Gay parents adopt so they can rape kids, says hideous new Russian anti-gay video

UPDATE: A gay group, ASSOCIACIÓ DE FAMÍLIES LESBIANES I GAIS in Barcelona, Spain, just had YouTube take down the Russian video and hit me with a copyright complaint.  How incredibly counterproductive.  The Russians are hating on gay and trans people, and we are trying to expose the level of hate, to educate people about just how bad things are in Russia, so a gay group in Barcelona hits me with a copyright complaint because the hideously anti-gay Russians included something of theirs in the hideously anti-gay video.

The gay group’s actions remind me of people who get upset when we write about Fred Phelps.  They think we shouldn’t talk about Phelps at all.  On the contrary. We shouldn’t stop talking about Fred Phelps.  He is an embarrassment to even anti-gay bigots.  And he helps us win over the questioning middle that is unsure about our rights.  And the same thing goes for that Russian video.  There is hardly better propaganda to win someone over to our cause than that video.

The ASSOCIACIÓ DE FAMÍLIES LESBIANES I GAIS could have at least contacted me before filing a complaint against me that could help get my YouTube account closed.  This is really inappropriate and counterproductive.  And sadly typical of our community.  Our groups are as messed up abroad as they are at home.



A newly-discovered anti-gay video making the rounds in Russia (see the video below with subtitles) claims that gays adopt children so that they’ll have a readily available source of kids to rape.

Even more troubling, the video bases its adoption-child-rape assertion on a debunked faux-scientific “study” from Mark Regnerus, a religious right researcher whose “gay parenting” study was roundly rebuked for only including two kids who actually grew up with gay parents.  Yes, a whopping review of 2 children makes a scientific “study” of gay parenting.

The “study” was also called “bullsh*t” by an auditor after it was published.

Of course, what’s more, even the very anti-gay Regnerus “study” does not conclude that 1/3 of gay parents rape their own kids, which this new video claims. (See page 11, fn 8 of the study.)

Then again, no one should be surprised that Regnerus’ study is being used for such sick political purposes.  The study was funded by anti-gay activist groups.

What’s worse, even Regnerus himself was forced to admit that the study wasn’t about gay parenting, even though that’s how the entire religious right, and now foreign anti-gays in league with America’s religious right, are now using the study:

Q: So are gay parents worse than traditional parents?

A: The study is not about parenting per se. There are no doubt excellent gay parents and terrible straight parents. The study is, among other things, about outcome differences between young adults raised in households in which a parent had a same-sex relationship and those raised by their own parents in intact families. It’s not about sexual orientation, at least not overtly. There are many significant differences, but the study does not ascribe any causes for the differences. This can only be assessed with additional research. What is evident in the data, however, is above-average instability among households in which mom or dad had a same-sex relationship. For example, among the former only two respondents total said they lived with their mother and her partner nonstop from birth to age 18. [emphasis added]

So it’s not even about parenting per se, but somehow the story from day one was that this was a gay parenting study.

Of course that isn’t stopping lead Russian government bigots from using Regenerus’ study to justify passing a law removing children from gay parents.

What’s even sadder is that publications like Slate and the Atlantic are letting this anti-gay charlatan write for them. One wonders if Slate and the Atlantic would let a “purity of the races” geneticist pen pieces for them about the inferiority of the black race.  Actually, one doesn’t wonder at all.  They never would.  But somehow when gay people are the victims of such rank bigotry, astute progressive publications find it “only fair” to give “the other side” a chance to have its voice heard, when they’d never give column space to a racist or anti-Semite.

One more interesting point. Is it just a coincidence that, on the same day we’re debating a new Russian video claiming that gays rape kids, Russian President Vladimir Putin makes a sick comment about society letting gays get away with raping kids?

The Russians had better pay the Ketchum public relations firm another couple of million dollars for a bit more slick Madison-Avenue-dictator-friendly PR.  It seems the current lies about Vladimir Putin and Russia’s draconian disregard for human rights, be it for gays and lesbians or Syrian children gassed to death by a heartless tyrant, aren’t sticking well enough.

Then again, one has to feel for Ketchum.  Defending evil is hard work.

Here are some clips from the hideous Russian video – the full video follows the photos below. The six screen caps below happen in sequence in the video:







I do have to chuckle that the pedophile in the video above oddly looks a lot like anti-gay author Mark Regnerus himself.


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

56 Responses to “Gay parents adopt so they can rape kids, says hideous new Russian anti-gay video”

  1. Kevin Moss says:

    The link I posted is to the dead video, searched in Russian. I found to links, both without the video.

  2. StraightGrandmother says:

    Perhaps this article from Gay Star News will be of help to you
    They ran an article on the same video and said this,
    “The video, produced by a movement known as Healthy Young Generation
    Healthy Russia
    I assume you would have to translate that into Russian and do a search or something.

  3. Moderator3 says:

    That’s the one John posted on YouTube. Perhaps Kevin should email John.

  4. StraightGrandmother says:

  5. Moderator3 says:

    Good luck with that. You might try reading the comments at YouTube.

  6. Kevin Moss says:

    That is not the original, which would be in Russian without translation. All I find links to anywhere are the translated version. I’m looking for the original. I. e. in Russian and posted by a Russian with Russian comments.

  7. Moderator3 says:

    Look up about five inches.

  8. Kevin Moss says:

    Can you post or send me a link to the original? It doesn’t seem to exist.
    This is all I found:

    Is it still live on youtube or anything else?

  9. guestq says:

    Actually, we should ban the church because it protects rapist priests.

  10. Luigi Proud DemoCat! says:

    So, we should ban heterosexuality since Ariel Castro and Charles Manson were heterosexuals, and we should ban the Roman Catholic Church because it protects Rapist Priests.

  11. Bill_Perdue says:

    What authority?

  12. Bill_Perdue says:

    No one can speak authoritatively and answer your question. Russia is a modern nation and no doubt many people doubt many people don’t fall for the Putin regimes anti-LGBT campaign. I don’t trust Russian polling on the question because the media there is, if anything, even more controlled there than it is here.

  13. Bill_Perdue says:

    There are informal alliances between rightwing and fascist groups groups around the world but the assault on the LGBT communities by Putin seems to be based on international collaboration between the Putin regime and the ultraright and fascists in Europe and North America.

    It’s not unheard of.

    The Bush regime developed close relations with the vatican and other hate groups and with conservative governments everywhere to coach them on launching campaigns against marriage equality. Bush2 visited the vatican twice to solicit the help of the roman cult in promoting his state DOMAs, copied from Bill Clinton’s federal DOMA. While he was there he no doubt committed to downplaying the papal role of protecting baby rapers.

    cross posted from JMG

  14. cole3244 says:

    the truth hurts doesn’t it believer.

  15. BeccaM says:

    You’re very kind.

  16. MK ULTRA says:

    Putin and the Russian government claim that they installed their laws, which in essence strips LGBT in Russia of any and all rights, under the frail guise of “to protect children”
    In 2012, the rate of teenage suicides in Russia was three times higher than the world average!

    Did Russia care about those children?
    And what of the huge child sex-slave ring in Russia that many police officers and politicians make use of….Does Russia care about those children?
    And the young boys lured over the internet by skinheads only to be kidnapped, tortured, and raped? Does Russia care about those children?
    The high rate of Fetal alcohol syndrome in children, especially those in Russian orphanages where they don’t experience human contact for days. Does Russia care about those children?

    Putin can propagandize all he wants. The world will not ignore Russia’s savage treatment of its children nor its complete neglect in their wellbeing

  17. The_Fixer says:

    That was exactly the point that Dr. Mark Thoma made in a post here:

    Even if a bad paper is retracted, it’s still out there, to be used by nefarious people like the Russian anti-gay government and groups.

    So retracting the papers resulting from a bad study is all well and good, but there has to be more additional mechanisms to insure that they aren’t being used. Problem is, nobody seems to know exactly how to do that once they’ve been published and are “in the wild”, so to speak.

    It’s pretty hard to undo a lie. Just ask Fox News – they use that to their advantage, repeating the lies over and over.

  18. JayRandal says:

    Putin is a retro-communist scapegoating Gays to distract Russians from economic stagnation.
    His wife recently divorced him so even she couldn’t stomach his rancid homophobia.

  19. Whitewitch says:

    No doubt it is…mental fixation is popular here as well. I was trying to say that they (the Russians) need help….to overcome their illness.

  20. Thom Allen says:

    And that group, ethically-challenged scientists, has been around for generations. The researchers in WWII Germany who worked to produce nerve gas to kill Jews, Gypsies, gays, retarded and other groups, knowing full-well that the gas was not for delousing. The scientists and physicians who participated in cruel and murderous experiments in the concentration camps. The ones who produced papers supporting ethnic cleansing and so many others. Fortunately, these are only a tiny percentage of scientists. ANd, they, in their day, were well paid, honored and cared for.

  21. StraightGrandmother says:

    I think this is how we should all Feel. For me as a Straight Person this is how I feel about the
    persecution of Sexual Minorities. For you who are Lesbian, Gay,
    Bisexual, transgender, or Queer, hopefully this is the way you feel about
    your tribe members in Russia-

    He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother

    The road is long
    With many a winding turns
    That leads us to who knows where
    Who knows where

    But I’m strong
    Strong enough to carry him
    He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother

    His welfare is of my concern
    No burden is he to bear
    We’ll get there

    For I know
    He would not encumber me
    He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother

    If I’m laden at all
    I’m laden with sadness
    That everyone’s heart
    Isn’t filled with the gladness
    Of love for one another

    It’s a long, long road
    From which there is no return
    While we’re on the way to there
    Why not share

    And the load
    Doesn’t weigh me down at all
    He ain’t heavy he’s my brother

    He’s my brother
    He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother
    He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother

  22. StraightGrandmother says:

    God you make smart comments.

  23. StraightGrandmother says:

    One of those down votes is mine.

  24. Monoceros Forth says:

    He’s a rare bird, a right-wing “research scientist,” though both the science and research are sorely lacking.

    There will never be, unfortunately, a complete lack of scientists who are quite happy to beat their sense of ethics into pulp in exchange for becoming a well-paid right-wing pet. Once you cross that line you’ll probably never have to do an honest day’s work for the rest of your life, seriously. Whether you’re a pet biologist claiming to have seen through the lies of Darwin, or a pet geologist trumpeting his global-warming skepticism, or a pet sociologist who’s uncovered the truth about gays, you’ll never be out of work ever again.

  25. Jerry Spiegelman says:

    Too much vodka here.

  26. Thom Allen says:

    I don’t disagree. But retracting the paper won’t retract the damage that’s been done.

  27. Ninong says:

    Polls show that approximately 80% of the Russian people support the new anti-gay propaganda law. Those same polls show that the majority of people in Russia believe that being gay is a choice and that gays recruit young people to their lifestyle. Of course, that’s exactly the same as what many fundamentalist evangelical Christian groups in the U.S. believe.

  28. scottrose says:

    Here is what Dr. Philip Cohen has to say:

    “Anyway, beyond the appearance of conflict, the problem with Amato serving as a reviewer is that it did not provide an outside perspective to the editor, James Wright. How could Amato’s review help Wright make the decision? Getting the input of a consultant on the project might help an editor shape a revision or build a special issue, but given Amato’s involvement his endorsement should not have counted as part of the peer review process. When Amato revealed his role, Wright should have declined his review.

    Taking for granted the unethical behavior of Regnerus, and Brad Wilcox, on whose behalf Regnerus acted, the real failure here is by Wright. Instead of seriously reviewing the paper, he essentially whispered into an echo chamber of backers and consultants, “We should publish this, right?”

    I believe the paper should be retracted because the conclusions are demonstrably wrong, because the author lied in the paper about the involvement of the institute that funded it, and because the peer review process was compromised by conflicts of interest. As long as this remains uncorrected, and James Wright remains editor, the integrity of the journal is indelibly tarnished.

    While Wright is editor, I will no longer review for or submit to Social Science Research. I hope others will join me in that decision.”

  29. scottrose says:

    When the paid New Family Structures Study consultant Dr. Paul Amato of Penn State was smoked out as a Regnerus paper peer reviewer, he made this public confession: I understand that providing a review was not a good idea, because one should avoid even the hint of impropriety in matters like this. “

  30. scottrose says:

    Retraction nonetheless is imperative, both for the integrity of the scholarly record, and so that LGBTers’ attorneys won’t have to waste time, money and other resources fighting the junk science in the courts. Along with the Regnerus paper, Loren Marks’s paper also should be retracted. This is the same Marks anti-gay junk science that caused him to be withdrawn as an expert witness in the Proposition 8 case. Under cross examination, he confessed that he had cherry-picked from studies he had not read, with the intent of getting the court to decide against gay rights. He also confessed that he knows nothing about gay parenting sciences. Yet, James Wright, editor of “Social Science Research” and of the University of Central Florida — published the Marks paper without having it peer reviewed by a single gay parenting sciences expert. You read that right; none of the four peer reviewers of the Marks paper are trained or experienced in LGBT sciences. And, that isn’t to mention that in the November, 2012 issue of “Social Science Research,” James Wright published a non-peer-reviewed follow up paper from Regnerus, and a non-peer reviewed, duplicitous attempted methodological defense of Regnerus from the notorious religious anti-gay bigot Walter Schumm. Wright dressed those two papers up as though they had been peer reviewed. He gave the Schumm article an “Abstract” and he labeled them “Original Research Article” — the normal “Social Science Research” procedures for distinguishing peer reviewed articles from mere commentaries. Additionally, although James Wright had said that any qualified professional who wrote to him with concerns about the Regnerus paper would see their concerns published in his November, 2012 issue, when Gary Gates of the Williams Institute submitted his essay “An Illegitimate Review Process,” Wright passed it on to Elsevier officials and they blackballed it against being published.

    The Regnerus, Marks and Schumm papers must be RETRACTED from publication, Wright MUST BE removed from his position as editor of “Social Science Research” and he should be expelled from the American Sociological Association.

  31. scottrose says:

    The editor who published Regnerus through violations of peer review ethics — Social Science Research’s James Wright of the University of Central Florida — should be expelled from the American Sociological Association for multiple violations of its Code of Ethics. Wright’s editorial board member W. Bradford Wilcox — who also is a Regnerus funding agency representative, and who colluded with Regnerus to booby trap the study design against gays — was permitted by Wright to peer review the Regnerus paper. James Wright is guilty of gross editorial misconduct. He is scum. He knows what he did.

  32. Thom Allen says:

    The damage Regnerus (and Wright and Social Science Research) did can’t be undone. Even if the paper is retracted, those readers who believe the study, will still believe it. It reinforces their long-held, bigoted views about gays. If the paper gets retracted, they won’t look to any faults in the research, they’ll decide that people who have a gay agenda, are out to punish Regnerus for telling the “truth” as they see it. And, sadly, the majority of those who have gotten the “news” that a researcher says that gays are bad parents, will never read the article and will never know or care if it’s retracted. They’ll just remember that they heard that gay parenting is bad.

    If UT fired Regnerus, he’d become a martyr to the right-wing cause. Doubtless, some conservative religious college or university would scoop him right up. He’d have offers from conservative think tanks, requests to speak at anti-gay hate group rallies, churches and conservative functions. His future is guaranteed, the Cons adore him. He’s a rare bird, a right-wing “research scientist,” though both the science and research are sorely lacking.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Maybe instead of “most” I should have said “a large number.” There are few journals that are taken very seriously. The journal that published Regnerus clearly had no integrity, or decided to suspend it for pay.

  34. FLL says:

    After watching this video, the parallels with the antisemitic literature that was filtering through Germany, and especially Austria, during the late 1920s are too striking to ignore. The Western world needs its political representatives to engage with the Russian people, both LGBT and their supporters and potential supporters, every time there is an opportunity. Ignore evil-minded people who would advise Western activists and elected officials to let Russian gay people and their supporters fend for themselves. After you watch this video, which is now viral in Russia, you don’t need much of an imagination to guess where this is headed. The question is nothing less than whether the Western world will hold the line for civilization in our time.

  35. scottrose says:

    This is false. Most science journals uphold the integrity of the profession.

  36. scottrose says:

    It isn’t just that Regnerus lied twice — it’s that his editor James Wright of “Social Science Research” and of the University of Central Florida twice KNOWINGLY published those lies from Regnerus.

  37. scottrose says:

    In May, 2013, a large group of sociologists sent the following letter to Regnerus editor James Wright and his “Social Science Research” editorial board, telling them that the intellectual integrity of the journal depends on the Regnerus paper being retracted. Among the signers of the letter was Dr. Cecilia Ridgeway, President of the American Sociological Association. Wright blew them off. They wrote back to him, saying that wanted him specifically to address their concerns about his corruption of peer review ethics. He blew them off again:


    Dear Dr. Wright,

    We are a group of sociologists who are writing to ask you to retract the publication of Mark Regnerus’s “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Survey,” July 2012. We appreciate the internal review your journal conducted last year, but recent documents released through Freedom of Information Act requests as well as the first peer-reviewed article detailing the scientific flaws of the study indicate that this article should never have been published without serious revisions and thus should be retracted.

    Recent Freedom of Information Act documents have revealed a variety of issues with Regnerus’s study and your publication’s role in validating it as scientific research. In particular, according to a recent article in the Huffington Post,*

    “(t)he documents, recently obtained through public-records requests by The American Independent and published in collaboration with The Huffington Post, show that the Witherspoon Institute recruited a professor from a major university to carry out a study that was designed to manipulate public policy. In communicating with donors about the research project, Witherspoon’s president clearly expected results unfavorable to the gay-marriage movement.”

    That professor was, of course, Mark Regnerus.

    The following email from Witherspoon co-founder Luis Tellez, dated April 5, 2011, to a potential funder of Regnerus’s work ought to be enough to convince you that the research was severely compromised by a political agenda to influence the Supreme Court’s upcoming decisions regarding Proposition 8 and DOMA:

    “As you know, the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain. It is essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society. That is what the NFSS is designed to do. Our first goal is to seek the truth, whatever that may turn out to be. Nevertheless, we are confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study as long as it is done honestly and well.”

    Tellez also wrote

    “It would be great to have this before major decisions of the Supreme Court but that is secondary to the need to do this and do it well… I would like you to take ownership and think of how you want it done… rather than someone like me dictating parameters… but of course, here to help.” [ellipses in original]”

    This indicates a direct relationship between a funder with a clear political agenda, a clear expected outcome for the research, and the researcher himself.

    Additional documents shed light on Professor W. Bradford Wilcox’s role in the study and his affiliation with the Witherspoon Institute. Wilcox was hired by UT to assist Regnerus with the data analysis and was simultaneously the director of Witherspoon’s Program on Family, Marriage and Democracy. The fact that Wilcox sits on the editorial board of your journal makes the issues surrounding this publication without revision, before the data was fully collected, and in a three-week turn around even more suspect. The further revelation that two of the three reviewers were part of the New Family Structure Survey compromises the peer review practices and does not represent best practices in journal editing. Despite being a clear conflict of interest, you allowed these reviewers to consider the validity of Regnerus’s paper that was itself reliant on this very study for its claims. In order to maintain the intellectual integrity of your journal, the article must be retracted.

    Finally, the publication of the first scholarly analysis of the New Family Structures Survey shows serious and substantive flaws. Had your review process been conducted with reviewers who were experts in the field and who were unconnected to the study itself, it is likely that they would have caught these flaws and required substantive revisions of the original paper. The analysis, by Andrew J. Perrin, Philip N. Cohen and Neal Caren, will be published by Gay and Lesbian Mental Health and was properly reviewed. (A preprint of it can be found at the link below **) It is clear from this analysis that there were serious mistakes in the data collection and data analysis. As the authors state,

    “Regnerus (2012a) fails to demonstrate that children from same-sex families display disadvantages.”

    As you know, a similar conclusion was reached by the American Sociological Association, which filed in an amicus brief to the Reese v. Witherspoon case, a case that also admitted Regnerus’s study as scientifically valid because your journal has refused to retract it.

    Dr. Wright, it is the understanding of this group of social scientists that had your journal taken the usual amount of time- 12 months in your journal’s case- to consider the Regnerus article, the article would not have seen the light of day in its current form. It was an error on the part of your journal in choosing reviewers who were not impartial and rushing to publication, an error that can only be corrected by retracting the article. We urge you to do just that.


  38. scottrose says:

    Sign and Repost the petition at this link for the University of Central Florida to discipline #Regnerus editor
    James Wright:

    This is the petition text:

    We, the undersigned, demand that you enforce the University of Central Florida’s “CREED” against your faculty member James Wright, who violated it in multiple egregious ways in publishing anti-gay hit-job papers by Mark Regnerus, Loren Marks, and Walter Schumm in Elsevier’s journal “Social Science Research,” which is headquartered on the UCF campus.

    Please note that when your university’s CREED was first promulgated, UCF’s Patricia MacKown said: “It is not a student creed but a creed for the entire community, it does not apply to students only.”

    Take Item 1 of the CREED: INTEGRITY: “I will practice and defend academic and personal honesty.”

    UCF’s James Wright violated the INTEGRITY pledge from UCF’s creed — twice — in June, 2012, and then again in November, 2012, when he knowingly published Mark Regnerus’s lie that his anti-gay-rights funders — who are religious anti-gay bigots — played no role in his study design, data collection or data analyses.

    In August, 2012, investigative reporters documented beyond all doubt that Regnerus’s funders were involved in the study design of the so-called “New Family Structures Study.” Wright ignored those investigative reporters’ presentations of the evidence, and went ahead to publish the same galling lie from Regnerus in his follow-up NFSS, non-peer-reviewed paper in November.

    Investigative work has demonstrated that while the combined Marks and Regnerus papers were contrived for use as a bigot’s cudgel against gay people, not a single one of the peer reviewers is trained or experienced in LGBT-sciences. All of the peer reviewers had conflicts of interest, including fiduciary conflicts of interest, with Regnerus funding agency representative W. Bradford Wilcox among the worst.
    When NFSS paid consultant Dr. Paul Amato was smoked out as a peer reviewer of the Regnerus paper, he made this public confession: “I understand that providing a review was not a good idea, because one should avoid even the hint of impropriety in matters like this. ”

    The NFSS was commissioned by anti-gay bigots with the stipulation that it be carried out by somebody opposed to LGBT equality. It’s anti-gay conclusions were so firmly decided in advance, that Regnerus and Wilcox traveled with Witherspoon money in August, 2011 — BEFORE DATA COLLECTION OCCURRED — to discuss NFSS media and P.R. promotions with the religious anti-gay bigot Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family. Regnerus reported back to Witherspoon president Luis Tellez that the meeting went well, and they had a good study promotions plan moving forward.

    Among the people to acknowledge that Regnerus lied in his paper, and that Wright committed gross editorial misconduct in publishing the two Rengerus anti-gay packages, are Dr. Cecilia Ridgeway — President of the American Sociological Association — and Dr. Philip Cohen — Director of Graduate Studies in Sociology at the University of Maryland. Both have told UCF’s James Wright that the intellectual integrity of “Social Science Research” depends on the Regnerus paper being retracted.

    UCF boasts of “Social Science Research” being a “top journal” housed on campus. It is past time for you to begin to restore honor to your campus. Tell James Wright to acknowledge publicly that he published Regnerus’s lie, knowingly, twice, and then pressure him, however you must, until he retracts the Regnerus, Marks and Schumm papers.

    The LGBT community has matured. We will not stand for the dishonest academic James Wright violating your university’s creed and getting away with it at our expense.

  39. BeccaM says:

    Hugs to both you, Jomicur, and my friend Karmonot.

    What I flashed on were the anti-Semitic posters and movies I remembered seeing in history class. The same kinds of lies. The same kinds of slander. No actual call to violence — but the implication that such would be considered understandable (and forgiven by the authorities) was certainly there.

    Now we’re beyond “gays are poor parents” and into “gays rape kids.” I almost laughed (sadly, sardonically) at the “1 in 3 gays rape their adopted kids” because that’s exactly the kind of number a propagandist would want to cite for maximum impact. Not “all” or “most” — but a large enough number to alarm the willingly homophobic.

  40. Anonymous says:

    So ironic considering the homophobes are the ones forcing BJs and videotaping it.

  41. karmanot says:

    “including from the priest who molested me.” Bingo. I was told at the age of 9 that I had been ‘provocative’ and ‘occasioned sin’ in another. The damage was like dropping a cluster bomb in a field of wildflowers. I truly wish there were a hell for these evil bastards.

  42. jomicur says:

    Watching it had my stomach turning. I found myself warping back to earlier decades here, when this was the only kind of message we ever got about ourselves in the American media. Yet this is considerably sicker than those “undercover” documentaries that used to air on CBS and elsewhere. Yet t it’s only slightly more disgusting than the anti-gay “documentaries still being produced by FRC and AFA. (And of course that’s not to mention the messages we used to get in Catholic school–including from the priest who molested me.)

  43. BeccaM says:

    Jeebus Jehosephat, that is one sick video. This is surely going to result in even more violence against gays, lesbians, and transgendered folks over there.

    At this point, I hope LGBTs in Russia are thinking seriously about trying to get themselves and their families out of the country. Before it’s no longer possible.

  44. jomicur says:

    Yes, but all the stout hearts in Sochi will be locking their children up to shield them from all them there evil gay child-rapists in town. Once all the gay visitors are are gone, they’ll put their children back into the hands of the clergy, where they will really, really, really not be raped.

  45. StraightGrandmother says:

    WhiteWitch, I have it from a different authority that indeed this video is VIRAL in Russia

  46. Whitewitch says:

    Do the people of Russia really believe this. I think some one/group there has very bad fantasies and should seek help for themselves.

  47. caphillprof says:

    I am wondering whether this argument finds its reception in a society that tolerates child sexual abuse in heterosexual marriages?

  48. StraightGrandmother says:

    That last graphic is not a screen capture that is the whole video.
    You should watch it, the voice is really creepy.

  49. Anonymous says:

    Why would anyone in the Duma risk their job? Free million$ to embezzle, no repercussions…

  50. heimaey says:

    So are the Olympics still happening?

  51. Anonymous says:

    Most of these scientific journals are scams in the first place, and this is exactly the reason. But as long as you’re in a “journal” you can keep your “job” as a “scientist.” Look for the article about a dog getting published in a journal by its owner, who submitted random text.

  52. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I’m afraid you’re preaching to the choir.

  53. StraightGrandmother says:


    #1. REGNERUS LIED TWICE IN HIS REPORTS, the Original Study and then again in his NON PEER REVIEWED response to my Critics. Regnerus said no one from his funders helped him, and Brad Wilcox Univ of Virginia who was Director of the Witherspoon Program that Funded Regnerus participated literally from start to finish. John Becker of Bielrico released a whole SLEW of docs he got under Freedom Of Information Act
    Also here are a ton of Regnerus e-mails gotten through reporter Sofia Resnick

    #2 Regnerus was permitted to suggest peer reviewers when he submitted his paper to the Editor of the Journal Social Science Research ,James Wright University of Central Florida. Regnerus suggested Paul Amato out of Penn State & W.Bradford Wilcox out of Virginia. BOTH these guys were NOT independent peer reviewers as BOTH were also PAID CONSULTANT$. Paul Amato confessed and the Editor Wright JUST OUTED Wilcox.

    This research paper should be considered as NOT PEER REVIEWED.
    Nobody anywhere should be citing this paper. It did NOT go through IMPARTIAL PEER REVIEW, It.Did.Not

  54. Stev84 says:

    The Regnerus “study” is using exactly the way he and his financial backers intended it.

  55. Ninong says:

    That’s because Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party is pushing a new bill in the Duma that would authorize the courts to refuse to grant joint-custody to the gay parent in the event of a divorce caused by one party claiming the other party is gay. Custody would automatically go to the straight parent.

    Also, it apparently would allow the state to take adopted children away from gay parents based on the ridiculous claim that gays adopt children mainly to use them for sex. I believe it requires that a complaint be filed with the authorities charging the gay parents with abuse but I’m sure the law in its final form will be vague just like the law against promoting propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors.

  56. cole3244 says:

    what no criticism of the catholic cult, unbelievable.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS