Monday, April 30, 2012

Part 3: The HOMOPHOBE strikes back . . . rather badly

Graphic created by Mark from

As some of you know, yesterday, I published two posts from a Truth4Time member -LTP - who was offended by my story regarding the secret group.

The first post was him spouting all sorts of rambling nonsense about "evil homosexuals." Short of refusing to allow him to place the link to his dumb page, I published his words as is to demonstrate just off the rail some of these people are.

He didn't appreciate it because he sent me a second post in which he detailed supposed truthful information as to why homosexuality is supposedly a dangerous lifestyle.  The information he sent contained straw man arguments about the supposed "gay gene" and citations from discredited organizations as to how homosexuality can be changed. He dared me to post it as is.

I took his words as a challenge to not only post the information but to also refute it, which I did, specifically AND implicitly.

To put it nicely, I mopped up the floor with the child. It was a slaughter, a massacre, a tidal wave of truth which totally dismantled his nonsense and left him figuratively naked.

So what does he email me as a response or refutation? The follow two emails:

Email 1: Wikipedia is not a source kids, as for expelling mistakes keltic, cuantas lenguaguas habla usted fluentemente? un, deux, trios ...yep, it figures, nice try!

It is what it is, and I am not surprised for the responses of the all of you... as expected!

One of the most difficult things is for anyone to be truly honest with themselves, to then admit wrong doing, or that their lives may be not quite correct, or a sad passage in their lives, etc, and then have the courage and strength to make a course correction. I don't expect any of you to do that, since your psychological response was to latch out at the messenger of the truth, me.

As for all the other information and science pointing out the detrimental outcome of the homosexual behavior, well kids I have given you links, specially the links of my book, where in one of the chapters there is page after page of documented and corroborated examples of the detriments of homosexuality... but I do not expect any of you to admit when you are wrong...that requires and education higher than the one demonstrated by your responses, and by your responses you all seem very emotional and not very logical, so sorry.

And Alvin I give you at least credit for having the courage to at least post my side of the story, more than I can say for the responses by the other posters here. .. facts are facts people, there is no gay gene, multiple studies now prove that to be the case, therefore all that is left according to logic is that it a condition generated after birth... I know, it is not something easy to confront, and for many of you perhaps for the first time, a person that is not an echo like in the homosexual/progressive circles you are clearly navigate in.. but it is what it is. No emotional repose, no politics, just pure logic and analysis of the evidence, and then the results... so sorry. It is what it is...!

Now you can all go back and insult it doesn't hurt me a bit. Good night, Buenas noches.

Talk about tone deaf. He didn't even address the points I made in regards to his citation of a discredited organization (NARTH) or the legitimate organizations who have spoken against "ex-gay" therapy, or even the simple fact that the concept of the alleged "gay gene" is merely a religious right talking point. But you will love email number two.

'Dan Savage calls out religious hypocrisy in controversial speech' and other Monday midday news briefs

There is so much drama in regards to Dan Savage's recent speech in Seattle. And naturally, I got a couple of things to say. But first:

Check out this powerful detailing why Amendment One (that awful anti-family amendment in North Carolina) could harm domestic violence victims:

Join me (or, rather, follow me) for a one-day Twitter fundraiser to fight Amendment One - Check out this link from Pam Spaulding if you want to help in defeating Amendment One.

In other news:

Maine's Mike Heath continues to sabotage his side; yay!! - If we get marriage equality in Maine, this will probably be the guy will end up helping us. And he hates our guts.

Romney’s Inconsistent Reaction To Massachusetts’ Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Brother Etch-A-Sketch strikes again.

And as you can tell, I saved this one for last . . .

Dan Savage Addresses Journalist Conference Speech Controversy, Denies Attacking Christianity - Now about this Dan Savage controversy. I have said on more than one occasion that he and I don't see eye-to-eye on many things. Also, the language he used here isn't exactly something I would have said.

But you know what? He is exactly right.

 I consider myself a person of faith. I credit my faith in God with accepting my sexual orientation. But here is something that I have never understood about some of my fellow Christians. How is it that they can cite passages regarding the supposed sin of homosexuality, but will ignore the ones advocating slavery, children obeying their parents, keeping women silent in church, divorce, and other things that they will not talk about which is clearly in the Bible. Why didn't Jesus say one word about homosexuality? And for that matter,why  didn't God Himself?

How is it that they can cite the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as proof that God hates homosexuality when it is clearly said in the Bible that God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah long before the passages regarding homosexual rape appeared? How is it that when other passages in the Bible talk about why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, you don't see anything regarding homosexuality? And why won't they discuss that chapter in the book of Judges (Judges 19) which pushes forth the theory that one of the reasons why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed was not because of homosexuality but because of how the city treated visitors. You see a similar incident happened in the book of Judges where men in a city wanted to rape a visitor. But the visitor escaped by handing over his concubine whom the men brutalized until she died.

Why is it that so many folks call the Bible the unquestioned word of God but won't talk about parts of the Bible which would actually challenge their notions of who God is. God does want obedience but He doesn't want blind obedience and those secure in their faith should know that seeking the answers to questions would only work to enhance the faith rather than destroy it.

So my question to those offended by Savage is basically simple. What are you afraid of?

Bookmark and Share

NOM's ability to lie becoming a sad parody

Maggie Gallagher
Remember a certain moment in February 2012 when the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher was interviewed on Up With Chris Hayes?

It was a contentious interview, by the way, punctuated by Gallagher accusing commentators from the show of "making up" facts to use against her and NOM, particularly when it comes to "reparative therapy," or the practice of trying to change the sexual orientation of lgbtqs:

Well, I've never advocated for gay reparative therapy, and the National Organization for Marriage does not. We focus on fighting for laws that define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Someone should ask Gallagher about a certain post on NOM's blog which appeared on Friday:

New California Law Would Forbid Professionals from Helping Teens with Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction

Parents and/or teens' wishes notwithstanding:
An unusual assortment of groups are beginning to express alarm over a bill moving through the California legislature that has sweeping implications for both free speech and family rights.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, is not mincing words. "I can honestly say this is one of the most outrageous, speech-chilling bills we have ever seen in California-and that's saying a lot," he said.

The main purpose of the bill, SB 1172, is to limit the ability of psychologists, therapists and other counselors to assist adult or minor clients with sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). SB 1172 flatly bans SOCE for minors-regardless of the parents' or minors' wishes-and requires a new consent form for adults containing statements about sexual orientation that many counselors would dispute. The bill then creates significant liability for professionals who proceed with SOCE. -- Pacific Justice Institute press release

The actual story, by the way, has to do with a proposed California law which would outlaw reparative therapy for those under 18-years-of-age. Reparative therapy, while popular amongst many religious institutions, is frowned upon by mental and medical associations such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.