Thursday, October 25, 2012

PFOX Furious Over Government Support for LGBTQ Anti-bullying Efforts

This post brought to you by Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & not Gays (PFOX):
Families Ask Obama Administration to Take Down Government Links to Anti-Ex-Gay Websites

Government gives $100, 000 to gay group for schoolchildren to become “youth activists”
Those statements are basically the same complaint; That LGBTQ anti-bullying/suicide prevention resources are an assault on the so called ex-gay/formerly-homosexual community — Seriously.

That first part is self explanatory enough so I’m going to start by breaking down the second one.

The Gay Straight Alliance Network (GSAN), “empowering youth activists to fight homophobia and Transphobia in schools” has received a $100,000 grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To help clarify the CDC’s mission (keeping in mind that “health” includes “mental health” as well):
CDC: The CDC awards nearly 85 percent of its budget [$7 billion in over 14,000 separate] grants and contracts to help accomplish its mission to promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.
Contracts procure goods and services used directly by the agency, and grants assist other health-related and research organizations that contribute to CDC’s mission through health information dissemination, preparedness, prevention, research, and surveillance.
About GSAN:
GSAN: GSA clubs are powerful tools that can transform schools – making them safer and more welcoming for LGBTQ youth, youth with LGBTQ parents, and straight allies. GSA Network helps GSA clubs become activist clubs that can educate teachers and students to improve the school climate. GSA Network teaches GSA clubs how to work with the school administration to implement school policies that prevent harassment and violence.
It would seem that gay straight alliances are a very effective means of innoculating its participants from anti-gay influences.

PFOX, however, sees things quite differently and sent a letter, via the “United States Justice Foundation,” criticizing the CDC’s LGBTQ supportive resource links as being “anti-heterosexual” and asks:
Why is the federal government spreading intolerance against the ex-gay community and Christians who support the religious testimony of former homosexuals?
Griping that…
The CDC’s federal government website, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health Youth Sources” at links to gay activist organizations and homosexual resources for youth and parents, but fails to include links to organizations or resources for parents who do not affirm homosexual behavior, or for youth with unwanted same-sex attractions.
(For the record, the letter PFOX sent to the CDC is dated after the CDC’s “response” letter below. Regardless, the point intended remains the same.)

The CDC’s ”response” letter includes a quote from the APA.
[T]he American Psychological Association advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth
Regina Griggs, PFOX’s executive director, then goes on to kvetch about how these anti-bullying/suicide-prevention sites aren’t scientifically based either.
“Families Ask Obama Administration to Take Down Government Links to Anti-Ex-Gay Websites”

PFOX is asking President Obama’s administration to stop promoting websites of organizations and publications that denigrate Christian ex-gay ministries and former homosexuals.
Regina Griggs, and her invisible flock of “ex-gays” and “former-homosexuals” are, in effect, claiming that they’re victims of their victims.

The very concept of ex-gay/formerly-homosexual is meant to convince the voting public that homosexuals are just heterosexuals who engage in “homosexual behavior.” Thus, no obligation to secure us equal protection under the law, and most importantly, no obligation to legalize our right to marry.

As I see it, the federal legalization of gay marriage would legitimize the equality of our relationships with those of straight ones, effectively making the denial of our participation in virtually all areas of society, discrimination under federal law.

Whether or not this is the motive of the ex-gay movement, or any aspect/individual thereof is irrelevant, the message is the same. In short: There’s no such thing as LGBTQ.

The White House has an “It Get’s Better” page,” with anti-bullying/suicide prevention resource links. Which I assume is what, PFOX/Griggs, was referring to in that last quote.

That page also contains video after video of administration officials speaking to LGBT youth about their own challenges in youth and how it made them a better person today.

I found this one to be particularly poignant.
Inspired by President Obama’s “It Gets Better” video,” several LGBT White House staffers share their messages of hope and support for LGBT youth who are struggling with being bullied.

Response to “traditonal / redefinition of marriage” canard

This is in response to a regular "Anonymous" commenter at another website. I thought it worthy of further exposure.

Actually, the point of my comments is that I’m not alone, there’s no bandwagon, my friend

The idea that marriage is not marriage unless it includes both genders is not some novel idea picking up steam

Trying to change the definition of words by governmental mandate is the unusual idea here

Anon: “the idea that marriage is not marriage unless it includes both genders is not some novel idea picking up steam”

Me: The definition of love is union. Thus, marriage is the uniting of two souls as being one.

Though men and women can love, platonically, members of the same gender more that that of the opposite gender, it is a world away from the reality of homosexuality.

I believe the Biblical love story between David and Jonathan was one such example:

David: “...I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, Surpassing the love of women.”

“Surpassing the love of women” being the operating phrase, implying that they were heterosexuals, and thus, not attracted to each other in a sexual way.

However, if they had been born or reincarnated as women, they would still be the same people (males), just in female bodies. As males (in female bodies), they would still be attracted to women, and the sexual component would then be at play -- Ergo, lesbians.

It is your belief systems that cause you to resist the fact homosexual couples can and do experience the same depth of romantic love that heterosexuals do.

Anon: “…marriage is not marriage unless it includes both genders … trying to change the definition of words by governmental mandate is the unusual idea here”

Me: And therein lies the rub.

The idea that this has anything at all to do with words like “traditional” “redefinition of” or the ever clevers like “if we let gays marry, then what’s to stop people from marrying a banana peel?” is a propaganda tool that you’ve all bought into.

Marriage or unity = Love. “Traditionally” thought as only being capable between a male and a female. This is what is at issue.

This wordplay with “marriage” is a euphemism to hide the fact that you and you ilk are incapable of, or unwilling to accept that our love for each other is equal to that of your own, the understanding of which would obliterate the notion that if allowed, then anyone could marry anything.

Nor would it open the door to Government sanctioned incestuous and/or polygamous marriage for reasons essential to maintaining a civilized society.

Anon: “actually, the point of my comments is that I'm not alone”

Me: Alone or not, like I said, it is your belief systems that are the source of your resisting the fact that homosexual couples can and do experience the same depth of intimacy that heterosexuals do.

And the crux of those beliefs lie the addictions to your egos (superiority, supremacy, etc.).

To be fair, I have the same addiction, but I am aware of it, and so I am in better control of it, but most importantly, I don’t worship it.

It is difficult to challenge one’s own beliefs and conform to one’s that are more accurate -- you lose a part of your identity, but I’d rather be wrong in order to be right.