Propaganda from the Religious Right

I recently received a forward of a column penned by someone from “Americans for Truth”. Below is the URL:

http://tinyurl. com/ydrwlm

Writings of this nature should give all freedom loving persons pause. The agenda espoused therein is nothing short of an imposition of values from a conservative, or, shall we say fundamentalist, group who would have everyone submit to their iconoclastic and dogmatic rhetoric.

The piece leads off with the following assertion:

“ENDA-Our Freedom Bill and All Top-10 "Gay" Wish-List Bills”

The gist of this vitriolic diatribe is to insist that there is a gay, lesbian and transgender movement afoot, that we are out to “take over” the political arena, and that we must be stopped. Of course, the first piece of legislation to be attacked is ENDA, which this writer euphemistically calls “ENDA-Our Freedom”. Bearing in mind that ENDA stands for Employment Non Discrimination Act, one must presume that those who would prevent the passage of such legislation endorse discrimination in the work place. This is nothing short of Middle Ages thinking. The writer states that all “pro-family” Americans take a stand against this feared bill and protect “family values”.

The following is a direct quote:

“the top of the "gay" wish-list is ENDA, which we are calling the "ENDA-Our Freedom" Bill because it would use federal power to force businesses to support and subsidize homosexuality and gender confusion ("transgender" : think men in dresses, using female
restrooms).”

Of course, as a transgender individual, I take great umbrage at the last assertion.


Again…here is a quote of the dreaded top 10 pieces of “anti-family values” legislation:

Top 10 gay bills in Congress

Gay-supportive members of Congress have introduced these bills at the request of gay rights or AIDS advocacy groups in recent years. All of them have died in committee after Republican leaders in the House and Senate refused to bring them up for a vote. The new Democratic-controlled Congress is expected to be more sympathetic toward the 10
bills, but Democratic leaders chose not to place any of them on their agenda for their first 100 days in office.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Calls for banning private sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act: Calls for giving the federal government authority to prosecute hate crimes based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Military Readiness Enhancement Act: Calls for repealing the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy so that gay male, lesbian and bisexual troops would be allowed to serve openly.

Uniting American Families Act: Calls for amending the U.S. Immigration & Nationality Act to allow foreign nationals who are same-sex domestic partners of U.S. citizens to apply for the same immigration rights offered to foreign nationals who legally marry
U.S. citizens. Similar to the existing law's application to heterosexuals, the bill calls for prosecution of same-sex couples who fraudulently form a partnership to enable a foreigner to obtain immigration rights.

Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act/Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act: Introduced respectively in the Senate and House, the identical bills call for amending the Internal Revenue Code to end taxation of health insurance benefits for domestic partners. Under the current IRS Code, legally married employees do not pay taxes on their employers' contribution to their health insurance benefits that cover their spouses and dependent children. But gay and lesbian employees must pay taxes on similar benefits as if they were ordinary income.

Domestic Partners Benefits & Obligations Act: Calls for providing health insurance and other benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners of federal government employees. Under current law, these benefits are only available to legally married spouses of federal employees. The bill sets various requirements to define a domestic partnership, including an affidavit that the partners live together, are not relatives, are over 18 and are not married.

Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act: Declares that, "federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" and "[repudiates] any assertion to the contrary." Gay-supportive members of the House of Representatives introduced the bill to overrule a controversial decision by U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch not to enforce a longstanding federal employment policy banning sexual orientation discrimination against federal workers.

Family Medical Leave Inclusion Act: Calls for amending the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993 to allow government and private sector employees to take leave to care for a domestic partner who has a serious health condition. The bill also would allow medical leave for the care of a same-sex married partner or the parent-in-law, adult child, sibling or grandparent of a same-sex partner who has a serious health condition.

Responsible Education About Life Act: Calls for creating a $206 million federal grant program to award funds to states for comprehensive sexuality education that is not linked to advocacy of abstinence-only- until-marriage. Supporters say the bill is needed
because existing sexuality education programs funded by the federal government are linked to abstinence-only policies.

Early Treatment for HIV Act: Calls for allowing low-income, childless adults with HIV to become eligible for Medicaid coverage before they develop full-blown AIDS. Under current law, people who meet the income requirements for Medicaid are ineligible for the federal health program if they have HIV but are not "disabled" by having AIDS.

I would like to examine these 10 prospective pieces of legislation and show how they use a version of “straw man” arguments to make the case, which have no substantiality in the real world. We will find that the “straw men” are virtually the same in each and every case and that they represent a recognizable pattern. The “straw men”, in this case, are fallacious arguments designed to prey on a population subset’s fears and thereby goad them into taking a discriminatory stance in the name of self-defense.

1) Espousing their opposition to ENDA, it must be obvious that the only reason this is the case is because certain people feel that “family values” would be at risk. How, I ask you, does guaranteeing a person the right to either find employment or not be fired for her/his being a member of the LGBT community affect a person’s beliefs? It is based on the assumption that a person will be subject to some type of brainwashing or mind control if LGBT individuals are allowed to flourish and prosper. One might think that if their family values were strong enough, none of their children could or would be persuaded to become gay, lesbian, or trans. The flaw in this argument is that people do not choose to become gender variant. They just are. That is precisely why their children will not be safe from this abominable lifestyle. Those who believe family values are at risk live in a world dominated by fear, controlled by “what if”. “What if my child is attracted to that lifestyle”, “what if my child were to get AIDS”, “what if my child wants to change her/his sex”. Okay…no one wants to see a family member contract HIV. Other than that, there is nothing a parent can do to keep a child from discovering that she/he has some gender variance or a different sexual preference than they would prefer. It is not within their power to determine and this is the etiology of their fear. It is outside their control. In this case, the fallacious argument is that members of the LGBT community pose a threat to the rest of society. It is generally embellished with the claim that, by asserting our rights, whatever they may be, we are imposing our beliefs upon them. That is certainly a case of misplaced blame.

2) Hate Crimes Legislation. Once again, we see the ugly head of fear rising up. How a person could support brutality and violence, in the name of “family values” defies any rational understanding. We must presume that a person who believes this is so consumed with fear and hatred that it has precluded their ability to think clearly. Regardless of your stance on being lesbian, gay or transgender…how could anyone sanction violence and brutality? Their “straw man” is designed to take the focus from their bigotry and retrain it on the objects of their intolerance. Fear is the vehicle they utilize and it is aimed at those who are sitting on the fence and who have really not taken a stance. The hate promulgated by these fear mongers has the effect of demonizing LGBT individuals and convincing these fence sitters that their lives are in jeopardy. This is utter folly!

3) Don’t ask, don’t tell…another “straw man” issue…creating a fallacious premise and then attacking its credibility. There is no reason to believe that gay and lesbian individuals are any less able to carry out military duty or are suspect regarding their propensity to recruit others into their “gay and/or lesbian fraternity”. Neither does it follow that a person’s sexual preference has any bearing upon their ability to take orders.

4) Immigration rights for same sex couples or transgender individuals or couples…again…Americans for Truth would have these people barred from entry into the United States. Of course…if we cannot tolerate LGBT persons at home, we certainly do not want to give them a chance to emigrate from another country. The same thread runs through each and every one of this group’s arguments. A person who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is a second-class human being. In fact…that is even too liberal an interpretation of their argument…LGBT individuals are “abominations” and need to be isolated from the “normal” people. This harkens back to the days of “ships of fools”…floating insane asylums which always remained at sea so as to keep the “crazies” from interacting with the general population.

5) Health benefits for Domestic Partners. One wonders just how this poses a threat to a God fearing, non-LGBT person. I guess we must presume that not only do they not want us to have a right to exist…they want to make sure that we are excluded from any of the financial aspects one might anticipate would be guaranteed us by virtue of our citizenship. Oh...I forgot…we are second class citizens entitled to second-class rights.

6) Other benefits for Domestic Partners. See #5

7) Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act: The Fundamental Right would have the government allow discrimination, based on sexual preference, in the workplace. The argument here is the same as that for ENDA…LGBT individuals are not entitled to any special protection and employers have no obligation to insulate their employees from harassment. Nor will they be required to treat each and every employee the same when it comes time for advancement announcements or any other situation based on merit.

8) Inclusion of LGBT individuals in federally mandated medical leave provisions, which allow spouses to temporarily leave work when a spouse is ill. The same argument…the second class citizen argument…is again at work!!

9) The end to sex education predicated upon abstinence programs. These have been shown to be discriminatory and inefficacious and certainly do not face the reality of what teenagers think about sex. These “just say no” programs have had other consequences, not the least of which are rhetorical debates as to just what constitutes having sex. The spreading of false information goes unchecked and we allow young people to live in perpetual ignorance.

10) AIDS….of course…the Americans for Truth do NOT want to see those without children and who are not eligible to receive Medicaid at this time get any kind of early help to stem the tide of their HUV status. One cannot imagine a greater negation of compassionate conservatism than the stance they take on this issue.

All in all…the arguments postulated by Americans for Truth or by other groups with similar agendas make the case that certain “other” Americans do not deserve to be treated equally. The reasoning is the same as it was when people of color asserted their rights; or when women asserted theirs. In fact…the LGBT community does not even get “separate, but equal”!! No…we are all morally degenerate, we all have a predilection for sexual predation, and we are all a threat to America’s children. Protect them from LGBT individuals AT ALL COSTS!!

The “straw man” arguments that the LGBT community will be responsible for an increase in the incidence of AIDS in schools, that we, as members of the LGBT community, are all actively recruiting for new members, that everyone knows gay men are more likely to be sexual predators, that transgender male to females want to use a woman’s bathroom to satisfy their sexual appetites, that all God –fearing Americans must stem the tide of this plague lest their children become enamored of this hideous and heinous lifestyle…these arguments are groundless and have no basis in the real world.

Today’s youth, however, represent the light at the end of the tunnel. Their perspective is much further reaching than that of their parents. Fewer of them are possessed of the hatred their parents espouse. The current generation of younger people is showing us that they are made of far sturdier stuff when it comes to diversity, and that many of them are willing to take a public stand for what they believe. They will be our salvation; we need to encourage and foster their sense of tolerance and allow them to give it a voice. Perhaps they will be the ones to put these “straw men” to rest!

trickster108