Roll the tape and you supply the commentary…
38 thoughts on “PFOX award turns into controversy”
Comments are closed.
A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
Roll the tape and you supply the commentary…
Comments are closed.
‘s’alright, Eddy.
I often don’t choose my words, quite well.
I absolutely agree!
I already addressed playing fair:
I already specifically added the word ‘ministry’ to differentiate from a ‘Christian business’:
And, once again, I have some research to do to find out how pervasive PFOX anti-gay rights attitudes go.
Eddy,
I absolutely agree with this – but I have no evidence that this is why PFOX opposes equal rights for gay folk – in fact, all evidence seems to suggest they are just anti-gay.
I also don’t know of any gay rights laws that have forced churches who believe homosexuality is a sin to hire a gay person, or host a same-sex wedding.
It is tricky, but should be an easy thing to do – at least with Churches – It gets more problematic though with Christian businesses that provide services to the general public – If those businesses are allowed to discriminate against gay people, then they will have to make sure they discriminate across the board according to their belief system
duh…’as a slam’.
LynnDavid–
My bad, I guess. After several posts of repeating that I had just checked out their website…and admitting that I didn’t know about the blog link. When you delivered said: “If you had paid attention to the news PFOX has made over the years you would know that the caricature is all of their own making”…it struck me as slam.
Sorry about that.
Ok… I was just pointing out the perspective most of ‘my people’ have concerning PFOX. The trouble is that history is the indicator of policy.
LynnDavid-
If I hadn’t had the experience of blogging here for a year or more before I realized that most of the anti-Exodus spokespeople had no idea that it was a ‘looseknit coalition’, I’d be mortified that I haven’t been following the PFOX news over the years.
Since the post was not about the history of PFOX, I felt I was within my blogging rights to make a few comments. I said where my information and perceptions came from…I asked for anyone to provide some substance. Jayhuck made a statement that their website was chock full of evidence but a search revealed that it was buried a bit deeper than ‘chock full’ implies. (Jayhuck later apologized for that statement.) Warren provided some evidences and I accepted them and clarified my statement that I hadn’t found any. (The statement itself was true. I hadn’t found any on my search.) But when Warren provided his list, it was obvious that, in my focus on the links on the left, I had missed the blog topics on the right. There I learned of a number of their statements that did go against gay rights. I will, as I’ve said numerous times today, continue to explore that issue. I will, however, explore it in my time and on their blog page. Warren has provided enough links to give direction to my search.
Dave–
Why should you get to ask me a question when you haven’t answered mine? And when my comments don’t begin to go where you’re going? And when it isn’t the topic? I much prefer to answer to things that I’ve said rather than things you’ve manufactured in your head.
Your questions are full of presumptions. I want to know where PFOX stands on those questions I mentioned because I believe insurance coverage benefits should be extended to ‘the household’…whether that be a gay partner, an unmarried hetero partner, or even a family member that isn’t a spouse or child. I believe hospital visitation rights, especially in terminal cases, should be protected for the homosexual partner. I see nothing to be gained except bitterness and misery when a family uses a hospital to hold a gay family member hostage to their whims and beliefs.
With regard to employment discrimination, I believe the laws need to be so worded that they protect the rights of all. This is where it gets sticky. I believe that a Christian ministry organization should not be compelled to hire a person who admittedly engages in homosexual activity…if they are free to fire a man or woman who continues to engage in adultery or fornication, why should a gay person be protected from the morality provisions that are somewhat central to the belief and mission of the organization? (I once knew of a somewhat radical evangelical who took a job at an adult bookstore. Although he didn’t say things to the customers, he purposely sported a conspicuous cross necklace, visibly read his Bible and displayed it prominently on the counter. To my mind, he wasn’t playing fair. In his heart, he was not in full agreement with the goals and purposes of the business and he was there serving his own agenda. I hoped that when they fired him, his claim of discrimination would not be upheld.)
Perhaps that answered your questions after all. If not, it’s not up for discussion or debate. You may feel differently…you may have a different take. But it isn’t the topic and I haven’t said that my way is THE way…I’ve merely said it’s the way I see it.
(Oh, and just for the record, companies DO discriminate against Christians. On three separate occasions, when I sought resume advice, I was advised to delete references to the Associates Degree in Theology that I had earned.)
If you had paid attention to the news PFOX has made over the years you would know that the caricature is all of their own making. PFOX has specifically styled their rhetoric to be a caricture of the struggle of gays and lesbians for rights while opposing those rights at every turn. From the totality of their rhetoric, it is obvious that PFOX is of the opinion that their moral considerations should trump any ‘rights’ that a person should enjoy in the nation’s secular order.
.
PFOX doesn’t even want to associate with gay conservatives. And in doing so freely associates with Peter LaBarbera who, I think it is fair to say, is generally against anything gay.
.
And even PFOX has asked that another entity’s award be rescinded.
…
Well I re-read your last post and see that I did indeed miss a thing or two.
But let me ask you a question.. If a group was opposed to employment rights for Christians .. re: that a company could fire you for being a Christian and if this same group said that Christians were often pedophiles preying on children ..what difference would it make if they were (allegedly) ok with Christians having visitations rights in the hospital. What would it matter if they supported insurance coverage for Christians if the company that provided the health insurance benefits could fire you for being a Christian?? I can guarantee that Christians would be screaming bloody murder about their rights if the aforementioned scenario were true. The wouldn’t be looking for the isolated caes where .. gee .. they had some small right.
Ann,
I realize you directed your comment to Jayhuck but that definition is the reason WHY I feel the term needs to be qualified…the definition has an ‘or’ in it. When we use the term without the qualifying word behind it, the inclination is to hear it as an ‘and’…that they aren’t just opposed to ‘reforms and institutions, etc’ but are also “opposed and hostile to” homosexual individuals.
LOL. And I just now noticed the ‘etc.’. That doesn’t speak highly of a dictionary. Perhaps Jayhuck abbreviated but otherwise it seems akin to ‘and yadda, yadda, yadda’.
Dave-
Do you have the answer to these questions? If so, provide them. Otherwise, as I clearly stated, I’ll need to take the time to research the answers for myself before making a statement more broad than ‘certain gay rights’. My study could reveal that it’s ‘most’; it could reveal that it’s ‘all’ but I’m not about to be bullied into saying ‘most’ or ‘all’ until I’ve researched. If it’s the word ‘certain’ that’s tripping you all out, please provide another word that allows for the fact that I acknowledge that they are against ‘some’ gay rights but haven’t yet researched their position on all.
Jayhuck,
Do you think these two definitions go hand in hand or do you think they can be or are separate issues?
Eddy,
What gay rights issues are left? What is there to see that we are not seeing? If PFOX supports Exgay rights then by their own positon of oreintation change they are supporting the rights of people who are now straight. I am a bit at a loss here of what elusive gay rights they are supporting.
Dave
Warren–
I’m making a statement that’s as honest as I can with the knowledge that I have. I have been made aware that they oppose the rights you cited but I do not know their position on all gays ‘rights’ issues…and I don’t trust this site to be unbiased. So, until I have the time to research their stance on other rights, I can only acknowledge ‘certain gay rights’.
Do they want to deny the insurance benefits of HIV+ patients? Do they support the denial of hospital visitation rights to a gay partner? Are they against all ‘domestic partner’ accommodations provided by insurance companies? When we say they ‘oppose anti-discrimination laws for gays’ what are we really saying and why are they really opposing? I oppose a few of these laws myself because their wording is ambiguous or too generalized and does not provide for a legitimate religious objection to hiring a gay person. So–I’ll stick with ‘certain’ and resist the urge to ramp up to ‘most’ or ‘all’ until I’ve been able to research a bit further.
Eddy – When you say “certain gay rights” it makes me wonder what gay rights PFOX is neutral on or favors. I cannot think of a gay rights initiative that the group has or would favor. They oppose anti-discrimination laws for gays but promote them for ex-gays.
Eddy,
I was wrong when I said that their site was “chock full” of anti-gay propaganda – you are right on that count. The fact remains that they are an anti-gay group though – they ask for equal rights then work to oppose them for others – there is a word for those kinds of people.
Just so we are all clear on the definition of anti-gay – from Dictionary.com; “opposed or hostile to homosexuals or to homosexual social reforms and institutions, etc.”
Warren–
I acknowledged that your posts indicated that PFOX does indeed take a stand against certain gay rights.
And I also reiterated that is not the bulk of what appears on their website or their blog as others have suggested. I felt the portrayal was rather one-sided and overlooked a major emphasis of the group. I foolishly assumed that in an honest and open-minded conversation we’d actually want a well-rounded picture rather than a one-dimensional caricature.
I did not pronounce or form any judgement as a conclusion…In response to your post, I acknowledged that they do stand against certain gay rights and I further acknowledge that they do seem devoted to the cause of representing ex-gay rights.
I appreciate your saying ‘anti-gay rights‘ in your response post. I note that Jayhuck holds fast to the ‘anti-gay’ without qualifiers but I expect that from him.
PS to my comment about what PFOX opposes. One does not need to have a website full of articles favoring criminalization, promoting Cameron and Lively or favoring job and housing discrimination in order to be opposed to gay rights. Eddy and Ann asked for instances of opposition to various gay rights and they are indeed there and the PFOX board is run by folks who are on the front lines of opposing any gay rights initiative including the one which is at the foundation of the organization’s biggest victory (the DC court case). I think that is enough to establish their anti-gay rights cred.
I don’t see how one cannot understand that these groups are anti-gay/ – it, THE TERM, has a very specific definition and these groups fit it – is it inflammatory? – well, maybe , but that’s not the fault of the people using the definition correctly – they are an inflammatory group.
FYI – I was in the city most of the day yesterday – when I came home I began compiling a list of sites, albeit much shorter than the one Warren came up with – to post – before I was done with setting up my 3 links, I saw that Warren posted his. I decided I didn’t need to contribute anymore
Eddy, PFOX staff or its board members oppose gay marriage, they favor discrimination against gays in housing and employment, and believe homosexuality should be criminalized. They promote Lively and Cameron and the narrowest of views of homosexual development. Other than that you are saying they are ok?
I read some of the links and see how they can satiate one’s bias the same way links on another website, with opposing views, would satiate another’s biases. Neither hold any value for me nor solve any bigger social issue, in fact, they do just the opposite. It is disheartening to realize this might be the intent. With so many people looking for answers and understanding, it is hard to believe these are the responses they get.
Thanks Warren. I had surveyed the current topics list in that blue blog block but didn’t dig further. I went through 4 or 5 pages worth (‘page’: where you scroll through the most recent topics and then get that ‘see more’ option at the bottom) and still my statement (on the other thread) appears to be true:
.
However, on this thread I said:
In following up on the blog links Warren provided, there is evidence that they do challenge some gay rights.
However, the continuance of my comment remains true:
I applaud Warren for bringing those links to the table. It’s a whole lot more productive than ‘their site is full of’ and similar generalized statements. While Warren did provide a healthy list…I spent a half hour yesterday going through their links on the left side of their homepage. And this morning, I waded through approx 4 pages of topics that were predominantly in defense of ex-gay rights. Some of that ‘anti-gay’ stuff was there but it didn’t rise to the level of ‘full of’.
I register once again my disfavor of using ‘anti-gay’ without a qualifiying word following it. If I began using the phrase ‘anti-Christian’ or even ‘anti-conservative Christian’ in reference to the sentiments of the ‘other side’, I believe I’d quickly and appropriately be ‘brought to task’ to clarify my meaning and to be more specific in my allegations. I believe that ‘anti-gay’ without any qualifiers is also too broad and, in that, can be misleading.
sorry – many should be may
ok, thanks Dr. Throckmorton – I didn’t mean to generalize – thought it was obvious to most people but I many also be wrong.
Ann – You need to be specific I believe. you are generalizing a large number of different groups.
Some gay advocates are hateful and some anti-gay advocates are hateful. I have seen it all and don’t really see much difference at the extremes. I have gotten from all of them and know that there are reasonable people on both sides. Rather than generalize, I prefer to take the cases on their own merits. PFOX is one of those extremes.
Thank you Dr. Throckmorton – I appreciate you taking the time to reference these. I will read them. Is there a particular reason that groups perceived to be anti-gay are deemed unacceptable while groups that are anti-ex-gay are acceptable? I have not read the blog or site of PFOX in years but I do not remember them being as hateful toward gays as I have experienced gay advocates being hateful toward anything ex-gay.
PS – I think it is worth pointing out that PFOX touts the DC court case as a protection for ex-gays. The case that suggested ex-gays could not be discriminated against relied on the DC Human Rights Amendment. This law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. PFOX and the board members I noted oppose ENDA which is a non-discrimination law. PFOX lauds the DC court for using a non-discrimination law including sexual orientation but they oppose the Federal version of the same thing.
What is the word I am looking for?
Eddy/Ann: This will not be an exhaustive list but it is consistent with my 3 years as an insider with PFOX. The blog is a place to look; I will just cite several instances:
Opposes ENDA
They really don’t like ENDA
Opposed Day of Silence (a particularly fact challenged article)
Labels CA cure-gay law “protecting children”
Links child molesters to homosexuality
Referenced Facts About Youth
Opposed gay marriage in CA – There are many negative references to gay marriage on their blog.
Piled on the fact challenged Lifesitenews article about me (ok, not anti-gay but my critics say I am too soft and apparently PFOX agrees)
Promoted Paul Cameron’s work
Opposes gays benefits for military related partners
Reprints Bob Knight’s column lauding Scott Lively
Opposes civil rights for gays (via link to videos, all of which oppose gay civil rights) – The YouTube channel linked to is to the same Molotov Mitchell who says the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is about child abuse and rape.
Promotes Scott Lively’s anti-gay “textbook”
Selectively reports on Uganda (fails to say that gay groups oppose child recruitment)
And that is just 2010.
Peter Sprigg and Matt Barber serve on the PFOX board. Sprigg has said publicly that he believes homosexuality should be criminalized (at about 8:46 in the vid clip) and Barber is also a board member for Peter LaBarbera’s group. They all oppose any civil right for gays and lead organizations which are on the forefront of that effort.
Agree with them or not, I don’t see how it can be disputed that PFOX is anti-gay.
Can you please cite a specific reference that confirms what you are saying – her hard work to make sure gay people don’t have equal rights and that couples should not be allowed to have children?
There is no evidence on the PFOX site that suggests they are welcoming or accepting of gay people or gay families – to the contrary, there are several articles that clearly speak out against both. I see absolutely no reason to believe they are an inclusive or accepting organization – so if there are people who want to label some gay folk as not accepting or not inclusive, they’ll have to label some ex-gay organizations as that as well.
My statement re ‘controversy’ was directly responsive to Lynn David’s post.
Just spent about a half hour on the PFOX website and other than one article against gay marriage which provided a first-hand glimpse of one adult who had been raised in a gay family, I couldn’t find other evidences that they were challenging any gay rights.
I realize that the site could be a cover for a more insidious agenda but most of their topics seemed true to their committment that they stand up for the rights of ex-gays rather than try to take away the rights of others. I urge fellow-bloggers to be more specific in their allegations so that we can actually weigh them…fact-check them, etc.
BTW: My comments may seem like a response to Jayhuck but I didn’t encounter his most recent post until after I’d done my visit to the PFOX site. I stated several weeks ago that I would no longer engage in discussions with him. Blog history has clearly shown that there is sufficient mistrust and disrespect between the two of us that our ‘discussions’ are rarely productive and frequently veer far off course.
Eddy,
If by this you mean that gay people brought to light a mistake that was made by the DC officials, then yes, they did. It was obvious from the beginning that it was a mistake though. Honoring her hard work and dedication – LOL – are you talking about her hard work to make sure that gay people don’t have equal rights? That gay couples should not be allowed to have children? That should be honored?
What’s the general use and purpose for a certificate one gets from a public official? Isn’t the norm to put them on display where your friends and supporters can see them? If you’re a national organization, wouldn’t posting such a certificate on your own webpage (Facebook would even call that ‘your wall’) be reasonable?
Yes, there’s controversy…but the controversy didn’t begin until gays decided to fight Regina’s right to have such a certificate honoring her hard work and dedication. The fact that D.C. had actually included ex-gays in its list of those who should be protected against discrimination should have informed Regina that the certificate was indeed genuine and justified. Instead, the fact that it’s being challenged is an indicator of how pervasive the anti-ex-gay discrimination is in spite of the law.
Already there are insinuations that PFOX manufactured this situation to advance their cause. Hmmmm. Somehow reminds me of a 22 year old gay man who posed as a conflicted gay teenager on a certain radio talk show and successfully had Exodus removed as a recognized referral partner.
In this situation–and in the radio talk show incident–I keep wondering why we have to withdraw a certificate or remove a partner. If we truly honor diversity, the response would be to make sure that PFLAG also got such a certificate…and, on the talk show, that gay and gay Christian referral partners would be offered along with Exodus.
Controversy…. just what PFOX exists for.
What I loved is that they displayed the award so proudly on their web site without question – LOL