Groups such as Focus on the Family are not "family" organizations. They certainly claim to be, and they would dispute my statement beyond a doubt, but their claim can be proved false simply by analyzing their approach to family life. Are they intent on preserving family life as it is - or are they intent on enforcing an ideal which happens to suit their personal religious "world view"? Were their claim true, would they not be nurturing the families that happen to exist out there, supporting them, instead of cracking down on family types they happen to dislike, refuse to recognize as families, and drive wedges between family members?
"Family" bodies would be concerned with the welfare of families, not the perpetuation of lie, fallacies and half-truths and the indoctrination of society, the forcing of an opinion or religious doctrine upon them - or the social engineering of an unrealistic, unfair and patriarchal "ideal" while ignoring completely the well-being of existing families, or the recognition of the diverse forms of modern family.
While their propaganda and names may indicate otherwise, they clearly are not concerned with the well being of families - they are intent on remodeling family life on their own principles - and yes, they really do focus on YOUR family - whether you like it or not.
The truth is that they are RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST and PURIST organizations which happen to FOCUS on family structure - and the indoctrination and engineering thereof according to their own views. Their aim is to CONTROL society by using family life as a "basic building block" of the structure of their control, in the very same way that every fascist movement in recorded history has done. If they were in any way truly concerned about families - they would concern themselves with REAL families out there - yes, the fallacial "ideal family" with a mommy, a daddy, two point five kids and one and a half dogs - but also the ones with gay or trans husbands, daughters and cousins. The families who have same gender parents and are founded on love. What else do you need to build a family on?
"All you need is love" - John Lennon. I think in some ways that man was a lot smarter than we give him credit for.
Instead of building up families, they instead teach parents not to accept their gay or trans children, to reject them, and give them lessons on "how to 'prevent' homosexuality" - and thereby encourage these families to fail.
Do I need to bring up the number of suicides resulting from parental rejection of gay teens and young adults? or the damage done to people who fall victim to the "ex-gay" lie factories? This has been getting increasingly damning news and media exposure for some time now, and yet this does not seem to discourage such groups from persisting in spreading the lie that homosexuality is somehow "learned behavior" that can be "prevented" or even "cured". No, it seems to encourage them, leading me to question their claims of concern for gay and trans people, "the family" - and yes, even their claims of being Christian.
These suicide statistics of course give them just what they want - the ability to claim with some legitimate evidence, that homosexuality is a "suicidal lifestyle disorder" which needs their "expertise" to "cure".
FOTF is directly linked to the Exodus International group which claims that it is possible to pray away the gay. The purveyors of such untenable bollocks are now taking over the US branch of FOTF's own home-grown "ex-gay" factory, "Love Won Out", possibly due to the steady decline of the parent organization's funding. Hmm. Seems like there is some dysfunctional in their own "family".
These folks claim that "love is a choice", just as it is their "choice" to be born heterosexual and not to indulge their "sinful nature". Ha! Even their criticism of the pink community is flawed and simply shows the truth in the old saying that when you point one finger at somebody, there are at least three pointing back at you.
"Love is a decision - a choice - not a feeling". Okay, so when you "decide" to love somebody (i.e. enter into a relationship) it is a thought process - a choice? Where this little theory falls apart is right here. If you love somebody it is not a choice perse' - it is a feeling, one that doesn't just go away, one that remains even if you are unhappy in a relationship and you still feel bound to that partner, despite other issues that intervene. If you make a choice to love, that is a decision that can always be reversed, like buying a car and then changing your mind. Love is in the heart. You can change your mind, that is in your control. But although you can change your mind, you cannot change your heart. As the old saying goes, "the heart is its own country".
No wonder they can so easily and confidently claim that being gay is a "choice" - for them everything is, even love. Even their religion is a choice. They like to claim being gay is a "lifestyle choice" - wow, see those fingers pointing back at them? If it is a choice then there is no feeling about it, is there? No, according to them I chose to be a woman and not a man...and gay people choose to "engage in homosexual behavior" and will always focus on the act of sex as the epitome of what it means to be gay. Clearly they know nothing about us - and what makes them so hypocritical is their determination not to know - despite their claim that they know all they need to. Note how they will also never acknowledge that love is a factor in our relationships, just as it is, presumably, in theirs.
They love to create the impression that homosexuality is all about sex and lust. It is this one very telling fact that reveals that they know all too little about the subject, because clearly they do not realize that like heterosexual relationships, sex is not the foundation of all homosexual relationships, but like heterosexual couples, intimacy is the glue which binds them together.
They claim that being gay is "unnatural". Did you know there are gay animals? They often reject that idea, but consider this: HOW can it be unnatural to be gay if there are gay animals? And even if they are finally cornered and admit the truth and acknowledge the fact that there are indeed gay animals, they then claim that "people are supposed to know better". Okay. So being gay IS natural, but people are supposed to know better? Why?
If God made gay people, then did God not intend them to be gay? Did the Potter's hand slip? I find the glaring contradictions and stubbornness in their own arguments often frustrating.
"Sex was created to create offspring" they say. Despite this bold claim, can they prove it? Even dolphins and chimps have sex for pleasure without reproducing - including gay sex by the way. I am sure those making this claim forget all the married couples out there who cannot reproduce - are they supposed to stop having sex? (This casts a new light on the old joke, "no sex please, we're married".) I am sure their marriages would last very long after that. What an idiotic premise.
Compounding this stupidity, they then claim that gay sex is also "unnatural". Now, if sex can take place between two individuals, regardless of gender, without the aid of any artificial devices, then how can such sex ever be considered "unnatural"? This too is completely illogical.
They count on public ignorance and gullibility so that people will just jump up and down and agree with them because they make liberal use of words like "God" and "morality".
Look how fundie groups are foaming at the mouth about the legalization of prostitution. Now don't get me wrong - I don't like prostitution, I think it is bad for the people doing it, and I think the kind of people who make use of their services are not my cup of tea, but I certainly do not agree with the way things are being handled. What do I mean?
The fundies are all "concerned" about the well-being of the people "trapped" in that field - but all we see is condemnation and personal attacks which do little but estrange these people further from mainstream society - and their religion, doing more harm than good. Surely one has to weigh the benefits of regulating such an industry to see if they outweigh the negatives. I am sure safety of the workers in that instance will improve dramatically were such an industry regulated, starting with the removal of the criminal element from it.
One just has to look at the arguments used by the fundies against this law to see what a load of baloney they are peddling. It is all about religion - the way they interpret their religion and other people being "sinful" - not genuine concern for the people stuck in a hazardous and unhealthy line of work, who would most likely grab the first alternative employment that came along - were it attractive enough in terms of remuneration of course. Nobody with any self-respect or education actually wants to be a prostitute. They get sucked in for various reasons because of financial problems, some are abducted and some are duped through drug slavery.
Keeping prostitution illegal - or making it worse for them, won't make the problem go away. It's been illegal for centuries - and yet it is still doing a flourishing trade. Bringing it out of the shadow and into the daylight will make it better for all concerned. And don't think that just because there are no prostitutes that husbands will automatically turn all faithful and husbandly if it's not in them in the first place.
Have you seen any fundie groups offering viable alternatives to them to leave that life behind, or to offer them real help? I haven't.
They call prostitutes criminals, but the fundie definition of "criminal" rests on old biblical laws - i.e. religious law - and not actual real-world law. A person can only be considered a criminal if they transgress a set law - and if such a law is not in effect, then that person has not broken that law and cannot be considered a de facto "criminal". I find the fundie application of the term "criminal" to gay people rather whimsical - and it demonstrates my point, as it is one of their aims to remove gay rights from the SA Constitution, institute Old Testament biblical or religious law - and to re-criminalize homosexuality.
Take for example the laws many countries have passed to make homosexuality illegal. Thus, they are saying it is illegal to be gay, even though it is the nature of gay people to be gay - after all, they are born gay, so it's not as if it is in their power to actually not be gay. This is a law which is impossible to justify or defend - they might as well be saying it is against the law to be born Black, or Chinese, or to be left handed, or to have brown eyes. That certainly is not going to prevent people from being born Black, Chinese, left handed, or brown-eyed. It would however institute a system of oppression. If you create a law in order to make a certain part of society into criminals simply because you don't like them, is that justice? What does it say about such a society that practices oppression?
If we as a society institute laws which recognize ALL people as equal and give them the same human rights, then we must honor that law, regardless of whether we like the people who live under this law.
In terms of South Africa, the following is happening: one group which enjoys human rights and equality (the religious radicals) is taking it upon itself to attack the rights and equality of another (the pink community) and claims the equality of the other group (the freedom to be gay and to marry who they love) is an infringement of THEIR equality? I find the claim that people being allowed to love who they want and marry who they love is somehow "oppression", laughable.
They suggest the only way to appease the perceived "infringement" of their rights is to take away the rights and equality of the pink community.
Does this not indicate that some groups view being legally equal to other groups as "oppression"?
Do moves to strip the pink community of the right to marriage equality not indicate that the fundamentalist element is not content with only being equal? They claim that gay people not being treated like criminals and being allowed the same protections they have against hate speech and being allowed to marry - are "special" rights?
What can this be called if not hypocrisy?
You tell me.