Friday, November 28, 2008

The unfortunately anti-gay stance of the Fatherhood Foundation

Roxon sacks health ambassador over gay slur

Somewhat predictably, one of the men is playing the victim card, insisting that he's being "persecuted".
"If I am attacked it is because I believe that our children matter," he said in the statement.

"If I am attacked it is because I believe every child has the right to a mother and a father. Children need a mother and a father, not two mummies or two daddies."

Mr Marsh said certain journalists had claimed he was "homophobic" and he was baffled by "this sort of heterophobia".

Apparently Mr Marsh believes that defending homosexuals from pseudo-scientific smears means that heterosexuality is under attack. This actually makes sense in anti-gay peoples' warped worldview, as they sincerely believe that homosexuality's unchallenged existence threatens heterosexuality. Examine the pamphlet "21 reasons why gender matters" that is the source of the controversy:
14. In healthy societies, gender complementarity is celebrated; societies rejecting this face harmful consequences.

Their idea is that accepting that there is a slight exception in so-called "gender complementarity" for some (GLBT people) automatically means negating the very concept of different genders altogether. Everyone will have sex with everyone willy-nilly, and heterosexuality will cease to exist. There are times that I honestly believe that they are literally incapable of understanding any different, the belief is so deeply embedded in their worldview.

I won't waste time refuting the remaining points dealing with homosexuality (or "gender disorientation pathology" as they pseudo-scientifically call it). Anyone with a modicum of scientific understanding (which is far too few people, sad to say) can figure out what's wrong with them if they really want to. As for the Fatherhood Foundation itself....

Finding the Fatherhood Foundation's website was easy enough. Their About Us page lists them as one of the founding members of the National Marriage Coalition. People may remember that organisation as the one which in 2004 lobbied for a ban on gay marriage to be explicitly written into Australian law, a ban which both major political parties support to this day. The other two, as per information from the NMC's website, are the Australian Family Association and the Australian Christian Lobby.

Despite rubbing shoulders with those two, my tentative impression is that the Fatherhood Foundation isn't specifically malicious towards gay people. They've just never had any reason to doubt the centuries' old prejudice that our sexuality is a sickness (a "gender disorientation pathology") that needs to be contained. I would hope that they can be convinced otherwise by the examination of reality rather than of anti-gay institutions' pseudo-science, but Mr Marsh's reaction to him being called out on his smears suggests that it won't be easy.


ultravomit said...

Goddamnit!! It's like whack the fucking bigoted beaver with these evil bastards.Why can't they all just be publicly ridiculed once and for all? instead they just lurk behind these quasi-respectable organisations and shoot their poison darts from behind hedges at random moments.

Secular Heretic said...

I think Marsh has some interesting things to say.

The government should take another look.

I wrote about it on my blog.

Z said...

S.H., I was going to comment on your own blog, but I see you've got moderation enabled by default. Since I don't know if you'll ever let the truth see the light of day if I write there, I'll respond here instead.

It's depressing seeing so many of the same tired old anti-gay lies misrepresented as big capital-letter-deserving "FACT" in your anti-gay screed. Your very first so-called "FACT" cherry-picks a single psychiatrist's unsubstantiated personal opinion while conveniently ignoring the official stance of every single mental health organisation that's ever actually studied the issue. What qualifications does Mr Rojas have to claim special knowledge about homosexuality which contradicts the claims of all the psychiatrists and psychologists who have made formal study of homosexuality, and concluded that there was nothing wrong with it? Dr Rojas' fabricated claims about how "studies show 70-80 percent chance that child adopted by homosexuals will develop same tendencies" don't suggest that he's speaking objectively here.

Your second "FACT" repeats the Worldnet Daily lie that Michael Glatze is now claming to be "straight". That headline was editorialisation, since no ex-gay ever claims to be straight, which you would know if you'd ever actually had any interaction with them outside of the lies you read in anti-gay propaganda. They say something like "I'm on a journey which I hope will bring me to heterosexuality eventually" or "I no longer think of myself as homosexual" (even when they're constantly tempted by sexual thoughts about men). I don't know if Mr Glatze will also be caught in a gay bar or having sex with another man the way so many other "former" homosexuals, like John Paulk, have been, but we shall see.

Your final "FACT" repeats an alleged statistic whose original source in an alleged FRC report has oh-so-conveniently disappeared from the FRC website. This is not surprising because the only source of the "1 in 3" lie is Dr Paul Cameron, whose frauds are so obvious and egregious that anti-gay groups routinely have to take down their "fact" sheets when their reliance on Dr Cameron's fraud is publicly exposed. Of course, the damage his lies cause has already been done by the time they get around to doing that, as can be seen by your gullible repetition of his lies.

Please, if you're going to make a post about "FACTS", make sure that you actually post some next time.

Let's see now....if you conform to typical anti-gay stereotype, you will now insist that your lies and fraudulent statistics are really true, but you won't make any genuine effort to substantiate them beyond repeating the insufficient evidence that you've provided as if it really is sufficient, and will start screaming something about "gay agenda" or "militant homosexual activist" at me to try to distract from your failure to provide any real evidence for your anti-gay smears.

Bigot-boy said...

It's unfortunate for mankind in general that the homosexuals have any movement in society. The lust of man has caused great grief.

Of course, I'm a bigot, because I fail to see how forcing homosexual ideology into a society founded on Christian beliefs, strengthens and promotes a healthy society. I must be a dumbass... look at all of the societies in the world today that thrive because of the pure nature of homosexuality.

Hey, there's a group of child molestors that believe they are born with an abnormality that tells them that having sex with little kids is good, fun and acceptalbe. Maybe we should seriously think of accepting this behavior as normal.

Your homosexual agenda does nothing to help society in general, it only promotes more fissures in society and doesn't allow a society to completely come together on any one issue.

Z said...

What is a "homosexual ideology"? Is it that hair-brained idea of anti-gay activists that merely acknowledging the reality that homosexuality exists, and is harmless, somehow promotes its practice?

You demonstrate the usual inability of anti-gay activists to understand the concept of "consent" in your false equivalence of consensual homosexual relations between adults to a coerced relationship with children, who are too mentally immature to be able to give such consent. But then, as I've mentioned elsewhere, Christianists don't really understand the concept of free will.

Thank you for having the honesty to admit that you are a bigot. You appear to wear the label with pride on the mistaken assumption that your "bigoted" views actually have a rational basis. I would recommend reading just a few of the many anti-gay lies that I've uncovered in the "21 Reasons Why Gender Matters". Anti-gay bigotry is built on a foundation of deceit, and it's unfortunate that you appear to have been taken in by it.