- Exodus Vice-President Randy Thomas is laying low in the blogosphere again
- Jim Burroway and Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin voice their opinions on Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Initiative
- Pastor Ken Hutcherson noisily protests the Day of Silence
X
It would appear that Randy’s latest blog sabbatical has been short lived. His latest rant about the culture wars and Schaeffer’s Manifesto is one of the longest posts I have seen on his blog. And no, there was nothing particularly new or interesting in it, other than the length of the post.
Boy, you weren’t kidding John.
Randy Thomas, expert extraordinaire, on the wiles of “secular humanism”:
What an absolute creep.
Methinks someone is a little preoccupied with SEX! SEX! SEX!
Good grief, there is a lot of sex on that mind. If I spent as much time thinking about sex as he does writing about it, I might seek some therapy myself. The real kicker is that I think for Randy, sex actually was/is an identity and an ideology, and so others get branded with his own history. This is all the more reason for people to deal with their own lives as they see fit, while respecting those who handle things differently — no one is exactly the same.
Randy Thomas:
True indeed Randy. As a homosexual, I woke up this sex morning to a beautiful sex day. Got out of my sex bed and went into my sex bathroom to brush my sex teeth, with my minty sex paste.
Feeling particularly sex hungry, I proceeded to the sex kitchen where I poured myself a bowl of sex flakes – out of which came a sex toy-watch, which I promptly put on my sex wrist, and then proceeded to set the sex time and sex date. At which point I realized I was out of sex milk, as well as sex eggs, and sex cheese (as I was planning on making a sex omelet).
Not to worry though. I quickly put on my sex shoes and sex pants (I already had on my sex shirt), grabbed my sex keys, got in my sex car, and drove to the local sex station, where I also picked up some sex donuts, and a sex pizza for later.
All of which pretty much ruined my sexetite. So I thought, hey, why not just go on sex-line and shove my sexperience down society’s throat?
And as you can tell — so far, it’s been an oh so sexy-sexy day for me — solely, precisely, and only, because of my homosexuality…
sex is at the root of homosexuality.
A lot of us focus on the branches and the leaves of homosexuality … you know, taking care of our partners when they are sick, surprising them with a gift for no reason, cooking for them, calling them up in the middle of the day to say “I love you,” being there for them when they’re down, being a support for them. So I say to Randy, quit looking at the “root;” GET OUT OF THE DIRT! and start looking at the leaves and branches.
I guess the loss of a loved one or having major surgery or being in a car crash are just like trips to Disneyland compared to sex. I guess having a true and loving encounter with God is nothing compared to having sex. Is Randy for real?
The God I worship can move mountains; the sex I’ve had lately can barely move the matress. By his own words he has made the claim that God is limited by our sexual passions. Or am I missing something? Are people like Randy for real?
Does he even read what he writes before he publishes it?
That statement bothered me too.
I’ve had a lot of good sex and some bad sex, but, jeez, it was just sex. I would guess that the birth of a child would be a much more powerful experience. I’ve had other experiences with my partner that were more powerful than sex – the experience of the loss of loved ones, or going through a serious illness.
For all the talk from Randy about his time in the “lifestyle” his writing about sex makes me think he’s not had much experience.
Wait, does Randy admit that homosexuality is, in fact, a sexual orientation?
Incremental change, woo hoo!
When did Randy become a “sexpert?” The only thing he can be a sexpert in is his own sex life. And i agree with Alan S., not everyone is going to hold sex to the highest degree of life experience. It’s just one kind of a life experience. I don’t like to think of life as being a one-way ladder – where one experience is better or worse than the other, and ultimately there is a “best” experience – I think of it as a tree, with branches that reach far and in different directions. Great sex is in one direction, a great spiritual experience is another direction, sometimes the two are the same branch, sometimes they branch out from the same limb – there’s also accomplishing a huge challenge, or giving birth, or saving a life, or saving your OWN life, adopting a pet, adopting a child, traveling to a far away place for the first time… or what about even just “cuddling?”
On the one hand I can understand how someone like Randy, who is a very conservative religious person, would be concerned about sexual ethics. On the other hand, his view of the role sex should take in life is slightly slanted at best. Placing such importance on any one thing will ultimately set yourself up to fall, IMHO. Since his life is so centrally based on struggling with his sexual attractions, of course he’s going to put sex itself at the center of his life. But why does sex have to be such a struggle for him? Why can’t it just be whatever it is to people? This is why I’m not a fan of “sex-positive” vs. “sex-negative.” why does there have to be a dichotomy? One’s personal sexual ethic isn’t going to be positive or negative to everyone. (e.g., someone could call a mural of people graphically “making love” to be sex-positive, but hey, I don’t like looking at that and don’t think such imagery should be a public work. Does this make me repressed? I’d say ‘no,’ but I digress…) To be fair, I’ve been watching Randy’s blog and it’s not like he posts about sex every day (and he blogs a lot, mind you.) But this glimpse into the concerns of evangelicals like him, where they’re mostly concerned about what people do in their bedrooms, leaves me thinking of Bishop Desmond Tutu, who lamented this fact.
I always have a problem with the fact that these negativites coming out about sexuality is from the ex-gays themselves. I always mention the same equation; if a homosexual lifestyle that involves promiscuous sex is supposed to be “cured” by being a ministry to become an ex-gay, then a heterosexual lifestyle that involves promiscuous sex should be given the same standard of treatment by dragging them to God to change their sexual orientation!
So in this sense, is it not hypocrisy by Mr. Thomas, if he do not start a ministry for the sexually broken heterosexuals to “change” their sexual orientation to, erm, ex-straights?