Antigay activist Ruth Jacobs is a veritable pornographer for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and for Christian-Right outfits in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Her testimonies against comprehensive sex education and transgender access to public facilities routinely consist of graphic and one-sided descriptions of sex acts. Her kinky speeches are purposely entered into the public record in order to fill the minds of taxpayers, library visitors, churchgoers, and elected officials with dirty thoughts and sex-starved antigay fantasies instead of uplifting public dialogue about public health, human dignity, freedom, and lifelong love between two people. Jacobs also refers to the supposed rights of unnamed, absent, and frankly non-existent “ex-transgender” and “ex-gay” people to be free from the existence of the real gay and transgender people who testify.
See for yourself — but don’t watch this from your workplace:
The Genocide for Jesus blog has helpfully transcribed her entire appearance at a District of Columbia hearing on marriage for the District’s gay couples.
Of particular note, according to the blog:
During a questioning period, she admitted to Council chair Phil Mendelson that she had no evidence of her claims of a connection between same-sex marriage and HIV infection. Councilman David Catania asked her what gay male sex had to do with lesbians and marriage, especially since lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV infection. Jacobs became flustered and said she wasn’t there to talk about that fact.
Related posts
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Subject matter aside, there is something not quite right about that woman. Does she actually have a practice? At least she is on the PFOX side of things – no threat of her being taken seriously.
Comment by David Roberts — November 6, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Yes, she seems mentally and emotionally disturbed and completely unaware that many heterosexuals enjoy anal sex.
Comment by Wayne Besen — November 6, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
You know, one thing that troubles me about these arguments and arguments against safe sex education in the first place is the assumption that sex education leads to an increase in sexual practice; in much the same way that the argument is given that with the passage of laws providing equality for gays would come an increase in homosexuals or homosexual sexual activity.
Perhaps the most troubling is her reasoning. According to her testimony, anal sex demonstrates an increased risk of transmission over vaginal sex. Why then wouldn’t she want anal sex included in the safe sex practices portion of sex education classes? Does it matter in terms of transmissibility if the person in the receptive role during anal sex is female or male? If her primary objective truly is the reduction of HIV transmission, wouldn’t she want the majority population of sexually active heterosexuals to be aware of this risk? Bizarre.
Comment by Tim — November 7, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
I know this is serious, but I cannot stop laughing.
She is just too crazy for me to keep a straight face.
Comment by Break the Terror (Evan) — November 9, 2009 @ 2:39 am