crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Religious right groups often place themselves on the pedestal of virtue and respectability. However if one assesses how they conduct business, one would wonder if they actually deserve to be knocked off that pedestal.
Last weekend, it was Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel actually defending countries who torture and execute lgbts
Yesterday, the Family Research Council spoke out against Obama Administration plans to create a national resource center for lgbt seniors:
HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn't grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.
Only a few decades old? Who knew 20 or 30 years was such a short time?
What a crude and totally insensitive remark.
And totally untrue. Via that ugly statement, FRC tried to refute information supplied by the Obama Adminstration as to the number of lgbt seniors:
Of course, the real tragedy here--apart from the unnecessary spending--is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America.
Experts estimate that as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older. Agencies that provide services to oes to older individuals may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the needs of this group of individuals. The new Resource Center for LGBT Elders will provide information, assistance and resources for both LGBT organizations and mainstream aging services providers at the state and community level to assist them in the development and provision of culturally sensitive supports and services. The LGBT Center will also be available to educate the LGBT community about the importance of planning ahead for futurelong term care needs.
Also, according to a September 18, 2008 issue of Newsweek:
Over the next 25 years, persons in America who are 65 and older are expected to grow from about 12 to 20 percent of the total population, and various estimates indicate that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals will comprise 7 to 10 percent of that senior population. Meanwhile, like the Baby Boomers of all stripes, aging gays and lesbians are radically redefining what it means to be a senior—and how they fit into the larger community. They're coming out of the closet, vocalizing their experiences and needs, and, most importantly, demanding public recognition. "If you go back 40 years, there were virtually no openly gay seniors," says Gary Gates, a senior research fellow and demographer at the Williams Institute. "But now you have a large enough group that people are paying attention."
It doesn't matter whether or not the specific number of elderly lgbts are known.
The point is finding out who they are and taking care of their needs, i.e. a perfect reason for the creation of this national resource center.
But we shouldn't be surprised that FRC feels the need to attack the idea.
Just noting the existence of lgbt seniors refutes the "gays have a short life span" and the "homosexuality poses a great health risk" lies that FRC and other so-called pro-values groups push.
In fact, it is their continued citings of discredited Paul Cameron data, reliance on outdated studies, and constant distortion of legtimate studies that have led these lies to take root in the minds of many people.
But the meanspirited way FRC went about attacking the idea of an lgbt senior resource center belies its claim to be a Christian organization.
Expressing a belief that homosexuality is a sin is one thing. Actively trying to throwing a monkey wrench into plans to help senior citizens simply because you do not agree with their sexual orientation is entirely something else.
And part of FRC's reasoning for its opposition actually goes against the nature of Christianity.
In the Bible (Matthew 25:45), Jesus said " . . .whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
So now FRC, which claims to espouse the values that Jesus taught, is implying that since the number of lgbt senior citizens are allegedly smadly small, they shouldn't warrant any help from the government.
The organization must be reading that new Conservapedia version of the Bible everyone is talking about.
In its eagerness to espouse its version of "values," FRC seems to have abandoned basic Christian decency, as well as common human decency.
The organization forgets that some of these lgbt seniors could be someone's mother, someone's father, or a veteran.
And isn't it moral to take care of our elderly citizens, period?
In the real world, the answer to this question would be yes. But in the bizarro world of pseudo Christian values that FRC populates, we know the answer is "only if they are not homosexuals."
Hat tip to www.Goodasyou.org
Related articles and posts:
Gay couples enter golden years with more risk
‘Invisible And Overlooked’
The Family Research Council continues to use 'outdated' work
How religious right groups distort legitimate research to demonize the gay community
Why we should care about Paul Cameron
U.N. official defends murder of lgbts and the religious right defends HIM
If so, we need to rearrange our lives for the next week. We need to ALL be Mainers for a week.
(Hey, I'm a 12th generation native, with roots going back to the late 1600s here! At that point, I can give out honorary/ temporary status! ;)
We especially need folks from 500 miles away and closer to come up to help.
EMAIL ME IF YOU ARE IN THE DC AREA AND NEED ASSISTANCE GETTING HERE: melouise.phb@gmail.com
================================================
http://www.protectmaineequality.org/page.cfm?ID=142&CFID=34522678&CFTOKEN=53442543
Volunteer
If you're not in Maine, we still need your help with our massive Get Out the Early Vote program.
We need your help to defeat Question 1 and protect marriage equality. Click your county to volunteer.
LET'S DO THIS THING- let's get it done.
PROTECT MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN MAINE.
Sen. Carl Levin's office announced on Friday that the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in November, though his office did not name a precise date. Sen. Levin is chairman of the Committee. Those hearings come at the request of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, after her attempts to add an amendment freezing investigations and discharges of troops to the Defense Authorization Act of 2010 was defeated. The hope is that thesat these hearings will result in a companion bill to Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which currently has 182 co-sponsors in the House.
What was the Pentagon's response? Segregation (emphasis mine).
McHugh finds himself at the center of debate over Obama’s pledge to repeal the law banning open service by homosexuals.In the interview, McHugh carefully avoided offering his personal views on the issue, saying his job now is to provide input to Obama on how to make the change and to talk with members of Congress about the issue.
Selling the idea to Congress, which has the final say, could depend on exactly what the administration tries to do in terms of the timing of repeal and how it is applied, McHugh said.
It’s possible, for example, that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units but barred from others, McHugh said, stressing that he was not aware of any such plans but only discussing how the issue might play out.
I'm speechless. As a veteran, as a "Silent Partner," as an intelligence professional, and as a citizen of the United States of America I'm so personally offended that someone in the chain of command could actually suggest this that I'm for once at a complete loss for words.
When asked specifically if lifting the gay ban would seriously disrupt the military, as predicted by those who oppose repeal, McHugh said there is no reason to think major turmoil would ensue.“Anytime you have a broad-based policy change, there are challenges to that,” he said. “The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues, [with] predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out,” he said.
So, despite no reason to think "major turmoil would ensue," Secretary McHugh still found it entirely appropriate to tell the Army Times that he supports segregation of LGBT troops.
This is the man President Obama appointed as the go-to guy for Army operations. This is our fierce advocacy. Is this that mysterious implementation plan that's been crafted during the magical Obama 17 dimensional chess game between the White House and the Pentagon? The Army Secretary is sending the message to his Commander-in-Chief that segregation is okay, if we just sell it to Congress right. This was suggested in 1993, during Clinton's disastrous attempt at openly gay service. It was dropped as unthinkable. How on earth can it be possibly be acceptable now, in 2009?
I don't even know what to say. I'm so outraged I can't respond right now. To hear such a callous, base, sordid thing suggested of my Beloved, of someone so brave, so smart, so caring for her subordinates and supportive of her team, someone who exemplifies the core values of honor, integrity, excellence, courage, service before self, loyalty, commitment, and duty...I just can't. There are no words.
No comments:
Post a Comment