Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

ABC Follows 'Born Gay' Script to a T

Expand Messages
  • Laura
    by Robert Knight ABC s Good Morning America hit a grand slam today for the homosexual activist movement by airing a profoundly misleading segment that asks,
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 29, 2008
      by Robert Knight

      ABC's Good Morning America hit a grand slam today for the homosexual
      activist movement by airing a profoundly misleading segment that
      asks, "Can a Baby Be Gay?"

      A longer segment is slated for tonight's 20/20.

      Convincing the public that some people are "born gay" is a central
      strategy of homosexual activists, who are being aided by a compliant
      media that routinely fails to examine such claims. If sexual
      behavior is hard-wired like race, then moral considerations can be
      swept aside, homosexuality declared a "civil right" and governments
      can move against people who believe homosexuality is wrong.

      The Good Morning America story follows the script proposed in the
      gay strategic manual After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter
      Madsen. The two Harvard-trained PR experts set out to "overhaul
      straight America," which was the title of an article out of which
      After the Ball was born as a full-length book in 1989.

      The authors tell activists to use the media to portray homosexuality
      as in-born, and homosexuals as victims. The heavies in the drama are
      proponents of traditional morality –especially Christians—who are to
      be depicted as ignorant at best, and haters and bigots at worst. The
      authors further advise that under no circumstances should the public
      be informed of actual homosexual behavior. Over the years, the media
      rarely have veered from the script, and Good Morning America is no
      exception.

      Host Diane Sawyer begins the Good Morning America segment by
      proclaiming the advent of a "truly landmark study" (whose results
      won't come out until later this year) about "biology and being gay.

      And of course, what about the people who still believe that
      homosexuality is a choice?" Wink, wink. These are the same folks
      who still believe in a flat earth.

      The report is framed around a boy named Zack, who, along with his
      parents, believes he was "born gay." The lone dissenter, Dr. Stanton
      Jones, is introduced as "a clinical psychologist and evangelical
      Christian." No one else's religious beliefs are mentioned. The
      message: Pay no attention to this man. His views are religious, not
      scientific.

      Here's a portion of the transcript of the 4-minute, 19-second
      segment. Parentheses are added:

      (reporter) LYNN SCHERR: …Zack's parents both believe that
      homosexuality was probably in their son's DNA. For them, there is no
      medical mystery. But might a proven genetic link help other parents
      understand what they saw with their own eyes? Dr. Alan Sanders, a
      psychiatric geneticist at Northwestern Healthcare Institute, is
      currently heading the biggest study ever undertaken on sexual
      orientation. Do you believe you're going to find a gay gene?

      SANDERS: I think the evidence is pretty convincing already that a
      substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics.
      It's probably the single biggest factor that we do know about.
      (Sanders is shown in a lab with lots of technical stuff around him.)

      SCHERR: But Dr. Stanton Jones, a clinical psychologist and
      evangelical Christian, says genetics plays at best, just a small
      role. (Jones is shown typing on a computer in an office.)

      JONES: The major misunderstanding in public awareness is that people
      are gay when they're born and it's just a matter of acknowledging
      that after you've developed the initial awareness.

      SCHERR: (quick cut, confrontational tone) And what's wrong with that
      position?

      JONES: That the evidence doesn't support it. The scientific evidence
      doesn't support it.

      Instead of exploring Jones' contention, for which there is ample
      documentation, Scherr instead turns to Zack's parents to pose a
      question that has the effect of ridiculing Stanton's position:

      SCHERR: But if science does find that genetic link to homosexuality,
      could there one day be a test that could tell parents about their
      baby's sexual identity in the womb, so they could perhaps change it?
      Cindy O'Connor would never have considered it.

      SCHERR off camera to Zack's parents: If they offered you a patch –
      a hormone patch?

      ZACK's DAD, laughing: A vaccine?

      SCHERR: To say, well, we think he's going to be gay, would you
      rather take this and we know he'll be straight.

      CINDY O'CONNOR: No, I wouldn't have cared. He's who he is, it
      doesn't matter. You know, it's not relevant.

      Diane Sawyer then says, in studio with Scherr, "Really, interesting.
      Interesting study they're doing. And when's it coming out?" Scherr
      answers that they "hope to have the first results at the end of the
      year."

      But why wait until then? Why not continue to stack the deck for
      the "gay gene."

      Since 1991, the media periodically have reported scientific claims
      of a genetic component to homosexuality, often on the front page of
      newspapers like The New York Times and in evening newscasts.
      Although none of the studies has held up under scrutiny, and none
      has been replicated—a necessary element for scientific validity—the
      media continue to sing from the gay songbook.

      The focus of the GMA segment, the young man, Zack, says he felt
      different from a very young age. Although this in no way lessens the
      credibility of competing theories that environmental factors are
      paramount in the formation of sexual desires, it stands as given: He
      felt "gay," so he must have been born that way.

      Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist with degrees from MIT, the
      University of Texas and Harvard, has written extensively about
      problems with genetic research on homosexuality, and also about
      professional organizations' refusal to consider opposing evidence.
      In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Satinover says
      genetic factors might contribute "not to homosexuality per se, but
      rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual `option' more
      readily available than to those who lack this genetic trait."

      He notes that most basketball players tend to be tall, but that this
      does not mean that they have a "basketball gene." It only means that
      they might gravitate toward that sport because of their height.
      Similarly, a young boy might be more sensitive than other boys, be
      less athletic, be rejected by his father and peers, and hence be
      starved for male approval. An early sexual experience could then
      take him down a path he might not necessarily have taken.

      Satinover notes that cultures worldwide historically have varied
      greatly in terms of homosexual practice and that this indicates
      that "environmental" factors are at work.

      Given that such cultures have existed where the incidence of
      homosexuality is far greater than at present, the incidence of
      homosexuality is clearly influenced by mores.

      Good Morning America could have made their story more balanced,
      also, by including an interview with a former homosexual who once
      believed he or she was "born gay."

      By ignoring scientific articles and books—and the existence of
      people—that effectively rebut the "gay gene" theory, and presenting
      homosexuality as something in-born and no more consequential than
      being right-handed or left-handed, Good Morning America continues to
      distort public understanding of a complex issue.

      The authors of After the Ball, wherever they are today, must be
      smiling.


      -Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Media Institute at the
      Media Research Center.
    • newhope1966
      Hello! Yes, I watched 20/20 last nite & was disappointed that it is pro-gay. After observing these families w/ gay sons, it appears that these fathers may be
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 29, 2008
        Hello! Yes, I watched 20/20 last nite & was disappointed that it is
        pro-gay. After observing these families w/ gay sons, it appears that
        these fathers may be passive by not taking an active role in their
        sons' life. Are they awkward of real fatherhood? One example is
        that a particular gay teenager in the show seems to be overly
        attached to his mother. So he fits the profile of being a mama's boy
        very well. One needs to question if these families are Christians or
        secular liberals. Needless to say, the coverage of 20/20 is rather
        one-sided by devoting so little time to the subject of ex-gays.

        Ken


        --- In exgaydiscussionboard@yahoogroups.com, "Laura" <exgaydates@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > by Robert Knight
        >
        > ABC's Good Morning America hit a grand slam today for the
        homosexual
        > activist movement by airing a profoundly misleading segment that
        > asks, "Can a Baby Be Gay?"
        >
        > A longer segment is slated for tonight's 20/20.
        >
        > Convincing the public that some people are "born gay" is a central
        > strategy of homosexual activists, who are being aided by a
        compliant
        > media that routinely fails to examine such claims. If sexual
        > behavior is hard-wired like race, then moral considerations can be
        > swept aside, homosexuality declared a "civil right" and governments
        > can move against people who believe homosexuality is wrong.
        >
        > The Good Morning America story follows the script proposed in the
        > gay strategic manual After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter
        > Madsen. The two Harvard-trained PR experts set out to "overhaul
        > straight America," which was the title of an article out of which
        > After the Ball was born as a full-length book in 1989.
        >
        > The authors tell activists to use the media to portray
        homosexuality
        > as in-born, and homosexuals as victims. The heavies in the drama
        are
        > proponents of traditional morality –especially Christians—who are
        to
        > be depicted as ignorant at best, and haters and bigots at worst.
        The
        > authors further advise that under no circumstances should the
        public
        > be informed of actual homosexual behavior. Over the years, the
        media
        > rarely have veered from the script, and Good Morning America is no
        > exception.
        >
        > Host Diane Sawyer begins the Good Morning America segment by
        > proclaiming the advent of a "truly landmark study" (whose results
        > won't come out until later this year) about "biology and being gay.
        >
        > And of course, what about the people who still believe that
        > homosexuality is a choice?" Wink, wink. These are the same folks
        > who still believe in a flat earth.
        >
        > The report is framed around a boy named Zack, who, along with his
        > parents, believes he was "born gay." The lone dissenter, Dr.
        Stanton
        > Jones, is introduced as "a clinical psychologist and evangelical
        > Christian." No one else's religious beliefs are mentioned. The
        > message: Pay no attention to this man. His views are religious,
        not
        > scientific.
        >
        > Here's a portion of the transcript of the 4-minute, 19-second
        > segment. Parentheses are added:
        >
        > (reporter) LYNN SCHERR: …Zack's parents both believe that
        > homosexuality was probably in their son's DNA. For them, there is
        no
        > medical mystery. But might a proven genetic link help other parents
        > understand what they saw with their own eyes? Dr. Alan Sanders, a
        > psychiatric geneticist at Northwestern Healthcare Institute, is
        > currently heading the biggest study ever undertaken on sexual
        > orientation. Do you believe you're going to find a gay gene?
        >
        > SANDERS: I think the evidence is pretty convincing already that a
        > substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from
        genetics.
        > It's probably the single biggest factor that we do know about.
        > (Sanders is shown in a lab with lots of technical stuff around him.)
        >
        > SCHERR: But Dr. Stanton Jones, a clinical psychologist and
        > evangelical Christian, says genetics plays at best, just a small
        > role. (Jones is shown typing on a computer in an office.)
        >
        > JONES: The major misunderstanding in public awareness is that
        people
        > are gay when they're born and it's just a matter of acknowledging
        > that after you've developed the initial awareness.
        >
        > SCHERR: (quick cut, confrontational tone) And what's wrong with
        that
        > position?
        >
        > JONES: That the evidence doesn't support it. The scientific
        evidence
        > doesn't support it.
        >
        > Instead of exploring Jones' contention, for which there is ample
        > documentation, Scherr instead turns to Zack's parents to pose a
        > question that has the effect of ridiculing Stanton's position:
        >
        > SCHERR: But if science does find that genetic link to
        homosexuality,
        > could there one day be a test that could tell parents about their
        > baby's sexual identity in the womb, so they could perhaps change
        it?
        > Cindy O'Connor would never have considered it.
        >
        > SCHERR off camera to Zack's parents: If they offered you a patch –
        > a hormone patch?
        >
        > ZACK's DAD, laughing: A vaccine?
        >
        > SCHERR: To say, well, we think he's going to be gay, would you
        > rather take this and we know he'll be straight.
        >
        > CINDY O'CONNOR: No, I wouldn't have cared. He's who he is, it
        > doesn't matter. You know, it's not relevant.
        >
        > Diane Sawyer then says, in studio with Scherr, "Really,
        interesting.
        > Interesting study they're doing. And when's it coming out?" Scherr
        > answers that they "hope to have the first results at the end of the
        > year."
        >
        > But why wait until then? Why not continue to stack the deck for
        > the "gay gene."
        >
        > Since 1991, the media periodically have reported scientific claims
        > of a genetic component to homosexuality, often on the front page of
        > newspapers like The New York Times and in evening newscasts.
        > Although none of the studies has held up under scrutiny, and none
        > has been replicated—a necessary element for scientific validity—the
        > media continue to sing from the gay songbook.
        >
        > The focus of the GMA segment, the young man, Zack, says he felt
        > different from a very young age. Although this in no way lessens
        the
        > credibility of competing theories that environmental factors are
        > paramount in the formation of sexual desires, it stands as given:
        He
        > felt "gay," so he must have been born that way.
        >
        > Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist with degrees from MIT, the
        > University of Texas and Harvard, has written extensively about
        > problems with genetic research on homosexuality, and also about
        > professional organizations' refusal to consider opposing evidence.
        > In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Satinover says
        > genetic factors might contribute "not to homosexuality per se, but
        > rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual `option' more
        > readily available than to those who lack this genetic trait."
        >
        > He notes that most basketball players tend to be tall, but that
        this
        > does not mean that they have a "basketball gene." It only means
        that
        > they might gravitate toward that sport because of their height.
        > Similarly, a young boy might be more sensitive than other boys, be
        > less athletic, be rejected by his father and peers, and hence be
        > starved for male approval. An early sexual experience could then
        > take him down a path he might not necessarily have taken.
        >
        > Satinover notes that cultures worldwide historically have varied
        > greatly in terms of homosexual practice and that this indicates
        > that "environmental" factors are at work.
        >
        > Given that such cultures have existed where the incidence of
        > homosexuality is far greater than at present, the incidence of
        > homosexuality is clearly influenced by mores.
        >
        > Good Morning America could have made their story more balanced,
        > also, by including an interview with a former homosexual who once
        > believed he or she was "born gay."
        >
        > By ignoring scientific articles and books—and the existence of
        > people—that effectively rebut the "gay gene" theory, and presenting
        > homosexuality as something in-born and no more consequential than
        > being right-handed or left-handed, Good Morning America continues
        to
        > distort public understanding of a complex issue.
        >
        > The authors of After the Ball, wherever they are today, must be
        > smiling.
        >
        >
        > -Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Media Institute at the
        > Media Research Center.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.