The truth is, “sexual orientation” is a multi-faceted concept, involving a combination of attractions, behaviors, and personal identity. These four studies all demonstrate that significant change in each of the elements of sexual orientation is possible.
The percentage changing from homosexuality to heterosexuality ranged from 13% to 53% (while the percentage changing from heterosexuality to homosexuality ranged only from 1% to 12%). In one survey of “same-sex attracted respondents,” up to 38% of men and 53% of women “changed to heterosexuality” in only a six-year period.
In light of this evidence, the public would be wise to question whether the efforts of the LGBT movement to ride on the coat-tails of “civil rights” can any longer be justified. Indeed, the science shows that the evidence for immutability—on which many have relied to argue for such legislation—simply isn’t there. If Congress truly wants to pursue “evidence-based” policy, it will reject the “Equality Act” and its deceptive premise. – Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council
And Christians could become non-Christians. Why protect them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
PETER SPRIGG: I think that certainly there is abundant reason to believe that children do best when raised by a married mother and father. And within the context of foster care the judge has an obligation to do what’s in the best interest of the child. And he exercised that discretion.
MELISSA ROSS: And what research does the Family Research Council cite to buttress the claim that a child is better off with a heterosexual couple?
SPRIGG: Well, there’s an abundance of research showing that children do better overall when raised by their own married biological father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage. There are just reams of research showing that. Now this is a slightly different situation because of the fact that you’re dealing with a situation where they are being removed from their biological parents. But we think that there is evidence to suggest that children would do better with a mother and father even if it’s not their biological parents.
Sprigg cited a widely discredited Mark Regnerus paper to suggest that children raised by same-sex couples perform poorly, and resurrected the long debunked horror story that Catholic adoption agencies have been shut down for refusing to allow same-sex couples without guest host Melissa Ross pushing back on any of his bogus talking points or Ross mentioning that The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the FRC as an anti-gay hate group since 2010 due to the organization’s exposed lies and falsehoods about LGBT people and their constant battle of LGBT equality in any form.
Ross the host and producer of Jacksonville, Florida’s WJCT (89.9 FM) call-in radio program “First Coast Connect.” sat their passively and gave Sprigg an open platform to spread his hate-groups propaganda without any pushback. Luckily fellow guest Emily Hetch-McGowan, Director of Public Policy the Family Equality Council, called out FRC’s use of the much discredited research while Ross sat there doing nothing.
Just before he challenged Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) to come on the show and defend his bill, New Day host Chris Cuomo battled it out with Peter Sprigg of the right-wing Media Research Council over Indiana’s new “religious liberty” bill, which both supporters and detractors say would allow businesses to claim a religious exemption to deny service to gays and lesbians.
“There is a picture that’s circulating around of the governor as he signed [the bill],” Cuomo said. “Several of the people in the picture are outspoken critics of gay existence. Now, that’s not a coincidence. It’s not a coincidence why you’re against it. Let me ask you, why do so many Christians these days believe that the exercise of their faith requires exclusion and judgment of others?”
“Some people have a sincere, conscientious belief that marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman,” Sprigg replied. “In fact the majority of Americans believe that.”
“Popularity is not the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong if protecting rights under the Constitution,” Cuomo said. “The question then goes to: why do you need this? What is it about someone being gay or someone wanting to marry someone of the same sex — what is there in that that is keeping you from being the Christian you want to be?…If I said, Mr. Sprigg, you must go marry a man right now, you can say, no, that’s a violation of my faith. Maybe that, you would be able clear this burden. But how is wanting to judge others somehow stopping you from practicing your faith?”
Nationally recognized hate group the Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg did the unthinkable yesterday when he used beloved comedian Robin Williams’ attendance of substance-abuse-related rehab to defend, ex-gay therapy.
Sprigg’s hateful though process considers rehab and therapy options for individuals who suffer from alcoholism and other forms of dangerous addiction to“sexual reorientation therapy,” which everyone should support since individuals exist who are uncomfortable with their same-sex attraction and who might wish to “change” it.
Whatever the motivation, there are those who have simply made a choice to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle, without clinical help—much like how Robin Williams simply stopped using drugs and alcohol in the 1980’s. Drug addiction and substance abuse is becoming a big problem in the states, if you are addicted or know someone who needs help, please visit this article about http://firststepbh.com/blog/participate-addiction-group-therapy/. Others have sought professional help, perhaps at the urging of family members, in the form of “sexual reorientation therapy”—much like when Williams entered a formal alcohol rehab program in 2006.
Sprigg goes on to list the usual hate group propaganda reasons a person might want to “change” his/her sexual orientation;
Why would someone want to change their sexual orientation? Some such individuals are simply disillusioned by their experiences in homosexual relationships. Some have legitimate concern about the well-documented health problems associated with homosexual conduct (especially among men), such as high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, of whichHIV/AIDS is only one example. Others may seek help in conforming their behavior and lifestyle to the teaching of the religious faith to which they are committed. Some may aspire to a traditional family life, raising children in a home with both their mother and father present.
Whatever the motivation, there are those who have simply made a choice to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle, without clinical help — much like how Robin Williams simply stopped using drugs and alcohol in the 1980’s. Others have sought professional help, perhaps at the urging of family members, in the form of “sexual reorientation therapy” — much like when Williams entered a formal alcohol rehab program in 2006. Whether simply through personal development, religious counseling, or with the help of a licensed or unlicensed counselor, thousands (if not millions) of people have experienced significant changes in one or more of the elements of their sexual orientation (attractions, behavior, or self-identification).
Just like the Family Research Council to seize on any event, and use it for far fetched and loathsome talking point to capitalize on its hateful agenda, They are no better than the Westboro Baptist Church. Only not nearly as entertaining and much more dangerous.
Family Research Council vice douchebagpresident Peter Sprigg, testified before the Washington DC City Council Committee on Health Friday in opposition to Bill 20-501, the “Conversion Therapy for Minors Prohibition Amendment Act of 2013” that would stop the torture of ex-gay therapy quackery on LGBT children in the District. Testified Sprigg:
“At the heart of the attacks on sexual reorientation therapy are two claims– that such therapies are ineffective, and that they are harmful. However, there is abundant anecdotal evidence that such therapies work — that is, people who say that they were helped by such therapies to change from predominantly homosexual to predominantly heterosexual. There is also scientific evidence. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has cited ‘600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients — primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals’ which show that ‘reorientation treatment has been helpful to many.’ The American Psychological Association (APA), under the sway of a small but influential pro-homosexual lobby, has criticized and discouraged (but never banned) reorientation therapy. Yet even the APA acknowledges that ‘participants reporting beneficial effects in some studies perceived changes to their sexuality, such as in their sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual behavior, [and/or] sexual orientation identity.” [snip]“
But what does the empirical evidence show? Not only did those who were exclusively homosexual not all remain so, but only 11% did. Some measure of change in sexual orientation—which many homosexual activists say is impossible, and never happens to anyone—is not only possible, but it is the norm for adolescents with same-sex attractions, having been experienced by 89% of the respondents only one year later.”
While some pro-homosexual activists will concede that some measure of fluidity exists, they say that complete transformation—from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual—is not possible. Yet this kind of complete reversal of sexual orientation is exactly what was reported by almost half (48%) of the adolescent boys in this survey and again, after only one year.The last refuge of the homosexual activists in the face of this kind of evidence is to concede, “Well, yes, a person’s sexual orientation can change—but only by accident, not by trying to change it!”This is somewhat like saying, “Well, yes, obese people can lose weight—but not by trying to, and certainly not with anyone else’s help!
“There is abundant anecdotal evidence that such therapies work”?
The plural of anecdote is not data. Data is supported by evident, anecdotes are by definition subjective.
Just one of these hearings or when they have Sprigg on television as an “expert” I would like for someone to play the clip of Spriggs saying he would like to see homosexuals forcibly exported out of the U.S. or where he said he would like to see homosexuality made a criminal offense. And THEN ask him why he thinks he has ANY credibility on issues like this and smack the shit out of him.
“This political gesture reflects the president’s repeated disregard for the legislative process. Congress has not passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) or similar provisions, despite activists’ pressure to do so, because of the detrimental impact on employers’ and employees’ constitutional freedoms of religion, speech, and association. Historically, these kinds of provisions have not been applied to conduct-based distinctions that are not found in the Constitution.
“Today’s announced executive order will give activists a license to challenge their employers whenever they feel aggrieved, exposing those employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts. Furthermore, by requiring federal contractors to consider characteristics and behaviors related to a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, this policy will make contractors liable for protecting actual or perceived self-disclosed and fluid identities that may not even be known.
“The timing of this announcement is clearly designed to curry favor with activist organizations. While the president prepares to address a New York gathering of gay rights supporters, the American people will be left to sort out the costs to religious and constitutional liberties resulting from this executive order.” – Tony “KKK” Perkin’s Family Research Council vice president and co-hort in hate Peter Sprigg, via press release.
“A person’s sexual orientation or gender identity”?
Obviously, Peter missed the memo from Toni Perkins stating that being gay is not a choice.
As for “fluid identities”. The only thing I see that is fluid is Sprigg foaming ot the mouth because his well paid career in hate is coming to an end. t
Now that Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring is the first Democrat to hold his state’s top legal job since 1993. and has publicly stated that he will side with the plaintiffs opposing the state’s gay marriage ban, reversing the position held by the defeated (and rabidly anti-gay) Ken Cuccinelli the professional hater crybabies are out in force with their usual histrionic whining and the gnashing of teeth.
Brian Brownshirt of The National Organization for Marriage:
“The Attorney General swore an oath that he would ‘support…the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia’ and faithfully discharge his duties, which include defending duly enacted laws like the state’s marriage amendment. Yet now Attorney General Herring is participating in a lawsuit against the very people he is sworn to represent, the citizens of Virginia who preserved marriage in their constitution. This malfeasance and neglect of duty is not only a disgrace, it’s an impeachable offense under the constitution. Section 17 of the Virginia state constitution provides that the Attorney General may be impeached for ‘malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty or other high crime or misdemeanor.’
“Thanks to the foresight of Ken Cuccinelli, there is a governmental entity who is defending the law now that the Attorney General has abandoned his constitutional responsibility. Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk Michele McQuigg is in a position to defend the law and appeal a decision if need be. We call on the General Assembly to make sure that she has the financial and legal resources and expertise needed to effectively defend the law. We also encourage the General Assembly itself to intervene to defend the people’s decision to preserve marriage.” – Hate group leader Brian Brown, in a statement posted to NOM’s blog.
Tony Perkins: White supremacist and hate group president of The Family Research Council:
“Someone should have handed Virginia’s new Attorney General a job description before he was sworn in. With barely a month under his belt, the radical liberal seems to be completely confused about his role as the state’s chief law enforcer. Despite his campaign promises on same-sex ‘marriage,’ the new AG is obviously taking lessons in lawlessness from President Obama, whose administration never met a marriage law they didn’t ignore. Like a majority of states, Virginia had overwhelming support (57%) to pass its marriage amendment in 2006. Now, under the new regime of Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Mark Herring, the democratic process has been tossed out the window — along with the votes of 1,328,134 Virginians. This week, the new attorney general announced his intentions to fight the constitutional amendment — by not enforcing it. Of course, the irony is, if there weren’t laws to defend, there’d be no reason to have an attorney general in the first place! If Mark Herring wanted to write legislation, he should have stayed in the state Senate. Instead, he’s decided not only to ignore his responsibilities but trample on the people who gave them to him.” – KKK-affiliated hate group leader Tony Perkins, who using Herring’s move to harvest emails for the FRC.
Family Research Council vice president Peter Sprigg:
(Sprigg has said in the past that Lawrence v Texas was “wrongly decided” and there should be “criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.” He’s also declared that gay people should be “exported” out of the United States.)
BONUS HATE!
Virginia Roman Catholic Bishop Paul Loverde and Bishop Francis DiLorenzo:
“Virginia voters put this provision in the Constitution, and no politician should be able to reverse the people’s decision. We call on the Attorney General to do the job he was elected to perform, which is to defend the state laws he agrees with, as well as those state laws with which he personally disagrees. We will continue to defend marriage between a man and a woman, an institution whose original design predates all governments and religions. The Government of the Commonwealth of Virginia should preserve and defend this original design because the constituent majority that supported the constitutional amendment understands the unique benefit that marriage between a man and a woman provides to individual families and society at large.”
I love the smell anti-gay haters loss and desperation in the morning.
CNN once again showed absolutely no journalistic integrity by hosting the anti-gay Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg on Soledad O’Brien’s Starting Point this morning to discuss President Obama inaugural address and the agenda outlined within it. And of course it was a set up to get Sprigg to talk about the mention of “Stonewall” and “LGBT Euqality.
When O’Brien noted Obama’s vocal support for gay rights of course Sprigg didn’t agree with the president linking the gay rights movement with civil rights for African-Americans and women’s rights. “The irony is,” he contended, “homosexuals already have all the same civil rights as anyone else. But that fact that all people are created equal as individuals does not mean all sexual behavior is equal or that all personal relationships have an equal value to society at large.”
There was no mention of course of the extra protections that people of “religion” receive under the 1964 Civil Rights Act that does not include the lesbian and gay population. And of course CNN did not provide a pro-gay voice counter-point to Sprigg’s crazy accusations.
As far as CNN, MSNBC, and major news outlets are concerned this not only about accountability but also journalistic integrity. Having Peter Sprigg comment on gay issues under the “social conservative” banner is no different than having David Duke of the KKK comment on issues about race under the “republican” banner.
“There has been a significant growth in the number of women who identify as lesbian, bisexual or transgender — a much larger growth than the number of men. In 1994, there were twice as many homosexual men as women, but now homosexual women actually outnumber the homosexual men. During that time span, the number of homosexual men has increased by 18 percent while the number of women who identify as such has gone up 157 percent. I think that that suggests that there are strong cultural factors at work and that, at least indirectly, undermines the whole theory of a gay gene. If there were a gay gene, we would never see evolution taking place at that rapid a pace; so something else must be at work.” – Family Research Council raving LOON Peter Sprigg, – Via Good As You
