secondly, you discuss Christian theology. And you get that wrong as well. Perhaps you belong to some obscure sect, but according to most Christian theology:
1. Jesus never referred to fornication as a “grave sin”. Jesus never used the term “grave sin”.
2. To be silent in the face of another’s sin is NOT a grave sin. Jesus said that you should worry about your own sin (the beam in your eye) instead of the sin of another (the mote in his). He also chided those seeking to stone the woman caught in adultry, pointing out that they all had sin of their own.
3. And perhaps your stongest display of ignorance as to Christian teaching is the statement “Love is irrelevant where homosexuality is concerned”. Christ gave two commandments upon which all other commandments must rest. Anything contrary to these two commandments is – by definition – contrary to Christ and thus not Christian. Both commandments were to love. Anything which views love as irrelevant is anti-Christ.
So, John, I think you need to be schooled a bit more in both the use of reason and in the teachings of Christ before you lecture others on these subjects.
Gay4Ever at March 3, 2006 05:14 PM
Sorry, I don’t believe you are gay; you are a troll. Gay people know that there is a difference between orientation and behavior. Anti-gay activists (you, for example) claim not to believe this distinction.
John RSimple appeals to the bible is what doesn’t cut the mustard. You either believe it, or parts of it, or you don’t. Appeals to your own faith are not at all convincing to those who don’t hold to the same interpretations. So you’re anti-gay — why drag Jesus into it?However… we do know that the bible contains passages that unequivocally support slavery (it just tells the slave owners not to be too draconian, which is very generous of it). It took a very long time before many Christians applied the golden rule to slavery — and decided that the golden rule trumped whatever particular pro-slavery passage may appear in the bible. Paul himself certainly loses all credibility on that particular issue, and I have to wonder why a pro-slavery person is to be trusted with his preceding anti-homosexuality statements. (If, in fact, that’s what they were).And given all the traditional jewish law that Jesus did argue against, then perhaps he’d discarded the Levitical laws about homosexuality. Who knows? You certainly don’t, so stop appealing to that silence and claiming Jesus was anti-gay.Or is the bible silent on the matter? There is an occasion the bible tells of Jesus calling a Roman centurion an example of wonderful faith. This wouldn’t be so significant if not for the awkward words that the centurion had asked Jesus to heal his pais. Find out what role that very special type of “servant” fulfilled in the Roman world, and then come tell us why Jesus didn’t seem phased by this relationship at all.(And here’s your clue: pais is the root word from which we get ‘paediatric’ and ‘paedophile’ in English)Gay men and women raise children for the all the same reasons heterosexuals do, but perhaps you would like to point out to us how a couple such as the Loftons show any evidence of being self-centred?And you’re thinking of exgays here, not gay men and women raising children…