Peter Sprigg is one of the reasons that Family Research Council is recognized for what it is; an anti-LGBT hate group. Tuesday, the Sprigg asks: Should Christians Recognize “LGBT Pride?” Since about two-thirds of Americans are Christian and since Sprigg indulges in the fallacy of begging the question as well as the use of rhetorical questions. I thought that a closer look at Sprigg’s output is warranted. I cannot respond to this entire piece. Doing so would be far too tedious. Here are some of the lowlights.
Didn’t Sprigg proffer this same crap 10 years ago?
First of all—who exactly are “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals?” The answer is not as obvious as it seems. Both “sexual orientation” (“LGB”) and “gender identity” (“T”) are terms that describe a mix of feelings, behaviors, and self-identification. “Lesbians” and “gays” may refer to people who experience sexual attractions toward persons of the same sex (feelings); and/or engage in sexual acts or sexual relationships with persons of the same sex (behaviors); and/or self-identify as such. (Similarly, “bisexuals” are attracted to, and/or have sex with, people of both sexes, and/or identify as bisexual). “Transgender” persons, on the other hand, experience a disconnect between their biological sex at birth and their psychological “gender identity” (feelings); and/or present themselves publicly (in their dress, etc.) as the opposite of or different from their biological sex (behaviors); and/or self-identify as transgender, or as something other than their biological sex.
Even Sprigg cannot fuck it up too badly except for the blather about “a mix of feelings, behaviors, and self-identification.” Lesbian and gay are synonymous except that lesbians are gay women and gay can be men or women. Gay means attracted to the same sex. Bisexual means attracted to both sexes. Transgender means presenting as one’s incongruent gender identity to offset the effects of gender dysphoria.
Being LGBT has absolutely nothing to do with behavior. Self-identification, in Sprigg-world, means sexuality by choice which is bullshit.
Exactly which of these things are LGBT people expressing “pride” in—their feelings, behaviors, or self-identification? Or is it all three?
Some may argue that it is not about pride in their sexuality, as such, but instead pride in their “impact” or “contributions.” Such a sharp separation, though, would implicitly suggest that they are proud of what they have accomplished in spite of being “LGBT”—not because of it. It’s highly unlikely that most LGBT advocacy groups would embrace such a defensive—almost apologetic—framing of “LGBT Pride.” They are not simply proud of their accomplishments in the arts, business, sports, etc.—they are expressing “pride” in being LGBT.
LGBT Pride means that we are proud of who we are. We are proud of the contributions of LGBT people to our culture, the arts and sciences. It also means that we refuse to be defined by our sexuality. Sprigg is determined to define us by our sexuality in order to marginalize us.
But again, which aspect? Are they proud of their feelings of same-sex attraction or “gender incongruity?” To accept “LGBT Pride” is to accept the assertion that these feelings are a normal and natural variant of human sexuality. That is an ideological assertion, not a scientific one, and the high rates of mental illness that accompany such feelings is strong evidence against the idea that homosexual and transgender feelings are “natural.” (Evidence does not support the widely-argued theory that such problems are caused by societal discrimination, because they are widespread even in the most LGBT-friendly of countries, such as in the Netherlands or in Scandinavia.)
The above is unadulterated, medium-rare horse manure. Sprigg is stating the exact opposite of the scientific consensus. Being gay, bi or gender incongruent is a natural variant of human sexuality. Ideology has nothing to do with it. That is based upon the e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. Moreover, he is getting the mental health nonsense from an opinion piece in the Guardian by someone who looks to be all of 20. The author makes the true point that gay youth, for example, are far more prone to suicide than straight youth. That is not because they are gay. That is because of how they are treated because they are gay. Mr. Sprigg knows a thing or two about promoting bigotry directed at kids.
The Netherlands study does not say what Sprigg claims it says:
If changes [in society acceptance] occur they are likely to be first observed in younger homosexual persons; our sample size did not allow for testing that. It is also possible that prejudice and discrimination continue to be an important reality in Dutch society and that observed altitudinal changes are superficial.
The Sprigg gets more bigoted — and unhinged — as he continues:
Are they proud of their behaviors—of being men who have sex with men, women who have sex with women, men who dress up like and pretend to be women, or women who dress up like and pretend to be men? Men who have sex with men, in particular, have high rates of HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases as a direct result of that sexual behavior—so is it something to be “proud” of? Some individuals who identify as transgender ask surgeons to mutilate or remove otherwise healthy body parts—often with serious long-term consequences—in order to make their bodies resemble more closely their desired sex. Is this something to be proud of?
As I said, Sprigg was begging the question from the very beginning and continues to engage in the fallacy. I have already defined pride and need not do so again.
How many times can I say that Peter Sprigg is full of crap?
Most of the following is a lie. Sprigg is trying to torture scientific reality to conform to Christian dogma. Doing so scrambles what is faith-based and what is evidence-based into a stew of incoherent word-play.
It is a virtual certainty that LGBT advocacy groups—the people who conceived of the idea of “LGBT Pride” in the first place—would be unwilling to separate their feelings, behaviors, and self-identification as sources of pride. To endorse “LGBT Pride” is to endorse all three—to affirm that LGBT feelings are normal and natural (which is untrue), that LGBT behaviors are harmless or even admirable (also untrue), and that their LGBT “identity” is innate (untrue as well).
Eventually Sprigg identifies our supposed victims:
Having eliminated virtually all distinctions under the law between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships, gay activists began fighting more vigorously against private individuals or entities that might dissent from the new liberal orthodoxy, even on grounds of conscience or religious conviction. Some of those attacks have been rebuffed, albeit at great cost—such as that upon Jack Phillips, a Christian baker in Colorado who gladly served openly gay-identified customers, but declined to participate in the celebration of a same-sex wedding by designing a custom wedding cake. Although Phillips won his case in the Supreme Court in 2018, the decision was on narrow grounds.
Please. Phillips defied a perfectly valid law. Post-Phillips, the Court refused to hear a more compelling case out of Hawaii dealing with a “Christian” B&B. Sprigg continues the bullshit about participating in some sort of celebration. Phillips was asked to bake a fucking cake. Where and how the thing is used should be irrelevant to any reasonably sane and rational person in business to make a profit.
Furthermore, Sprigg has a problem with chronology (“Having eliminated …”). The Masterpiece Cakeshop case began in 2012. The ruling in Obergefell came three years later. If you are going to claim that we have this mystical agenda at least get the timeline right.
We are persecutors:
As if persecuting small businesses weren’t enough, homosexual activists and their allies in the states have even been invading the privacy of the relationship between mental health providers and their clients, by passing laws to prohibit sexual orientation change efforts, or SOCE (which critics refer to as “conversion therapy”) with minors. Ironically, this takes away the freedom of people with same-sex attractions—if they experience those attractions as unwanted.
It’s just the same meaningless rhetoric that only the proverbial choir believes to be true. There is no evidence that conversion therapy works. There is evidence that it is potentially harmful, particularly to children. The existence of conversion therapy that supposedly removes unwanted “same-sex attraction” underpins discrimination. It supposedly proves that sexuality is a choice and, therefore, should not be protected by nondiscrimination laws. These same people never seem to have a coherent explanation for why religion — which is clearly a choice — should be protected.
After a great deal of additional drivel, repeating the same old talking points, Sprigg concludes:
Given the radical agenda that is attached to such a positive-sounding word, “insidiously” may be the best word for how “LGBT Pride” affects the values of American society.
Sprigg is an adherent to the concepts of Christian privilege and Christian supremacy. We do have an agenda. We LGBT people want equal protection under law. That includes passage of the Equality Act. We are the only minority group that is lawfully subjected to unwarranted discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.