Quantcast
Religion

Illinois Family Institute Says It is Not a Hate Group

Default Image

Two weeks ago, Illinois Family Institute discovered that we are included on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Active U.S. Hate Groups list, along with Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi, and White Nationalist organizations. We are not alone in being erroneously and libelously included on the SPLC's hate groups list. Also included are MassResistance, Abiding Truth Ministries, Watchmen on the Walls, and Traditional Values Coalition.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was founded in 1971 by Morris Dees and Joseph Levin to oppose the virulent racism that tragically still infects this country. Because of the tireless efforts of civil rights organizations like the SPLC, great strides have been made in eradicating racism.

Unfortunately, for an organization with such a noble birth and one that has achieved so much good for so many, the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a dark shadow of its former self -- one that promotes destructive lies and anti-Christian bigotry. Our inclusion on this list cannot be ignored. The SPLC is an influential organization that supplies information to law enforcement agencies.

Since IFI stands unequivocally opposed to both violence and hatred, and since IFI holds the very same views on homosexuality as, for example, the Vatican, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, The Presbyterian Church of America, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Liberty Counsel, and Focus on the Family and their scores of local Family Policy Councils, we were wondering why we are listed as an "anti-gay" hate group when these other organizations are not?

Could it be that consistency in the application of their selection criteria would expose the illegitimacy of the SPLC's project? If the SPLC articulated with specificity and detail the criteria they use to include an organization on their hate groups list and if the SPLC felt ethically obligated to provide specific evidence for their charges, they would likely be compelled to include on their hate groups list virtually every pro-family organization as well as those temples, mosques, and churches that teach that homosexual behavior is immoral. Such an extensive list of hate groups would expose the illegitimacy of their list and undermine their credibility.

I assumed that IFI made their list because we are committed to exposing and opposing the use of public money via public education to affirm and advance a particular understanding of the nature and morality of homosexual conduct that is unproven, controversial, and, we believe, destructive to the lives of individuals and the fabric of society.

Since, in the distorted view of pro-homosexual organizations, our efforts constitute hatred, the only way we can be deemed not hateful is to change our views on the nature and morality of homosexual conduct, or to accept the continued use of public money to affirm and advance liberal/radical views on the nature and morality of homosexual conduct through public education. That's a pretty tall and scary order.

Many pro-homosexual organizations seek to extirpate the belief that homosexual conduct is profoundly immoral and destructive. And the means they use to achieve that goal is to label as "hate" any and all moral propositions with which they disagree.

There are serious problems with their means and ends:

1. Compulsory eradication of the belief that homosexual conduct is immoral, and legal prohibitions against expressing that belief require the violation of fundamental First Amendment speech and religious rights.
2. Moral claims about behavior do not constitute hatred.
3. If their unproven assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexual conduct are, indeed, wrong, their efforts will result in even greater suffering for those lost in the darkness of homosexuality and will seriously compromise the common good.

For all authentically Christian organizations, affirming the truth that homosexual conduct is not moral conduct while also affirming the truth that freedom and forgiveness are available through Christ are loving acts. Whether claims about the morality or immorality of homosexuality are loving or hateful depends ultimately on whether they are true. As far as I know, the Southern Poverty Law Center has yet to prove their implicit claims regarding the morality of homosexual conduct.

For clarification I called the Southern Poverty Law Center and spoke with Heidi Beirich. Our conversation was troubling in that Ms Beirich revealed that even a tenuous, distant connection to statements the SPLC doesn't like will land an organization on their hate groups list. She told me that the only reason IFI is listed is that in 2005, IFI's former executive director Peter LaBarbera posted a very short article by Paul Cameron for which Mr. LaBarbera wrote an even shorter introduction.

Although there were no defamatory comments made in Cameron's piece or LaBarbera's introduction, Ms. Beirich claimed that in other articles by Cameron, he had suggested that, in Ms. Beirich's words, "Gays are sickly, and people should stay away from them." IFI has no idea if that claim is true, but if it is, IFI rejects it, finds it inconsistent with Scripture, and finds it repellent. The problem is we did not cite or endorse any such rhetoric, and yet the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled IFI as an active hate group.

Ms. Beirich also claimed that Cameron cited a purportedly erroneous statistic regarding shortened life-spans. I responded that I could see how a statistic could be erroneous and derived from flawed methodology, but I don't see erroneous statistics as defamatory or hateful. I don't think health statistics alone, even statistics that emerge from flawed methodologies, can be construed as hatred. In fact, if there are particular health risks associated with particular sexual practices, it would be callous and irresponsible not to share that information publicly.

But, more important, the same finding regarding reduced life expectancy for homosexual men has been reported by a world-reknowned medical journal, and has been cited as true by homosexual activists when it serves their purposes. That study, which appeared in Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that "In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday." Also, in their book Caring For Lesbian and Gay People-A Clinical Guide, authors Dr. Allan Peterkin and Dr. Cathy Risdon suggest that the life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 55 years.

I hope my citing of these findings does not signify to the SPLC that I'm a hater. My intention here is simply to suggest that whatever problems with methodology Cameron's study may have had, the specific nature of his conclusions that bothered Ms. Beirich seems to be consistent with that of others. In addition, merely pointing to health statistics cannot reasonably be construed as defamatory. IFI should be held accountable for our beliefs and our statements. We should not be held accountable for all the statements ever uttered by a researcher we cited once and whose controversial comments we have never once endorsed.

One wonders if SPLC scrupulously refers only to resources written by authors with whom they are in complete agreement. In other words, would SPLC ever cite a source that itself had no objectionable content but whose author had written other documents with which SPLC disagreed and which they would never endorse?

The Southern Poverty Law Center should answer clearly and specifically the following questions:

  • How do you define hate?
  • How do you define a hate group?
  • What is your evidence for your implicit claim that homosexuality is equivalent or analogous to race?
  • What is the difference between hatred of people and moral opposition to behavior?
  • Do you believe all moral opposition to behavior constitutes hatred?
  • Do you believe all statements of moral disapproval of behavior are "defamatory"?
  • Why do you not include the myriad other groups that share precisely the same views as IFI on the nature and morality of homosexuality on your hate groups list?
  • What precisely would organizations have to do to be removed from your hate groups list?
  • Please read for yourselves the article that Ms. Beirich has now twice identified as the sole reason why IFI is labeled an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and see if you think the SPLC has acted in a responsible, ethical manner:

    Illinois Family Institute takes seriously questions and concerns about Paul Cameron's research as well as some of his deeply troubling writing, and we are looking into both. But our more pressing concern is with the Southern Poverty Law Center's baseless and defamatory labeling of IFI as a hate group. We maintain that the SPLC's inclusion of IFI on their anti-gay hate groups list solely because of our posting of one article three years ago that had no objectionable content represents an unsavory, manipulative, irresponsible, and unethical abuse of power.

    -------------------------
    Learn more about the Southern Poverty Law Center and their criteria for determining hate groups.

    Get More:

    Comments

    MikcyC's picture

    Truth Hurts

    For all their protests , it is more than obvious from their website that the Illinois Family Institute falls into the category of a hate group. Their website serves only to condemn and promote bigotry and ignorance. They have yet to post ONE logical reason to be against same sex marriage , just the usual "religious" rhetoric that is solely based on personal opinion.

    letjusticerolldown's picture

    Should we grant anyone the power to lable you as a HATER?

    What is the benefit and danger in defining associations of citizens as hate groups?? This post highlights one element of this issue that I hope this website will explore more fully.

    The SPLC has built its influence as an 'anti-hater.' But anyone taking on this job faces greater dangers than those that require guards posted outside their building here in Montgomery 24/7.

    I have great regard for much of their work and appreciate the writer of this article does not dismiss the value of their work. But I always become very suspect and cautious when we grant anyone power to "define who the devil is."

    The way the concept of "hate group" has evolved, it means a group worthy of bearing the weight of society 's broad rejection and government action to investigate and dismantle. We have to be very careful when we design national/social strategies to combat terror , organized criminal enterprises, etc These might seem worthy targets--but those who develop the tools have the capacity to bring those powers to bear against other targets.

    Without addressing this particular issue of the IFI, I think the SPLC is really undermining its credibility and capacity. If we are going to define groups as "evil incarnate", which in essence is what "hate group" does, than it really needs to go at the hard core.

    If there are groups, for example, who sustain themselves through criminal enterprise for the purpose of waging terroristic actions against gay persons, or against family members of those who dare leave the criminal enterprise (e.g. U.S. gangs)--they might be worthy targets.

    SPLC, in my mind, does not take into account its success. It does not take into account that when it applies the label it is bringing a heavy hammer down on people because they express the wrong thought. It is like fighting Osama Bin Laden by coming against Islamic groups who in some way, shape or form, express any sentiments resembling the thoughts of OBL.

    Further, when a power base, legal strategy, and financial base have been built on the asset of identifying 'hate groups', there is a nefarious internal temptation to bring what has been built against new targets. And those new targets are inevitably those with whom you are in most disagreement with as to what is good and evil.

    holy bullies 1's picture

    Things you cannot ignore

    What you said - "Without addressing this particular issue of the IFI . . ." reduces your point. You cannot ignore the issue of the IFI because it is what has led us into this discussion.

    I disagree about the label of "hate group" just applying to the "hard core." The distortion of studies and research can be considered more dangerous than violent action. Violent action has a danger of backfiring. The manipulation of research and thus creating propaganda is more intricate, covert, and can have longer term effects in stigmatizing a population

    letjusticerolldown's picture

    Distinguish fighting ideas from labeling people "Devil in flesh"

    I am addressing the inherent danger of assigning labels to groups who hold ideas we disagree with. You abhor stigmatizing populations. What is the difference?

    The SPLC is not solely a tracker of 'hate groups.' It pioneered new legal strategies to decimate groups through the application of laws aimed at violent criminal enterprises.

    What if I have the power to say, "You are stigmatizing me because I believe the Bible says women should submit to men. You hate Christians. You are a hate group. Thirteen churches were set on fire last year because your ideas triggered an anti-Christian hate campaign. You are a hater. You can be sued for damages."

    Citizens are free to believe lies, manipulate data, and contend that all short men are related to Adolph Hitler and condemned to Hell.

    I am not arguing that you should not oppose any idea of IFI you find repulsive. I am highlighting the danger of applying a label to groups that has the effect of saying: "You are targeted for decimation."

    holy bullies 1's picture

    Don't read too much into it

    I don't think the SPLC will "target IFI" for decimation. I think the organization is highlighting the fact that the group and other anti- gay groups like it are intentionally using lies and subterfuge to stigmatize the lgbt community. And I agree how SPLC draws attention to this fact.

    The fact of the matter is that using bad studies and junk science to influence votes and legislators is, to a degree, as insidious as a cross burning. And it does show hate.

    WISDOM SEARCH's picture

    The clock is ticking [since 3/26/09]

    Where is the OFFICIAL response to the Illinois Family Institute letter 3/26/09. SPLC is a well funded, verbally competent, and should respond directly to all the questions asked

    holy bullies 1's picture

    I think they have stated their point quite clearly

    I'm with the SPLC on this one. They have stated their point quite clearly. I want to know where does the IFI stand on the issue of Paul Cameron

    WISDOM SEARCH's picture

    Illinois Family Institute condemned

    Gee Whiz I missed it. The IFI will forever remain a HATE group
    because the SPLC certifies them ?? Think I should join up with the IFI just to evaluate their evil hateful ways.

    WISDOM SEARCH's picture

    Hate Group abound

    LET'S SEE THE HATE GROUP LIST= I HOPE TO SEE THE BLACK THEOLOGY CHURCH LED BY CHICAGO'S REVERENT WRIGHT NEAR THE TOP OF THE LIST. IT WOULD BE TERRIBLE IF THE LIST DID NOT INCLUDE THE NAME CALLING GROUPS WHO PERSONALIZE THEIR ATTACKS RATHER THEN DISCUSS AGENDAS AND IDEAS.

    I LIKE THE WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE BY THE IFI. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK

    holy bullies 1's picture

    SPLC does track black hate groups

    Check out SPLC's site. It does in fact list black hate groups also.

    WISDOM SEARCH's picture

    Hate Groups Abound

    Thank you Holy Bullies The SPLC has a formidable web site and I was impressed with their listing. I'm sure some group should keep track of ideologically hardened hate groups. I do: however, question their criteria. My bottom line with a group or individual is this question. ARE YOU WILLING TO DONATE YOUR BLOOD TO SOMEONE,YOU DON'T KNOW ,BUT NEEDS IT? Pass this test and you stand on my pedestal and can show anger, hate, offensive language, and hate anti-hate controllers as well.

    SPLC apparently hates all those that opposes "Gay Marriage " and happy to slap their wide paint brush on them. On this issue I will soon offer a strong "Opposing View"

    holy bullies 1's picture

    You are inaccurate

    The SPLC does not hate those who oppose gay marriage . Mark Potok of the group says the following about two individuals labeled as leaders of hate groups by SPLC:

    “we don’t ordinarily list groups that say homosexuality is wrong or see it as a sin ; we list very few anti-gay groups. They have to be very extreme in their views. We see (Scott) Lively the same way we see Paul Cameron; the two of them in our view consciously promote easily provable false defamations. They don’t seem to care at all what the truth is.”

    IFI falls in the same category. The real proof is in the pudding. I am sure IFI members have read this webpage and the question is have they made any attempts to remove the inaccurate information from IFI's webpage?

    I doubt it.

    Khannea Suntzu's picture

    Dagonweb

    I do consider this sectarian movement a hate group, but even then I wouldn't want it outlawed. Even the most vile, dispicable reactionary movements must be able to express their views.

    I regard their claims they are moral as the flimsiest of excuses. It deadens the concept of morality if excludists such as these hide beyond the idea of morality. But I agree - if a movement such as this movement, similar excludists should be outlawed, namely islamists who support sharia, and catholics, who support letting people die by condemning condoms .

    People such as these should do whatever they like, but as soon as they sanction a significant and inalienable segment of society (or several segments) as being 'immoral', they in turn will be deemed 'the filth of the earth" by many. I do and I will work to destroy the message, even if I tolerate these 'morally challenged humans' to spread the message.

    A good american tradition - the governing faction dujour establishes the rules of conduct and gets to disown and marginalize anyone they don't like. It is a filthy culture. I am more for balance - pluriformity, and delicious confusion about what is moral and what is not. It allows for diversity and experimentation and evolution .

    Fundamentalist 'clarity' does not.

    craigfis's picture

    Irony

    They claim that because they hold the same views as the Vatican that they can't be classified as a hate group!?
    Yes, those other groups that hold hateful views about homosexuals should be on the SPLC's list also.

    Babaroni's picture

    Does it quack like a duck?

    If an organization is actively focused upon and engaged in aruing against or trying to inhibit the rights of a minority group of citizens based upon a characteristic of that minority which is innate and harms no one, then it would seem pretty clear that the organization is a hate group.

    IFI lies about gays, tries to convince people, using false and distorted "research," that gays constitute a "threat to society ," that homosexuality is "voluntarily chosen," and that on this basis, gays should be denied basic rights and freedoms due them as members of society. The IFI would like to deny gays not only the freedom to marry or at least engage in civil unions, but supports denial of much more basic rights and freedoms, and even the reinstitution of criminal penalties for private, consensual sexual behavior.

    Looks like a hate group; sounds like a hate group. I'd say it's a hate group.

    TomMi's picture

    More Hate Groups

    Thank you for listing more hate groups that should be added to the list.

    JamieNettles's picture

    Systematic Analysis of the Question.

    Let's systematically approach this issue. First, what is a hate group? Second, does the Illinois Family Institute fit this definition?

    Publiceye.org defines hate group as "any organization in any sector of society that aggressively demonizes or dehumanizes members of a scapegoated target group in a systematic way."

    The Southern Poverty Law Center defines an anti- gay hate group as "organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification."

    If you visit the Illinoise Family Institute web site you will find phrases such as "culture-destroying institutionalization of same-sex civil unions" So here gays are depicted not as American citizens with a different viewpoint but as promoting the destruction of culture. It refers to Log Cabin Republicans as "committed to subverting the Republican Party". Again, not disagreeing, but "subverting." It refers to "Bishop Robinson" as "a radical sexual activist masquerading as a man of God. He is an affront to faithful Christians and religious defenders of morality everywhere." This sounds like personal vilification to me. Moreover, it denies that anyone opposed to their viewpoint might be a Christian or moral. The IFI does not merely disagree, it systematically demonizes and dehumanizes.

    Conclusion: The Illinois Family Institute is a Hate Group.

    bagpiper2005's picture

    Oh PUH-LEASE

    Anyone trying to tell someone that they're not a good person based on their sexual orientation? Yeah, talk about a hate group.

    Not to mention these religious idiots need to shove the Holey Babble up their butts. Religion...the worst thing humankind ever made up. God...a non-existent figment of people's imaginations. Homosexuality...not a personal choice...let's face it...what rational person would CHOOSE to be gay , given how poorly gays are treated by these Bible-thumpers...geez...

    nemoami's picture

    Methinks the Illinois Family Institute Doth Protest too Much

    Saying you're not a hate group because you hold the same views on homosexuality as the Vatican is disingenuous - actually laughable. The Vatican IS a hate group, just like you.

    mangueken's picture

    The IFI may have a point

    IFI holds the very same views on homosexuality as, for example, the Vatican, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, The Presbyterian Church of America, the Southern Baptist "Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Liberty Counsel, and Focus on the Family and their scores of local Family Policy Councils, we were wondering why we are listed as an "anti- gay " hate group when these other organizations are not?

    ...SPLC felt ethically obligated to provide specific evidence for their charges, they would likely be compelled to include on their hate groups list virtually every pro-family organization as well as those temples, mosques, and churches that teach that homosexual behavior is immoral."

    Maybe all the others should be included too. No sense in discriminating against one type of hate group when others are just as hateful.
    Although I did read for myself the article, and not only is the information twisted to support their "moral" belief, they also have a "cute" little ad that could be used as a bumper sticker about gay men live 15 to 25 years less. It reminds me of the "scientific data" that the National Right to Life uses to scare women out of abortions by pointing out that every method of abortion could lead to serious medical complications, including death.
    I wonder what all these "morally superior" groups would do if they didn't have us secularist around? Probably spend their time trying to prove which of their "morally superior" views was correct.

    Babaroni's picture

    Good point, mangueken

    I agree. The IFI IS a hate group, IMO, and so are the others you mention, particularly the AFA, FOF, CWA and Liberty Council. These groups make it their primary focus, to the exclusion of almost all other issues ( abortion being the biggest exception), to attack and defame gays, to attempt to keep gays from achieving equal civil rights , and, wherever possible, to take away from them any rights they currently possess.

    They all ought to be on the hate group list.

    As to the specific churches, I'd put them on there, too, to the extent that they engage in political activity to attempt to disenfranchise their gay fellow-citizens.

    VulcanTourist's picture

    Monotheism is "racist"

    Monotheism, by its very message and definition, is exclusive and segregationist; it promotes an our- god -is-the-ONLY-god us-versus-them mentality and a very unhealthy degree of groupthink. That us-versus-them mentality in Christianity and Islam, for instance, has manifested itself with tragic consequences repeatedly throughout history, and continues to do so. This brand of " racism " has nothing to do with skin color, but it is most certainly a manifestation of the same mental disorder that causes racism.

    I'd say the SPLC is displaying considerable courage, not to mention healthy ethics, in being willing to publicly call a spade a spade.

    thebigmike's picture

    Hypocrisy In Its Purest Form

    Your argument does not allow for any scientific fact or code of morality , monotheistic or otherwise. If we cannot say that one thing is correct and another is incorrect, then the Flat Earth Society should have a say in which text books we use in public schools .

    More to the point, if we cannot say that one view point is correct and moral, as opposed to another that is wrong and immoral, then you cannot say that racism is immoral because that is based on your own system of belief and does not accept other’s beliefs.

    To state it another way, you saying that monotheists are “racists” is exactly the same type of statement as a monotheist saying that his god is the only one. Both are judgments based on a personal system of morality.

    VulcanTourist's picture

    Huh?

    The core of your argument seems to be " racism can be moral if one person decides that it is". Did you start off with the premise that "I don't like what he said" and then wrap the facts to fit around it, even if that required a little stretching ? That's bad science , indeed.

    I observed and DE-scribed the behavior of a certain group of people, based on well defined patterns of collective behavior. I PRE-scribed nothing. Your final sentence is non sequitur: neither has anything at all to do with morality , as they are both descriptive declarations, not prescriptive ones, regardless whether they can be supported by evidence or not.

    Certainly it's obvious that we disagree about which of the two can be supported by objective evidence, but trying to apply some moral relativism argument to it just ends the discussion, not counters my statement. Finally, if the intent of your response is to defend the legitimacy of monotheism, which DESPISES moral relativism, it's confusing that you would try to invoke moral relativism to defend it.

    holy bullies 1's picture

    But yes you are a hate group for a number of reasons

    The Illinois Family Institute claims not to be a hate group but its tendency to use inaccurate and distorted studies about gays and lesbians are more than enough to prove the SPLC's point.

    For one - Paul Cameron has been censured and dimissed by groups such as the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association. The reason is because he has, consistently and without apology, used inaccurate and wrong methodologies for his studies.

    In one study, he claimed that gay men insert gerbils up their rectums. His source was a news article that said that gay men DO NOT stick gerbils up their rectums. In addition, he has made up stories about gay men castrating children in bathrooms. An excellent place to get the complete story on Paul Cameron is here - http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000 ,010.htm

    Furthermore, more evidence that the Illinois Family Institute uses bad studies is this statement that is in the above piece:

    " . . .reduced life expectancy for homosexual men has been reported by a world-reknowned medical journal, and has been cited as true by homosexual activists when it serves their purposes. That study, which appeared in Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that "In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."

    That 1997 Canadian study has continuously been distorted by groups like IFI. We know this because in 2001, the authors of the study complained about how it was being distorted ( http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499 ):

    "In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia."

    SPLC says they label various anti-gay groups as hate groups when they knowingly lie about gays and lesbians. SPLC has their facts right about the Illinois Family Institute.

    thebigmike's picture

    Bad Data is not Hate

    Your argument shows that the group has a habit of using bad data, not that they engage in hate activities. The evidence you site, if verified, only shows that they are not rigorous in their research.

    For the “knowingly lie” standard to apply you would have to show intent to deceive. Poor research practices do not show intent.

    holy bullies 1's picture

    Actually you are incorrect

    Organizations such as IFI are in fact very aware of the fact that the date they cite is wrong. In particular, they are aware of Paul Cameron's history.

    If you will read the introduction to the article in question, LaBarbera actually acknowledges that there are problems with Cameron's work although he tries to blame the "radical gay boogeyman" for the problem.

    thebigmike's picture

    Did you actually read the introduction?

    Perhaps we’re not reading the same article introduction. Is this the one you’re looking at?

    “As one who has read homosexual obituaries for over a decade, as a researcher of the " gay " movement, there can be no doubt that homosexual behavior shortens the life of those who practice it, especially men who have sex with other men.”

    CDC reports that 71% of HIV infections in the US in 2005 among male adults and adolesants were do to male homosexual behavior. ( http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm ) An article published in the November 2006 issue of “Medical Care” put the life expectancy of someone with HIV receiving optimal care at 24.2 years. ( http://news.med.cornell.edu/wcmc/wcmc_2006/11_01a_06.shtml ) Given these two facts, it’s hard to argue that homosexual behavior does not shorten the life of men who practice it.

    “ Paul Cameron's work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists,”

    Again, this is hard to argue against. For example: http://www.advocate.com/print_letter_ektid30958.asp .

    “ and he has been demonized by the Left,”

    Note that “homosexual activists” and “the Left” were listed separately, and with separate charges against them. By lumping them together as “the radical gay boogeyman” you have read something into the text that is not there.

    “but this should not discount his findings.”

    History has shown that the loudest opinion is not always the correct one. This is not an endorsement; LaBarbera is simply stating that we should judge for ourselves the merit of Cameron’s work.

    “We find it sad that more scientists have not joined Paul Cameron in assessing the extreme health risks of homosexual behavior, just like the scientific establishment researches obesity, smoking and other serious health issues.”

    Were the idea to knowingly deceive, we would not find this comment bemoaning that Cameron’s is the only work on the subject.

    I see in here an introduction to a topic, a statement that the author has been controversial, a request that this controversy not be confused with the data itself, and a statement of opinion about the lack of research on a health topic. I do not see any endorsement of the data, or the researcher.

    In this introduction, there is no intent to deceive.

    holy bullies 1's picture

    Actually yes there is

    You forgot a couple of things. While LaBarbera blamed an alleged gay boogeyman, he conveniently left out a couple of people:

    “[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS , AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.” - Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention - The Washington Blade - June 17th, 2005

    “(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality , noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” - Dr. A. Nicholas Groth in 1984 after discovering that Cameron distorted his work.

    "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - American Psychological Association, 1983

    The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - Nebraska Psychological Association, 1984

    Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" - American Sociological Association, 1985

    The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. - Canadian Psychological Association, 1996

    There has been a consistent volume of voices against Cameron's research and many of these voices spoke long before IFI's piece and LaBarbera's introduction was published. These folks know full well the problems with Cameron's work.

    holy bullies 1's picture

    One more thing

    Actually it is an endorsement. LaBarbera does not say decide for ourselves. He is in fact endorsing Cameron's work as well as his methods. Also, what I read in the text is an attempt by LaBarbera to kill disagreement with Cameron's work - which demonstrates that he has some knowledge that there have been complaints concerning Cameron's work.

    jxzac's picture

    liberal's realy have no grounds to have rights.

    This is how it is, a conservative works, he takes his labours and goes home with them. A liberal goes into his neighbors property and takes his neighbors work efforts. Then they turn about and call the conservative hateful. the liberal accepts the conservative's work, after all the liberal is eating his fruit. the conservative doesn't appreciate the liberal who has done nothing but diminish the work efforts of the conservative. Stop hating the liberal says..

    We should just shoot and kill the liberals and then tell them to stop hating when they complain. That's real. they should be shot and killed.

    jxzac's picture

    i want to repeat.

    liberals should be shot and kill, and conservatives should tell them to love and accept it as you would have us love and accept your dishonest selfish destructive ways. we shouldnot have to tolerate these back ward people. shoot them kill them, and tell them to love it. it's obscene that they exist.

    fsilber's picture

    No it's not sufficient

    "The Illinois Family Institute claims not to be a hate group but its tendency to use inaccurate and distorted studies about gays and lesbians are more than enough to prove the SPLC's point."

    Hardly. If the tendency to use inaccurate and distorted studies were sufficient to qualify as a hate group, then you would have to add every gun control organization in the nation to the list of hate groups.

    Morris Dees has gotten caught before for his shoot-first-ask-questions-later mode of operating. For example, in the 1990s he included in his list of racist antisemitic organizations even those militia groups that in fact welcomed Jews and blacks into their ranks.

    holy bullies 1's picture

    Actually yes it is sufficient

    The tendency to use inaccurate and distorted studies to defame a group of people is sufficient for an entity to qualify as a hate group IF the entity continues to use the inaccurate and distorted studies even AFTER shown that said studies are wrong.

    fsilber's picture

    Then my point still stands.

    Well, that would qualify the gun control groups -- as well as Morris Dees himself. (He did not change his literature when the equal-opportunity militia groups protested. Nor did the gun control groups when the fraudulency of the New England Journal of Medicine papers on gun-control-as-a-public- health -issue were exposed in papers subsequently published in university law review journals and in the Georgia Journal of Medicine.)

    holy bullies 1's picture

    So that means IFI is hate group

    So that means that IFI is in fact a hate group. I'm glad you agree.

    Fair Felicia's picture

    Fair Felicia

    I agree with the author. If you go to the SLPC's web site, you see lots of neo-Nazi and skinhead groups listed, and then these Christian groups! Hello? This is absurd. There seems to be only one viewpoint regarding homosexuality --favorable-- in this " poverty " and " racism " organization. Don't they have other ways to raise money ? It really undermines the credibility of a group that seems so unfamiliar with viewpoints that are first of all, not hateful, and secondly, quite prevalent. ALL the state marriage amendments have passed! Does this mean the majority of Americans, who have some issues with homosexuality, are full of hate and need to be watched? I think, on the contrary, that groups like the SPLC need to be called to account for defaming responsible and worthy conservative organizations.

    Jimmathews's picture

    I must agree

    I must agree with the author. Whether or not one agrees that homosexuality is immoral, I believe the Illinois Family Institute argued its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the SPLC wishes to maintain any credibility, it should abandon its current strategy of guilt by the appearance of association. It is clear to anyone with eyes - progressives and conservatives alike - that the SPLC is using the inflammatory word "hate" in an effort to defame and discredit groups and individuals who observe traditional notions of human sexuality. This is ad homenim, intellectually lazy and, frankly, unethical. The SPLC has done many great things over the years. It saddens me to see them sully their own reputation in such away.

    A Poverty of Credibility's picture

    Moral Disagreement is Not Hatred

    Jimmathews nails it on the head. If turnabout was fair play, groups like the Illinois Family Institute would have to view the SPLC as a hate group because it morally opposes those who uphold only traditional notions of human sexuality. But moral opposition to behavior does not constitute hatred any more than opposition to alcoholism constitutes hatred of alcoholics. Equally frustrating is SPLC’s fuzzy criteria for a group’s inclusion or exclusion from the list and little if any substantive explanation why these groups are on the list. After a rich history of exposing hateful action, you’ve lost your credibility, SPLC = Suspect, Politically Leaning Claptrap.

    JamieNettles's picture

    Analysis of Illinois Family Institute Web Site

    Anyone who actually reads the Illinois Family Institute web site will immediately see that they do not merely disagree with homosexuality , they systematically demonize and dehumanize gays. For example they refer to Bishop Robinson as "a radical sexual activist masquerading as a man of God. He is an affront to faithful Christians and religious defenders of morality everywhere." This is not disagreement, this is personal vilification of a gay man.

    A review of the IFI web site finds attack after attack on gays, not as fellow citizens of the United States, but as an evil force that must be opposed. For example, "We watched as homosexuals threatened the medical profession; claimed to be victims; infiltrated public schools ; demanded a place at the political round table; and lobbied state legislatures and city councils for equal rights." So gays do not "attend" public schools, they "infiltrate". A group of American citizens has the audacity to "demand a place at the political round table."

    The only conclusion that is reasonable is that the Illinois Family Institute goes far beyond mere disagreement and vilifies and systematically attacks gays. It is definitely a hate group.

    A Poverty of Credibility's picture

    Still Not Seeing the Hate

    JamieNettles, it was good of you to visit the IFI website to see what it actually stands for. You quoted one that supposedly represent IFI's "personal vilification of a gay man." The IFI opposes Bishop Robinson not as a gay man, but as someone portraying himself as a man of God. Replace the words with "Republican" and "Democrat": "a radical Republican activist masquerading as a Democrat. He is an affront to faithful Democrats." Still no hate here. IFI is attacking Bishop Robinson's stance on the nature and morality of homosexuality , not Bishop Robinson himself.

    Your second quotation is equally innocuous in terms of its hate quotient as it simply describes the activism of homosexual groups while family groups idly stood by.

    Sorry, JamieNettles, the "hate" label remains a trumped-up charge. Otherwise, our interchange right here would have to be labeled an exchange of hate rather than moral disagreement.

    Babaroni's picture

    Um, "trumped up charge"?

    Accusing a bishop of "masquerading as a man of God" is a good deal different than accusing a Republican or Democrat of "masquerading" as a member of their party. The latter attacks political ideals. The former attacks personal morality .

    And attempting to keep those who would protect the well-being of gay students out of the school systems, so that gay students can continue to be harrassed and bullied... Well, let's see if we can look at it another way, shall we?

    Students of color being bullied and mistreated by their peers (and sometimes the administrations of their schools ) come to the attention of people of color in the community, along with those who support the rights of those persons of color. These concerned adults attempt to "infiltrate" the school system to provide support and protection for those students. A hypothetical "interest group" which denegrates persons of color and believes them to be vile and a "threat to the community" takes up a campaign to stop these persons of color from influencing the school system on behalf of protecting and supporting the minority students.

    Hate group? Hm...

    JamieNettles's picture

    Difference Between Disagreement and Ad Hominem Attack

    We are not attacking each other as people. The IFI website, on the other hand, contains ad hominem attacks on gays.

    "Innocuous"? If the IFI actually practiced the Christian trait of honesty, they would admit that their words are hateful.

    Close x
    Don't Miss Out! |
    Like us on Facebook?