A group opposed to allowing gay Boy Scouts — “On My Honor” — has issued an open letter from its only apparent member, John Stemberger, urging opposition to the proposed change, which would allow gay Scouts but not gay Scout leaders. Among the ten arguments are offensive lies and stereotypes about gay people, as well as arguments that aren’t even substantively relevant:

1. Allowing Gay Scouts But Not Leaders Is Inconsistent

This argument is actually valid, making it one of the weakest presented in the letter, because it supports an inclusive policy for all Scouts and leaders, not a continuation of the ban. The only inconsistency in the membership policy is that it excludes people who are gay (and atheist). On My Honor may even be correct that the inconsistency “will surely draw an equal protection lawsuit,” but that is the fault of the Boy Scouts of America for trying to cling to some form of discrimination.

2. Boy-On-Boy Sexual Contact Will Increase

This argument conflates sexual orientation with sexual behavior, while promulgating the myth that people who are gay are predatory. The implication is that gay teenagers should never even be allowed to go camping because they’re a threat to their straight friends. Such fear-mongering serves only to further demonize the gay community.

3. All Troops Will Have to ‘Facilitate Open Homosexuality’

This isn’t a new argument; it’s merely a complaint derived from a desire to discriminate.

4. So Many Will Leave In Protest That The Scouts Will Collapse

If “tens- and possibly hundreds of thousands of parents and Scouts” leave the BSA, as On My Honor suggests they will, it’s an insult to the very integrity of the program to begin with. Rather than supporting the many values and lessons the Scouts stand for, these individuals will prove their only reason for participation in the Scouts was because the organization is anti-gay.

5. Parents Will Lose Their Right To Shield Their Kids From Learning About Gay People

Like argument #2, this claim relies on the false assumption that being gay automatically makes an individual somehow more “sexual.” Having gay Scouts will not increase the level of discussion about sex anymore than having straight Scouts does. Even a “17-year-old gay activist openly flaunting his sexuality and promoting a leftist political agenda” would honor the Scouts’ commitment to improving society by being helpful, friendly, courteous — and particularly brave.

6. The Scouts Are Caving To Pressure From Society

On My Honor is disappointed that it was just last year that the Scouts decided that banning gay Scouts was “the absolute best policy,” but now “BSA’s top leadership is more concerned about what is popular in the polls taken outside the Scouting family.” When that decision was made, the Scouts refused to explain it, likely because there is no sensible justification for it. Since then, the organization has lost the corporate sponsorship of Intel, UPS, and Merck, so it’s not surprising  its leaders became less attached to a policy they couldn’t even defend.

7. Units Who Don’t Comply Will Be Legally Vulnerable

Like argument #1, this concern simply reveals the inconsistency of allowing gay Scouts but not leaders. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of BSA’s policy in 2000, Chief Justice William Rehnquist argued that the BSA engages in “expressive association.” If that expression is applied inconsistently, it would no longer define — or protect — the organization. This argument is simply a redundant concern that units will no longer be able to get away with discrimination.

8. The Policy Will Allow ‘Transgendered Girls’ In the BSA

First of all, transgender girls would probably be more interested in the Girl Scouts, which they’re actually welcome to join. Contrary to On My Honor’s fears, gender identity has nothing to do with sexuality whatsoever. Transgender boys should be allowed to join the Boy Scouts, but that form of inclusion is not addressed by this policy. The language “sexual preference” in the proposed change is disappointing, but only because it’s inaccurate nomenclature for sexual orientation.

9. Language In The Resolution Is Merely Symbolic

On My Honor seems to think it’s consequential that the “whereas” statements that justify the resolution will not be part of the policy once it’s approved. It apparently has no qualms about putting forth its own symbolic arguments.

10. Many In the Scouting Family Support Discrimination

On My Honor conveniently ignores the most recent survey that specifically addressed the policy on gay Scouts to cite an older survey with less supportive results. Still, trying to argue a “moral” point from a claim of popularity compromises what moral integrity the position even has.

It’s unclear if On My Honor represents anybody other than its founder, John Stemberger. Nevertheless, other anti-gay organizations like the Family Research Council are supporting his efforts. Through this open letter, he has shown not only a lack of understanding but a significant antipathy for the gay community. Scouts For Equality called the letter, “a new low,” but arguably this is the same low the Scouts’ policy has perpetuated for years.

The National Organization for Marriage is concerned that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working to promote LGBT equality across the globe. Asking, “Is Obama spending your taxpayer dollars to promote gay marriage in the developing world?”, NOM tries to draw a distinction between human rights abuses, which it opposes, and discrimination, which of course it supports:

While many of the initiative’s goals are unquestionably laudable – stopping real human rights violations and abuses – one must wonder, based on the Obama administration’s domestic policies, whether marriage redefinition will be an essential part of “unleash[ing] the potential” of LGBT folks worldwide.

It seems very likely that such will be the case, but only time will tell.

In other words, NOM’s support for the human rights of LGBT people has strict limits. It’s apparently okay to advocate against criminalization and torture of LGBT people, but pushing for an end to discrimination in marriage and public accommodations is going too far.  The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved in 1948, does not qualify human rights in this way. For example, Article 7 asserts that “all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” Article 16 offers that all “have the right to marry and to found a family.”

“Only time will tell” if NOM will ever recognize the LGBT community as whole people entitled to all their human rights. For now, they seem to think that’s just a waste of taxpayer money.

At the end of his press conference Tuesday morning, President Obama returned to the podium to respond to a question about NBA player Jason Collins coming out. Obama explained that “tolerance” falls short of including the LGBT community as part of the American family, and the country should be proud that young gay and lesbian people will have a role model like Collins “who is unafraid”:

OBAMA: I had a chance to talk to him yesterday; he seems like a terrific young man. I told him I couldn’t be prouder. You know, one of the extraordinary measures of progress that we’ve seen in this country has been the recognition that the LGBT community deserves full equality — not just partial equality, not just tolerance — but a recognition that they’re fully a part of the American family. Given the importance of sports in our society, for an individual who has excelled at the highest levels in one of the major sports, go ahead and say, “This is who I am. I’m proud of it. I’m still a great competitor. I’m still seven foot tall and can bang with Shaq and deliver a hard foul.”

I think a lot of young people out there who are gay or lesbian, who are struggling with these issues, to see a role model like that who is unafraid — I think it’s a great thing and I think America should be proud that this is just one more step in this ongoing recognition that we treat everybody fairly. Everybody’s part of a family and we judge people on the basis of their character and their performance and not their sexual orientation. So I’m very proud of him.

Watch it:

Obama’s comments follow a massive outpouring of support for Collins’ historic announcement. Other political figures who have applauded him include First Lady Michelle Obama, Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Mark Takano (D-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D).

LGBT Americans are regularly fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And, despite what most people believe, there is no federal law to stop it.

That could change if a bill introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) on Thursday becomes law. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would protect LGBT Americans from discrimination in the workplace, just like women and racial minorities. This is particularly vital for transgender Americans, 90 percent of whom have experienced workplace discrimination.

While most Americans support the measure — which has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 — opponents have come up with creative excuses to distract from their homophobia. Here are the top five reasons Republicans offered ThinkProgress to explain why they think it should be legal to fire people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity:

1. Being LGBT is a choice. Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), the fifth-ranking House Republican, explained that he opposes workplace discrimination protections for LGBT people because being gay is “a choice issue.”

2. LGBT people aren’t fired for their orientation in the US. Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) dismissed the idea of a law making it illegal to fire someone for being gay because, as he explained, it’s not “a big issue” and “that don’t happen out here in the United States of America.”

3. LGBT people “already” have legal protections. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) argued that, contrary to reality, a law making it illegal to discriminate against gay employees is “already on the books.” Marchant, incidentally, voted against that very bill when ENDA came up for a vote in 2007.

4. It could allow LGBT people to sue for discrimination. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) refused to support legislation that would make it illegal to fire someone for being gay because it would give LGBT workers “legal rights” that could “spawn a lot of litigation” and “would make it more difficult for employers to feel comfortable.”

5. Anti-LGBT discrimination is not a federal issue. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) argued that racial minorities deserved federal discrimination protections, but not LGBT workers. “Should [it] be a federal crime, specific to federal law? No,” said Lee.

Earlier this year, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) proposed lifting its ban on gay Scouts and leaders, but a swift backlash — particularly from Mormon-funded chapters in Utah — delayed action. On Friday, the BSA announced a proposal that would lift the ban on gay Scouts, but maintain the ban on gay leaders. This proposal would have to receive approval from the roughly 1,400 voting members of the Scouts’ National Council when it meets the week of May 20.

The Scouts conducted surveys of its members in order to determine the best way forward on the controversial anti-gay policies and based its proposal on these results. An internal survey from last year found that an overwhelming number of people felt the measure “negatively impacted their loyalty.”

Though allowing gay Scouts is an important step forward, continuing to ban gay adult leaders is particularly problematic. It is an acquiescence to conservatives’ claims that gay leaders are a threat to children’s safety, an assumption that reinforces false stereotypes that gay people are more likely to be pedophiles.

During a floor speech on Wednesday, Iowa state Sen. Dennis Guth (R) made a wide range of inflammatory and offensive remarks about LGBT Americans. Among other things, Guth claimed that homosexuality breeds mental health problems like depression, shortens people’s life spans, presents public health risks to straight Americans — including Guth’s family — and even contributes to the downfall of civilizations.

Radio Iowa chronicled Guth’s diatribe:

Guth said there are “numerous” health and mental problems associated with homosexuality that “ultimately” shorten the lives of gays and lesbians.

“There are health risks that my family incurs because of the increase of sexually transmitted infections that this lifestyle invites. For example, there are more and more medical tests required before giving blood or giving birth,” Guth said.

Guth said “many civilizations have fallen” because the traditional family was not protected and he argued the homosexual lifestyle “is a lie.”

“If I saw someone going the wrong way on a one-way street, I would make every effort to stop and redirect them,” Guth said. “Simply put, it saves lives to have honest communication not only about the sexually transmitted diseases that shorten lifespans, but also about the deep loneliness that accompanies a life based on youth, beauty and sex.”

You can listen to Guth’s entire speech here.

As Guth’s fellow Sen. Matt McCoy (D) pointed out after the speech, Guth’s accusations are ignorant and based on talking points from hard-right Christian and social conservative groups, not science. In fact, increasing acceptance of LGBT communities decreases societal stigma surrounding homosexuality and consequently improves LGBT Americans’ mental health; Guth’s family would be equally at risk for sexually transmitted infections from straight people if they don’t use safe sex practices; and both the medical community and lawmakers from both parties agree that barriers to LGBT Americans donating blood and organs is an outdated relic not supported by any actual public health risks.