“He may have gay friends but he doesn’t want me as one of them.”
-Peterson Toscano
Peterson has tried unsuccessfully for the last five weeks to get fellow Connecticut resident Stephen Bennett to simply meet up and share testimonies. (There isn’t a published source for today’s quote, it’s just from an email he sent me this morning.)
I hesitate to ask the question, but why does Toscano want to meet with Bennett merely because they reside in the same state?
I know little about Peterson, but it is clear that Bennett is playing little more than a gig. Bennett apparently can’t make it on talent, so he needs another “shtick” (I started to do the German spelling–I hate Yiddish spellings).
Bennett and those like him, don’t want anyone around who opposes or has any dissenting facts to express.
After my experience with ex gays who are bloggers, it’s clear there is a distinct air of snobbery, dismissiveness and lack of intellectual exchange.
When you don’t allow dissent and the only views expressed are mostly your own or those who agree with you, then this is a clear indication of someone very immature and intellectually dishonest.
I was reading an article from Cambridge, England, about a woman writer who was very critical of gays who adopt children.
Her concern mostly for gay men who do.
She wasn’t just critical, but her inference was that gay men are dangerous to children. Or that they were given preferential consideration over other men.
She posited that two heterosexual men wouldn’t be allowed to adopt children.
Where she was wrong about that was if this was a single hetero parent who was adopting, and as back up in case of crisis, the godfather, grandfather or uncle could also have power of attorney for that child.
Hetero men usually aren’t a COUPLE.
The issue was over her being investigated for her opinion on gay men and she resented the investigation. She called in censure and a slam on her free speech.
However, what she and others who say SLANDER a group fail to understand, is there are consequential risks TO WHO THEY SLANDER.
If a potential adoptive gay father loses his bid for a child, or an innocent gay man, (as in the case of a young bartender who was beaten to death recently there in London) is compromised because of what she says that isn’t factual, but prejudicial, then YES…she deserves to be investigated and the motive for her slander censored, if necessary.
The people who open their mouths and because of the nasty things said about the group they speak on has horrible results, then they should be has horrified for their own speech too.
Words DO hurt, that’s why those that don’t know or care what that hurt does, risk having to be FORCED to know.
I wish people understood their responsibility when it comes to speech and the results they are looking for.
Oops, as this woman is a writer, what she did was LIBEL gay adoptive men.
And the article can be found from a link @:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Whether it’s slander OR libel, a person’s prejudice will come back to bite them…and if the worst that could happen is they have to learn to shut the hell up about certain subjects, THEY ARE LUCKY.
The object of their speech tends to lose much, much, more.
In answer to Raj’s question, I want to meet with Bennett because we currently live in a political environment where do not listen to each other–unless of course the person is saying something with which we agree. We may visit each other’s blogs, go to a speaking engagement or tune into a radio program, but rarely do we get to connect face to face with someone who is on the other side of an issue.
This past year I have had significant and extended conversations with FOTF’s Mike Haley, Exodus’ Alan Chambers and others who I have agreed not to mention publically. We agreed that the majority of our conversations would not be shared with others so that we can be transparent about our feelings and experiences. (Daniel G. recently modelled this same sort of thing when he had dinner with Chad Thompson).
What these conversations have done for me is to see the humans behind the messages. As a Quaker Christian, I don’t see anyone as my enemy. They may be an opponent on a specific issue, but there is much more to them and me than that one issue.
No one has the monopoly on what is right. When I meet with conservative Chrisitan leaders, I learn learn things about myself and about the assumptions I carry about them; perhaps they may also learn some things but that is not my priority.
I speak out against the “ex-gay” movement because as someone who spent 17 years in it, I know first hand the damage we can do to ourselves in it. But as a Quaker Christian I believe that there is something of God in each person, and I feel compelled to glimpse a bit of God in those who it would be much easier to ridicule and dismiss.
Most likely we will retain our stance on “the issue” but for me the purpose of dialogue is not to convert someone, rather to expand our thinking. And that is something we all need to do.
-Peterson
Peterson, Daniel,
thanks for the efforts. It’s much easier to sit back and point and say “bad guys” than it is to meet and actually try to make a difference.
my hat’s off to you
Peterson Toscano at December 14, 2005 12:35 PM
One thing that you have to understand is that you and they probably do not speak the same language. I learned that some time ago while posting on, for example, FreeRepublic.com in the late 1990s. You and they might use the same words, but the words have different meanings to you as they do to them.
It’s your time. Waste it as you wish.
Peterson, thank for “wasting” your time in this way. And thank you for modeling what it means to be like Jesus…something I don’t see too often among Christians.