Athletes from around the globe are converging on Chicago for Gay Games VII. But they will not be alone. Also in attendance will be ex-gays to share their message.
The Truth and Love Offensive will be headed up by Peter LaBarbera, president of Illinois Family Institute. Peter has joyously shared his views on gay employment:
Alan Colmes: Should somebody be denied a job simply because they are gay?
Peter Labarbera: Well, Alan, If you believe that homosexuality is a wrong and a changeable behavior, it’s called freedom. You should have the right to make a decision…
has unusual hobbies
He also visits sex clubs and S/M bans in his native Washington, D.C., to gather material for his seven-year,old newsletter, “Lambda Report.”
And a persecution complex
Peter LaBarbera with the Illinois Family Institute says it is apparent that homosexuals have come out of the closet — but that they want to push Christians into the closet.
Peter has also organized three former homosexuals to come to Chicago.
Linda Jernigan
“We have three former homosexuals who will be coming to our Truth and Love Offensive,” LaBarbera notes. “One is Linda Jernigan, a former lesbian who was in the lifestyle for 19 years and now … has a website called ‘RescuingHomosexuals.org.'”
Here’s a little sample of what Linda has to say about her life:
These traumatic events opened the door for satan to bind me with his demonic spirit of rejection early-on in my life. This demonic spirit of rejection ultimately manifested as homosexuality.
And, speaking in third person, about her book:
Rescuing homosexuals in the House of God was birthed by God and given to Evangelist Linda Jernigan to bridge the gap between the homosexual and the church with truth, and in the spirit of God‘s love. This book is laced with divine wisdom and direction, and loaded with many personal experiences and testimonies of Evangelist Linda Jernigan during her nineteen battle with homosexuality.
God inspired Evangelist Linda Jernigan with direct bible based points for the homosexual, to rescue the homosexual from their bondage.
One ex-gay who get’s her wisdom to fight the demons of Satan directly from God himself isn’t enough. We also get
James Hartline
Also lined up, LaBarbera says, is James Hartline, whom the IFI spokesman describes as “a wonderful former homosexual who is rooting out the corruption in the gay community in San Diego,”…
In addition to his efforts to deny a gay man a funeral (which resulted in much embarrassment to San Diego’s bishop Robert Brom), Hartline has been very vocal about the uniqueness of his conversion
My eyes were closed, and the mist came before my vision and these lights began to flash. It was so real that I got scared and opened my eyes and began to rebuke the devil! I was hyperventilating. I closed my eyes and it was still there. A being came out of this mist toward me. I put my head down, and he put this thing on my head and held my hand out and something that felt like a sword went in it. My hand began to move and my mouth was opened and something was put in my mouth. I heard these words like they were imprinted upon me: “I am preparing you to do battle for me in the last days.”
his own importance
“I am on an important assignment from the Lord in San Diego, California that is going to change this nation. After coming out of over 30 years in homosexuality, and paying the price to be a chosen servant of the Lord, God is raising me up to cause the dismantling of the spirit of homosexuality off of our city and the nation.”
His status as a prophet
“In these last days, there is a major move of God that is going to sweep through homosexual communities around the nation. Great prophets of God will be birthed in this move of the Holy Spirit. James Hartline has firmly planted his feet in the midst of the starting point for that mighty move of God: San Diego, California.”
and (you might want to read all of this if you have any interest in the rantings of the delusional)
In March of 1999, I began to have the first of over 100 dreams from the Lord. The dreams have been revelatory, showing me what is coming. I had hundreds of demons who were possessing me and that’s what hindered me from coming to God.
And his expectations from God
I am also believing that the Lord will heal me completely from AIDS.
And
God has told me that I am going to be healed of this disease. The purpose behind that is, when I am healed, the case is going to be so well-documented that it will send shock waves throughout the medical community. I believe God will use me to preach the gospel and one of the platforms for me to preach from will be my healing from HIV.
Having read Hartline’s rants and gadfly efforts, I am convinced that the man is no longer sane, if indeed he ever was.
Greg Quinlan
and Greg Quinlan, “a former gay man who runs the Pro-Family Network in Ohio.”
Quinlan has shared his opinions about enacting special laws to exclude gay people from adopting
“Now that we have defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship,” Greg Quinlan, a conservative activist, told USA Today.
His views on the simplicity of reorientation
“Remember Scripture, ‘Such were some of you.’ It is a changeable
behavior.”
And lobbied the Ohio legislature on gay marriage by calling homosexuality both a disorder and a lifestyle
Homosexuality is a Gender Identity Disorder. A disorder can be put into order when an individual wants to order his or her life according to the Manufacturer’s design.
The State of Ohio must not become an enabler of this disorder. The policy of the State of Ohio should be to help those willing to be helped, not promote a lifestyle choice that is now and is historically a self-destructive dead end.
It would be difficult to identify a wackier set of loonies and anti-gay lobbiests to represent the ex-gay ministry if you made that your sole criteria. But not content with his insanity sideshow, LaBarbera also is bringing in a Who’s Who of Hate:
* Robert Gagnon, author of “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” speaking on, “Is proud homosexuality compatible with Christianity?” [Sunday, July 16 at 10:30 AM at Uptown Baptist Church]
* Janice Couture, whose daughter is a practicing lesbian: “How to love your gay or lesbian child without loving their behavior”;
* Linda Harvey of Mission America, speaking on, “How the gay movement endangers and corrupts children”;
* Rev. Al Cleveland, an African American minister, on “Why homosexuality is not a civil rights issue”;
* Tim Graham of the Media Research Center, on pro-homosexual media bias; and
* Dr. John Diggs, on the health risks of homosexual behavior.
All of these people have an established history of anti-gay activism and none have demonstrated any of Christ’s love in the effort. Diggs, for example, makes the lose-20-years claim. Harvey is known for outlandish claims such as “people who have homosexual desires can decide that heterosexual sex is preferable” and “He may have developed a liking for homosexual sex, but that’s just a matter of taste, not biology.” Cleveland has given us “To compare the civil rights movement to so-called homosexual ‘marriage’ is to commit civil rights heresy.”
I think we can pretty clearly deduce who LaBarbera’s message is for. Contrary to his claim, he’s not there to tell “homosexuals there is freedom in Christ.” LeBarbera, his loonies and his haters will be there to share a message of condemnation, oppression, and civil punishment that he wishes on those who do not follow his beliefs. His desire is not compassion to those he believes are lost but rather to stir up the emotions of those who fear and hate gay people.
There will not be any Truth or Love evident in LaBarbera’s efforts, but you can count on an Offensive.
Umm, LaBarbera is president of the ILLINOIS Family Institute. See link: https://www.illinoisfamily.org/.
As a proud child of the Land of Lincoln, it’s not something I’m proud of, but it’s the facts.
I know many coastal types don’t see any difference, but there is a difference ;-).
Who does Labarbera think he’s fooling calling it a “love offensive”? That’s mighty twisted to phrase love as a weapon or to think the word is an effective veneer for an offensive.
Well well;
Peter:
– what God told you homosexuality was wrong? Or wasn’t it God, but more that guy you hear talking in your church every sunday. I am aware of the fact that homosexualty is unnatural, but it is not damaging to society nor you, is it?
– how, on earth, can a gay guy become an ex-gay (and don’t tell me that Faith in our Lord shit, I have Faith, and it’s not doing anything for my homosexuality) Homosexuality can only be cured if it is a disease, which it obviously isn’t; nor is it a psychological disorder, so that eliminates all but the physical aspect of homosexuality. The possibility of a gay gene. You have placed gay guys, back into their closet you silly people.
– Demons are strange, there is a spirit world, going happily beside our own. But what are the demons doing there then? Why is God tormenting His children with these demons, and why do you think the physical sin of another man, is more sin than your own mental sins? I mean, homosexuality is a sin, but we all sin, and all will untill we eventually die, the only thing which can save us, is the acceptance of Christ as our Lord. Why would you even bother wasting time on gay people, while you have your own sins to consider? Or is more that you need a scapegoat to cover your own sins.
– How does this James know he is on a mission rfom God, which is more special than that of everyone else?
– And it is certainly “changeable behaviour”, but it can not be erased. Can you not also surpress Lust?
(Feel free to mail me with your answers, I hope they are more satisfiing than what nonsense I have seen so far from your type of Christians.)
Derreck- this is a post about Peter, not by Peter.
Well people, it’s called masturbation. Not content to do it in the privacy of his bedroom with a decent skin rag [where their gutteral moans can’t be heard], they elect to do it publicly using skin rags pictureless skin rags with big words they don’t understand.
Then, you wish they would just shut up!
Janice Couture, whose daughter is a practicing lesbian: “How to love your gay or lesbian child without loving their behavior”;
Too bad her daughter can’t provide a counter-presentation “How to love your psuedo-Christian parent without loving their unChrisitian behavior”
Sorry Charlie, Freedom and Discrimation just don’t go together.
We don’t care to be a part of your Family Values, in Illinois or anywhere.
—-
Expose Vision America
Expose Holy Rev. Rick Scaroborough
Stop the Hate East Texas
https://exposevisionamerica.blogspot.com
Derreck and Tony,
Please be careful with your language when posting. Thanks.
David Roberts
Religious Left Plans to Crash IFI’s ‘Love & Truth’ Conference against ‘Gay Games’ 7/14/2006By Peter LaBarberaIllinois Family InstituteExcerpt:
Someone’s going to disrupt Labarbera’s disruption?! The nerve!
In a related story, because of the situation in the Middle East, many Christians and Christian groups are going wild for the return of Christ. It is all over the Web today. Rapture Ready, which I have read for years–funny stuff–has tons of crazy postings.
Check out Jonathan Swift’s commentary at https://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/07/looking-at-bright-side-of-world-war.html
Here is an actual posting (a quote from Andrew Sullivan’s site):
“Is it time to get excited? I can’t help the way I feel. For the first time in my Christian walk, I have no doubts that the day of the Lords appearing is upon us. I have never felt this way before, I have a joy that bubbles up every-time I think of him, for I know this is truly the time I have waited for so long. Am I alone in feeling guilty about the human suffering like my joy at his appearing somehow fuels the evil I see everywhere. If it were not for the souls that hang in the balance and the horror that stalks man daily on this earth, my joy would be complete. For those of us who await his arrival know, somehow we just know it won’t be long now, the Bridegroom cometh rather man is ready are not.”
Nothing gets a fundie to an orgasm faster than the idea of death and destruction. . .and the fulfillment of that everlasting life insurance bribe they purchased for having their earthly life dictated and regulated by a megachurch minister.
By the way, I’d love to know how Tim Graham comes to the conclusion there is a “pro-homosexual” bias in the media. If anything, it is the treatment these faux “Christians” receive as the official spokesmodels for an entire religion that is the inherent bias. . .
This lineup of clowns has to be a joke.
“In a similar vein, the Illinois Family Institute opens its lectures to all those who want to listen. Rabble-rousers, though, are not welcome, LaBarbera said.”
In other words, “I’m here to protest you, but don’t you dare protest me”.
i never can quite understand why there are so many christians with so much hate for gay people.
i grew up being taught that christ noted that the greatest commandment was love.
jesus needs a better PR troupe than the christians.
The ironic thing about LaBarbera’s comments about how homosexuals are trying to push Christians into the closet, is that there’s so many gay christians out there. Like, LOTS of them, especially here in Columbus, OH. In fact, seeing as the majority of Americans are Christian, the majority of gay people probably grew up in Christians home, and probably would still be Christians if they weren’t told all their lives that “god hates fags” and such.
It’s like someone abusing thier kids every day, and getting all pissed off and self-righteous when they find out their kids hate them, and want nothing to do with them. You reap what you sow, folks, you reap what you sow.
And is it just me, or is Hartline’s conversion the most homoerotic angel visitation you ever read? Outside of porn, that is.
Wow! So many comments by people who don’t pay attention. Even the author, with his comment about a “Who’s Who of Hate”. This is typical rhetoric from a group of people (and their supporters) who are too interested in what they want than to hear views that oppose those desires. Where’s the tolerance there? Here’s a few more goofy, but typical, comments:
” what God told you homosexuality was wrong? Or wasn’t it God, but more that guy you hear talking in your church every sunday.” –this is stupid. Read your Bible (objectively if you can) and learn what God said. Most Christians (who actually read their Bibles) don’t need any minister to tell them what’s what.
“how, on earth, can a gay guy become an ex-gay”
—happens all the time. If you’d pay attention and maybe read the literature that’s available. I just stumbled on a site with at least half a dozen books by ex-gays who are black. I’m sure there are more by others if you’d only be as open minded as you pretend to be.
“nor is it a psychological disorder,” —in the service industry, it’s not uncommon (though unacceptable) for a poor tech to say “it’s supposed to do that!” when he can’t or doesn’t want to fix a problem. The shrinks were incapable of helping homosexuals so they took it off the list of mental illnesses. There! Problem solved! We’ll just say it’s normal.
“homosexuality is a sin, but we all sin,” –but not all of us try to get our sin made legally protected behavior.
“Too bad her daughter can’t provide a counter-presentation “How to love your psuedo-Christian parent without loving their unChrisitian behavior” ” —there’s nothing “unChristian” about standing against forbidden behaviors.
“I’d love to know how Tim Graham comes to the conclusion there is a “pro-homosexual” bias in the media.” —the recent gay pride parade in Chicago had floats from 2 or 3 local TV stations, and at least one major newspaper. Some of these are donating to the Gay Games. Will they be un-biased after doing so? We’ll see.
“In other words, “I’m here to protest you, but don’t you dare protest me”.” —there’s a difference between protesting peacefully and disrupting, which is typical behavior from all the left.
“i never can quite understand why there are so many christians with so much hate for gay people.” —there aren’t. But there are many gays and others from the left that label Christians as hateful. Quite the opposite is true for the vast majority of Christians. We’re quite worried for your immortal souls.
“there’s so many gay christians out there.” —these are lovingly referred to as “white out Christians”. They take some liquid paper and white out the parts of the Bible that conflict with their desires. Lots of people do it. They’re not all gay either. But they are all wrong. Also, the people who use the expression “God hates fags” are usually gays and those who fear Christians (OK. And Fred Phelps, too). In reality, Christians only have a problem with homosexual behavior.
And you all can mock those ex-gays highlighted here if you want. But I would remind you that it’s unlikely any of you have ever really met or seen any of them speak. I’m certain you’ve never seen them do anything nasty. Of course that’s allowing for the fact that anti-gay speech is not inherently nasty. One thing is certain: the push by the gay community is indicative of their attitude that they don’t much care what anybody thinks, be he God or man. They’ll do what they want and they won’t be happy until everybody is made to enable them. In fact, they hate anyone who disagrees far more than those who disagree hate them, which they don’t. I don’t blame them. No one wants to be considered wicked or wrong by others. Problem is, sometimes that’s the case, as it is here.
Mr Casper. Sorry, I mean Art.
I don’t know why you need to be so rude and insulting about people’s religious beliefs. I think you have this site confused with somewhere else.
Let me clue you in: behaving that way, along with all the wrong assumptions and accusations you also make about the people here, is but a short journey away from the exit ramp.
Save it for the next tent revival meeting. Okay?
Oh! You “outed” me! How clever!
Sorry. Didn’t know opposing opinions were unwelcome. How could I have known, what with such talk of tolerance? In the future, I’ll remember that any bit of nonsense and falsehood directed toward Christians is “gospel” and not subject for rebuttal. My bad. I must say, however, that I never considered correcting misconceptions as “rude and insulting”. But it’s like I said earlier, no one wants to be wrong, so I guess to the corrected, such response might seem rude. Grow up.
Posted by: Marshall Art at July 18, 2006 12:05 AM
You’ve managed to break or ignore half of our posting guidelines in one post. If you want to participate here, please keep your posts germane, civil and in the spirit of honest, intellectual debate. If you want to state something as fact, back it up with references to generally accepted, authoritative sources. And above all, respect others and their beliefs even if, and perhaps especially if, you don’t agree with them.
David Roberts
Ex-Gay Watch
Art, you seem to think we here at XGW live in a vacuum and never have actually met/heard/corresponded with the ex-gay leaders we critique. You presume we’re unaware of the books and have not seen the testimonies or heard the claims.
Sorry, Art. But you are the one who is uninformed. Some here have been in therapy with the ex-gay proponents that we discuss. Others know them or correspond with them. Still others research and track their statements and positions. You are the one who is ill informed. We have been paying attention and documenting the observable, supportable, and verifiable facts.
Your criticisms of us are embarrasingly wrong. The speakers protesting (especially Linda Harvey) do demonstrate hatred within their language, reorientation does not “happen all the time” nor do any ex-gay groups claim that it does, and it is not XGW but the mental health community that has stated that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder.
Further, it is clear that you know very little about actual gay people. To those who do, you seem ignorant.
Your arguments are baseless, rude, and hostile. If you go back and read your post, you’ll notice a lot of discussion about “they”. You attribute all sorts of intentions and motivations to “they”. It is quite clear that “they” are something you hold in contempt, if not outright hatred. It is readily clear to anyone (conservative, liberal, gay, straight) that reads your post that you are operating from a position of ignorance and malice.
Although you come here with a lot of talk about God, I don’t see any of Christ in what you say.
Nonetheless, you are welcome to stay and observe. We operate differently here than at many sites so you might want to read some before you start an angry monologue or you’ll be asked not to post. But if you stay, you’ll be informed and will hear reasoned debate as well as facts, refutation of lies, and analysis of the claims made in the ex-gay movement. If you can let go of your anger and distaste for others, you may find it an enjoyable experience. If, however, you are simply here as a culture warrior attacking an enemy, I think you will find this a frustrating experience. The choice is yours.
Marshall Art that lengthy book has gotten you all distracted from what’s important. The only true sin is hurting others. My love for my boyfriend and his for me is wonderful to us and doesn’t hurt you at all. The only sin is your blind opposition to that which benefits us without hurting you or anyone else.
I would respond that my postings are simply the opposite of those I to which I responded. The same level of respect (or lack thereof) as those to whom I responded. So here we have a difference of perspective manifesting in our comments. You think I’m full of hate and lacking in Christian temperament. I saw exactly that in comments directed at those who disagree with your positions. That is what I was responding to. As background, I have history with a few gay people, one who quite close and has died of AIDS. I do not, nor have I ever, hated gays. I do however have far less love for the things they (that is, the gay community in general)say about those who disagree with them, the things they are seeking to accomplish in our country. As to facts, I’ve seen very little offered in the way of empirical evidence for the claims of the gay community, and allowing for the possibility that there someday may be, I don’t for a second find that any biological “proof” is cause to change my mind. The reason for this is that I believe biology plays a role in every aspect of a person’s desires and urges, yet as a Christian, I feel we are to rise above such things to the best of our ability. Should one care to look, I’ve no doubt there is a biological reason for many things such as greed, sloth, gluttony, violence, as well as sexual urges of all kinds. So what? I would also say that it is not MY attitude that is lacking here. You seem more aroused over my opposition. If this was an audio situation, you’d not hear any derogatory tone to my words. I think you’re overly sensitive. Perhaps you’re not without cause. There are a-holes on this side of the debate for sure. Not nearly as many as you’d like to believe. But again, I’m being accused of hatefulness where there isn’t any, simply because I’m on the other side. This is routine. So, I am willing to walk on eggshells in my responses to that with which I disagree. I hope that you can assume I’ve nothing but the best of intentions. As I look over the above comments, I don’t see how I’ve transgressed the rules of engagement any more than those to whom I’ve reponded. If there are any problems with my Christianity, be specific and I’ll elaborate. I can take the heat from your side. Can you take the concern from mine?
Marshall Art the problem with your Christianity is that you consider gays wicked and wrong (your words) even when what we do doesn’t hurt you at all while it benefits us. And then you’ve got the nerve to call white black and black white and say that’s not hate? Go peddle your denigrations somewhere else. You’re the one sinning here, not loving gay couples.
Marshall Art, the post was intended to point out strange and hateful behavior of certain activists. At the very least attempting to prevent a funeral and relaying inaccurate information about a group of people strike me as profoundly immoral.
Regarding your specific points, a disorder should be of itself harmful or distressing, and a homosexual orientation is neither of those.
I would argue that the government is not in the job of sin. Eating a bacon cheeseburger is sinful to Orthodox Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, yet these groups should not attempt to ban restaurants that serve bacon cheeseburgers. Various other behaviors are considered sinful by various religious groups, yet the government should not ban whatever is considered sinful, even if that falls in line with the majority religion(s). As a nation that protects individual liberty, same-sex couples should be recognized by the government and certainly not criminalized.
To a degree, I agree with the argument that states biological predisposition does not make a behavior moral. Beyond this point our differing presuppositions cause us to diverge. I can only state that I respect your beliefs even though I disagree with them.
Art,
“But again, I’m being accused of hatefulness where there isn’t any, simply because I’m on the other side.”
Nope. Not true. You were being accused of having contempt and malice because of the things you said like “these are lovingly referred to as ‘white out Christians'”, “the people who use the expression ‘God hates fags’ are usually gays”, “they don’t much care what anybody thinks”, “they won’t be happy until everybody is made to enable them”, “they hate anyone who disagrees” and finally the doozy of saying that gay people are “wicked and wrong”.
Perhaps you don’t see the animosity, but I think everyone else can.
“I hope that you can assume I’ve nothing but the best of intentions.”
Well, no, I don’t assume that. Not based on the words you say.
And you can let go of the martyrdom. Perhaps you aren’t aware of what is written here on this site, but we do not allow the attacking of Christians. We do challenge the dogma and the statements of conservative fundamentalist Christians, but we never ever allow the blanket attack on Christian faith or any other faith.
So you can waltz in here with a chip on your shoulder and whine about liberals and routine and heat from “our side”, but it really is pointless.
We’re not here to talk about how mistreated you are. Or even to argue with you over your chosen brand of religion.
If you have any specific points to discuss that are relevant to the thread (the record of unstable behavior from LaBarbera’s ex-gays and the un-Christian spirit evident in his experts), then they are welcome. But be prepared to substantiate every point.
No one is interested in your opinion or your church’s doctrine (or mine either, for that matter), so be up on your facts if you want to contribute.
Methinks thou art way too sensitive to read into my comments in the manner you have. Just the same, I’m as tired of explaining myself as you are of hearing me try. Suffice it to say, that should I continue to visit, I’ll do my best to abide your sensibilities amd rules, even if it appears your and yours are not. It’s your house after all. But a martyr? Not me. I was merely relating what my experience has shown me to be the case as I responded to remarks by your choir. As I saw no support for most of the comments made, I saw no need to supply them for mine. I will add, however, that I’ve heard interviews with many who left the lifestyle. No, I don’t have the names written down for use in these cases, but I can’t say as I’ve heard any hate from any of them. Those you’ve highlighted may be different, but I haven’t read any examples of it here. But hey, I’m new. Perhaps I’ll peruse your archives and find examples there. I will submit one example to support my side. That would be Rick Garcia, a prominent leader of the gay community in Illinois. I’ve never heard him say a nice thing about anyone who stands in opposition to his positions. He is on record of accusing local religious figures as bigots and hate-mongers simply for differing with him. And other than Fred Phelps & Co, I never hear Republicans or Christians say that “God hates fags”. Rather, I’ve heard many from your side accuse them of it. Once again, not playing victim, just stating what I’ve experienced.
For Randi,
The only true sin is acting in a manner that conflicts with the Will of God. The Will of God is the underlying mandate of the Bible. Nothing else matters. Love of the agape kind, is just one way of complying with God’s will. There’s not much in the way of rulings regarding the eros kind beyond sex between a man and woman united in matrimony as the only acceptable sexual behavior. To clarify another point, it’s not “being” gay that’s a problem Biblically, it’s engaging in gay behavior. Those aren’t my words, but a paraphrase of Biblical teaching. I have read many interpretations of the Bible that purport to clear such behavior. None stand up to those that have countered them. One such, for those who insist on supporting comments, is a point/counterpoint book with a debate between Gagnon and Luria (pardon the spellings, not my book, don’t have it with me). I would also say that tangible personal harm is not a neccessity in determining sinful, wicked, or evil behavior. An unmarried man and woman aren’t hurting anyone when they have sex, yet, they are wrong for having done so. Biblically speaking. Personally, I don’t care what two consenting adults do in private, but it doesn’t mean that behavior should have legal protection, nor should I be forced by law to agree that it’s cool.
To Irrational Entity,
First, I appreciate that tone of your response. (Randi’s, too, for that matter)
It is not uncommon, or at least it wasn’t uncommon at one time, for the Catholic Church to deny certain church rituals for those who were blatantly living outside of Church teachings. Most religious people I know would not feel good about their offspring or any other relative owning the type of bars the highlighted subject owned. They would however, still expect, at least in their grief, a Catholic funeral and would be greatly upset at not getting one. This is to be expected.
“Disorder” was someone else’s term and I merely responded. In forums such as this one, too often time is wasted on semantics and the explanations that shouldn’t be required unless there’s a definite problem understanding the point. But the harm can be subtle or difficult to ascertain in the short term with disorders, abnormalities, or out of the mainstream behaviors. I just think that the mental health industry has no answers for this situation and that was the real impetus in removing it from the list of mental illnesses. Keep in mind, doctors aren’t infallible. But there has been a change of heart, somewhat, in one of those who were instrumental in having it removed after he interviewed a couple hundred who left the lifestyle. His name is Spritzer I believe (funny name considering). But for those of us who believe in God, the least likely area to notice harm is in the spiritual side of ourselves.
One could say that the government is not in the business of legislating morality or in the job of sin. But I would counter that all laws restrict behavior. I don’t believe there are any laws on the books that someone somewhere has a hankering for breaking. At the very least, I agree with those who believe that the push for gay marriage and other rights have come too soon for this country. It doesn’t seem to be playing out perfectly in Scandinavia as yet, and I would have preferred seeing another few decades at least, before broaching the subject here. Let some other country work out the details. In the meantime, I stand shoulder to shoulder against those who would harm someone for his preferences, even when I disagree with how he might act out his preference.
Oh, it’s so wonderfully easy to see other people’s sensitivities sometimes, yet so terribly hard to see how other people might feel hurt or insulted, ain’t it?
*sigh*
Marshall Art, my definition of sin is about morality, not god or religion. What matters is not the gender of our partners but how we treat each other. If you want to have maximimum freedom to pursue happiness you must allow others the freedom to do so too as long as it isn’t hurting you. I have just as much right to be free from your religion as you have a right to pursue it for yourself. I’m not under any obligation to your god, only to treat you fairly, as I ask you to treat me.
Giving gays the same right heterosexuals have to marry the one they love most doesn’t force you to agree its cool, you’ll still have the right to call gays wicked and wrong and I’m sure you will.
The proper moral framework for society starts with equality and fairness and on that basis you can’t blindly oppose relationships like ours.
Ultimately those relationships that benefit LBGTs benfit society as we become happier and more productive. Society is right to promote that regardless if people like you want to shoot society in the foot by unconditionally opposing something wonderful.
You wouldn’t expect me to dictate your love life don’t be so arrogant as to think you have any right to dictate mine.
Art,
As an example, this is what we expect here. You mentioned Rick Garcia. But you didn’t provide anything to support your accusations. None of us here are expected to do that. To be honest, we’re really not interested in your “opinions”.
For starters, Rick Garcia is well known. Feel free to provide an example of hate from that site.
We are not interested in this type of “evidence”. It isn’t. Nor this type of nonsense.
The reason none of these are evidence is because they are merely accusations by anti-gay individuals. And easily countered by noting that — as that last article did — far from being “anti-Catholic”, apparently Garcia is actively involved in his congregation. The majority of Catholics, at least in the West, both disagree with and ignore the RCC view on contraception — and that does not make them anti-Catholic. In the same way, neither does Garcia’s disagreement with the RCC view on homosexuality, nor do his battles with church leaders who themselves decided to engage in politics rather than religion.
I doubt any of us are about to permit being lectured to by you about what we actually think or what we know, particularly as you’ve admitted you haven’t actually bothered to read this site. You are plainly acting on stereotype. Doing that is prejudice in it’s most basic form.
And please don’t attempt the “My Black Friends defence” here either. Nobody with real black friends, or Jewish, or gay talks that way to begin with; or attempts to defend a prejudiced statement by hiding behind it.
Marshall Art, Spitzer considers homosexuals who can experience a shift in sexual orientation to be ”a small minority — perhaps 3%”, so most people who make such attempts will be disappointed. Of course the lack of malleability does not make homosexual behavior moral, but we shall have to disagree on that point.
While the government restricts behavior, the institution must provide justification. The First Amendment prevents the establishment of religion, the Ninth Amendment holds that people have rights outside of those listed in the Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from violating nationally protected rights. Spiritual harm, something we cannot objectively measure, is not a good reason; otherwise we will be left with ridiculous situations like my earlier bacon cheeseburger example. Observable harm must be shown and reasons to limit our personal freedoms must be provided. By such standards cigarettes, fast-food, automobiles, and so on will all be well ahead of homosexual behavior on the list of potential bans.
The Supreme Court correctly ruled that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional, and I think the government should recognize same-sex couples since there is insufficient justification for limiting civil marriage as currently understood. To be more specific, the civil marriage does not concern itself with reproduction, which is the only major difference between opposite and same-sex couples. An infertile heterosexual union and a homosexual union provide the same benefits to society, so as long as the former is recognized, the latter should also be accepted by the government. Lastly, I do not think the Scandinavian example provides evidence of harm caused by same-sex marriage.
And please don’t attempt the “My Black Friends defence” here either. Nobody with real black friends, or Jewish, or gay talks that way to begin with; or attempts to defend a prejudiced statement by hiding behind it.
I don’t remember where I read it, but my favorite rejoinder is “Do they *know* they’re your friends?” Because often, the “friends” are people who’ll put up with the interlocutor’s crap at work to keep the peace and rage about him/her when they get home, or cut their hair and think about the tip, or be polite enough to wave to their next door neighbor but not interested enough to talk much.
Posted by: Marshall Art at July 18, 2006 11:03 PM
It would be extremely helpful if you would arrange your posts more concisely. These huge monologues cover far too much ground and the replies they generate will need to be even longer. The post referenced above seems to contain a mass of misinformation and I’m sure others will want to address this. Please try to remain on topic and don’t cover quite so much ground in a single post – we want honest, civil debate not speeches 😉
Art,
You appear to be misinformed on a few things and you make claims without supporting them. For example:
“I never hear Republicans or Christians say that “God hates fags”. Rather, I’ve heard many from your side accuse them of it.”
You’ve said this more than once and never offered a single source. If “many” from “our side” have said this, there should be pleanty of places where we can read it online. You’ve not provided one. So please either support this claim or stop making it.
“But there has been a change of heart, somewhat, in one of those who were instrumental in having it removed after he interviewed a couple hundred who left the lifestyle. His name is Spritzer I believe”
The Spitzer info that you are misunderstanding is about the possibility of reorientation. Spitzer believes that about 3% of highly motivated gay people could change their sexuality. Please actually read the “information” you are sharing here before you post it.
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/06/spitzer_says_fo.html
“It doesn’t seem to be playing out perfectly in Scandinavia as yet…”
Actually, an honest look at the out of wedlock birthrates and divorce rates in Scandinavian countries that give recognition to gay couples shows that the downward trends in these rates that was pretty steep has leveled off or reversed since recognition of same-sex couples was legally introduced. Although I don’t think this to be the case, it could be argued that gay marriage was what saved marriage from irrelevance in those countries.
https://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-26/viewpoint/opinion/marriage.cfm
https://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/PublicPolicy/?view=usa&ci=9780195187519
And finally, you seem to think that there are “sides” and that all opinions are equal. That doesn’t fly here. The “side” I favor is the side that shows up with facts instead of opinion, regardless of whether it fits my personal bias.
It isn’t your opinion that I find objectionable, it’s your posting of false assuptions and your intellectual laziness.
If you see something posted here that isn’t supported from “our side”, that’s probably because we’ve already reviewed that subject and supported the position to the point that everyone here already is familiar with the source material.
If you want to post something that contradicts what has already been posted and discussed at length, you have to support it. That isn’t optional.
Bear with me one more time please, David.
The demand for support is problematic, and I fear more so here, based on the post from grantdale. In his post, he disqualified two possible sources. Fine. But why should I assume HIS sources would be fair and unbiased? Therein lies the trouble with the back and forth I’ve witnesses and experienced at blogs of all kinds. Each side simply dismisses the sources of the other. Thus, I prefer not to play that game. It’s futile. In fact, I don’t even ask for support unless something sounds really wacky. Rather, I choose to believe the other person is being sincere. If I have something fresh at hand, like today’s paper for example, it’s easy enough to refer to it and I generally begin with it. But I’m not about to spend time digging for something I read two months ago, particularly if I’m not sure where I read it. Also, I’m not in the habit of storing such things in the event I might need it for discussion at some point in the future. There’s no profit in making shit up and though I may be mistaken at times, I’m sincere in believing that what I think is indeed what I’ve read, seen or heard.
I can, however, direct anyone who cares to peruse the archives of the Chicago Sun-Times, a supporter of the gay agenda, and by focussing on Garcia, one will find the wanted support for my claims about him without much time or trouble. Or not. I don’t care. I’ve read such from him enough to know.
Briefly,
I don’t know what the “Black friends” crack was about, unless it was to question my statement of having known gay people. I worked for one in my yoot and though I suspect he hoped for some action (not being conceited here—he exposed himself purposely), I basically liked the guy and found him interesting. More importantly to me, my brother-in-law was gay and died of AIDS. We never knew he was gay until he told us what was wrong with him. I would have preferred to know before he caught that terrible disease, but we did discuss his lifestyle a bit as a way of understanding. His revelation did nothing to change the way I felt about him. He was still my wife’s brother and a member of the family. Yes, were he not sick I would have encouraged him to reconsider and perhaps he would have told me to piss off. But I believe friends and relatives should be supportive of each other and that includes interventions (so to speak) when it is believed behaviors are wrong. What kind of friend would I be if I did not look out for my people? I don’t badger, I just let them know.
There. That’s it. There’s more I could respond to, such as the Spitzer thing. (How can one judge the level of another’s motivation? If one is “highly motivated” for a month and fails, then gives up (or in), compared to another who persists long beyond. Or is it judged by the level of success? Or does this one man’s opinion mean the case is closed?) But I do ramble and I’ll end it here. I’ll try to abide your regs as I understand them in the future. I have no doubt I’ll be greatly challenged here.
Marshall Art:
Reading your posts makes me angry. Why do you have to post here on this forum if you are not gay? Do you want to antagonize people or do just like all the attention? Most readers here are already painfully familiar with the ex-gay movement’s talking points and so further clarification from you is neither required nor requested. There are many websites devoted to the cultural and political genocide of LGBT folks where your input would be greatly appreciated. Why don’t you visit some of them?
it’s interesting that Marshall brings Spitzer up as an example and then dismisses him.
Here’s the thing about Spitzer’s study…It was flawed to begin with. The ex-gay industry proports to have helped thousands of people. Spitzer could only find a few hundred people, who were hand picked by ex-gay ministries. The sample was skewed. If you only survey the success stories, you’re not going to have a balanced survey. Anyone who’s taken a basic statistics class can tell you that.
What Spitzer basically found is that 3% of people who are highly motivated to say they’ve changed their sexual orientation will tell you over the phone that they have indeed changed their sexual orientation. People have been known to lie about what they say is true of themselves, especially when surveyed.
What’s more, Spitzer didn’t follow up with any of these people. Those in the survey biz can tell you, you have to do a follow up. People will say something one day, and then 2 months, 2 years later, say something else.
No survey has ever been done that accurately and scientifically measures the claims made by the ex-gay ministry. Hundreds loudly claim they have been changed, thousands claim they were never able to change, and testify to the unsound, unscientific, brutal, and sometimes mentally and physically torturous methods employed by some practicioners.
Even if Spitzer’s findings could be believed, that’s a 97% failure rate. Would you accept a cancer treatment your doc said has a 97% failure rate?
Finally, the mental health community got rid of Homosexuality as a disorder because 1) there was no evidence it should be there in the first place 2)mounds of evidence showed that gay people were not harmed by their activity, but rather by society, and governments treatment of them. It wasn’t that they didn’t know what to do, or gave up, it’s because they realized what the real problems of gay people are.
If someone feels guilty for doing something pleasureable that does not cause them or anyone else any harm whatsoever, what do you do? Do you get them to stop doing the pleasurable activity, or do you get them to stop beating themselves up about it?
Final thought. Gay people have not started an Ex-Christian movement, nor are they involved in court cases or legislation designed to keep christians from working in certain jobs, having or adopting children, getting married, going to certain schools, living in certain areas, or having insurance …. We don’t protest outside churches to hope they convert to homosexuality, we don’t picket straight weddings or funerals, we don’t blame diseases on them —- so it’s kind of hard to suggest that Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals in any way.
What on earth does that have to do with anything? Straight people post here all the time–Ms. DuCasse, for one. Why should orientation be a prerequisite for participation?
Arthur,
Whether you wish to continue being involved or not, that last post was a prime example of being a slob. Sheer laziness. We are not going to do your work for you. We do not accept you as an expert and reliable source (nor is anyone here, selves included).
You are permitted to reference any source you wish to.
But the source is excepted to provide evidence, and not merely an opinion. It’s also expected to be on-topic. An anti-gay leader of an anti-gay group simply accusing someone gay of being anything is not even close to being proof. It’s barely even news worthy at this place.
Now, you can provide this proof in one of two ways:
provide verifiable evidence that, say, Garcia is anti-Catholic, or anti-heterosexual. The fact that a political opponent called him that is not evidence.
provide verifiable evidence that, say, Cardinal George was called a bigot and that Garcia was wrong to call him that. Show how and why Cardinal George is not a bigot.
Hence, do not use the “My Black Friends defence”. We have no idea if what you say is true or not, or even relevant. It’s all too easy to invent yourself on a blog. To make stuff up. To lie. And, as you should have already been warned, it’s also all too easy to go searching for where else you and your opinions have appeared. (That’s a not very subtle hint, OK?)
This is not a platform for your anti-gay views. Frankly, they are a dime a dozen. We’ve all heard them before.
And if that’s all you have to contribute then you’ll probably find a more appreciative audience in your bathroom mirror.
—
And second Skemono — you certainly do not have to be gay to post here. I suspect AdidasRob was just questioning Art’s motivation for being here, rather than meaning the way that all came out. Rob, feel free to clarify etc etc 🙂