Bigot Spotlight: Frank Turek
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2013, 05:08 PM
Bigot Spotlight: Frank Turek
He runs a mediocre pint-sized blog, cross-examined.org

He wouldn't be worth mentioning if not for his role in NOM's campaign to garner undeserved pity for him. As you can imagine, they omitted a surfeit of pertinent facts.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/09/30/37520

Quote:Frank Turek is the latest anti-gay martyr, an independent contractor who runs leadership and team-building exercises for big corporations. Both Cisco and Bank of America cancelled contracts with him after their employees discovered he’s an anti-gay activist and author of a book opposing marriage equality. NOM, of course, is all over this. He’s the first poster boy for their new project against gay-sponsored oppression: Fired just for believing in traditional marriage!

As usual, the truth is more complicated. I don’t have Turek’s book, but he’s done us the courtesy of summarizing his thoughts online. The lowlights:

Turek declares homosexuality is morally wrong and objectively harmful.

He uses thoroughly discredited research by Paul Cameron to spread lies about gay men (Paul Cameron has been booted from many professional organizations after scientists complained he distorted their research to promote anti-gay slander).

Turek claims gay parents regards their adopted children as trophies.

He repeatedly lumps homosexuality with murder, rape, and incest.

He tells us a gay man can be romantically attracted and committed to his partner, but cannot truly “love” him. He actually begins his reply to “But Same-sex marriage is About Love” by saying “Even if that were true…”

That last one is especially dehumanizing.

But there’s more. Here’s a video of him explaining homosexuality is part of humanity’s universal weakness for depravity. And another of him speculating that gays hate Western Civilization and the Declaration of Independence.

The two videos in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CggllhSbd54

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tu...vilization

My ulterior motive for this thread is to plug my review of his book, Correct not Politically Correct.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DZ5CPEMTF...hisHelpful

Quote:Nothing Sane About Him

Turek begins by regaling his audience with a tale about a young friend who came out as gay to his parents. Initially hostile and indignant, their attitude gradually moved to one of acceptance. The individual in question dies of AIDS in his 30s. Somewhat perplexingly, Turek blames this tragic and premature death on the acceptance he received. One can only infer that Frank would prefer his friend to remain miserable and in denial instead. I suppose the high rate of gay teenage suicides either eludes him or is not worthy of consideration. In any case, such acceptance would have made life easier and more fulfilling for the LGBT individual.

So, after a brief introduction designed to palliate his raw hatred for the LGBT community, Turek launches into a surfeit of wild accusations and baseless slander. Here's just a sample:

- Placing the blame for the collapse of past civilizations on their rejection of natural marriage. I can only posit that the embrace of Christianity's imperialist doctrines and warmongering was too close to home (not to mention intellectually honest) for Turek to give passing mention to.

Clearly, his veneer of compassion and calls for civilized debates based on truth ring utterly hollow.

The lion's share of Turek's sources come from conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. With the basis for his "facts" coming from such a biased political action group, one cannot help but shake their head at the irony with which the author accuses some of his opposition of being firmly entrenched against the facts and reality of the issue.

On page 35 he accuses a third of homosexuals of being child rapists (based on statistics from the Family Research Council, and extreme right-wing think tank and a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group). What he fails to mention is the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of child rapists either have no attraction to adults of either gender, or identify as heterosexual. Moreover, it is generally easier for men to have access to young boys, as parents tend to be more protective of the fairer sex.

The mudslinging doesn't stop there. He accuses liberals and those who stand for marriage equality as being opposed to "natural marriage." Yet he cannot produce a single example of these militant liberal campaigners fighting to make opposite-sex marriage illegal.

The only liberal he mentions is David Blankenhorn, who, during California's recent Prop 8 trial, recanted his former position (namely, that children require both a father and a mother to be well-adjusted). Research into the vastly heightened scrutiny that adoptive parents (whether gay or straight) has been shown to lead to better outcomes for the children (at least on some measures). Psychologist Michael Lamb has published several studies on this issue, and has testified that no child would be aided through outlawing same-sex marriage.

Turek also insults all single parents via his assertion that both genders are required. So why doesn't he start clarion calls for all available heterosexual couples to annex the care of children currently raised by single parents? In actuality, the most thorough studies have shown that having same sex parents does not harm children, and in some cases, can outstrip the outcomes that would occur in opposite-sex households (US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents, published in the American Journal of Pediatrics). The conglomeration of these findings also disprove the accusations he levels on page 20 and 21, in which the lack of a father is claimed to be the ONLY reason why such children suffer from increased suicide rates, juvenile delinquency and lives of crime.

Consistency is clearly not one of Turek's strong suits. In his introduction, he freely concedes that homosexual feelings are not a choice. One would logically conclude (and hope that Frank would do the same) that homosexuality, therefore, is not a choice. This should be a tautology, but the connection (or perhaps simply the intricacies) is lost on the author. Yet on pages 74 and 75, Turek cites NARTH (a repeatedly discredited and proven harmful "treatment" organization) as evidence that sexual orientation change is possible. What actually occurs is brutal repression and/or celibacy. In the case of bisexual individuals, the "change" is made easier to bear via their versatile natural attractions.

Claims that gay marriage would reduce marriage rates are also rife in his book. They are also groundless. The marriage rate in the Netherlands began falling in 1970, whereas same-sex marriages were recognized by the government in 2001. To draw a causal link between the two is specious at best. Spain's falling marriage rates during the 2005 to 2011 timespan can be more accurately traced to the inordinate and abrupt rise in unemployment (9% to 22%). Among the under-25 crowd, it more than doubled, from 19% to 47%. This is the other side of the story that Frank hopes his readers will either gloss over or ignore entirely. For a more thorough statistical analysis, the Box Turtle Bulletin blog has a wealth of data.

Turek's case for how same-sex marriage will hurt everyone generally (a blatant appeal to selfishness) begins on page 52. I will tackle them one-by-one.

1. Gay marriage will increases tax rates to compensate for marriage tax breaks given to gay couples.

- So what? If, as Frank claims, 4% of the LGBT population (4% of 5% or so) marry, the tax benefits will hardly be noticeable. The author also fails to consider the productivity and mental health benefits that will clearly follow if gays and lesbians are no longer required to live sham lives and marriages. Moreover, the more married couples there are, the more unmarried individuals will be required to subsidise their taxes. Why isn't Frank calling for everyone to marry less, or for these tax breaks to be revoked?

2. Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) to fund payments to widows and widowers of gay couples.

- The author's anti-equality stance could not be made clearer with this statement. Also, the productivity gains and medical savings mentioned above would more than compensate for this.

3. Medical premiums will increase as gay marriage will lead to more homosexual behaviour leads to higher rates of HIV/AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis etc.

- Evidence? Frank's (decidedly dishonest, deceitful and deceptive) word. If he's so concerned about unsafe sex and polygamous sex among the LGBT community, he should be encouraging them to get married. With current policies in place, there are no incentives to remain faithful to a single partner.

4. Employee benefits will fall as corporations are required to cover homosexual partners.

- An extension of Frank's initial three points, and refuted by the gains in productivity and reductions in medical expenditures.

5. Gay couples will be given preference when seeking to adopt children as they cannot procreate.

- Given the studies mentioned above, this could well be seen as a positive. By encouraging paternal instincts, familial attachments and responsibilities, gay couples would become less likely to engage in risky activities.

Turek asserts, with no evidence, that children will also be treated as trophies. This is clearly refuted by the studies shown above (trophies would not be showered with love and affection. They would be confined so the parents could gaze upon them and bask in their arrogance and pride), although such a bizarre claim does not even warrant a cursory refutation. He also provides no reason as to why this insult would not equally apply to any couple who adopt children.

6. Children will be indoctrinated in schools to accept gay and lesbian behaviour as morally equivalent to heterosexual behaviour.

- Good. Perhaps we can finally move out of the Dark Ages on this issue and do something about the breathtakingly stratospheric LGBT suicide rates.

7. Workplace indoctrination akin to point 6.

- So reducing harassment and fostering respect for all employees is somehow undesirable? Frank, you deserved to lose your consulting gig for Cisco and Bank of America.

8. Churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship will be forced to hire homosexuals.

- Religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation. Would you be perfectly happy if divorced individuals were verboten in your congregation?

9. Free speech and religious rights will be curtailed.

- Wrong. The only things that will be made illegal will be the incitement of violence and unconstitutional discrimination. Catholic charities are meant to serve all of society. If they refuse to do so, and hold their anachronistic doctrines over the well-being of orphans, then they reveal their onerously pernicious prejudices and inverted priorities.

10. More big government.

- Utter nonsense. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its most obvious. More freedoms and rights are synonymous with governmental intrusion, at least according to Turek's tawdry imagination. A further leap of logic is revealed when he claims that governments will be required to step in to mend the societal harms induced by same-sex marriage (a claim that requires a strong foundation, which is conspicuously absent).

Facts were left behind on the copyright information page. The rest of the book consists of little more than unctuous, baseless diatribes and strenuous mental gymnastics and leaps of logic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like AyameTan's post
11-06-2013, 03:09 AM
RE: Bigot Spotlight: Frank Turek
Bigot Spotlight - I like the title.

I love the irony of being "oppressed" for being an asshole.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: