Pro-Family Network is a Dayton, Ohio-based project of ex-gay activist Gregory Quinlan, who periodically uses ConservativePetitions.com to promote antigay political measures. ConservativePetitions.com collects $1.95 for each fax sent by an individual to lawmakers — and $3,000 from organizations having a petition hosted by conservativepetitions.com.
The following e-mail was distributed today by Quinlan. People who sign the petition are automatically signed up to receive political propaganda from William J. Murray’s Religious Freedom Coalition, which is cosponsoring the petition with Quinlan.
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:36:02 -0500
From: Gregory Quinlan
Subject: Defend marriage against Massachusetts court ruling!
Dear Conservative Friend:
The God-ordained institution of marriage just suffered the most tragic and ominous blow yet at the hands of the well-organized and well-funded homosexual movement. On Nov. 18 the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts struck at the heart of the traditional family by ruling the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, thus deciding homosexual couples should be allowed to apply for marriage licenses.
Without your help, the truth of marriage likely will succumb and be twisted out of recognition by unelected judges. Please go to ConservativePetitions.com to see what is at stake. Here’s the address.
As a former homosexual, I can honestly tell you there is no need to change the definition of marriage, because homosexuals can change. Tens of thousands have made that choice, and many are now married with families, like me.
The essence of the pro-homosexual argument is the claim they cannot change, that they were born homosexual, that nothing can be done. So the whole world — including marriage — must change.
That just isn’t true! Homosexuality is a clinical developmental gender identity disorder. There is quantitative scientific research on the subject and thousands of individual case studies that prove a person
with homosexual ideations can and have changed through clinical therapy and counseling.
There is no biological evidence, not one repeatable study, not a single genetic test that gives any validity to homosexual behavior as a “born” trait. No one is born Gay, no one! Homosexuality is an emotional disorder, a pathology that can be and has been effectively changed when a person is highly motivated.
And these transformed lives are living proof homosexuals are selling America a lie! Help keep the public from buying it.
While it looms that every other state may soon have to honor Massachusetts’ homosexual partnerships as legal marriages due to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, all is not lost! President George W. Bush is ready to fight for the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one woman. And a powerful coalition of Christian and conservative leaders have joined forces across our nation seeking to wage war against those who would pervert the sacred institution of marriage.
Your help is needed! If you haven’t already, sign a petition calling on your two U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative to pass a strong amendment of the U.S. Constitution that will safely protect the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman. If you already have signed, then alert everyone you know.
We must be resolute in this effort, because such a struggle will take seven or more years to successfully accomplish, as co-sponsor William J. Murray cautions. Therefore, we must additionally call on our congressmen to pass whatever other legislation is needed in the mean time to protect marriage until the constitutional amendment is in place. Here is where to make your stand.
As President Bush recently stated: “Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents.”
Don’t change marriage for homosexuals. Help homosexuals change for marriage. Meanwhile, until America realizes the truth about homosexuality, let’s redouble our efforts to defend marriage.
Gregory Quinlan
Pro-Family Network
P.S. With so much at stake, let’s do whatever it takes to make America fully aware of this crucial issue — especially about the ability for homosexuals to change. Please get everyone you know to come to ConservativePetitions.com and make their stand for God-ordained marriage. Here again is where to act.
[Text of petition from conservativepetitions.com:]To my two U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative:
(with a copy to President George W. Bush)
Traditional marriage between a man and woman is the God-ordained building block of the family and bedrock of a civil society. Therefore, I urge your support of a federal marriage amendment to protect traditional marriage between one woman and one man.
I call on you to protect this definition of marriage against a determined onslaught that would twist it out of recognition. Act to counter the judicial tyranny that seeks to destroy holy matrimony. Stand against the drive to have America consider and honor homosexual unions the same as traditional marriages.
Support and pass a strong amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will safely protect the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman. What’s more, support and pass whatever additional legislation is needed to protect marriage until the constitutional amendment is in place.
I thus am counting on you to do the will of the American people and support whatever it takes to guard the sanctity of God-ordained marriage. And Marriage Protection Week, Oct. 12-18, is a great opportunity for you to help speed this effort toward success.
Make no mistake: Marriage will be a defining issue in the coming election year. Pro-marriage sentiment has been rising in response to homosexual activists’ attempts to pervert the definition, and recent polls indicate most Americans support efforts to protect the traditional and biblical concept of marriage.
Will you stand with the vast majority of Americans? Will you sign a pledge to uphold traditional marriage and oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships? Then say so now. Or do you favor the destruction of society’s premiere institution?
We voters watchfully await your answer.
Let me start off by saying that I am a lesbian, and in a very loving marriage with a woman. We both want many things in life and would like to be treated as people and not looked upon as stange because all we want to do is be happy. I am 23 years old and have dated a man and was really uncomfortable it. Ever sence I can look back on I have always loved woman, not because I was rasied like that but because that was truly my first wanted when to came to being with someone.
I DONT HAVE A DISORDER, I DONT CALL IT THAT. I FEEL ITS NOT WHO YOU LOVE BUT HOW YOU LOVE
The only thing that Greg Quinlan has proven to the homosexual community is that he is still ashamed and afraid of being gay. Mr. Quinlan is NOT an ex-homosexual he has just chosen not to continue fulfilling his sexual fantasies. This choice can be compared to a sexually promiscuious heterosexual who after being “born again” decides to no longer participate in promiscuous activities. The choice does not transform the person’s sexual preference it just oppresses it.
I am a homosexual male that has not and will not choose to participate in the promiscuities that Mr. Quinlan is admittedly quite familiar with. I am extremely comfortable in my skin and am happy with who I am. I sincerely hope that Mr. Quinlan’s choice to suppress his sexual desires has allowed him to be more comfortable in his skin and happy with who he is. Unfortunately, I think the likelihood of this possibility is very small.
If sexuality is a learned behavior, as it very well may be, the same rules apply to heterosexual behavior. Given this, homosexuality is no more a mental disorder than heterosexuality. It’s silly to believe that one sexual behavior is instictual while any others are learned.
I wish Mr. Quinlan the best of luck in his obviously long journey for the truth.
Quote:
“Tens of thousands have made that choice, and many are now married with families, like me.”
Need I say anything more? What a fraud.
I am not against gays, but I am against Gay marriage. I believe we all sin, but marriage came from God. What right do gays have to go before God and vow to sin against him for the rest of their lives. If they want to make up their own little marriage type thing that’s fine with me.
Brandy, you’re failing to grasp the concept of CIVIL MARRIAGE.
Most gays have no interest in making any vows to your version of God. We’d much rather make our vows to eachother under the laws of the United States and benefit from them as legal taxpayers.
Get it?
Gay marriage is not a question of discrimination. It is not about supporting or being against gays. The question is, whether gays should have the right to get married and in essence be recognized by the government and recieve benefits. I think the question is more cynical than that. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Married couples receive benefits because they create and raise the next generation of Americans. Gay people are aware of this, they know that they can never be married, they know this because they do not fit the criteria. So what do gay people do to an institution that they cannot be a part of, they destroy it. If they cannot be married than nobody else can. You guys must be wondering what I am talking about. It is simple, once you allow gay people to marry, it takes away from the legititmacy and sacridness of marriage. Once this happens, it opens the door to paligomy and marriage between an animal and a person.
Why cant gay people just exchange vows with one another privatly or in front of a group of family and friends. The answer is money, they want the tax breaks and all the benefits that a married couple gets. There is no justification for their desires. Would gay marriages benefit the country in any way….the answer is simply no.
So sammy, i get it….
How sad it is to see the bigotry that exists in this day and age. I am a heterosexual woman who is legally married. My husband and I were by no means joined together under god. The argument that marriage is only a religious rite would be valid if it were not for people like myself.
In response to the last post, there are many heterosexuals who choose not to have children, and many homsexuals who are raising the next generation of Americans. So what is the criteria for marriage?
As far as gay marriage leading to polygamy and bestiality, you need help. Only a sick mind would actually believe this.
If marriage is merely an priveledged institution for a “man and a woman” then why does it say in the Book of Revelation (19:7 & 21:2 & 10) that Christ will marry the city, Jerusalem? The meaning of marriage is a merger, a union, of two things. When two people come together intimately, God joins them together as one flesh. Regardless of what people or the law says, it is God’s will that will prevail. The criterion for marriage is one and the same for all people; for there is no respect with God. Therefore, the union of two individuals that happen to be of the same-sex is likewise called a marriage.
If you want to understand God’s natural diversity, just take a look at the book, “Biological Exuberance” by Bruce Bagemihl. God created a queer world: one with diversity and divergence. In his book he writes, “The animal world…is brimming with countless gender variations and shimmering with sexual possibilities. [There are] entire lizard species that consist only of females who reproduce by virgin birth and also have sex with each other. Male Greater Rheas…possess ‘vaginal’ phalluses (like the female of their species) and raise young in two-father families.” “Instead of talking about homosexuality, we should really speak in terms of homosexualities, plural, for there are many variations on the theme of same-sex relations.”
And as far as sins go, heterosexuals are not any better at obeying God than any other group. Take a good, hard look. Our society is plagued with fornicators, adulterers, idolators, warmongers and whoremongers, with all kinds of greed, pride, lust, wantoness, and of course hate. Who can say they are better because they “own” the right to the “marriage rite.” As Martin Luther said: “…there are irreligious marriages even amongst believers, worse than among pagans.”
Gay marriage is not about liberal versus conservative, nor is it about wedding gifts or benefits. It’s about what is right and just and fair. If the marriage bed is honorable in all and all who cannot contain themselves ought to marry as the Bible says, then shouldn’t we expect marriage to be the standard, and, yes, certainly among homosexuals? To deny any group the legal opportunity to obey Scripture for the saving of their soul is an egregious act against humanity. “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” To do otherwise than uphold the law of God is in direct violation of God; this is an abomination. The criterion for marriage, the union of two things joined together by God, is one and the same for all. There is no respect of persons with God.
Dan | October 10, 2004 09:35 PM
>Gay marriage is not a question of discrimination. It is not about supporting or being against gays. The question is, whether gays should have the right to get married and in essence be recognized by the government and recieve benefits. I think the question is more cynical than that. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
Horse manure. The fact that the state refuses to recognize relationships of same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) in the same way that it recognizes relationships of opposite sex couples (so-called “marriage”) is discrimination, pure and simple. It is discrimination against same-sex couples on the basis of sex: if one of the members of a same-sex couple was a member of the opposite sex, the state would be quite happy to recognize the relationship–allow them to marry. It is also discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation–since homosexuals are considerably more likely to wish to enter into a “gay marriage” than would heterosexuals–and more than a few court decisions–including Romer v. Evans–have held that sexual orientation is a valid class for scrutiny under the 14th amendment’s equal protection provision.
>Married couples receive benefits because they create and raise the next generation of Americans.
More horse manure. Married couples receive “benefits”–such as they are –because they are viewed as a single economic unit. It has nothing to do with creation or raising the next generation of Americans. Married couples receive their “benefits” whether or not they can create children and whether or not they intend to raise children. Moreover, I guess that two things have escaped this poster’s attention. First, more than a few same-sex couples are raising children within their relationships, and it strikes me as more than a bit selfish for people like this Dan to suggest that they should not have the same benefit–of having married parents–as children being raised by opposite sex couples. It makes one wonder why posters like this Dan apparently hate children.
Second, regarding the “creation” issue, one wonders what rock this Dan has been living under the last 30 or so years. One would be led to believe that Dan hasn’t heard of artificial insemination. More than a few babies have been conceived using artificial insemination since Baby Louise in the mid 1970s. Sorry, Dan, but penile/vaginal sex hasn’t been required for conception in decades.
Finally, regarding
>You guys must be wondering what I am talking about. It is simple, once you allow gay people to marry, it takes away from the legititmacy and sacridness of marriage. (emphasis added)
If “marriage” is sacred, it strikes me that the 1st amendment would require the state to get out of it. Leave it up to the various churches. There would be no civil marriage, and no benefits mandated, authorized or controlled by the state.
On the other hand, Dan might be disappointed by the fact that there are more than a few churches that sanction same-sex marriage. Like the Unitarian Universalists and, I’m sure the Metropolitan Community Church.
And my church, the Church of the Gay Jesus (Reformed).
Sorry, Dan, you lose, either way.
(NB: The Church of the Gay Jesus (Reformed) was a satirical web site set up by one of the posters on the old NYTimes Religion message board.)
“If sexuality is a learned behavior, as it very well may be, the same rules apply to heterosexual behavior. Given this, homosexuality is no more a mental disorder than heterosexuality. It’s silly to believe that one sexual behavior is instictual while any others are learned.”
Um, heterosexuality is instinctual. That’s why 95% of people are heterosexual. Cause their bodies tell us to have sex with the opposite gender. Otherwise, there would be a lot less babies you’d think. I’m not homophobic, just pointing out that evolution and the survival of many organisms wouldn’t have worked if heterosexuality hadn’t been the dominant trait.
Heterosexualdude,
If you have anything of value to contribute, you may wish to do so on a thread that has not been dormant for over two years. That said,
I agree that heterosexuality is instinctual… for those that are heterosexual. Internally it “feels” normal and natural and guided by drives that come from deep within.
So too is homosexuality instinctual for those who are gay.
For some reason, God or evolution or other cosmic forces decided that there be a certain small percentage of people who are gay. It’s hard to know why, but a good guess may be based on a quick glance at history. Do any of the following names seem familiar to you?:
Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Michealangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Alan Turing, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, E M Forster, Richard the Lionhearted, Sapho, and the list goes on.
It seems hardly coincidence that such a small percentage of the population should have made such a huge contribution to society. Perhaps there is some advantage to having a small number of people who give something to the species other than babies.
So follow your instinct, heterosexualdude, and let gay people follow their own. Perhaps some gay person is at this moment making the one change to history that your children and grandchildren will consider essential.