Highlights from the response to my note to the ex-gay activist:
I was deemed to have a confused notion about genetics vs innate
characteristics because “They both mean the same thing.” The activist cited a dictionary definition but ignored the nongenetic meanings for “innate.” I pointed out
that, per OneLook, innate is often defined as “present at birth but not necessarily hereditary; acquired during fetal
development.”
On the suggestion of widely-accepted behavior change, the activist suggests
“you are off because there are many who believe they are born this way,”
ignoring the behavior/attraction distinction and implying gay Christians may also be “off” if they call themselves “God’s children.”
My use of the phrase “gay-tolerant” was described as “a waste of a word”
because ex-gay supporters are already tolerant and God will not tolerate
gays “bringing sin into heaven with them.” That comment, of course:
- assumes God is even less tolerant than ex-gays;
- prejudges anyone not adhering to the activist’s self-righteous interpretation of Christianity;
- assumes all Christian gays are unrepentant; and
- assumes that the activist is unrepentant of all sins. Which is not the case.
The activist uses an analogy which agrees with my suggestion that behavior,
not orientation, is often what changes, but then she dismisses the relevance of attraction.
Traditionally ill-conceived incriminations comprise the last couple hundred
words, referring to all gays and lesbians as liars and manipulators of the
public, linking homosexuality and pedophilia, dismissing all gay civil rights
activists (who are of different ethnicities) as demeaning all blacks and dismissing marriage seekers as destroyers of marriage.
I found this odd: “We are not homophobic, you are heterophobic because you
were born a male and try to come off as something else or your partner
does.”
And this mildly unsettling: “Homosexuality has discriminated against us long
enough, it is time to war.” So much for the writer’s claim to be tolerant.
I continue to believe in civil rights for all, including this person. Some
day perhaps I’ll understand my fascination with attempting to
dialogue with folks with limited ability to listen or think critically.