A website under development in the gaylibrary.com family of sites is www.gaysafety.org which reads:
Gay Safety is under development as an additional to the Gay Library and will be up and running at the end of September 2007. Check back often.
While many already possess such self defense and military skills, it is necessary for the worldwide gay-allied community to acquire a relatively-uniform knowhow and expertise to defend and enforce human rights against human rights violators, using lethal force as needed to prevent and punish violations.
The Stonewall Rebellion celebrated on Christopher Street Day each year in the month of June serves as a reminder of our capacity to hold the top human rights violators and their bloodlines accountable for GLBT persecution. There is not a single nation on Earth where such violators and their bloodlines can escape our retribution when they violate our human rights.
The gay-allied community will always outnumber the top human rights violators and their bloodlines, and will always have access to every weapon imaginable. Regrettably yet realistically, lethal force is required in retribution to enforce human rights when politicians, businesspeople, and “nonprofit” leaders turn corrupt and catastrophically fail to meet their obligations to uphold the human rights of all family members, gay and straight, young and old, male and female, without exception.
The silence from Omaha is very loud.
UPDATE – 8/15/07 – The violent statements have been removed from the “gaysafety.org” site. Here is a screen capture of the site containing the disturbing material. Other offensive material has been blocked from view on the gayhumanrights.org and gaystraightalliance.org sites.
UPDATE – 8/16/07 – Yesterday, the Christian Post published an article online about this set of sites. As noted above, the sites have been cleansed of offensive messages. A PFLAG of Omaha media representative, Bob Dorr, has emailed to say that his group will be making a statement soon in response. Mr. Dorr takes these messages seriously and expressed gratitude to me for letting him know about they were on these sites.
Eddy –
Thank you for your response. It strikes me, that if I cannot be a christian woman in a committed same-sex relationship and be allowed to teach there (even if my credentials are superb), that they may not have a “heart towards gay people.” They see me as a sinner, which is unfortunate. For both the school (in attempting to attract the “best and brightest”), and for the messages that are innoculated into the youth that attend. They never see that there is even a possibility of being a gay christian.
Truth is, there are gay Christian youth who attend there. They are going through the same dating rituals as everyone else, and to be made to feel stigmatized and not accepted into the faith community as they are is quite unfortunate – it seems to go against the “neutrality” that is so talked about on the forum.
For the most part (and please correct me if I’m wrong), it seems that people have the stated belief on this forum that you can be both gay and christian – at this school, that is not the case. It’s the reason that I see so many gay and lesbian people abandoning the faith community.
I appreciate when you said “where you draw the line, I don’t know.” I don’t know either. But if you think about it the other way around – telling someone that their “heterosexuality” is a sin but “having a heart towards heterosexuals” is a difficult thing to balance…if it can, be arguably balanced at all.
You also stated “But it’s not as black and white as gay-friendly and gay-unfriendly.” I agree, yet disagree with this. This was a notation (not being friendly towards GLBT individuals) given by the students themselves, and that is what concerns me. These ratings are not done by scholars (who may look into the practices of the professors, etc..), they are done by polling the students. I wonder why students feel it is so unwelcoming?
My approach is different that the schools, but I suppose it is a part of the pipe-dream that Christianity begins to welcome its gay members as equals, begins to see that many same-sex couples can and do live solid Christian lives, and letting gay youth know that you can live a good life, find an amazing partner, and don’t have to change anything about yourself to be loved by God. It’s not so black-and-white…you can either be gay OR be a christian…you can be both.
By keeping the school Christian, allowing faculty to be gay, or the students – it would be revolutionary to have a community of people much like this forum. There are gays, ex-gays, and never-been-gays…I think we all come from the place of Christian values – and sure, we debate, but what a wonderful model.
Why be exclusionary…and why not just hold everyone – gay and straight – to the same behavioral standards. No pre-marital sex, substance abuse, etc…
JAG-
Because they believe that the behavior is sin, I can’t imagine them allowing public (or private) displays of gay affection.
I regret that our only choice seems to be to define that in terms of ‘friendliness’. Reminds me of a child that thinks mom hates him because she scolded, corrected or said ‘no’. The mom sees a behavior that she finds unacceptable and makes her feelings known…yet she loves the child.
I have proof that the school does not live up the Princeton Review ‘unfriendly’ label…it’s Warren. Yeah, they may believe that its sin but it’s clear that they have a heart towards gay people. Where you draw the line, I don’t know. But it’s not as black and white as gay-friendly and gay-unfriendly.
Sorry to speak ‘for Warren’…I figure, if I’m off-base he can speak up. I believe he blogged yesterday that although he’s keeping the blog open, he may not even have time to read–much less respond.
Eddy –
“I also suspect that young heterosexuals who are dating are not completely free regarding Public Displays of Affection.”
I would wonder if they are equally free. I have been to the campus many times, and I have seen at that school, many heterosexual couples holding hands, kissing before departure, etc…but I wonder if the same would be okay for same-sex couples who are dating as well?
Any thoughts to clear this up Warren?
The fact that this school was rated to be unfriendly by the students themselves is what gave me a bad taste in my mouth, and makes me wonder about the culture of the school and what values it is promoting about their fellow citizens.
Eddy,
I guess I understood the comparison of gay students to poker clubs as I’ve understood some evangelical comparisons of gay people to alcoholics and pedophiles in the past – I saw it as in the same vein. My apologies if I was wrong – I really don’t think that was what you were going for, but that’s how it felt – to me anyway!
I got what you were saying though. And yes, the fact that Warren’s school is a more conservative Christian School is exactly why it was rated as being very unfriendly to gay students.
Jayhuck,
Yes, we are on the same page about it being subjective and not a blanket statement – thanks for your post – no need to apologize though, you did nothing wrong and I appreciated the dialogue 🙂
Jayhuck–
It’s all about context, my dear boy. I’m not comparing gay students to a poker club…I’m comparing a conservative Christian college to a ‘regular’ college.
(LOL! Here’s a thought. If you understand what I’m saying…then I’ve made my point. If you think there’s a better way to say it…then say it. Otherwise, you are simply criticising without any real foundation or substance. And, I really don’t get the point of that.)
Ann,
My apologies then – maybe we are really on the same page with this?! 🙂
Not to belabor this point, but it is also subjective as to who wants to have heterosexual sex too – that is also a personal preference – and you can’t make a blanket statement about all men being able to do that either.
Jayhuck,
I know I can’t and didn’t.
Eddy,
I think its wrong of you to compare gay students to a poker club. I understand what you are trying to say, but I think there is a better way to say it.
Ann,
Not to belabor this point, but it is also subjective as to who wants to have heterosexual sex too – that is also a personal preference – and you can’t make a blanket statement about all men being able to do that either.
Jayhuck,
It is subjective as to who wants to have sex this way and who doesn’t. It is a personal preference which makes it subjective. You said it was easy for men to pleasure themselves with other men, yes, but this is subjective to those involved, not a blanket statement for all men.
Ann,
The only thing subjective about it is whether or not the creator “intended” for men to have sex with each other. Otherwise, I think its a statement of fact to say that men can easily pleasure other men, and its no more “difficult” than a man pleasuring a woman.
men’s bodies were made to have sex with other men just as easily as they were made to have sex with women
Jayhuck,
I still think this is subjective – there are many who believe this and many who don’t.
Thanks JAG.
I understand the scenario you portray–but I don’t envision it happening at Warren’s school. I don’t see them endorsing a poker club anytime in the near future either. They define themselves as holding to a more conservative Christian tradition. It’s at the very root of ‘who they are’ and their mission. LOL. If they even have fraternities and sororities, I’m willing to wager that they have rules unlike any you’d find at your typical college. I also suspect that young heterosexuals who are dating are not completely free regarding Public Displays of Affection. (Students at conservative Christian schools are very familiar with ‘the six-inch rule’.)
Eddy –
As an academic, I could and would never work at a place that did not have a nondiscrimination policy that included sexual orientation, and did not offer partner benefits. That seems unwelcoming for gay/lesbian faculty and sends a clear message on the position of their partners in the eyes of the school.
Moreover I think it trickles down into how they treat its “out” gay students the same as their straight ones – and if there are students who feel comfortable enough to be out at all. I would want a place that would not berate or find intolerable a same-sex couple dating and holding hands in the courtyard, and giving a kiss goodbye the same as straight ones who are courting. That the GLBT students were allowed to have clubs (just as “clowns for christ” are allowed).
I think it would set a precedent at a christian school.
However, Eddy, to answer your question about the Princeton review process, here is a more specific telling of it:
“Based on surveys answered by 110,000 students, the Princeton Review created the 2006 edition of “The Best 361 Colleges” and included best and worst rankings for food, partying, academics and quality of life for gay students. Ninety percent of the survey was conducted online and the rest of the responses were filled out by students in high-traffic campus areas across the country, according to the Princeton Review.”
So, more than just unfriendly, this survey examined “quality of life” for gay students BY students…it’s how they perceive it.
Unfortunately, Warren’s school is one of the 5 worst in the country. I would hope he would address this.
Warren, any thoughts?
Ann,
I guess I have to retype this – men’s bodies were made to have sex with other men just as easily as they were made to have sex with women. When it comes right down to it, I think we are really on the same page with this, but I think its important to point this out. I thought I had left this message earlier, but when I scrolled up I couldn’t find it.
Thanks Ann, for your detail-oriented comments and attention in responding. I think we’re on the same page more than I initially thought…
interesting!
and just for clarifications sake, all the references I made to churches not welcoming or celebrating their gay members, families or given positions of leadership within the church were meant toward more mainstream christianity, not the churches who are the exceptions in their faith… for example, reconciling methodist churches are a modest portion of all in the methodist faith – most which take a far different stance on homosexuality than their reconciling counterparts.
You give me hope Ann, that we can all come together and have rational discussions about such topics.
Jag,
Please see my comments below –
J – As you elaborate more on your argument regarding anatomy, I completely agree..as you aptly state: “The word accommodate does not equate limitation. I also said and am saying now that we all have the privilege to have sex with who and how we want – that is a personal preference and a choice we have the right to have.”
J – Unfortunately, the use of “accommodate” has been used in other circles to justify exclusion. That is not the case with you – thank you for your clarification.
A – Thank you for not including me in those circles.
J – Yes, the “celebrate recovery” program on the website is a 12-step program that is sometimes used for homosexuality – but also for other things they see as an addiction….like alcohol. You stated regarding that program… “That they offer it is not a problem as I see it.”
A – Ok, I did not know Celebrate Recovery was a 12 step program but know of people who have gone to it.
J – These are my thoughts, for what they’re worth….
Offering a program that has not been shown to work, and in fact may be doing harm to individuals is not appropriate.
A – Why has it been shown not to work and shouldn’t the person who is in the program assess it based on their individual experience? Believe me, I do not endorse many of these different “quick fix” programs but the person I know who went to Celebrate Recovery had a very positive and sustainable experience from it. If I ever have enough time, I might go to one of the meetings and let you know what I think.
J – The individuals who are attracted to such a program (for their homosexuality), likely have unwanted same-sex attractions – but due to their faith exposure, do not see any other way to live in God’s grace but to change it.
A – I think you are right “on the money” with this. Hopefully, with more positive exposure to other ways of thinking, a person will see that it does not matter how they identify themselves or how others identify them – when it comes to our faith, God accepts us as we are.
J – They are not presented with options, or embraced if they would choose to continue to lead a life which included a same-sex partner, family, etc..
A – I don’t know if I can completely agree with this – I have experienced gay men and women and their families embraced and presented with lots of options. Whether they specifically address your’s or other’s concerns, I am not sure.
J – People have the right to choose, but I am often conflicted as both a doctor of psychology, scholar, and christian. For example, we know that regardless of genuine effort, prayer or program, these affectional inclinations do not change for everyone…and if that is the case, how can we not embrace our sisters and brothers in Christ?
A – We can and do – I make it a part of my every day life and I believe you do as well – let’s continue and make a difference. We cannot change others but hopefully they will notice and like what they see.
J – Offering hope through means which have not been proven, seems more cruel than kind, leaving clients frustrated, and feeling guilty if they remain with their inclinations.
A – Yes, I agree.
J – Reinforcing the message that they are somehow “more” in God’s grace for leaving their affectional inclinations seems even more cruel.
A – Yes, I agree.
J – We agree here “If a person sees no reason for attending, then that should be respected as well.” However, will they be treated the same? Given positions within the church?
A – I am not sure but if I was there I would treat them the same and I think you would too. I cannot change how others feel, all I can do is try to be a good example.
J – Celebrated when they adopt a child with their partner?
A – I know there are a lot of churches who would join in this celebration.
J – The research has proven over and over again that same-sex couples can and do have long-term, committed and happy relationships – some including children, and others not. There are many churches in America that will celebrate that, and their commitment to God.
A – Yes, I agree.
J – God and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive –
and programs that offer these messages reinforce that they are.
A – God and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. Anyone who offers the message that they are is underestimating God. BTW – that is an opinion not just an observation! If I am ever in a position to clarify your statement, you can count on me that I will.
J – Believe me, they won’t be having an out gay minister anytime soon.
A – There are out gay ministers, aren’t there?
J – My question…if you are welcoming and accepting of everyone…why not allow a married (to another woman) lesbian woman to be a minister also?
A – I believe there are ministers who are female and married to other females.
J – As for your other thoughts…I’m on board with you on this “between all the graphic references to sex, body parts, and stimulus to those body parts that have been referred to recently on the blog, I have to decide whether I have been traumatized or tickled.”
A – After the initial trauma wore off and the realization set in that there are so many ways to have sex, I have decided to be tickled. Oops, no pun intended 🙂
Thanks Jag for keeping an open dialogue with me.
Jag,
I have not forgotten the other post you wrote and I want to respond to – got caught up in these other ones – thanks for your patience.
I would like to hope that he has worked for change in this area…and possibly he has
Jag,
I don’t know if it is his responsibility to do so. I could ask you and others what you have done to prevent the killing of thousands of pre-born children each year but I don’t. I am only responsible for myself and respect Dr. Throckmorton for what he has done to open up dialogue between people where there once was only dissent, that he is providing resources for those who’s voices are rarely heard – the individual who has unwanted same gender attractions, for keeping us updated on news regarding science and studies, for being progressive in his thinking, for having the courage to stand up to colleagues, and that he does these things in a way that keeps the same people and new ones talking.
By the way, I have probably been admonished by him more than most of you – so my knowledge about his fairness to all is very credible.
Eddy,
Just because something is generally (overall) unfriendly doesn’t mean that there is a complete absence of friendliness! Does that make sense??? 🙂
Perhaps we could turn JAG’s analogy around. Perhaps we should be wondering why a school that has been ranked among the ‘unfriendliest’ would have (and keep) a man such as Warren on their staff. They surely know of his sponsorship of this unusual blogspace where we have the freedom to have this discussion. Perhaps we should have the Princeton Review define precisely what they mean by ‘unfriendly’.
Ann –
You asked earlier, and the other reason I do not see Warren as unbiased, is that he has worked for a college ranked as one of the top 5 unfriendliest places for gay/lesbian students in the country (according to the princeton review, 2006).
I would like to hope that he has worked for change in this area…and possibly he has. Have you Warren?
I’m not disagreeing with you that men’s and women’s bodies were made to have sex with each other, all I’m saying is that men’s bodies were made to have sex with each other too – I think that’s pretty clear, and it goes beyond simply who we choose to have sex with. I apologize if I danced around that issue earlier.
Jayhuck,
I think our bodies and minds and hearts are made to accomodate a sexual act to reach orgasm (sorry for the graphic reference) – how we decide to do that and with who or what ( sorry for the graphic reference) is up to us and that usually follows our preferences. We don’t choose our feelings or desires but we do choose to have the sexual act or not and with who.
Jayhuck –
See Ann’s above comments, she addresses your statements rather positively. See my response on 43579 that includes a quote from those comments regarding your point.
Ann,
You said: “I believe it is obvious that our bodies were “designed” to accommodate sex between a male and female. That we are given a choice as to who we want to have sex with and how we want to have it is a whole different story. ”
I’m not disagreeing with you that men’s and women’s bodies were made to have sex with each other, all I’m saying is that men’s bodies were made to have sex with each other too – I think that’s pretty clear, and it goes beyond simply who we choose to have sex with. I apologize if I danced around that issue earlier.
Warren,
I’m sorry I’ve been gone so long – school has been getting in my way 🙂
You said: “Sex is the means to the end so it is not far fetched to think that being attracted to the opposite sex is a given. However, I also believe that the natural law arguments are inadequate or dissolve into contradictions when you look sexual practices that heterosexuals do that are “unnatural.”
First, I’m not sure what you mean by sex is a means to an end – what end is that? Is it pleasure or procreation – and what do you mean that being attracted to the opposite sex is a given???? I’m not sure I understand what you are driving at. There is absolutely NO PROOF for a “straight gene”, anymore than there is a gay gene – that, plus the fact that homosexuality can be found in nature suggests, at the very least, that it is natural.
NOW, if we are talking solely about procreation, then YES, we have to talk about heterosexuality – but really only then. If you could elaborate on some of your earlier statements I’d appreciate it.
As for that statement I made that sexuality is set very early in life – possibly by the age of 5 – I have to admit that it is something I believe I learned in my human sexuality class several years ago – but I’m glad you called me on it – I have nothing, at the moment, to verify that that is correct – I will dig out some books and do some research though 🙂
Thanks Eddy!
…but please realize, all are welcome into civil discussion – hop in if you have something to say!
Ann and Jag,
I’ve refrained from commenting on this particular thread because I’ve been engrossed in the conversation you two have been having. I still have nothing to add. I just want to thank both of you for demonstrating that people who believe differently CAN communicate respectfully. Thanks!
Ann –
I’m glad we can continue the conversation, and it’s made me think of things from different perspectives – thanks for that. We seem on different sides of the issues at times, but I think that we both have an inner drive to understand these conflicts with an open mind and an investment in finding the “truth,” whatever that may be.
and if you think there’s been a reprieve on the stimulation talk…you should read the other posts, there is much comment lately on advertising and stimulation/arousal…interesting indeed.
Jag,
Thanks for reading my comments with an open mind and heart – I really appreciate it. We might not agree on some things but you sound really great and I hope to keep an open dialogue with you and learn from you. It is late and your last post has given me more to think about 🙂 so I will read it again tomorrow and respond soon. Whew, I am relieved that there has been a reprieve with the posts today from what goes where, what stimulates what, what sexual acts are natural, etc. 🙂
Hello Ann –
As you elaborate more on your argument regarding anatomy, I completely agree..as you aptly state: “The word accommodate does not equate limitation. I also said and am saying now that we all have the privilege to have sex with who and how we want – that is a personal preference and a choice we have the right to have.”
Unfortunately, the use of “accommodate” has been used in other circles to justify exclusion. That is not the case with you – thank you for your clarification.
Yes, the “celebrate recovery” program on the website is a 12-step program that is sometimes used for homosexuality – but also for other things they see as an addiction….like alcohol. You stated regarding that program… “That they offer it is not a problem as I see it.”
These are my thoughts, for what they’re worth….
Offering a program that has not been shown to work, and in fact may be doing harm to individuals is not appropriate. The individuals who are attracted to such a program (for their homosexuality), likely have unwanted same-sex attractions – but due to their faith exposure, do not see any other way to live in God’s grace but to change it. They are not presented with options, or embraced if they would choose to continue to lead a life which included a same-sex partner, family, etc..
People have the right to choose, but I am often conflicted as both a doctor of psychology, scholar, and christian. For example, we know that regardless of genuine effort, prayer or program, these affectional inclinations do not change for everyone…and if that is the case, how can we not embrace our sisters and brothers in Christ?
Offering hope through means which have not been proven, seems more cruel than kind, leaving clients frustrated, and feeling guilty if they remain with their inclinations. Reinforcing the message that they are somehow “more” in God’s grace for leaving their affectional inclinations seems even more cruel.
We agree here “If a person sees no reason for attending, then that should be respected as well.” However, will they be treated the same? Given positions within the church? Celebrated when they adopt a child with their partner?
The research has proven over and over again that same-sex couples can and do have long-term, committed and happy relationships – some including children, and others not. There are many churches in America that will celebrate that, and their commitment to God.
God and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive – and programs that offer these messages reinforce that they are. Believe me, they won’t be having an out gay minister anytime soon. My question…if you are welcoming and accepting of everyone…why not allow a married (to another woman) lesbian woman to be a minister also?
As for your other thoughts…I’m on board with you on this “between all the graphic references to sex, body parts, and stimulus to those body parts that have been referred to recently on the blog, I have to decide whether I have been traumatized or tickled.”
Thanks again.
Jag,
You are very welcome! I was a little taken aback when he said they were unaware of the article as well. Was so glad I read it from your link so I could tell him about it. They hand out voting material? That does suprise me as he said they agree to disagree on politics and social issues and do not bring them up in a Sunday morning service. I’m wondering if it could have been considered a source of information rather than suggesting how someone should vote – who knows? I am going to look at their web site again – I did not see the 12 step program. That they offer it is not a problem as I see it. It is up to the individual who wants to attend and their reasons for doing so. I see it as a personal choice. If a person sees no reason for attending, then that should be respected as well. I feel very badly about the music minister leaving, especially if he/she did not want to. I really wish I knew more about it and the circumstances. Since I don’t, I cannot form any opinion and only hope he/she is happy and content elsewhere in a new church home.
I have to say, I was surprised to find the “parts fit” argument from you.
Jag,
Here is what I am trying to say and never meant to argue – it seems obvious to me that the female and male bodies were designed to accommodate each other sexually. The word accommodate does not equate limitation. I also said and am saying now that we all have the privilege to have sex with who and how we want – that is a personal preference and a choice we have the right to have. I did not say what we cannot do sexually or incorporate God into the design observation. I am completely aware of the emotional aspects of sex, notwithstanding Timothy’s remark to the contrary, and understand that any really “good” sex will have an emotional foundation to it. When I was younger I don’t know if I could have said something like that 🙂 Also, between all the graphic references to sex, body parts, and stimulus to those body parts that have been referred to recently on the blog, I have to decide whether I have been traumatized or tickled 🙂
Ann –
I have to say, I was surprised to find the “parts fit” argument from you. I have no disagreement that male and female bodies can join, but as can men and men, and women and women. What goes where seems to be the issue of debate – and that seems only a matter of preference – unless you want to procreate.
I was thinking that maybe it is because I separate out procreation from the equation of who could or should couple naturally. I see compatibility based on so many things that the “parts only have to fit this one particular way to be valid,” stance seems not to work out. Not to be crude, but I’m sure my “parts fit,” with tons of guys out there…but just because they happen to fit, doesn’t make us a right pairing, a compatible one, or even just a good one. Otherwise, I could marry the first man I was exposed to because his parts fit and we have the theoretical capacity of reproduction.
Ann –
Thank you so very much for your back-and-forth with me, as well as your phone call. I am surprised that they had no idea of the article, and espouse that they are not political…it’s the same church who hands out pamphlets when voting season comes around as to where the politicians stand on the issues…
I have emailed them many times regarding their stand on homosexuality…to which, I got an “everybody’s welcome,” but see on their web site that they use a 12-step program to address it. That sound more like “you are welcome to come if we can change you.” They had a music minister who admitted same-sex attractions, and went mysteriously away for “assistance,” never to return.
Either way, thanks a million. It is good for them to hear that someone is concerned about the lack of action.
Jag,
Please see my answers to your comments below – thank you for your patience in me responding.
J – “not hostile, but not affirming” to me, means at best “tolerant.” I don’t know about you, but being “tolerated,” is not pleasant..and I wonder if it should be acceptable – especially if you claim neutrality. It doesn’t feel neutral to me. Does it to you?
A – I think how we perceive things is what matters. I do understand how you feel and can see your point. My perception is not the same – if someone is not hostile or affirming of me, it just means they do not take enough interest in me or what I do to care one way or the other and that is ok with me. I cannot make them care – it is up to them.
J – As a woman, I don’t want to be “tolerated,” if I were black, I would not want to be “tolerated” – it doesn’t feel neutral, it feels at the very least like one should stay in a hole somewhere. It is a far different feeling being tolerated than being truly welcomed, accepted or …what I would ideally hope for…just seen as the same as anyone else – with true neutrality. I just don’t see that.
A – I understand this point as well – it is not a good feeling to just be tolerated by someone else. I also understand, through personal experiences, that I cannot change how someone feels toward me. All I can do is be the most appropriate person I can be in any given circumstance and know when to dis-engage myself if I feel it is necessary to my well being.
J – You also stated “Few people have extended themselves or made themselves available the way he has – to all of us.”
Not so. He seems not “available” to the gay christian. I would say, this is the group that seems terribly ignored – both as a therapist and a christian advocate of neutrality, as he claims SIT is.
A – My experience, both as an observer and as a participant is that he is always available to all of us. I have only seen him as fair and open minded. I am not sure if his neutrality in therapy would equate to him being an advocate of the gay Christian. This is something that I guess he would have to address himself. I see his involvement with the gay Christian as one of answering questions and providing clarity as requested or needed.
J – I have yet to hear how the Christian Therapist who practices SIT is supposed to help their gay client who is struggling with their identity in a hostile society live in congruence with “their” religious beliefs – coping with a church community that often rejects them, “coming out,” and having a family.
A – All good points – I’m not sure if a Christian Therapist, or one who practices SIT, would be the right therapist to faciliate this particular client. I certainly do not have the credentials nor verifiable knowledge to make any comment about it one way or the other. I do know there are many other therapists who could help this client and there are also many churches who are gay affirming as well. Perhaps those churches have their own therapists or can recommend one that fits all the needs of the gay Christian.
J – These are the concerns that I have. That SI Therapy seems to speak often about those who wish to align to their beliefs when those beliefs involve change or alignment to his notions or interpretations of christianity…but what of the client who adheres to a reconciling methodist faith, who is gay and a christian and struggles with issues around this?
A – Those are very valid concerns. Perhaps SI Therapy is not the right one for these concerns. I know there is a particular frame work with SIT that I think is very good and should be given a chance, however, in interviewing a therapist, only the client can make the decision as to who they want to work with.
J – It seems to protect the practice of some reparative-like therapies, without getting into any details about the other spectrum (of assisting them in acceptance of their gay identity) in what is supposed to be a “neutral” practice. .
A – I really do not believe SIT is a form of reparative therapy or protects it. They are very different in my eyes – one tells you what is the matter, the other allows you to tell the therapist what is the matter. It is my understanding that SIT is very client driven, and stays neutral when a client is exploring and discovering and coming to terms with how they want to live their life.
J – These other details, about the gay christian, for example, are issues which I would expect would be particularly difficult for some christian therapists to practice in his circle – and no discussion on this. I would think this would be essential to a truly neutral practice.
A – Yes, I would agree – I also think that is why SIT is such a progressive way to approach therapy with a client, it keeps the focus on the client and what they value and how they want to live – not the therapist.
J – I expected more from someone who claims neutrality, than only hearing one side of the therapy practice. It’s exclusive.
A – I have never heard him espouse only one side of the therapy practice to the extent it is exclusive. He is interested on what the client wants and starts from there.
J – Some interpret that exclusion as hostility, and in not wanting to go on the record to advocate for even the basic rights of those who are gay (like in housing or employment), it seems a bit…well..exclusionary.
A – Ok, but what is his obligation to share with anyone his personal beliefs? I think he and others are very capable of being very effective and competent therapists without incorporating or sharing their personal beliefs. How others interpret his choice to keep his personal beliefs personal is up to them – I see it as having no impact on his clients and/or others.
J – We may all see gluttony as a sin, people who eat too much and know they do, and some may not even want to stop…but we don’t punish them in what church they can join, we protect them when they lose jobs because of weight, and we want for those people to have absolute equal treatment in this world.
A – Jag, yes, the hypocrisy is staggering in any area of discrimmination – try to remember what people say in public and what they say and feel in private can be two completely different things. Just like in the forum for the Democratic candidates the other night with the emphasis being on gay issues – my stomach turned when I saw and heard how they answered some of the questions especially when I have actually heard them behind closed doors making fun of gays and the issues. Your example of gluttony is a very good one – I agree and also know the same things happen here, what is said to them in public is very different than what is said behind closed doors.
J – My point?
Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin (which I do not), treat it the same as all others. If you don’t…that’s, well….you decide.
A – I agree!
Timothy,
Thank you for the information.
Hi Jag,
The church just called me back and I talked with one of their pastors. He was very polite and professional. I explained the purpose of my call and then began to ask questions. He said that neither he nor anyone else on the staff, that he knew of, had or has any knowledge of the article Dr. Dobson wrote. I shared the basic content of the article and the subsequent criticisms from the two authors. I also shared the letters of commendation and Dr. Dobson’s response to the criticism. Again, he said he wasn’t aware of the article, that it never came up in any of their meetings, so he really couldn’t comment on it – made sense to me. We then began a very cordial exchange of diaglogue and he shared with me the basic philosophy of the church – that whatever God wanted to be clear is in the Bible and everything else that is not in the Bible can be agreed to be disagreed upon. He said that is where they draw the line and it works with their congregation. He said the church welcomes everyone to join them for services. He said political or social issues are always going to be contentous so they do not discuss them in a Sunday morning service. He was curious as to why I specifically called this particular church and I told him an acquaintance was concerned that there was no response from them about the article. He said there could be no response if they were unaware of it. He asked when the article was written and I told him. I thanked him for his time and told him I appreciated his kindness in talking with me and that if I was ever near his church on a Sunday I might drop by.
Let me know your thoughts, ok?
The comment above that you made in a prior post is what I was addressing – I believe it is obvious that our bodies were “designed” to accommodate sex between a male and female. That we are given a choice as to who we want to have sex with and how we want to have it is a whole different story.
There are really about three arguments here, so let me separate them and discuss accordingly:
First, if we dicuss the intent of the Designor, that debate goes nowhere. If we are talking about God, well, issues of faith aren’t particularly subject to point and counterpoint. If we are talking evolutionary design, then this argument runs into the problem that homosexuality is. It exists. Thus it is the result of evolutionary design. Again an argument that is pointless to have.
As for accomodation of opposite sex, you wished to set aside procreation for the discussion. Fair enough.
The remaining components are sexual pleasure – both physical and fantasy. And here is where your argument fails. Without being overly graphic, the male body records as pleasurable certain physical stimulae that can only be achieved through certain sexual acts between men. Why this is the case is, of course, open to debate. Yet it is indisputable that God and/or natural selection determined that pleasure is derived in this manner. That of itself could be an argument in favor of homosexual “design”.
Also (and you’ll have to forgive my ignorance of female anatomy here) it is my understanding that some women achieve orgasm easiest through sexual stimulation other than that which results in procreation. This too argues against the “obviousness” argument.
Finally, Ann, you throw choice out there. And more than once, I might add.
So let me say that yes, one chooses with WHOM one has sex. One does not choose, however, the underlying determinants as to what parameters that whom will fit into.
Again without being graphic, the male body works in such a way that not all stimulae result in an ability to perform sexually. While a great many same-sex attracted men are capable of sexual functioning – at least when young and the sex drive is highest – with a variety of people male or female, this does not mean that this remains the case through life or that sexual coupling results in satisfaction.
So while a gay man might be able to “choose” some person, he may not be able to perform. The “plumbing” arguments just aren’t convincing.
And furthermore the choice is not solely with what body to couple, but rather with what person. And that, Ann, is where you display a misunderstanding of sexuality.
Just as being assigned some body of the opposite sex would not fulfill the romantic/emotional/relational/sexual needs of a heterosexual, it would do even less so for a homosexual person. Emotional connection is a far larger part of sexuality than is what body part goes where.
Hi Jag,
I just called the church and left a message for one of the pastors to call me back and also left my email address. If I do not hear back by tomorrow, I will call again.
Boris – You might ask the folks at Exgay Watch and BoxTurtle Bulletin the same question. I am glad that the gay community of Omaha was alerted to the situation and they have responded vigorously. I am relieved that apparently Mr. Wyant is not affiliated with the Rainbow Outreach anymore.
Is kissing natural????
Warren
About the origibnal subject: this little tidbit of yours is now on every anti-gay hate site as example of the what GSA:s are about. Isn’t that what you wanted?
Are you proud?
How our bodies are designed doesn’t answer anything
Jayhuck,
The comment above that you made in a prior post is what I was addressing – I believe it is obvious that our bodies were “designed” to accommodate sex between a male and female. That we are given a choice as to who we want to have sex with and how we want to have it is a whole different story. You just brought up a lot of other things and directed your answers toward me as if I said them – I didn’t. Please try not to make so many assumptions about me -it is really ok to just address what I write.
Jayhuck – Please document the scientists think sexual orientation is set by age 5 thing. I can’t let that go. The point is that the species moves along through procreation and that is done with two genders. Sex is the means to the end so it is not far fetched to think that being attracted to the opposite sex is a given. However, I also believe that the natural law arguments are inadequate or dissolve into contradictions when you look sexual practices that heterosexuals do that are “unnatural.” It is my blog so I will be graphic. Oral sex is not natural, but a large percentage of straights do it. It probably seems natural enough to many straights so that makes it right, right? But it not natural, so that makes it wrong, right?
It is not natural to blog but here we are.
I do not think the procreation argument is a rationalization and so I am uncomfortable with your dismissal of it but I do not think it completely carries the day either.
JAG
I have no reason to correct my stance on this issue. I’m not here to make friends and i do not assume that I should pretend to be one in order to be able to comment. Nor have I any interest to keep up appearances just for the sake of pretension but I believe that the resident ex-gays are more of an experts on this issue than I am.
Ann,
“You’re kidding, right? Putting any pro-creation aside, I think it is obvious what goes where. Since we are all unique and have the privilege to have preferences, we can have sex with anyone and in anyway we want. The more creative, the better. It is a choice. Does that have anything to do with how are bodies are designed? I don’t think so. I can understand why you want to rationalize it but it just doesn’t “fly”.”
My reponse to you would be: YOU’RE kidding, right? Scientists suggest that sexuality is set by the age of 5 – You may be able to have sex with anyone you want, but I can’t. I’m not at all attracted to women. That, for me is not a choice – I don’t choose my feelings.
And your attempt to support the our-bodies-show-it-how-it-is argument doesn’t fly either – its just a way of rationalizing prejudice. I could EASILY say that mens parts fit with other men as well – and you know they do – procreation aside – don’t make me go into details here. You can’t use this argument to say that because our bodies are made a certain way, that heterosexuality is innate – none of the evidence even suggests that – homosexuality even exists among non-human animals.
There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF for a straight gene or set of genes – and no proof anywhere, outside your “common-sense” argument, that it is innate in all people.
Mary,
I agree – neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality will be found solely in a gene or set of genes – but I think the evidence shows that genetics play a part in both orientations. There is no proof for a straight gene either, and that is important to point out.
I absolutely agree that sexuality is both nature and nuture 🙂
Jayhuck,
Specifically I mean that homosexuality would be found in a “gay gene”. I don’t think it will be.
My opinion is that sexuality is both part nature and nurture. Yes, that includes heterosexuality.
We could agrue about the “evidence” and research all day long. Suffice to say, I see too many flaws to convince me, yet.
How our bodies are designed doesn’t answer anything
Jayhuck,
You’re kidding, right? Putting any pro-creation aside, I think it is obvious what goes where. Since we are all unique and have the privilege to have preferences, we can have sex with anyone and in anyway we want. The more creative, the better. It is a choice. Does that have anything to do with how are bodies are designed? I don’t think so. I can understand why you want to rationalize it but it just doesn’t “fly”.
Ann,
How our bodies are designed doesn’t answer anything – men can easily pleasure other men – so the argument can be made that men’s bodies were made for other men – the only difference is in procreation, which I’m not talking about here. Even some straight couples have the equipment for procreation but still can’t – so this our-bodies-are-designed-a-certain-way argument doesn’t really fly. I won’t derail the discussion anymore, but I wanted to answer my critics.
Eddy,
My point is that its not a matter of opinion whether it is inborn or not. The fact of the matter is that we know both genetics and environment play into your orientation, whether you are straight or gay. The only thing we don’t know is the extent to which each of these things play into the matter. I think both of these things are part of the very big picture. But I do agree with Mary in general. But there is no proof that heterosexuality or homosexuality is “inborn”
Ann…since the folks at the gaylibrary are reacting to perceived oppression, I feel your comments were actually on course. It would be the further detour into discussion of nurture vs nature that would be stretching the limits.
Eddy,
Yes, I agree – I believe I made a similar statement earlier on the thread or another one that a belief should not interfere with a right. I aplogize if I went off topic – it certainly was not my intention but I can see that I did.
Jag,
Quick question – is there anyone in particular at the church that I should talk to tomorrow? I want to take care of it before my day gets busy. Also, my posture is going to be one of asking questions to see what their answers are first and then based on that I will address those answers – please let me know if you have any other thoughts before I call them. Thank you for the response to Dr. Dobson’s reply – I have not forgotten it or the other post I told you I would answer – just still in my “thought” process 🙂
There are a gazillion issues that surround homosexuality. So when Mary makes a statement like: “I really don’t think that we have to believe that homosexuality is inborn to understand that people have a right to freedom (so long as that freedom does not intrude on the freedom of others)”, you’re supposed to catch the bigger point–that, REGARDLESS of where homosexuality comes from, homosexuals have a right to freedom. (Branching off on a sidetrip re whether its ‘nature or nurture’ is inappropriate…especially since Mary’s main point is THAT THAT DOESN”T MATTER…and she didn’t offer ANY opinion on whether it was inborn or not.)
Yours against topic derailment,
Eddy
Jayhuck,
Many personality traits and temperments are formed very early in life – what does that have to do with what we do with them? Regarding your comment about heterosexuality, I think the way our bodies are designed answers this question. How we feel is a whole different story and therein lies the issues we are talking about on this blog and elsewhere.
Mary,
I’m not sure what you mean by homosexuality being “inborn” – I think the huge body of evidence we have suggests that it is inherent, that it is formed very early in life, just like heterosexuality is. If we are to use your line of thinking, it would be easy and correct to say that heterosexuality is not INBORN in us either – any more than homosexuality is. I think that is the Blank Slate theory if I remember correctly 🙂
It doesn’t have to be that way.
Jag,
You are 100% right!
Jag,
Thanks for your note – it gave me more to think about. I just got home and will read it again tomorrow and respond then. Went to see Jersey Boys and it was wonderful!
Mary –
“I really don’t think that we have to believe that homosexuality is inborn to understand that people have a right to freedom (so long as that freedom does not intrude on the freedom of others).”
I think we completely agree here. I think the two are often confused…maybe because often (but not always) the same people who believe that homosexuality is not inborn are often those who use that same argument to deny them rights (“if it is not inborn then it is not natural” and therefore not deserving of “special rights”).
Thank you for making that distinction…it’s a good one.
Boris –
I’d ask you to reconsider your stance. For example, Ann has been taking steps to remedy misinformation that benefits you, and think about the fact that at least the people on this blog are interested in a dialog with various opinions. We can all learn from each other.
I always read your comments and understand where they are coming from. I think you represent a lot of people in the community who are used to being perceived in a certain way by the Christian community at large – and far too used to hearing some of the nonsense and hate that comes from far too many of those circles. It doesn’t have to be that way. There are a lot of gay christians, a lot of churches who wholeheartedly support you and your partner, and who work to further your rights.
The better understanding we have of each other, the more we learn, and the more we all grow. Hopefully, we all evolve together. Change doesn’t happen overnight – but it does happen through understanding. Don’t cut the process off at the knees.
Just my thoughts.
Ann –
Thank you for being so specific, I appreciated your reference. To me, I did not find him at all apologetic of his misrepresentations. How did you find it?
He seemed to further claim that some were not specific in what he distorted (when they clearly laid this out on their interviews). Overall, a letter discussing how homosexuals are “attacking” the family (“I simply disagree with their agenda, especially that which targets the institution of the family” ) and attempting to present the false dichotomy repeatedly that it is either “homosexuality” vs. the American family. It seems that all many same-sex couples wish to do, is be included into the institution of family more legally with all of the rights and responsibilities therein.
Rather than thoughtfully critique, it felt like he used it to further scare his followers into further donation, or further “evidence” of the jeopardized status of the American family.
If he is truly concerned about the disintegration of the American family, let’s have more open discussion about teenage pregnancy, divorce, joint custody for fathers, increasing maternity and paternity leave, and healthcare. I’m sure I could think of a thousand other topics to focus on that may be more relevant than two adults wanting to make a lifelong commitment to each other.
Thank you again Ann for your thoughtfulness on this subject…and I apologize for the rant.
Eddy,
Same here. My grandmother says that compromise does not mean giving up – it means both get something back. LOL – maybe someday I’ll tell you the other things she has to say!!
Mary, I agree. I don’t believe that Christian values ought to be the law of the land. LOL! If they were, we might have a new temperance era, no state lotteries or pull-tabs, no R-Rated movies, no adult movies, no dancing…no card-playing, no pool…depending which branch of protestantism was pushing their values.
People who don’t share MY values have the right to live their life according to THEIR values…to the extent that their freedom does not intrude unreasonably on mine. It’s that qualifier that gets a bit sticky. Sometimes, the two freedoms collide…and somebody needs to yield a bit. Or a compromise needs to be reached. School prayer was replaced by “A Moment of Silence”. People still had the right to pray but others maintained their right not to have to hear those prayers.
Jag,
I agree with the distribution of rights thing. You know I am for gay rights. Anyhow, I just wanted to isolate one idea – Can a person believe homosexuality is not inherent and not be anti-gay. And I think the answer is yes.
I really don’t think that we have to believe that homosexuality is inborn to understand that people have a right to freedom (so long as that freedom does not intrude on the freedom of others).
I do think people mix the two up alot.
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000702.cfm
Jag,
This is the article/response I read. If there is another one you would like me to read, please let me know.
Ann –
Which website are you referring to? He has had a number of responses it seems, and I want to reference the correct one.
Mary –
“Can a person beleive that gay sexuality is not inherent and still not be anti-gay? I think so.”
I do too. People have a right to believe what they wish.
However, I think that when you begin to talk about the distribution of rights, that everyone should be given rights in employment and housing – even if you think it is a choice.
I believe, and the research shows, that homosexuality has some inherent genetic components. Like all behavioral traits, they are likely not one gene. I am not sure how you would explain same-sex mating/pairing behavior in over 400 other animal species if there were not some genetic component. For example, the dragonfly….it’s about as “autopilot” as you get for mating behaviors…and still, we find same-sex mating/pairing behaviors in dragonflies.
When it comes to same-sex marriage, you stated that there are some gay/lesbian people you know who are against it – and you seemed surprised…but I understand that. There are some african-americans against interracial marriage also. You will always have some portions of any oppressed minority group who will align this way. It’s really no mystery.
While checking in tonight I saw a new posting from Boris. I also noticed that a comment was addressed to me–and another to Mary. Beyond that, my scrolling mouse served me well. (If he said anything I need to hear, would someone clue me in.)
Timothy, we don’t get poetry often on the site. Thanks for a timely and excellent choice.
Ann
Not befriending you is a question of self-presevation and integrity. And it’s an informed choice. And I care about your feelings about as much ex-gay industry has cared about the people they have wounded.
ALL people Dobson quoted dsaid that Dobson intentionally misquoted them and their results. Dobson said he can quote them however he wants because he knows better and that scientist have no say how their results are used or distorted.
Tells everything there is to know but then you give this man with decades long histry of gay bashing a benefit of a doubt. You bet, Ann, I have reasons not to have anything to with people like you.
Dobson is one of the most vicious anti-gay propgandists in existence. He funds Exodus international and now provided them with a lobbyist in DC whose sole goal is to advance anti-agy legistlation. He was behind the nationawide hate campaign…
Oh, yes, my decision not to have anything to do with you is an informed one.
Hi Jag,
Just want to give you a quick update – I read the Time article and watched the video. I also read the response Dr. Dobson wrote on his web site in regards to the criticism. Please let me know if you read it as well and what you think. I have not called the church in PA yet as I would like to get your thoughts about his response first.
Boris,
In deciding whom you would never befriend, perhaps you might consider the wisdom in Edwin Markham’s poem Outwitted
Eddy
I wasn’t exaggerating, I was just stating the fact. At least I am honest where I come from and what I think. It’s apity if you choose to ignore my posts because I have no intentions to befriend you but it can’t be helped.
Mary
I have done my homework and I would never befriend you based on that homework. And about what you call hatred… I don’t really care.
But back to Wynt…
Boris,
Sure you want to say the things you said to me about friendship? It is ok and you certainly have the right to be selective about who you associate with – just want to make sure you understand the impact your words and assumptions have on another person. If you feel you could never consider being friends with me based on verifiable knowledgeable of me, then I accept that. If you feel you could never consider friendship with me because you are choosing to believe the worst about me without any knowledge to back it up, then I will understand and accept that too. Just wanted to make sure you were cognizent of what you were saying and not allowing your emotions to talk for you in such a negative way if you didn’t want them to.
Boris,
Oh really? How do you know that I would not approve of you, your partner, your life?? I might disapprove of your color scheme, your choice in clothes etc… But how do you know??
Truth is – you don’t because you have not done your homework and read the past posts on this blog nor have you asked any of us directly. You like many others – have jumped to conclusions.
But it would be difficult for me to approve of such hatred.
Boris,
You said: “I will not befriend anyone and if possible have nothing to do with anyone who doesn’t approve and respect me and my partner.” If that’s true–and your statements re: Warren, myself, Ann and Mary are as you stated, then I don’t understand why you’re blogging here. Seems you’re exaggerating and getting blustery again.
I hope you don’t mind but since you’ve already got me in a neatly labeled and packaged box, I see no point in reading or responding to anything else you might choose to say here.
Ann –
You asked ” is there something offensive or wrong with Dr. Throckmorton’s views, if that is how he portrays himself, as you have stated above?”
Maybe this helps to clarify…
“not hostile, but not affirming” to me, means at best “tolerant.” I don’t know about you, but being “tolerated,” is not pleasant..and I wonder if it should be acceptable – especially if you claim neutrality. It doesn’t feel neutral to me. Does it to you?
As a woman, I don’t want to be “tolerated,” if I were black, I would not want to be “tolerated” – it doesn’t feel neutral, it feels at the very least like one should stay in a hole somewhere. It is a far different feeling being tolerated than being truly welcomed, accepted or …what I would ideally hope for…just seen as the same as anyone else – with true neutrality. I just don’t see that.
You also stated “Few people have extended themselves or made themselves available the way he has – to all of us.”
Not so. He seems not “available” to the gay christian. I would say, this is the group that seems terribly ignored – both as a therapist and a christian advocate of neutrality, as he claims SIT is.
I have yet to hear how the Christian Therapist who practices SIT is supposed to help their gay client who is struggling with their identity in a hostile society live in congruence with “their” religious beliefs – coping with a church community that often rejects them, “coming out,” and having a family.
These are the concerns that I have. That SI Therapy seems to speak often about those who wish to align to their beliefs when those beliefs involve change or alignment to his notions or interpretations of christianity…but what of the client who adheres to a reconciling methodist faith, who is gay and a christian and struggles with issues around this?
It seems to protect the practice of some reparative-like therapies, without getting into any details about the other spectrum (of assisting them in acceptance of their gay identity) in what is supposed to be a “neutral” practice. .
These other details, about the gay christian, for example, are issues which I would expect would be particularly difficult for some christian therapists to practice in his circle – and no discussion on this. I would think this would be essential to a truly neutral practice.
I expected more from someone who claims neutrality, than only hearing one side of the therapy practice. It’s exclusive.
Some interpret that exclusion as hostility, and in not wanting to go on the record to advocate for even the basic rights of those who are gay (like in housing or employment), it seems a bit…well..exclusionary.
We may all see gluttony as a sin, people who eat too much and know they do, and some may not even want to stop…but we don’t punish them in what church they can join, we protect them when they lose jobs because of weight, and we want for those people to have absolute equal treatment in this world.
My point?
Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin (which I do not), treat it the same as all others. If you don’t…that’s, well….you decide.
I don’t see the gay/lesbian person being treated like someone who is gluttonous (intentionally sinful), let alone, just another human being.
My post that got deleted was about Focus on the Family and its politics in thread that discussed Focus on the Family and its politicies. Apparently some facts count as “attitude”.
Personallöy I will not befriend anyone and if possible have nothing to do with anyone who doesn’t approve and respect me and my partner. My family has bnever cpice opposition but if they had the choice would have been easy.
So mary, Eddy and Ann, I would never befriend you under any circumstances. Warren’s history makes him an enemy in my eyes and I see this issue with Wynt as part of his decade long crusade against GSA:s and every attempt to actually protect ay teens in schools.
“Warren and others in so called ex-gay/masking straight know what it is all about: to use the few people who calim to be “cured” as reasoning to attack equal gay rights.
Mike,
I don’t have problems with your comparing Wyant to religious rightists…although I do feel that, for the most part, the religious rightists always seem to want to get THE LAW to support and enforce their extremist views…so I feel it’s more talk than action. Wyant concerns me most because it’s a type of vigilante violence he’s advocating.
What bothered me about your comments was the inference that Warren was favoring one view over the other. I’ve been ‘hanging out here’ for some time and I’ve seen him address ‘dirty laundry’ from all sides of this issue…and I remember vividly the portrayal of slavery in his video. To date, I can’t remember a more compelling argument AGAINST Schoenewolf’s rantings.
It seems we have a recurring problem here. Bloggers continually judge Warren, Mary, Ann and myself (a few others) not by what WE are saying and doing but by what the conservatives, Focus on the Family or Exodus are saying and doing. There are times–and issues–where we do agree with them but, more often than not, I believe our sympathies tend to lie with ‘the other side’. When I posted my rebuttal to your statement, it was simply to demonstrate that Warren has consistently (sometimes to my dismay) brought thought-provoking issues to the table that favor neither ‘side’.
(And, LOL, once he presents a topic, it’s anyone’s guess what tone or direction the comments might take. Warren, for the most part, stays out of the discussions that follow. He does maintain the right to screen comments…Boris seems pretty upset that one of his wasn’t published. But, there have been a few of mine that he hasn’t published either. I’ve seen him screen ATTITUDE not OPINION.)
The title of Dr. Pruett’s book is “Fatherneed: Why Fathercare is as Essential as Mothercare for your Child”. I’m not really sure there’s much more I can say.
thanks Jag – I will look at this as well.
Ann and Eddy,
I don’t recall Dr. T promoting Exodus or Cameron in recent times, however, neither have Ex-Gay Watch or other groups promoted Brian Wyant, Michael Swift or other fringe lunatics.
I think there’s ample opportunity for observers to be critical of proponents of violence, regardless of which side they’re on. Do you disagree with my comparison of Wyant to some religious rightists?
Ann –
Another author who states his work was distorted by Dobson on that same piece, the son of a baptist minister and an MD out of Yale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPuTQAoO7qo&NR=1
best of luck.
Jag,
I’m breaking my own rule and writing again when I should be working 🙂 One more quick question – does one have to be gay-affirming (I know it has various meanings) to confirm a friendship, have an open dialogue, work together, go to church or temple together, give and receive the love of a family or be against any kind of verbal or physical violence targeted at a gay individual? Ok, now I am back to work.
he has clearly portrayed himself as someone – not hostile – but not affirming – of the gay/lesbian community.
Jag,
I want to read your post again before responding – right now I am buried in work so I will have to do it a little later. Just a quick question for now – is there something offensive or wrong with Dr. Throckmorton’s views, if that is how he portrays himself, as you have stated above? I am asking out of genuine curiosity as I find his writings and comments extremely fair and welcoming of all rational dialogue. Few people have extended themselves or made themselves available the way he has – to all of us.
Can a person beleive that gay sexuality is not inherent and still not be anti-gay? I think so. Too many times we see the mentality that if your not for everything I stand for then you must be anti-me and that is fallacious logic. People hold a variety of opinions for different reasons – in fact I know some gay people who DO NOT want gay marriages passed. (go figure??) But anyhow, this idea that if someone is not out doing what you prescribe for them to do on your behalf then they are against you?? Sounds like a partner in a relaitonship who throws out ultimatums -…”If you really loved me you would act/do /say/ buy/ etc… this thing for me…” Not true – and I think many of us would agree to that.
Ann
I have a feeling that what I think to be demeaning is very different than yours. “I do exist” for one that distorted (or actually omitted central facts of Spitzers discredited “study”) and several of his colums and writings throughout his career. But I seriously dounbt that you find the manner he has used “ex-gay fraud” as reasoning to ban legal proetctions from gay couples and families “demeaning”.
“Oaction” was a typo but they you knew that. How funny.
Ann –
I’m sure your own judgment is just fine. Thank you again for taking the time.
I do have to say that regarding Boris’ statements, although I tend to disagree with the more inflammatory nature and tone of some, I do understand his perspective when he states:
“I referred to Throckmorton’s whole career as anti-gay spokesperson and his numerous articles that have demeaned my existence as a gay man.”
Although Warren seems to be, like most Christian groups and organizations, coming around a bit with current research – he has clearly portrayed himself as someone – not hostile – but not affirming – of the gay/lesbian community.
The “I do exist” video series, for example, was a part of a larger movement of people that were using “change” as a way of stating that those who did not, were just choosing not to – and therefore, in the eyes of many christians, living separated from God’s will.
I’m not saying that people cannot change, let me be clear, I’m sure that some may. I’m just saying that now we know that making blanket statements that “everyone” can change (or giving that impression) is detrimental to many. Some with same-sex attractions may struggle and never feel that they can depart from their desires, despite their wishes. Others, who may believe that they can be Christian AND gay, might also take offense to this, in that it gives the conservative community a reason for exclusion.
Either way, I think Boris is not alone in the outside world of perceiving Warren and others who do similar work, as anti-gay. He has spent much of his career not only talking about his perceived origins, but how to “not” be something many believe is inherent in who they are.
Even though it may not be his intention, the message does come across anti-gay…I’ve never heard him promote or speak of the benefits of same-sex couples living openly, or advocating for their basic civil rights (like that of housing or employment).
Just a thought.
Boris,
Just so you know – that one church that would not do a funeral for a gay man IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE of all christians or christian churchs.
Just as gays do not want to be lumped in with one individual who is violent – not all christians are lumped into the same category either. Whoever you are Boris you are making the same errors in judgment as those christians you judge.
Jag,
No apology needed – I know your intentions were good 🙂
Jag,
Thanks for the information and the specific data – I will look at it later today after work and take care of it tomorrow, ok? Is there anything in particular that you would like me to pay attention to or say when I make the call or just use my good common sense?
And Ann: I referred to Throckmorton’s whole career as anti-gay spokesperson and his nmnumerous articles that have demeaned my existence as a gay man. You may disagree with wayne’s style but you can’t deby his facts.
But the damege is already done and once again oaction of one man will be elevated to represent the whole community.
Boris,
I have followed Dr. Throckmorton for many years now and cannot agree with you about your perception of him and his work. I do not remember Dr. Throckmorton ever demeaning you or your existence. As I have asked before, please refer me to that data instead of just nebulous information from your particular perception. I also do not recall telling you that I do not agree with Wayne’s style, did I? Is that an assumption on your part? I’m not sure what the word “oaction” means – can you define it for me please?
Oh, please, that article is so tame. The argument is that the *ideal* is a father and mother. He leaves untouched reasearch that has far less sympathetic conclusions.
The article in question was a letter from pastor Rev. Canon Andrew White — vicar of the 1,300-member St. George’s Anglican Church in Baghdad.
White spoke about Western culture and values and their detrimental effects on Iraqi Christians. He specifically mentioned how accepting gays in USA causes Iraqi Christians to suffer and that the previous day he had received an email from some of the Christians in Baghdad asking him if it was true that the Church in America supported homosexuality.
…”These positions often held by Western Christians are not held by Iraqi Christians,” emphasized White. “They are very, very different. My people say the Creed and they believe it. My people live a very upright, courageous and respectful life,” said the pastor who had 36 of his congregants kidnapped with only one returned in the past month.” Treating gays with equal hatred as in Iraq (random executions by US funcded security forces) would obviously save the Christians from being persecuted and evengelism easier.
Today Post spins this story ourt of proprtion (which was Warren’s goal to begin with), not to talk about the Texas church refusing a memorial reception from a gay man because they do not want to “glorify homosexual” i.e. respect him even after he’s dead.
And Ann: I referred to Throckmorton’s whole career as anti-gay spokesperson and his nmnumerous articles that have demeaned my existence as a gay man. You may disagree with wayne’s style but you can’t deby his facts.
But the damege is already done and once again oaction of one man will be elevated to represent the whole community.
Ann –
I apologize for any assumptions made about your gender or person. That was not my intention. I was going by other things you’ve mentioned, and perhaps incorrectly inferred.
As for this:
“Please let me know the church (name and location)you are referring to that did not respond (no outcry) and the specifics of Dr. Dobson, and I will take the necessary steps to correct it.”
Here is one of the works of Dobson that he wrote in an article for Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568485,00.html
Here is a link to one noted scholar’s youtube post, describing Dobson’s distortion of her work as quoted in that article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NHdSVknB5Q
The churches who have not responded are too numerous to name. I can certainly give you one…Community Alliance Church of Butler, PA. Of course, this church also believes homosexuality can be cured like any other “addiction.”
Even Christian schools have not responded. For example (and I’d love to be corrected here), I do not believe that Grove City College responded to the distortion of research by Dobson.
Some examples, Ann….Thank you for taking an interest in keeping people focused on the research, and truth.
You have my best regards.
GGFORCE – The very significant different between the two instances is that the Swift piece was meant as a satire, a spoof.
Mr. Wyant apparently does not mean this as a spoof. I entertained the idea during this that Mr. Wyant had a streak of Donnie Davies in him. The reports I am getting out of Omaha are not consistent with that idea.
Jayhuck, most in the scientific community are out to promote a liberal agenda, or if not to at least be politically correct. I wouldn’t be surprised if the authors happen to not like someone connecting dots in their data which they themselves did not connect. I’ve seen it before.
This is one manouvre in a long seies of anti-gay propaganda you’ve helped to create
Boris,
Can you please cite the propaganda you are accusing Dr. Throckmorton of helping to create? Not sure what you mean by “maneuver” either – can you go into a little more detail? I would appreciate it – thanks!
Boris,
I would like to think your concern is genuine as well but your words that are filled with hate and anger do not lend themselves to any kind of credibility for concern to those children. Also, you mentioned Wayne Besen – do you respect him and the way he represents the gay community?
Anyone experiencing Deja Vu? This has all played out before. Remember Michael Swift and his 1987 Homosexual Manifesto? Here we go again.
http://www.rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayAgendaSwiftText.html
The christian post gave a far more balanced perspective on this quoting both Warren and David Roberts. Boris – are you for real or a straw instigator??
A lunatic in Iraq is not here. Nuf said on that type of christianity.
Wayne Besen has spun the story so out of whack I can barely recognized it.
And christian post?? Can you provide a link?
Christian Post is covering this? Mission accomplished, one fringe lunatic is now representing all gays…
Christian Post published a few weeks ago a story where Christian pastor in Iraq wailed how not stoning gays to death in USA was cramping his evangelism style in Iraq. Instead of telling people thet how free society works he sent a letter whining about how failing to deal with gays with physical violnce makes him and Jesus look bad.
My concern is with those children in Omaha and elsewhere whose despair in the hands on religious bigots remains unheard.
I would like to believe that your concern is genuine, Warren but I can not. This is one manouvre in a long seies of anti-gay propaganda you’ve helped to create.
Boris
BTW. Wayne Besen has commented this too…
Mike Airhart,
Is Exodus being promoted on this blog?? I for one do not support their activities and policies. Nor do I support the extermination for homosexuals, nor the death penalty, nor quarantine camps, nor anything of the kind. Macarvage is a maniac and I will continue to say that to any Christian, christian editor, christian writer etc… who promotes him as guy who “was just preaching the good news to gays” in any way. He is an instigator of anger and hatred towards gays – and if towards gays then you also know towards others he does not like. That is not a model of the “good news.”
So while you talk of the double standard – is that directed at the christian community at large or a specific people writing in this blog??
I hope that you take steps to end the bigotry, false statements and twisting of data that so eminates from those
Jag,
I take these steps every time I see bigotry, false statements and twisting of data from either side of this subject or anything else.
Also, please do not make any assumptions about me as to my gender, religious beliefs, or relationship preferences – I have never shared them on this blog.
Please let me know the church (name and location)you are referring to that did not respond (no outcry) and the specifics of Dr. Dobson, and I will take the necessary steps to correct it.
In my view, Marcavage’s group is fringe and I am saddened when they use the tactics they do. Mike, could you provide a reference for his advocacy of the death penalty for gays? I will make sure it gets a post and of course denounce that. In fact, any groups that advocate violence and death to opponents should be exposed.
I continue to ask on this thread – and I think perhaps only Mary has responded (forgive me if I have overlooked anyone), what, if anything, should the good folks of Omaha do to see that kids are not exposed to the influence of someone who encourages retribution? There may be very little that can be done beyond awareness but I think it might be worth some discussion. This is of course does get into larger issues. We have violent video game makers who promote violence in a sense on a wide scale basis to youth and get paid for it. Mr. Wyant appears to be doing it for free to a much smaller audience. Also, this is of course not confined to sexual orientation distinctions. Racism, religious hatred, etc. is ugly and pervasive.
I don’t have many answers at 5:57am pst but I would like to light some candles.
Even a quick search of the archives here will lead readers to Dr. Throckmorton’s numerous discussions of Paul Cameron, Schoenewolf and their objectionable rhetoric. I seem to recall that one of them even prompted Dr. Throckmorton to create his first online video re: slavery. In my recollection of reading the comments in those blogs, I don’t recall much, if anything, in defense of their statements. My question is: where is this double standard that Mike Airhart alludes to? Seems like a case of either short-term or selective memory on Mike’s part.
Brian Wyant’s quack “rainbow” center in Omaha is far from alone in its indecent activities.
Ex-Gay Watch has pointed out occasions in the past, in which the PFOX webmaster (using the pseudonym Burning Black Triangle) advocated death to homosexuals. Box Turtle Bulletin and XGW have also noted when a key pundit for NARTH unapologetically justified slavery, and when phony researcher Paul Cameron — and, by extension, those who use his propaganda: the Traditional Values Coalition, Exodus former executive director Alan Medinger, and JONAH — have used neo-Nazi rhetoric and wallowed in Holocaust revisionism.
While some of these organizations silently removed the offending content from their web sites after BTB or XGW complained, none (to my recollection) has openly apologized for and repudiated their involvement in racism, neo-Nazism, and the whitewashing of genocide.
From what I’m hearing elsewhere, it appears to me that Wyant and his so-called GLBT center are a megalomaniac and his few pals, who draw attention to themselves by buying up hundreds of domains in order to divert web users from legitimate and level-headed Omaha pro-equality organizations. I’m hearing indications that a response from those legitimate groups is in progress, but I agree that such situations ideally should not be allowed to develop in the first place.
Similarly, ex-gay activists and their political-religious-right allies should never have permitted Repent America’s founder Michael Marcavage to advocate a federal death penalty for homosexuals; they should never have promoted that group afterwards; and they should not be continuing to harbor and parrot pro-slavery and neo-Nazi pundits now. Furthermore, Exodus executive director Alan Chambers and E.V.P. Randy Thomas should not be trivializing and making light comedy out of violent antigay hate crimes. But they do.
I’m glad that XGW and Prof. Throckmorton agree that Wyant should be publicly repudiated and silenced. But I remain disappointed by an apparent double standard in the discussion on this page.
Here’s another point of context to think about. Here are two quotes:
The first quote is by Brian Wyant from above. The second is from Paul Cameron. What is the difference?
I have a few observations, if I might.
I think the web site in question is vile. I also believe that it represents the views of someone who MAY pose a threat of some sort. We’ve seen surprised at school shootings and other acts of violence only to discover later that the shooter left clues. VT comes to mind. Columbine as well. There are many more examples.
I think alarm is warrented. It doesn’t mean the author will actually do anything. It doesn’t even mean he’s actually dangerous ore personally violent. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what his intellectual or emotional makeup beyond what I read on his web sites.
But it’s the explicit call to violence that disturbs me. Not the fact that a supposedly pro-gay site was discovered by anti-gay advocates. Nor that Warren and Ex-Gay Watch has continued to post about it. The problem is the direct calls to violence. And in this case, I don’t really care where it comes from — pro-gay, anti-gay, whatever.
As far as I’m concerned, this guy may as well be violently anti-gay for all the “good” he’s doing. This isn’t a time to be embarrassed because he claims to be one of us. Because I gotta tell you, he’s not one with me and I have no problem at all saying it.
Ann –
We agree that the violence and advocacy of violence needs to end on all sides. I hope that you take steps to end the bigotry, false statements and twisting of data that so eminates from those – like focus on the family. James Dobson was really nailed for twisting the data from studies (by the authors of those studies themselves), and yet, no outcry from the church that I saw.
That you see Throckmorton as displaying some form of independence is to be expected…especially if you state that you once were gay. He’s quite an advocate of individuals who live consistently with their beliefs if they entail change (like yourself), but when living consistently with your faith involves marrying the woman you love, having children with her, etc…I haven’t seen him advocating for that group yet.
maybe you wouldn’t see him as quite so independent, from another perspective.
Why?
I have tried contacting several credibly gay groups so see if anyone knows what is going on with these sites and the call to violence on them – I still haven’t heard anything but will share it if I do!!!!
Nemario,
The AUTHORS, the creators, of several studies were the ones who wrote letters and spoke out against Focus on the Family saying that that organization was twisting the results of their study and misinterpreting the results – it wasn’t just some random Schmo doing this – it was the people and groups who DID the study. That, to me, says a great deal about the agenda of FotF – that they care more about their agenda than Truth.
Boris,
You’re not going to see a change in anything until gays have the same rights as everyone else – so you need to ask yourself what is going to make a lasting change – telling the FBI – probably not. Giving gay people equal rights and respect – Probably!
Mary,
For goodness sake – NO ONE is suggesting that this person or persons shouldn’t be ultimately reponsible for their words – what I’m trying to do is to get at why people would act like this – and its not simply due to a lack of compassion. Its due to the fact that gay people do not have a level playing field – they are constantly attacked, ridiculed and even killed for who they are – they are prevented from marrying the person they love and almost always treated like second class citizens – how many times do we have ot say this –
This IS NOT IN ANY WAY saying that what they are doing is right, or that they shouldn’t be punished and held accountable – sigh – how many times do we have to go through this – I would never suggest such a thing – but look at the African American community and the Black Panthers – when you have a minority as down-trodden as gay people often are, you are going to have individuals resorting to violence – and until that discrepancy is taken care of in society, you aren’t going to see and end to it!
Whew
Boris,
I am certain that you do not read EVERYTHING I write, nor everything I read and am aware of. That being said, my comments were about the topic. Now, I also think the FBI, ATF etc… is called in on other such groups that advocate violence agtainst others in such a blatant way. That you do not see those comments does not mean they do not exist. Letter writing, neighborhood participation, Human Resource advocacy and such are not on this blog nor public. So please save your anger for someone else. I am not your target. Christians are not your target. People who advocate anger and hate are your target. That inculdes Wyant. I don’t buy for a minute that his ONLY option is to advocate violence and death to the bloodlines of those.
Sorry but the crying of outraged gays does not make me change my mind about anyone who advocates violence. In this culture, in this society – violence needs to be diminshed from all sides. Remember, I was gay and I KNOW the violence against gays. I also know that I WILL NOT PARTAKE of any indulgence by anyone when it comes to this. Not even from a gay man.
I cannot agree or attest that Dr. Throckmorton has not demonstrated independence on this thread and/or the other ones. I think he has.
Jag,
Not wanting to but feeling compelled to take up this argument that some Christians are upset by hucksterism. I am one of those. The majority of the chrisitians that you see in the media are not the people I know. I admit – I am mad at the christians that make outrageous statements against gays and others. I do not support the hate filled hearts of so called people. But by focusing on those whom you & I detest, does not get us any closer to the problem with Wyant’s personal expression either. Neither of them (hate filled groups) are good.
“Focus on the Family, for example, has been misinterpreting studies for years”
It’s interesting that whenever something is “misrepresented” it happens to disagree with your agenda. Science is open to interpretation. There should be no place for censorship in science.
Someone said there are Christian websites and policies that advocate violence, even endorsements for executions abroad (as far as I know that’s Islam, not Christianity). Can they show links? I doubt there’s a single organization that does.
wow – these kind of remarks are exactly the reason that meaningful dialogue is stifled. Spinning of words and subjects only bring temporary relief and incite more frustration. Laws are laws and must be adhered to but no one can actually change how someone else feels. The only way to do that is to understand the concerns of others and reason things out through rational dialogue and reasonable compromise. While some of the above comments alleviate long held feelings, they do not advance recognition in a respectful way. Is everyone on this board Christian? It seems as though that is referenced many times and in many ways – mostly critical. Can’t others speak out against unfairness if they are not Christian or hold any religious affiliation?
The symptom is a culture that lacks compassion. That is well known by many groups who have been mistreated. It is not just gays. That this individual has taken the action he has taken is obvious that he in particular needs some coaching or counseling. I am outraged that anyone would suggest that this man’s actions are the fault of someone else. Where is the personal responsibility that comes with freedom??
You are pathetic Throckmorton for even talking about this.
Warren –
“How do you know that some Christians are not upset by hucksterism?”
Quite simple. Because the majority do not demand that they change it. Focus on the Family, for example, has been misinterpreting studies for years (recently, James Dobson was finally called out on it by the author’s themselves), and I don’t hear the mainstream churches denouncing him and his misuse of literature. That’s just one example of many.
“I don’t take on everything out there but if I have not demonstrated independence, then nothing I do will.”
Well, as I think many would attest, you haven’t demonstrated independence…so…the logic that follows is…?
Here I was thinking people can change.
I just checked the gaylibrary.com and gaystraightalliance.org websites and the wordings appear to be gone – I still can’t find anything out about what happened though
THAT, to me, seems to be the loving Christian thing to do.
Has anyone heard anything from a credible gay organization speaking about this issue? I’ll try and Google it and see if I can find anything
Warren,
Its because, what is going on in Omaha is only a symptom of a much larger problem. I’m not sure you understand this. Its hard for me to take what is going on in Omaha all that seriously because the person doesn’t seem to represent any credible gay group I know of and just seems to be speaking out of his…..! Maybe I’m wrong and this is bigger and more serious than I realize, but it is still just symptom of the fact that gay people are so persecuted and discriminated against – that of course doesn’t in any way justify a call to arms, but why don’t we have people on here talking about how we can create an equal playing field for gay people instead of picking out a few individuals to talk about who are obviously crazy????
It seems to me that Wyant has recieved the attention that he wants and now his viewership is up. I guess he is going to sell advertising space next. Let’s watch the progress. Very interesting marketing approach.
https://tips.fbi.gov/
Niether is this a gay issue and is instead a vigilante who has become angry at whole groups of people.
Mary
Oh, really? There are hundreds, probably thousands of websites out there that poreach hatred and encouarge if not direct violence, at least preparing for one out there. I find it rather curious that people like Warren and you find this one person so important? FBI investigation? Oh, sure.
Warren deletred my post about how many highly esteemed Christian and evnaglical sites openly endorse “biblical” violnce against gays, but this is now third post about one man.
And he’ll remove this post too, but I’m past caring. What interests me that in the whole world of issues THIS is the one that causes “concern”? Inciting paranoia is not concern.
My question got deleted: is it totally psychologically incomprehensible that a person who feels oppressed sees no other option than fantasixing about violence? Because that’s what this is: fantasies. Unlike Christian politics that already endorse anti-gay violence, even executions of gays abroad.
Warren wants us to stay in “tiopic” which obviously means bloating the rants of a one one out of proportion? Nothing new, Warren.
Someone should inform the FBI or the ATF of his comments for investigation because this is not just a free speech issue and is becoming a “call to arms” issue.
jag – you have erected a really nice straw man here and then smashed it. How do you know that some Christians are not upset by hucksterism? We weren’t discussing Robert Grant were we?
I have no idea what Robert Grant has to do with Brian Wyant. Why is it that commenters are having such a hard time staying on topic? What is going on in Omaha that allows a person promoting death and destruction to be in charge of a gay youth group? Can we get a little focus here?
I don’t take on everything out there but if I have not demonstrated independence, then nothing I do will. If I get wind of a right wing activist advocating mass anarchy and/or death to gays, I will denounce that as well.
In the past some have raised the example of Gary DeMars saying on a radio show that gay men caught in sex could be killed in a theocracy. If he indeed said that, I think that is deplorable and would not knowingly support him and call on Christendom to censor views like that.
So no more saying that focusing on this incident somehow means that I would not be outraged if the shoe would be on the other ideological foot.
I think it would be important to also post about sites which advocate violence toward homosexuals…if you want to be equal about it. There are plenty to choose from…
maybe that’s why when a gay group seems to do it, it gets so much attention.
Let’s see…in our own country there’s:
– the remarks of Jimmy Swaggart “”I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry.” (shouts, applause) “And I’m gonna be blunt and plain, if one ever looks at me like that I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.” (laughter, applause) ”
– Rev Phil Arms – proposal for a quarantine of gays and AIDS sufferers
– or my favorite, the propaganda letters from the “christian voice” – here’s a copy:
Christian[sic] Voice
“Dr.” Robert Grant, Chairman
P.O. Box 97058
Washington, DC 20090
(703) 548-1421
Dear_________,
I’ve sent you this Postage Paid Priority Envelope because I need your help. Please, my friend, before you do anything else, rush your American Morality Petition back to me in this Priority Envelope.
You and I don’t have even a moment to spare.
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and their militant Homosexual colleagues are joining together in one of the most evil and vile movements I’ve ever seen in Washington.
And, my friend, if you and I don’t fight back, they will win.
That’s why I’ve sent you this Postage Paid Priority Envelope. And that’s why I need your American Morality Petition right away.
As I write to you, Capitol Hill is bracing for a huge battle. NAMBLA and the Militant Homosexual Lobby vs. You and Me and Christians all across America. And, my friend, our children are at risk.
Please, before you do anything else, sign your American Morality Petition and rush it back to me. I’ve enclosed a Postage Paid Priority Envelope for your convenience.
I absolutely need your American Morality Petition back right away.
My friend, the NAMBLA and the other organizations in the Radical Homosexual Lobby are ready to move. They’ve come up with a new way to force their demented agenda into United States Law.
I’ve always been wary of the Homosexual Agenda. I’ve always known they were dangerous. For the first time, I’m afraid. And you should be afraid, too. Because the Homosexuals have figured out a way to get “special rights” without passing special legislation.
Their plan?
It’s ingenious, my friend. It’s a plan that has me terrified.
Confessed Homosexual Congressman Barney Frank has joined together with over 100 other Congressman to introduce H.R. 1858. And, I must tell you that HR 1858 is the most dangerous piece of legislation to ever come out of Washington. Simply put, HR 1858 will amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to give special rights to Homosexuals.
You read that right…
If HR 1858 passes, Churches, daycare centers, nursing homes, schools… every organization in America (including Christian Voice) will be forced to hire Radical Homosexuals.
And that’s not the worst of it, my friend.
Because HR 1858 will allow homosexual child molesters to get jobs as teachers, coaches, and doctors… Making our children constant prey for NAMBLA and their followers.
My friend, Barney Frank will tell you that HR 1858 is just a “Civil Rights bill.” Don’t believe him for one minute. If HR 1858 passes, our children will never again be safe to play outside.
If HR 1858 passes, Homosexuals will have special rights that no American has. I am so worried about HR 1858 that I included a Postage Paid Priority Envelope so you can rush your American Morality Petition right back to me.
The postage for this Priority Envelope was expensive. And it was a great risk to send it to you. It was a necessary risk. Because I absolute need your American Morality Petition right away.
My friend, please, don’t wait until tomorrow or the next day…
Sign your American Morality Petition and rush it back to me by Priority Envelope.
And I need another crucial favor.
Would you please send Christian Voice a one-time contribution of $500 or $1,000?
Please rush your urgent contribution back with your American Morality Petition.
I need your gift to contact Christian Voters all across America. Together we can stop HR 1858.
So will you please rush your American Morality Petition right back to me with your urgent contribution of $500 or $1,000.
My friend, if that’s too much money, I still count on you. And I ask you, if $500 or $1,000 is just too great a sacrifice right now, please send $100 or $250. As I enlist thousands of Christians in this battle to stop HR 1858, I need your help.
I just can’t do it without you. So, please, dig deep and send an urgent contribution of $100 or $250.
Now, I know that for many decent, generous people, even $100 is too great a sacrifice right now.
If you can’t send $100, please send $15, $25, $50, or whatever you can afford.
By coming together all across America, we can stop HR 1858 once and for all. And I absolutely need your help.
This fight is for more than just you and me. It is a fight for our children and our grandchildren. A fight for our very Nation under God. And this letter is a call to arms. I will not meet my Maker and say I stood by and did nothing.
Please, join me.
Sincerely,
“Dr.” Robert G. Grant
P.S. I’ve rushed you this Postage Paid Priority Envelope because I need your help. If HR 1858 passes, our children will never again be safe. If HR 1858 passes, your doctor, your Church, your children’s school will be forced to hire practicing Homosexuals – including the sick followers of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). My friend, please use this Postage Paid Priority Envelope to rush your American Morality Petition right back to me. And, please, enclose your most generous contribution. It’s our kids we’re fighting for
Let’s take these people to task also. No one should be the victims of misrepresenation and remember…
“Because HR 1858 will allow homosexual child molesters to get jobs as teachers, coaches, and doctors….”
That’s the kind of crap I’m talking about Eddy in respect to discrimination in the workplace…not all gays are child molesters (just as not all straight men are)…
Why are christians not outraged about things like this? I am.
Ann,
I don’t know – I hope so – I’m not even sure if the HRC is aware of this – although I’d hope they would be. I wonder if someone has tried contacting them?
Jayhuck,
Is there some way that a statement can go out from the HRC or another credible organization to clear this all up?
I just noticed the Uber-Conservative blog Free Republic has picked up on this site and is using it, as it always does, to belittle and devalue the gay community – its sad. I foresee many more conservative groups latching onto these sites, probably run by a tiny group of people, and using them to paint gay people as they would like to see them, and as a rationale for perpetuating prejudice – sigh
Yeah – I have no idea what this is all about. I’m glad I came to this site or I would never have even heard about this Omaha page or the gaylibrary.com site.
There are hints of violence all over these gaylibrary.com pages. I just surfed over to the Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp) to see if they had some information on this group (if it is a group at all). I couldn’t find anything. This site is disturbing.
Phred Phelps would be proud.
PS: Omaha? Please explain the reference…