All That X-Rated Smut Is Killing Off Marriage, According To The FRC

The Family Research Council just won’t quit. Having clearly lost the battle to convince Americans that being gay is just about the worst thing you can “choose” to do, they’ve widened their scope in an attempt to shake their proverbial finger at the rest of a society they see as crumbling relentlessly around them.

Marriage — that sacred bond between a man and a woman, has been on the decline lately. Why? Well, according to them, it’s all that porn everyone is watching! They call it “common-sensical” that the more x-rated smut is freely available on the interwebs, the more damaged the institution of marriage becomes.

What they’re actually doing is taking the results from a study by a German think tank and using them to prop up their distorted view of reality. The Washington Post looked at the same study and had this to say:

“There are many reasons for the trend. One of the most provocative is the rise of wealth inequality. Andrew J. Cherlin made this point in a recent op-ed in the New York Times: Historically, low and stable inequality has coincided with periods of higher marriage rates among all socioeconomic groups. Marriage can be a expensive institution, especially without two sustainable sources of income. It’s likely of little coincidence that the United States is particularly unequal today, and its poor are particularly less likely to marry than the rich.”

They went on to point out several flaws in the study, one of which being that it examines data collected from 2000-2004, so, data that are a decade old.

Also, the researchers themselves note that their “findings fall short of being conclusive.”

But far be it for the FRC to use real-world logic when deciding which damaging thing to assert next.

FRC RADIO HOST CRAIG JAMES ISN'T SURE ABOUT EXECUTING GAYS, BUT HE'S ALL FOR DYING TO DENY THEM EQUAL RIGHTS

Craig James, a former TV football analyst, is fond of saying he was fired by Fox Sports merely because of his views against same-sex marriage. 

But it's beginning to seem more likely that Fox Sports let James go because he's a total wingnut with a variety of extremist anti-gay views, which he only began to publicly articulate in 2012 during a failed campaign for US Senate in Texas. 

Those views have come much more into focus during James' current tenure as a radio host for the Family Research Council, an anti-gay hate group. 

The most recent example was Friday, when James spoke with a caller to FRC's "Washington Watch" program. 

Right Wing Watch reports: 

“I want to say something very horrific, a solution, and I think it’s the right solution,” said the caller, who said his name was Phillip. “We pray for the homosexuals, we’ve prayed for our enemies but at the same time when they try to force us to go against God, I think that’s where they cross the line and we should pass laws to execute them when they have judges to go against our businesses.”

And here's James' response: 

"Thank you Phillip. You know what, that part there, I don’t know about the executing, but I do know that we have to be bold and firm and much stronger. God doesn’t tell us and calls us that we have to be timid and to stand for our straight — our beliefs. I’m doing a course right now in seminary and it’s the history of the early church and it’s fascinating, there’s been lots and lots and lots of men and women who have died for their Christian beliefs since the beginning and now we are in a time in this country and in this world where we must be bold and stand for God and His truths."

In other words, James isn't sure about executing gay people, but he's all for dying to stop them from getting equal rights.

Is there a difference? 

It sounds like James, a one-time NFL running back, would probably do whatever it takes to win — but I suspect the outcome of this struggle will be similar to that of his Senate campaign, when he ended up with 4 percent of the vote. 

Listen to the audio,

P

Family Research Council's marriage equality 'study' = more smoke, mirrors, and deception

Editor's note - In the past, the Family Research Council used to publish "studies" which demonized the lgbt community. Those "studies" were bad pieces utilizing either junk or cherry-picked science. While the organization seems to not be publishing new "studies," it continues to spotlight past ones. Case in point - Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage:

Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same Sex Marriage which, FRC claims is "trending on its site, supposedly speaks against gay marriage. Like every other "study" published by FRC, this one is filled with errors.

In the piece, Family Research Council is basing the argument against gay marriage on the claim that "children need both a mother and a father."

FRC makes the claim that lesbians household "raising children without a father" is wrong because according to them:

Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.

And gay households "raising children without a mother" is wrong because:

fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family.

However, very little (if any at all) of the literature/studies FRC cites to make these conclusions have anything to do with same-sex households. 

When the organization does address the studies involving same-sex households, it throws out an insulting addendum:

A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage: 

Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.

This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.

There is a huge problem with FRC citing Nock's testimony. He gave it in 2001. Since that time, there have been numerous other studies , as well as personal stories from children in same-sex households which back up the conclusion that same-sex households are a perfectly fine place to raise children.

Also, Nock's testimony was rejected by other researchers. (*see below) 

But keep in mind the phrase by FRC when criticizing studies involving same-sex households - most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems.

If these studies is biased and have no credibility, then why do FRC have no problem citing them when attacking same-sex households:

SPLC: Fewer Policitians Will Attend This Year's FRC Values Voter Summit

From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Where have all the elected officials gone? The Family Research Council’s (FRC) annual Values Voter Summit (VVS), set for the end of September, is fast approaching. But unlike prior years, very few high profile politicians have confirmed their participation. And the current line up seems more extreme than ever. Could this annual rite of passage, a must attend event for politicians courting social conservatives, be losing its luster? 

This year, the VVS’s confirmed speakers list is nearly bereft of high level office holders. As of today, the confirmed speakers holding elective office totals four: U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), Governor Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Texas), the biggest cowboy of the bunch. The lineup is a far cry from last year, when 16 federal and state officials participated. Among them were GOP luminaries Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). This time around, Ryan was until early August listed as an invited speaker, but his name has been pulled. A call to Ryan’s office to find out why was not answered. 

The situation could of course change in the coming weeks. Right now, there are a handful of elected officials listed as invited to the event, but not confirmed: U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Gov. Phil Bryan (R-Miss.) and U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). Calls and emails to their offices to determine if they will be speaking at VVS went unreturned.

The SPLC notes that there will no shortage of hate groups on hand. In addition to the host Family Research Council, attending will be Liberty Counsel, the World Congress of Families, the American Family Association, NOM, the Red-Caped Catholic Loons, PFOX, Summit Ministries, and the Family Policy Council.

Hate Group Family Research Council Exploits Robin Williams' Suicide To Promote 'Ex-Gay' Therapy

With a shameless lack of compassion, anti-gay hate group Family Research Council (FRC) has used the death of Robin Williams to promote “ex-gay” therapy, reports On Top Magazine.

In a blog post published on Monday, Peter Sprigg, FRC’s senior fellow for policy studies, compared Williams' struggles with addiction and depression to people struggling with their sexual orientation. 

Comparing “ex-gay” therapy with addiction rehab, Sprigg asks why “socially liberal political activists” are not also trying to ban both:

“I ask the question because such activists are trying to ban a form of mental health treatment – not drug and alcohol rehabilitation, but 'sexual orientation change efforts' (SOCE), also known as 'sexual reorientation therapy.' Such therapy involves assisting people with unwanted same-sex attractions to overcome them. 

“Whatever the motivation [for “ex-gay” therapy], there are those who have simply made a choice to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle, without clinical help – much like how Robin Williams simply stopped using drugs and alcohol in the 1980’s. Others have sought professional help, perhaps at the urging of family members, in the form of 'sexual reorientation therapy' – much like when Williams entered a formal alcohol rehab program in 2006. Whether simply through personal development, religious counseling, or with the help of a licensed or unlicensed counselor, thousands (if not millions) of people have experienced significant changes in one or more of the elements of their sexual orientation (attractions, behavior, or self-identification).”

Back in July, Sprigg said that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act represents a "direct assault on moral values," and is actually just an effort to legislate the "immorality of those who accept homosexual conduct."

Tony Perkins Has The Oregon Sadz

"This is another lawless decision that the Supreme Court has not provided any precedent for. The Supreme Court has said nothing that would give a federal judge the right to redefine marriage. In fact, the Supreme Court has granted stays in comparable cases which this judge failed to do. The judge's disregard for the rule of law and for the voters of Oregon is breathtaking. The state's failure to defend its own constitution, and the failure of an openly homosexual judge to recuse himself, demonstrate that this decision is without basis.

"If the courts believe they are going to resolve this issue once and for all by forcing a redefinition of marriage on the American people, they are wrong. The far reaching decision inRoe v. Wade was intended to resolve the issue of abortion, which 41 years later we know conclusively it did not. The definition of marriage, like the sanctity of human life, is seen in the natural or moral law. The decisions of courts can ignore it, they can even attempt to suppress it, but they will never eradicate it." - KKK affiliated hate group leader Tony Perkins, via press release.

Right Wing Groups Boycott Girl Scout Cookies Over Lesbian Role Models, 'Very Liberal' Activities

The American Family Association, Family Research Council, and other right-wing organizations will not be enjoying the bounty of Thin Mints, Samoas, and Tagalongs offered by the Girl Scouts of America this year. The reason? According to AFA president Tim Wildmon, "buying Girl Scout cookies serves only to further facilitate a very liberal pro-abortion agenda.” Right Wing Watch reports:

WND has reported on a variety of activities on the part of Girl Scouts that conservatives and religious believers might find objectionable, including when the organization was found touting a pro-abortion politician.

Girl Scouts also marched in a homosexual promotion in San Francisco and were found to be removing “God” from their “Girl Scout Promise.”

They also have incorporated stone labyrinths, global warming, yoga, avatars, smudging incense, Zen gardens and lesbian role models into their teachings.

In a lesson called “Amaze: The Twists and Turns of Getting Along,” girls were taught that they should read Buddha and explore mazes and stone or dirt labyrinths – symbols rooted in pagan mythology and popular within the New Age movement as meditation tools.

They also were introduced to Polish poet Anna Swir, known for her feminist and erotic poems, and Jane Addams, an ardent feminist and pacifist.

Perhaps most disturbing, and ironic, is the ardent opposition Girl Scouts face from Concerned Women for America.

CWA’s Janice Shaw Crouse told WorldNetDaily, “The Girl Scouts formerly embraced the Judeo-Christian values that Americans once grew up with – love of God, love of country, treating others fairly and living wholesome lives. Now, Girl Scouts are more focused on indoctrinating girls on the so-called women’s rights agenda.” 

These complaints smack of earlier concerns from the likes of Indiana Rep. Bob Morris and transphobic girl scout Taylor.
WorldNetDaily actually offered a plethora of extremely silly reasons not to buy the delicious treats; I suppose that means more for the rest of us!

FRC logic: Nondiscrimination incident in state w/out marriage equality proves marriage equality's consequences

This comes from the Family Research Council's press release on this week's historic court decision in Oklahoma, quote attributed to president Tony Perkins: 

Of course Colorado doesn't have civil marriage equality (or hasn't "redefined marriage," as Tony would put it). The cake was for the non-legally-binding party of a couple who had legally married in Massachusetts prior to entering this cake shop. The issue in that matter has nothing to do with any sort of local policy change on marriage, court-enforced or otherwise, and everything to do with local nondiscrimination law. It doesn't matter if Colorado is months, years, or centuries away from getting marriage equality, or if the cake in question is for some other tangential party (anniversary, shower, etc.) related (or not) to their love—the nondiscrimination law prevents the sort of discrimination that the cake baker showed to the same-sex couple because it was based on WHO THEY ARE as customers (i.e. gay). 

Josh Duggar, Oldest of the 19-Child Reality TV Family, Takes a Job with an Anti-Gay Hate Group

Josh Duggar, the oldest of the Duggar children from TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting, has accepted a job as Executive Director at the FRC Action group of Family Research Council, the SPLC-designated hate group run by Tony Perkins, GLAAD reports: 

Duggar has said in the past that he "will be working with a Christian organization to help promote 'family values and right to life.”  But FRC has spent  decades attacking same-sex couples and their families, as well as the families of LGBT young people. Duggar said that he will be working on the 501c4 side of the organization, which is more politically driven. He can't even claim he's just going to shape the culture.

Now that Josh Duggar has accepted a position at such an anti-gay organization, he has become a full-fledged anti-gay activist. What does this mean for TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting? Will TLC allow it to become a mainstream outlet for FRC’s dangerous message? What about the Duggar family's appearances in other media? Will his work with one of the most vile anti-gay organizations in America be legitimized there? 

"If Josh Duggar wants to make a living dehumanizing and denigrating LGBT people and their families, that's his business, but FRC's lies and stereotypes need to be treated as such," said GLAAD Spokesperson Wilson Cruz. "Josh's new boss Tony Perkins has actually accused LGBT equality advocates of being pawns of the devil.  Fans of his family's reality show ought to know that."

Judge FRC's president not by his radio show caller, but by the way he responds to him

Hector says we need to arrest both "Muslim mob boss" President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Hector happens to be a caller into the radio program of Family Research Council President Tony Perkins - a man the media frequently puts forth as a voice of "balance" on LGBT issues, only sometimes providing audiences with context of where, exactly, he is coming from. And where is he coming from? Let's let Hector try to explain, and see what Tony does.  

Hector says folks on his side need to "physically threaten or threaten people with their very lives" in order to get some action.  But Hector's not done. He moves on to saying homosexuality is like a "disease" and "pandemic," and that we need "catch these gays" and re-criminalize them.

Now, when faced with a caller who is spouting such abject hostility and literally advocating for death threats, a responsible host would work to lower the temperature.  In fact, many hosts would welcome the opportunity to distance their rhetoric from the way their caller wants to put that rhetoric into action.  It would be a good opportunity for the host to ensure that his or her words do not lead to unintended consequences.

But as for Family Research Council president Tony Perkins? He doesn't offer one solitary word of repudiation!  Instead, he proceeded to call the old laws that criminalized being gay a "moral standard" and bemoaned the fact that striking down these laws as unconstitutional (constitution schmonstitution!) has helped advance marriage equality.  And then, when it comes to arresting folks like Eric Holder, Tony seems almost giddy about the idea.  He pretty much presents, as fact, the unsupportable idea that the Obama administration has engaged in "criminal behavior," and he suggests that it would be a "moral failure" to not move forward with action against them.  Again, Tony never says one negative word about his caller's shocking comments.

Hector has just advocated at least threatening violence against government officials, and he called my family a disease and part of a "pandemic."  And Tony Perkins, who is on mainstream television all the time, just basically gave him a high-five and sent him on his merry way.

Take a listen to the four-minute exchange: