In response to my post about the Christianists hate fest being sponsored by The Family Foundation here in Norfolk in early June, a comment was posted - naturally by someone gutless who posted anonymously - that consisted of a cut and paste of a OneNewsNow (a total rag affiliated with American Family Association) article that tries to twist the statements of the APA for the purpose of trying to claim that sexual orientation is a choice and/or changeable. As is my usual policy, the anonymous comment was not published. I will note, however, that the article quotes perennial liars and homophobes Peter LaBarbera and Matt Staver - both of whom have a vested financial and political interest in maintaining the choice myth. From my experience, LaBarbera is particularly disingenuous since he always acts as if he knew nothing about discredited "research" such as that of Paul Cameron even when it has been documented to be false as in e-mails I have from him from a few years back. The Peter apparently suffers from constant amnesia when not attending gay leather events for "research."*
Jeremy at Good-As-You has a good reply that takes to task those who would cherry pick the materials of legitimate organizations in an attempt to justify their witch doctor like therapy programs that make them significant amounts of money and help maintain the choice myth for cynical political purposes. Jeremy also provides access to the complete APA document instead of picking and choosing passages from it - much as Christianists selectively quote isolated passages from the Bible. Not surprisingly, the full document paints a picture far different than the propaganda piece in OneNewsNow and similar extreme right wing news sites. Here's how Jeremy aptly describes the situation:
*
So essentially WND is enabling NARTH and other "ex-gays," suggesting that a non-new, non-change from an organization that still very much stands against their work is somehow a "sudden" shift in policy. Once again, their side is using complexity to their advantage, simplistically and duplicitously presenting the scientific community's inability thus far to find one certain gene as "proof" that their own scientifically-shunned work has merit. But then again, theirs is a flower that best grows in bullsh*t.
No comments:
Post a Comment