Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson writes “from [his] heart” that the institution of marriage is failing.
He points out the conditions he perceived which led to his founding of FOTF:
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, no-fault divorce laws, radical feminism and a sweeping sexual revolution combined here in the United States to rip open the fabric of the family. They left it shaken and wounded.
And he says that, in the 26-year lifetime of FOTF:
There have been times of hope and times of despair during this struggle, but overall, the family has been steadily losing ground. Now, the institution of marriage is on the ropes and western civilization itself appears to hang in the balance.
Having noted his organization’s failure to achieve the changes it sought despite a quarter-century of “working tirelessly to bolster and preserve traditional marriage and parenthood” with a $129 million budget and a paid staff of over 1,200, to whom does Dobson devote his next 4,000-plus words? Gays, lesbians, and transgender folks, of course.
GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, points out the ways in which Dobson recently used much of his hour-long appearance on CNN’s “Larry King Live” to “insult and denigrate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and families”, blaming them for the imminent fall of Western civilization. The 4,000-word diatribe follows the same theme as Dobson’s CNN appearance.
The question remains: Why is Dobson ignoring the vast majority of Americans who happen to be straight and legally marriageable in order to obsess about the small minority who are not? How can the purported demise of an institution which Dobson says “for millennia … has been celebrated by every culture on earth as the cornerstone of society” be felled by the support of a tiny minority who wish to participate in it?
Dobson justifies his position with a familiar series of exaggerations, misstatements and strawman arguments. Per his illogical reasoning, most gays and lesbians do not want to marry, they want to destroy marriage, legalize polygamy, and undermine all gender distinctions.
In July, Focus on the Family correspondent Steve Jordahl repeated the often-cited but misleading statistic that no more than 1 to 3 percent of the population is gay or lesbian. If he believes his own facts, Dobson is perfectly positioned to ignore the fact that a subset of a tiny minority wishes to participate in marriage.
Instead of focusing on supporting marriages and families amongst the purported 97-99 percent of Americans in his target market, though, he is determined to delegate control over the fate of marriage, family and civilization itself to the 3 percent.
Intentionally or not, Dr. Dobson creates the distinct impression that:
- He has exhausted his ability to make things better for straight families.
- Either a tiny tail is wagging a mighty big dog, or he believes gays number much more than 1-3%.
- His organization gains more from demeaning gay families than supporting straight ones.
- Extreme, arguably un-American means (legislating via the Constitution) are warranted.
A couple of other possibilities exist, as well.
Maybe he’s been watching the Fab Five improving the lives of straight couples and traditional families, and doesn’t feel up to going head-to-head with them for the hearts and minds of American families.
Or, for his readers who avoid whiney screeds, he stuck the core message message at the bottom:
P.S. The battle to defend biblical marriage will likely be long and difficult, and it will most definitely be costly… If you … feel led to make an additional contribution…
I trust you can fill in the rest.
Read the article. I hate to say it but glad to see that organization admitting it is loosing. When I was younger I found their idea of family as husband, wife, 2.5 children in the burbs insulting. My family wasn’t like that. Instead of giving advice to families to help them adjust to their particular circumstances they wanted to hold that example up as the only wholesome and worthy family. Who cares what wild cards fate threw you.
Also, I truly think that anyone who thinks that no-fault divorce is a bad thing doesn’t truly understand what divorce for fault was. Who on earth would want to add the pain of a court trail akin to a lawsuit to the already painful divorce process? Are Heterosexual marriages so unfulfilling they need the threat of a court trail to sustain them? From the looks of it, gay marriage is not what they fear. They fear any marriage based on the equality of gender.
Focus says it is losing — but it blames everyone but itself for the lost ground.
Focus received $130 million in income in its most recent reporting year. That’s far more than the combined income of all national gay-rights organizations, and it may even exceed the combined income of all national and state gay-rights groups.
Focus wastes much of this money on inaccurate, uncivil, counterproductive, un-Christlike, and often ineffective propaganda.
Sometimes its fear-and-contempt campaigns do work. The antigay hate and hysteria that Focus is generating over gay marriage seems to be contributing to broad public support for a constitutional ban on gay marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.
Open questions for Mr. Dobson (if he, of course, ever deigned to visit this site):
1. Mr. Dobson, in an Advocate poll taken a couple of years ago, 50% of the gay and lesbian respondents said they would be interested in getting married if the opportunity was given to them. If the percentage of gays and lesbians in the larger population is as small as 1%, as you claim, then please explain how 1/2 of 1% of the population has been responsible for the destruction of the family ties of 99.5% of the remaining population.
2. You claim to be a defender of “biblical marriage,” but which biblical definition of marriage are you defending? There are several to choose from throughout the Old and New Testament, and since you are fond of using Old Testament scripture to support your position that homosexuality is wrong, then I must assume that you accept the Old Testament laws as applicable for today. With that in mind, would you be willing to defend the biblical definition of marriage practiced by the forefathers of the Jewish and Christian faiths, such as Abraham? If not, what is your biblical basis for doing so?
3. I realize that your organization cannot be responsible for the direction the larger society takes. However, if church-going Christians are worse off today regarding divorce, parenting and marriage issues (which has been shown in a number of different surveys) than they were when your organization first began, then please explain what you are doing with the funds you receive. If you were focusing on the real problems faced by the modern family, then one would assume your organization would have made a greater impact on those who share your religious beliefs.
4. Why do you seek governmental involvement regarding marriage issues? Isn’t the “destruction of the family” primarily a social issue precipitated by loss of moral values, as you so often claim? If so, aren’t you admitting that your organization has failed its objectives if you must use political means to achieve them, because your attempt at moral persuasion has not worked, even among those who share your religious beliefs?
Your answers to these questions would be most appreciated.
Chris
Addressing the failure or the family would involve going into something no conservative wants to do: the stagnation if not actual decline of wages during the conservative ascendency of the last 30 years. Under the NewDeal consensus, usually a man working could earn enough to support a wife and children. They were assisted in this by all sorts of governmental programs regarding home ownership, public education, public goods such as parks and recreation, coporate taxation.
When conservatives seized the levers of governmental policy, all of this began to go away. Wages have been stagnant for 30 years, due in large part to governmental policy.
It is far easier to blame gays and lesbians for this state of affairs than to lay the blame on your corporate sponsers.
Dobson is misleading his audience about the reasons why Focus on the Family was launched.
Focus co-founder Gil Moegerle’s book, James Dobson’s War on America, discusses how Dobson turned a benign family-advice group into an advocacy group that was refocused upon Dobson’s stereotype-heavy contempt for women’s rights, racial equality, social-gospel (Sermon/Mount) Christianity, liberals, single mothers, and same-sex-attracted people.
I have heard of several Exodus member ministers/counselors who object to the Exodus leadership’s alliance with Dobson (who has become more hostile toward same-sex-attracted people than ever before). But these dissidents appear to be too frightened or discouraged to speak up.
Chris,
Focus employs an army of correspondence clerks who answer questions such as yours. So don’t hesitate to send your questions to Focus here, and let us know what kind of response you get.
Oh, jeez, you know as well as I do why Dobson attacks gay people, while giving a pass to no-fault divorce, contraceptive drugs and devices, and the like, which have really caused problems regarding “the family.” It’s because his customer base, conservative heterosexual christians, really do prefer having the latter available to them. And one does not get contributions by alienating one’s customer base.
He and others of his ilk have discovered that he can maximize revenues by bashing gay people. It obviously works. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it as much as they do.
In his video series “Bringing Up Boys”, Dr. Dobson gave the following root cause of the decline of the family. Absent fathers (both physically and emotionally). While Dr. Dobson believes that this may be a cause of homosexuality, that wasn’t the only negative consequence he cited (e.g., the vast majority of criminals had absent fathers). Here’s the inside communication to his constituency:
1. Fathers be there for your children. If your job gets in the way, quit.
2. The men in the church should help out single moms to give their children a proper male role model. He expressed his admiration for the single moms in the audience for the difficult job that they had. There is a sub-site on FoF dedicated to this: single-parent.family.org.
Starting from the premise that absent fathers causes homosexuality and that homosexuality is undesirable, Dr. Dobson concludes that he should exhort fathers to be there. As such, Dr. Dobson comes down on his “constituency” quite hard.
Hey Rich…
Dr. Dobson’s encouragement of dads sounds great. I just don’t understand why he implies that a quarter century of such teaching and encouragement could be rendered impotent to prevent the fall of civilization once gay couples can legally marry.
I am glad my parents didn’t take the advice on that list. Someone offered to be a role model when I was child. After all, a young boy needs male role models. Thank God my parents didn’t fall for that one as the priest later turned out to be a pedophile! I am quite leery of someone offering to be a role model just because there is no man in the house.
As for absent fathers well there could be dozens of reason why he is absent and work is probably the least troublesome one of them. More than likely he is absent due to bad relations with the mother of his children. Divorce, unhappy home, being abusive, or abandonment are much more likely causes and those problems and the emotional toll they have are not solved as simply.
Jason, what you describe is what Dr. Dobson labels as being emotionally absent. You don’t have to be physically absent to cause the damage. I would hardly call being a pedophile as a good role model. Sadly, this has to be dealt with in any kind of male mentoring program.
The way I heard him, Dr. Dobson was more concerned about homosexual(and feminist) activism in the public schools than anything else. The push for gay marriage was more of a result than a cause. The way he put it is this generation’s students is next generation’s leaders. He credited great political savvy on the part of the activists targetting the schools.
This, by the way, is much of the reason that a number parents are pulling their kids out of the public schools. It is no accident that the same Congressman that propose the marriage amendment also propose bills that support home schooling. If they cannot remove the bad influence from the public schools, they will remove their kids from the schools, instead. Homosexual activism was not the only bad influence cited by Dobson, but also bullying. (Colorado Springs is only 60 miles from Columbine High School.) In fact, the latter was stressed more heavily.
“Starting from the premise that absent fathers causes homosexuality and that homosexuality is undesirable, Dr. Dobson concludes that he should exhort fathers to be there. As such, Dr. Dobson comes down on his “constituency” quite hard.”
Quite the contrary. I’m sure that members of “his constituency”–the male part, at least–all believe that they are “there,” wherever “there” is.
And don’t forget, you admit that one of his premises is that “homosexuality is undesirable.” That, of course, is what he is selling.
Combined with his other anti-gay rhetoric, one might seriously ask why he hates gay people so much, when it is apparently (according to you) his believe that aloof and distant fathers (that is actually the way that the wackos at NARTH put it) and overbearing mothers causes homosexuality. In other words, in Dobson’s Weltanschauung, it is the parents’ fault, but he would bring the wrath of damnation down upon the children. I have to tell you, but the fact is that there is some disconnect there.
BTW, nobody who has actually studied the situation would truly believe that “aloof and distant fathers” in any way “causes” homosexuality. In other words, Dobson’s belief, if he truly believes that, is BS.
I am trying to remember if he even brought up homosexuality when he was discussing absent fathers. It certainly wasn’t stressed. The things mentioned that were stressed were violence, promiscuity, criminal behavior, and the lack of respect for women. While homosexuality may not have been linked to absent fathers, the things above have been.
You have to love this kind of “commentary” from the “pro-family” movement. He uses what? three quotes from “liberals” (one of whom is not gay – Michael Kinsley – and I believe was making a fascetious point in the quoted column), throws in a statement from the 1972 gay liberation platform (please, I was 5 when that passed) and then goes on to list several “pro-family” commentators who use the same selective quotes to paint this dire picture.
And that is truly his point – this is not a religious organization, or one who even wants the changes in society in the 60s to be reversed – after all it is only through the use of these bogeymen that Dobson and his ilk can gather all their money. They need scared, desperate people who they can lie to and then suck the money out of so they can fight the “enemy” they have sold to the masses – it’s sickening.
I have to wonder – if Dobson’s form of “Christianity” – in which the place you pray is more important than the kind of person you are – is really the “truth” he and his buddies claim – why do they need to silence the gay community? Why do they need to pull their kids from public schools? Because they know their “religion” cannot be sustained when the truth about gay people comes to light. If they were actually correct, and we were all immoral monsters, society would be able to tell that pretty quickly. But instead, as straight people get to know us they grow accustomed to us and drop their homophobia. That is what Dobson must fight – keep the “Christians” who support him away from the gay people, so they won’t see the house of cards on which his “religion” is built.
The following exchange has been very enlightening. What I have seen is that both sides have erected straw men. What you say about Dr. Dobson and his followers believed has missed the mark terribly, just as what Dr. Dobson has said about you has done the same.
If there is a fear amongst conservative Chistians it is that the government will come in and impose its values on the raising of their children. Remember, the 1-3% statistic being promoted. The fear is not the U.S. will become homosexual, but rather that their religious freedom will be taken away. They see what is going on in Canada and Europe where any kind of criticism of homosexual behavior is marginalized at best and criminalized at worst. As such, the fear is their First Amendment rights would be eroded.
I think a reasonable compromise would be to get the government to butt out completely. I have the right to call homosexual behavior sinful (not the unforgivable sin but sin nonetheless), and you have the right to say that it is not. Assurances that America does not go the way of Europe and Canada would go a long way towards meaningful dialogue between our communities.
Hey Rich…
I really appreciate having your input on this thread.
Your perception that some gay marriage opponents fear losing free speech or religious expression rights could very well have some basis of truth even though I’m not finding any mention of it in Dr. Dobson’s letter to which I was responding.
But, to be clear, I’m talking about the emotion — fear of losing rights — not the reality. I don’t see firm, rational evidence that the marriage amendment is necessary to protect free exercise of religion, speech or assembly.
I trust you see that I wasn’t trying to categorize all of Dr. Dobson’s teachings. My primary point was that the letter says that marriage, and perhaps civilization, could be felled by gay marriage.
I agree with you that government ought to butt out of marriage, but I think it already does that for 90+% of marriageable adults. A marriage license confers a status (rights and responsibilities), not approval. People getting married often surround themselves with family and community that support and approve of their choice, but disapproval by anyone else — church leaders, fellow citizens, neighbors, or family — has absolutely no bearing on their ability to get a marriage license.
Assurances that the U.S. won’t go the way of Canada in limiting free speech? We’ve already got a rich tradition of protecting extreme speech. The assurance couldn’t be much simpler, or more powerful, than the First Amendment.
I think we start a meaningful connection when we realize that we share the same fear. Fears are rarely rational. This thread documented the fear that conservative Christians want to silence homosexuals. I think it would be insensitive of me to say, “Hey, that fear is irrational.” Maybe it is, but it is still heartfelt and there is some evidence that the fear is justified. Likewise, the conservative Christian has the same fear of being silenced. Irrational, maybe, but there is also evidence for that fear. Dismissing this as “homophobia” only reinforces the fear because the conservative Christian knows that this is a false charge and suspects they are being shouted down.
You and I agree that it is unnecessary for the so-called marriage amendment to protect the rights of conservative Christians. See https://blinne.blogs.com/blog/2003/06/corrupting_the_.html
Yet, there are people out there on both sides that fear their rights will be taken away. It is incumbant on those of us who are not fearful to take steps to allay those fears both on our own side and the other side. We are not the expert on other people’s feelings, they are. Summarily dismissing the fears and beliefs of people only serves to further polarize a situation that is already too polarized.
The blog entry I mentioned in my previous comment did not mention one of the arguments made against endorsing the marriage amendment during debate at the PCA General Assembly. One member noted that the failure to pass the amendment nowhere forced him to sin personally. It is only when that is the case should the church endorse specific legislation. BTW, the PCA is the denomination of Dr. D. James Kennedy and this motion had his personal endorsement. They defeated it soundly.
I am not sure that they fear being silenced as much as they fear change. Interracial relationships/marriage was a hot button a few decades ago. Main line Churches preached against it buttressing their arguments with scripture. States forbade it for all sorts of pseudo scientific/historical reasons (like sodomy, same sex marriage). People were killed for being suspected of doing it. It in many ways is probably the issue most like homosexuality and gay marriage. The people that did it wanted the freedom to love whom they choose regardless of race and have at least the government respect that choice. Well, by order of the court laws forbidding interracial marriage were struck down.
Slowly but surely it became seen as a sign of ignorance and hatred for anyone to speak out against it and no main stream church does so now. I think a similar thing is happening in Canada and Europe. Did morality change? Did the word of God change or did society change along with our interpretations of both scripture and what is right and wrong change?
You make my point and don’t understand where they are coming from. Do not confuse a conviction that things ought not to change with a fear of change. Not all change is good, nor is all change bad. It cannot be determined if something is right or wrong based purely on whether things are changing. Fundamentalists like everyone else want some things to change and other things to stay the same.
As for Canada and Europe, criminalization of dissent is no way to achieve the moral high ground. This runs counter to your example and not in line with it.
Uh, where has it become a criminal offense to ‘dissent’? The only instance I am aware of is the case in Saskatchewan where an ad featuring Bible verses about putting gays to death was coupled with a stamp out sign over a gay couple. This was, correctly in my opinion, ruled to be hate speech. If there is a fear that Christians can no longer threaten death to gays, can no longer have visuals of gays being stomped upon, well good. This hardly seems to be a major assault on freedom of speech. Just a simple reminder that gays too are humans deserving of respect and dignity. Are there other actual examples which do not involve threatening death and dismemberment?
I am not talking about threats. That’s covered by current assault laws, anyway. If you teach that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful, then this considered “hate speech”. Going back to a previous post, I am all for laws (or the lack of them) that do not compel me to sin, e.g. I don’t see the need for the marriage-amendment. However, when you compel me to interpret the Bible in a particular way and you silence people from communicating their interpretations, then it goes too far. BTW, this goes both ways. You have the right to hold and promote your opinion that my interpretation is wrong, and the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality. Calling me in error is no way “hate speech”.
In what place, at what time and under what circumstances has any Christian group had its freedom of speech regarding gay people restricted? Has this ever happened? Until we can see actual instances, this whole opposition seems like much ado about nothing. Waiting for actual instances.
The good faith exemption to C-415 does not have any teeth according Chief Justice Beverly McLachin:
“What they are saying is, that if you willfully promote hatred, you can use this defense, but no one in good faith would promote hatred,” Clemenger said. “So that ‘good faith’ clause almost eliminates the defense.”
What this means is you cannot be critical in any sense, not just threaten. Scott Brokie was fined for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual activist group.
I would be for this if the speech was more narrowly defined like U.S. hate speech. Namely, there is a credible threat of physical harm. The Canadian bill is way to vague.
Rich says: ‘What this means is you cannot be critical in any sense, not just threaten. Scott Brokie was fined for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual activist group.’
It is a common feature of commercial and business licenses for there to be a requirement to serve all members of the public regardless of race, creed, color, orientation etc. This is nothing surprising, nor is it something that the printer did not know in advance. In fact, he clearly agreed to this condition as part of his application for a license. So what is the problem? If someone can not keep his word on serving all members of the public willing and able to pay for his services, why should he be believable on anything else?
I wanted to discuss the law rather than the individual. What is relavent is the overreaching that says in order to be gainfully employed we are going to force you to violate your religious beliefs. This is analogous to the ethical dilemmas caused by some ex-gay groups. Should we trust someone who promised to no longer have homosexual thoughts?
Both sides know their feelings, i.e. the conservative Christian does not fear homosexuals and the homosexual Christian still feels homosexual temptations. Having those feelings lied about does not promote unity amongst the Christians. I know this is not a concern amongst those of you who are not Christians, so please ignore this if you are not. But, if you are please consider the disunifying effect of the overreaching we are discussing.
This is particularly the case if you a Protestant. As Protestants our consciences are bound to Scripture, not tradition. While we try to convince others that our interpretation is correct, we are not to force an interpretation that violates the other’s conscience.
Please pardon my intrusion on your blog. I did this not to debate with you but so you can better understand where others are coming from. In the near future I plan a critique on my blog of ex-gay “ministries” from an evangelical Christian perspective. When I am done I will come back here and let you know so that you can address any inaccuracies that I might have.
Until then, Shalom.
You people are so ignorant and think you are superior to others. Namely Gay Christians who were created by God just like you. You are hating and hurting your own brothers and sisters.
You use gays as your “money machine” to keep those dollars rolling in. The one I really like is “THE GAY AGENDA”. All we want is equal rights as guaranteed by the constutition. You are turning people away from God! God warned you abou keeping his children from him. You are going to loose your little war against Gays because we are protrected by the brilliance of our forefathers who wrote the constitution of The United States.
You have thr right to believe your personally selected verses out of the Bible and ignore others that you do not care to follow. You do not have the right to spread hate, hurt, suicide or turn people away from God for your profit. You disgust me. This is hard for me to say with true feelings, but may God forgive you. You certianally need it.
I came across this while reading a systematic theology book for one of my classes. The author, detailed below, is a Baptist teaching at Fuller Theological Seminary. I think it pertains to this topic because, after all, it is the “traditional interpretation” of scripture used by many that has us in this mess. Here is the quote;
“”No one should deny that traditional biblical interpretation has proved inadequate to protect the Reformed Church in South Africa, inadequate to protect the Medieval Catholic Church from the cruelty of the Inquisition – inadequate to protect American Christians from their twentieth-century military (cf.Ethics, p. 314). We cannot correct all the excesses Christians have carried out under traditional cover, but we must ask if we ourselves are helpless prisoners of our traditional ways of reading the Bible.”
– James Wm. McClendon, Jr., Doctrine: Systematic Theology, Volume 2, pp. 468-469
You guys sound like you hate christians who disagree with you!
Isn’t that hate speech?
Gary and “K,” from opposite sides, both of you are shouting undocumented accusations at unidentified persons labeled “you.”
Please address specific individuals with specific concerns about specific quotations.
I appreciate your strong feelings. But if you can’t show some effort at respectful discussion, I’ll have to ban you. Sorry.
Rich, I actually appreciate your coming on the blog, and thank you for your respectful commentary, it is enlightening.
I want to address some of your comments, which are similar to some of the less thoughtful comments on the thread – namely the idea that gay rights somehow reduce the religious freedom of certain “Christians.”
Whatever happens in Canada, and that country does not have the same free speech laws that the US does – they don’t have an active KKK for instance – the United States is not going to pass any laws and the courts will not issue any rulings that will force any denomination to change its theology. Your religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution, and the current movement for gay rights is NOT a movement to silence select “Christians.”
What is changing is that Christianity, or that is to say certain interpretations of Christianity, no longer represent the social morality of the country, and that is what hits most “Christians” the hardest. All societies must have a consensus morality (e.g., the strong property rights in the US) and in the US for too long the consensus has been basically the same as “Christian” beliefs. Evangelicals and members of the “pro-family” movement who argue that the US was a Christian nation are correct, up to a point – we simply adapted the rule book and made it secular.
But the founding fathers did not stop there – they created a fluid framework for society that allowed for adaptations to that morality over time (remember, slavery was acceptable to most “Christians” in the 1700s). What is happening currently, and has been going on since WWII, is that the “Christian” morality is being replaced by a purely secular one, and that is tough on “Christians.”
But we live in a secular country. Rich, you talk about religious people being “forced” to violate their religious beliefs if gay rights legislation is passed. But really what would occur is that “Christians” would have to finally join the rest of the country in tolerating opposing viewpoints.
Until the 1950s, gays were routinely deprived of our rights to free speech, to free assembly, and to freedom of religion. In a series of court cases in the 50s and 60s, the Supreme Court was forced to acknowledge that gays are human beings and have these same rights as straights.
But today, certain religious belief systems (including “Christianity”) are given special rights that gays do not enjoy. In 2/3 of this country, it is perfectly legal for a “Christian” company to refuse service to a gay person or group (so a printer could refuse a job from a gay group), to refuse to hire a gay person, to hire or refuse promotion to a gay person, or to refuse housing or other accommodations to a gay person.
You probably think this is fine – “Christians” don’t have to violate their religion by associating or helping gay people or groups.
HOWEVER, the playing field is far from level. If you reverse the situation you will see why. It is illegal, IN ALL 50 STATES, for a gay employer or company to refuse service to a “Christian,” to refuse to hire or promote a “Christian,” or to refuse any public accommodation to a “Christian.” In other words, as someone about to hire a staff, I cannot refuse to hire someone, even if they voice the opinion that gays are mentally ill and should be forced to change sexual orientations. But a “Christian” employer could refuse to hire me just for having a rainbow sticker on my car.
What we are looking for, Rich, is not to silence “Christians” but to require them to play by the exact same rules we do. I don’t like most “Christian” religions, and I have the right to discuss why I don’t like them, and the mistakes I believe they make, but I must deal with them in the public sphere, the reverse is not true.
Then you add the indignity of these “Christian” and “pro-family” groups actively slandering gay people, and you realize why we are so angry. It is one thing to preach gays are immoral, it is another thing entirely to claim we are prone to child molestation using falsified data, as some “pro-family” groups do. It is the lying we want to stop Rich, not the religion.
CPT Doom said:
I would go so far as to say that religious conformity has never been what we were about. See my post on being a Christian Nation.
Note also the following historical commentary on the background to Patrick Henry’s famous speech.
From the article:
“In July, Focus on the Family correspondent Steve Jordahl repeated the often-cited but misleading statistic that no more than 1 to 3 percent of the population is gay or lesbian. If he believes his own facts, Dobson is perfectly positioned to ignore the fact that a subset of a tiny minority wishes to participate in marriage.”
There is one other possibility for the paranoia groups like FOTF feel: they perhaps don’t believe that “1-3%” is a stable figure — they may seriously believe that permitting open homosexuality and gay marriage will throw open the gates of “immorality,” and huge numbers of formerly straight people will rush to get married to a same sex partner.
This is one of the main ways we gays fail in arguing in the “Culture War” — we know intuitivley that being gay is not something that spreads like a common cold (or religion), and data from studies do seem to confirm that people (children) are not made gay by mere exposure to gays.
The peole at FOTF, on the other hand, seem to believe “1-3%” is only the beginning, and they must squelch the “Gay Agenda” at every turn to prevent a Gay Pandemic.
Of course they think the numbers will grow. Since homosexuality is simply a behavior, if the gates are swung wide open there will be many more people choosing to engage in homosexual behavior, thus more homosexuals. To reinforce a very strong social taboo against homosexual behavior, it assures less people involved in homosexual behavior, thus fewer homosexuals.
Homosexuals to many are simply heterosexuals (because God don’t make no junk!) who want lots of sex (thus sexual addiction) and are willing to destroy family relationships, even marriage itself, to get what they want. It is like the cocaine addict who will do anything to get his/her next hit.
Bob
Bob, now there is an interesting theory. I have always wanted to know why there is so much opposition to gays. I mean homosexuality isn’t the bible’s favorite subject it is hardly mentioned at all. They think that homosexual behavior is what makes a person homosexual and so by regulating behavior you can reduce the number of homosexuals. So much for attraction!
I wonder what function do they think holding that taboo up serves? Taboos are quite interesting in that there is sometimes a bit of truth (or history) wrapped up in a lot of ignorance.
“Homosexuals to many are simply heterosexuals (because God don’t make no junk!) who want lots of sex (thus sexual addiction) and are willing to destroy family relationships, even marriage itself, to get what they want. It is like the cocaine addict who will do anything to get his/her next hit.”
It is interesting, Bob, that a lot of anti-gay religious types teach that same-sex encounters are more fulfilling and more pleasurable because someone of the same gender is better able to know what the other person likes.
It is also interesting that when infidelity occurs in a marriage, it is almost always with someone of the same gender as the spouse – that is, not many married people are out having lots of same sex encounters because they feel so good.
So why is it that certain men who lead the crusade against gay rights believe that gay sex is more pleasurable than straight sex? And why is it that at least one of these men (Peter LaBarbera, formerly of Concerned Women for America, now with the Illinois Family Institute) reportedly has a large gay male porn collection (for research purposes of course)? Perhaps these men have other “issues” they choose not to deal with?
Note: the info on LaBarbera was printed in Wayne Besen’s “Anything But Straight” which de-bunks the “ex-gay” movement.