On the Exodus e-mail support list for antigay parents, a number of participants have been promoting the exgay-activist video It’s Not Gay.
They say it features “excellent,” factual information from “medical and mental health experts.” They say it proves the “physical and emotional effects of the gay lifestyle” and claim it proves that gay relationships are short-lived. One parent commented:
“This is one of those videos where you just watch it with your child (if they are willing) and put the results into Jesus’ hands knowing that He is in control and loves our children even more than we do, and has a plan for their lives.”
Several parents say the brutality of the video merely demonstrates that the “homosexual lifestyle” is “brutal.”
Caryn Davis of Exodus recommends that antigay parents ask local public libraries to order and house exgay media at taxpayer expense. Naturally, Davis suggests buying the propaganda from an Exodus-affiliated store.
We have discussed before that the antigay activists who appear on the video do not provide the sources of their statistical claims. And some of us know from experience that a parent who shows the video to an adult child sends the message not that they love their children or value the whole truth, but that the parent is eager to misunderstand their child — and easily seduced by vulgar and unsubstantiated stereotypes toward people who are same-sex-attracted.
However, in the absence of a point-by-point analysis of the video’s claims and sources, any argument over the video becomes a pointless indulgence in he-said-she-said rhetoric.
If anyone knows of existing online resources that dispute each of the video’s specific claims, please let us know. If someone wishes to review the video — point by point, play by play — from a strictly clinical perspective, we’d welcome that as well.
I’m not seeking a vague overview of Paul Cameron, nor am I inviting more comments complaining about Michael Johnston or Richard Cohen. I’m requesting a statistical and scientific analysis of every key claim in the video, in sequence, with timestamps as appropriate.
I saw the film some days ago, and I don’t think the main problem with it is not the numbers in the used statistics (of course most of the numbers are probably wrong or at least questionable) but in the way that the statistics are used to support the conclusions.
We need to teach people that there is a difference between risky behaviour and sexual orientation.
Of course applying the statements presented in the film on my own life tends to be quite ridiculous, as I live with my husband since 6 years and three children far away from the life portrayed.
I’m really disinclined to give money to these people, even if it’s to debunk them. But if someone can document the stats they pull out and post it, that might be helpful. I understand they don’t give cites, but I’ve been running across the same sets of bogus stats for so long now I can about know what rabbit hole they’ve pulled things out of just from hearing the numbers.
For example…if you hear a stat that goes something like, “the typical male homosexual in America has had 500 (sometimes the words “or more” are added) sex partners in their lifetimes”, it can almost certainly trace its linage back to a cherry picked figure from Bell and Weinberg’s Homosexualities, (pg. 85) that not only inaccurately relates the data given, but is a gross misuse of the study’s methods.
They’ve been repeating the same junk for so long now it’s almost a sad fact that they Don’t need to give any cites, because anyone who’s been watching them long enough can probably figure out where it came from anyway.
I have a couple of questions:
1) How long is the video?
2) Is there anything in the video that suggests where the source of the statistics come from? Anything in any accompanying printed material?
3) What’s the best way to get a copy of it without putting money into Exodus’ pockets? I don’t have broadband, so watching it online isn’t very viable for me.
Feel free to e-mail me or answer them here.
I can’t contribute…wish I could.
But at least it does set up parent and child to EXPECT that the child will discipline themselves to the satisfaction of their parents….and what such a video or any other ex gay information tells them to.
And failure is blamed on weakness or some other inferiority in the gay person, rather than
the fact that it’s inappropriate to harbor those expectations in the first place.
Wayne Besen said that his parents tried it, and the material suggested THE parents failed somewhere, and fortunately they knew better.
It seems between me, Bruce, granddale, and others, we should be able to pick quite a bit out if we could get a transcript of a ripped audio file or something.
RE: Video “It’s not Gay”.
Most of the audio/video file can be found on this downloads page (2/20/05 show):
http://www.24-7-living-4-jesus-and-talking-about-it.org/index.html
The only part removed is where they explain, explicitly, what happens physically & dangerously in homosexual sex.
,,,Bernie
http://fgn.typepad.com/
“The only part removed is where they explain, explicitly, what happens physically & dangerously in homosexual sex.”
You almost got that right, Bernie. What you meant to say was “The only part removed is where they spout ridiculous and unsubstantiated lies intended to frighten ignorant people into believing that sex between two men is somehow dangerous – without distinguishing between safe and unsafe sex – using totally bogus ‘statistics’ and false ‘findings’.”
But, hey, you got close.
Bernie,
You seem like a heterosexual who isn’t doesn’t know much about sex. This history of it that isn’t Biblical or, as my friend Tim points out…safe sex, as opposed to unsafe sex.
The thing is Bernie…
Everyone should be encouraged to have safe sex. Heteros even more so…unplanned babies and all that.
But since gay people can’t have children they haven’t carefully prepared for….
what’s it to YOU whether two men or two women are having sx with each other?
Your concerns…are NOT your concerns.
That’s your problem and those who think like you.
You don’t know when something really is, and when it’s not.
Dinstinctions between addictions and homosexuality or
the betrayal of someone and homosexuality are beyond your ability to deal with.
And be clear and consistent in how you translate what hte Bible tells you and how you pick and choose to treat another person.
Unless you’re planning on having sex with a guy, Bernie…you don’t have to worry yourself about it.
I got news for you…
When it comes to heterosex…us WOMEN might sustain some damage and if a woman shouldn’t have children…it’s risky dangerous sex more for HER, than if two men are so engaged.
So you gonna run and tell that woman for whom pregnancy is dangerous not to have sex too?
All of us has responsibilities, Bernie.
But, gay people are not YOUR responsibility..that is unless you care to treat gay people equal to yourself in all established institutions.
YOU, should heed your own instincts, and let gay people heed theirs.
If you’re thinking this much about gays and lesbians and what they are doing beyond a door…you are WAY to interested.
Seriously Bernie, the Bible might have told you it’s not natural or
it’s wrong…but it’s JUST A BOOK Bernie.
One of many.
So of all the disciplines there in that book, which other ones do you trouble yourself to tell all about what the Bible says to HETEROSEXUALS?
Do you run up to people in divorced people’s online blogs and tell them what you think of their sins?
See, I really get tired of Christian identified folks, saving their sin lectures for gay people alone.
The only part removed is where they explain, explicitly, what happens physically & dangerously in homosexual sex.
In the sack I just can’t hide the fact that I’m ticklish. And then sex gets very dangerous. But in a fun kinda way…
Regan said:
…but it’s JUST A BOOK Bernie.
If you were trying to share your point of view with a Christian, you probably aren’t going to score any points with that one. It is certainly more than that to me.
Try addressing the basic facts, such as this wonderful quote from his web site:
Personally, I believe that anyone can be gay, if they let their mind go there. I don’t think it’s something you are born into. However, once you practice it, it is difficult to get free of, just as any sin is. For example, take a murderer. Once they murder, something happens in their brain, and they do more murders, more gruesome than the first. They can be reformed, but it’s very difficult. [Bernie Dehler]
Now that is an incredibly uninformed statement if I have ever heard one. One may as well compare being gay to eating a bag of potato chips – can’t eat just one. How do you deal with that?
David
Point taken David,
My frustration is showing big time. I meant no disrespect to my Christian friends. What I am most troubled by is the selectiveness of how the Bible is quoted, interpreted as a license to mistreat gays and lesbians-indeed murderers and adulterers are treated BETTER in the public and civil discourse on marriage and in being allowed to marry.
And this common comparison of gay people to such socially destructive people.
Too common.
When right in front of us, homosexuality has no resemblence whatsoever to those behaviors, but gay people are treated as if it is.
How we treat one another publicly and socially seems to be the debated factor.
We could tell Bernie over and over again-gay people’s behavior as gay people-does nothing to betray or hurt straight people.
Gay happiness is not at the expense of straight happiness or goals.
This only happens when straight people keep telling themselves that gay people aren’t supposed to be gay…but straight and that has to be the point of origin for respect and understanding of that individual.
We all know that, religious identity is fluid, not bound by law to exist or be forced on other people, regardless of what values it represents.
That is to say (again Bernie and you’re not dealing with this point of fact), that no one’s religious belief is compromised by how gay people are treated.
And the misuse of the Bible before, on many civil rights legal reasoning has hurt other minorities.
Bernie dared to have disdain for me when I brought up race and civil rights.
But he plays the polygamy/incest card from the botton of the deck every time.
And here the argument isn’t denial of marriage for polygamists because that’s a CULTURAL issue and inappropriate to bring up regarding gay marriage.
Homosexuality is a PERSONAL CHARACTERISTIC, not a culture.
And no human being is denied the option of marriage based on that.
None.
So, and this is to Bernie,
We have to keep perspective on this. Your religious opinion is and always will be respected IN THE LAW as YOUR personal choice.
And for now, ONLY gay people are in courts, in significant numbers enough to garner amendments on state constitutions throughout the country fighting for the ability to protect their loved ones through marriage.
Look around you Bernie, at the real…not the theoretical.
In Spain, in Canada, in the one state where marriage is legal here…Massachussetts-nobody straight got hurt.
The institition of marriage wasn’t hurt either.
And gay couples, especially those with children are having a better time of it.
This hasn’t weakened or compromised anything about marriage in any way.
Heterosexuals, who are a majority in any given issue on gay people are using their NUMBERS politically to destroy what gay people can do for their lives and other straight people too.
Not because heterosexuals are morally better, more talented, or more intelligent, or more capable of competency in relationships, but simply because there are more heterosexuals able to throw their weight around and screw up and with gay people.
But being cruel to gay people won’t make straight life better.
It doesn’t seem to occur to you to wonder, had there never been such a thing as homophobia-whose family would still be whole?
Who would still be alive?
Your questions regarding gay marriage and it’s context in the lives of straight people has been answered many times over.
And to my eyes, you have taken such a strong liking to the Bible’s instructions on homosexuality (which only effects gay people and THEY aren’t complaining.)
Let’s talk about the real, Bernie, not the theoretical.
In the real world, gay people have needs and obligations the same as you.
Therefore REQUIRE marriage, same as you.
And regardless of what you think about gay people, THEY have to go on in the world and make the best of it, same as you.
And since it’s no real sacrifice for YOU or TO YOU, or to the institution’s basic tenet (two consenting, non related adults) that gay people get married…
and their personal characteristic doesn’t EFFECT you-then marriage is appropriate.
But being cruel to gay people directly or indirectly, NEVER will be.
That’s my comment, David.
I hate it that there are so many amazingly cognizant and open religious people who understand that their faith is theirs to do with as they see fit in their personal lives and make no political aim to enforce it on others.
And understand what consistency means.
And consistency is nearly impossible for civil law implementation.
But in some others, the attitude is, ‘this book is my license to tell you what to think, do and I’ll control what I do with it for you and how much of it I’ll use for that purpose’.
The jihad has begun.
Global dysfunction over whose religion is the right one is killing people out there.
The only difference is the technology to destroy the planet.
Secular heads can be cooler heads…and we keep getting shouted down.
“What I am most troubled by is the selectiveness of how the Bible is quoted, interpreted as a license to mistreat gays and lesbians-indeed murderers and adulterers are treated BETTER in the public and civil discourse on marriage and in being allowed to marry.”
There’s a little teen flick called “Saved” starring Jena Malone, Mandy Moore and McCauley Culkin about a bunch of teens attending a Christian high school. It has all the depth of an ice cream cone but it’s fun.
Amidst the fluff, however, there’s one little nugget of truth. In one scene Mandy’s character throws a bible at Jena’s character who responds with “This isn’t a weapon, Hilary Faye!!”
Though it’s simplistic and not at all subtle, I wish more good Christians would recognize the truth in that statement and realize that God really doesn’t want his children to use Him as a weapon to hurt each other.
Too often Christians think that “using God’s name in vain” means saying “Oh, God” or “God damn it”. What I believe the commandment is actually forbidding is attributing to God (using his name or authority) one’s own opinions or desires: “You must do this or can’t do that and God agrees with me.”
The parallel I draw is in a business when some manager says “You have to do it my way because the Owner wants it that way.” He’d better be pretty darn sure he’s right because otherwise the owner will be doubly pissed off, first that it’s wrong and second that he usurped the owner’s authority.
Speaking of selectiveness in quoting the Bible….
I’m not interested in Bernies link in which he refuses the show the relevant portion of the video with the presumably slanderous statistics.
I’ve lookined on Amazon.com for a used copy, but they don’t have it — new or used. That is how I get most of my antigay material without having to contribute to their causes.
But maybe I should look into biting the bullet anyway.
Last time I checked, the American Family Association requested a $15 “donation” to obtain the video. I recommend requesting a free copy. If they object, publicize their response.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse at January 28, 2006 01:04 PM
No offense taken Regan, and I agree with both your posts – it certainly is frustrating. As I have said before, the effect that misuse of scripture and just plain bad behavior by some Christians tends to have on those of a different (or no) faith is something that troubles me. It causes the expected backlash against all Christians (and God, illustrating what Timothy said about “taking the Lord’s name in vein”) and then we have the back and forth that is so common in public debate. There are times when I too want to just slap someone and ask them what on earth are they are thinking.
I hate it that there are so many amazingly cognizant and open religious people who understand that their faith is theirs to do with as they see fit in their personal lives and make no political aim to enforce it on others.
It’s a side effect of our human tenancy to group and label everyone. Just as there is a broad spectrum of gay people, there are lots of different kinds of Christians – and the two certainly intersect as well. There are some fundamental (small “f”) tenants of the Christian faith which are pretty important and one would have to say “required” to be a Christian. The rest of it is something one works out with God throughout one’s life. The problem I see is that some take these other things and make them requirements instead of personal issues. It’s as if by accepting that certain Christians can accept their own homosexuality as part of themselves and not a sin to be cleansed of, their own faith is somehow devalued. It’s almost like a non-sequitur in programming – it just won’t compute to allow both conditions to exist. To them it is a compromise of their own faith, even if it is not their life. I wish I could explain it better.
Timothy said:
What I believe the commandment is actually forbidding is attributing to God (using his name or authority) one’s own opinions or desires: “You must do this or can’t do that and God agrees with me.”
Good point. I’ve always thought that it would be odd if swear words rated a commandment all their own 😉 I have to admit to being particularly sensitive to the “GD” swear, but it’s just the way I am – I don’t equate it with breaking a commandment.
Mike said:
Last time I checked, the American Family Association requested a $15 “donation” to obtain the video. I recommend requesting a free copy. If they object, publicize their response.
I may just do that. I’ve always wondered what would happen if one actually called them on that, i.e., “I have no money to spare but would really like the video”. Would their IRS status require them to give it to you?
David
Until midnight March 27th, the “suggested donation” for this dreck is “on sale” at $10. Could it be that AFA’s little gem isn’t moving?
I’ve read many things here. What I see as a major stumbling block is proper perspective. This country was founded and conquered to provide a place where personal freedom from governments telling us what to do as much as anything else. I am a Christian. My views on homosexual behavior are not based on the Bible teachings. Rather, they are based on the fact that this country was founded on personal respect for others.
The vast majority of these founding fathers and our later population are indeed heterosexual, not homosexual. The vast majority of heterosexuals set up this country to conform to heterosexual cultural values, yet we tolerate much. Personal freedom is important to us, don’t dismiss that fact. However, we set up things and continue to modify them to the greatest benefit within our framework. The USA has a culture of tolerance and personal freedom. The one problem with our system is the fringe peoples take advantage of personal freedoms we -the USA- afford everyone to make themselves special in some respect. They want to strip all morals, our morals, and not just the homosexual folks, but child molesters, people who enjoy S&M, bestiality, all of that. We even have sub cultures -or gangs as I like to think of them- that do not conform to any standards at all except kill or be killed.
It is unfortunate the fringe elements in our society take advantage of the freedoms to legally infiltrate then strip all hope of continuity or morals from our society.
Most in the USA agree:
1) Murder is wrong.
2) Rape is wrong.
3) Drug abuse is wrong.
4) Assault is wrong.
5) Lying under oath is wrong.
6) Hurting others for personal gain is wrong.
7) Freedom of speech is good.
8) Freedom of choice is good.
9) Speed limits are good.
10) Stop signs are good.
…and the list goes on and on. One of the biggest single things that some fringe elements don’t agree on are sex related. Sex is part of our moral structure. We don’t like multiple wives so only allow men to marry one woman at a time.
What the fringe element is trying to legalize is a fundamental change in what the vast majority of the people that created these united states intended. They intended us to have all these freedoms with a measure of dignity and restraint and self control. What most fringe elements lack is this self control and self discipline. To address that problem of what was once thought by our founders as self evident, we now have to write laws that govern morality, especially sexual morality.
The main argument is that sex is a personal freedom and choice between consenting legal adults, no different than a personal choice to rob a bank or become a nun or fireman. That argument sidesteps the founders and current majorities values in a blatant attempt to change same and make them acceptable. What the fringe elements are trying to do is exactly what they accuse the majority of doing, that is change our morals via legislation and constant exposure.
To those fringe elements I say you affront my personal freedoms every time you try to force a minority opinion on the majority or just me. You attack my personal freedom of choice in a country based on freedom of choice by attacking the basis of the countries creation forgetting the majority agreed upon norms for human behavior and interaction. You assault me personally no different than if you were bank robbers or fliers of airplanes into buildings. You say I cannot stop you and try to legislate and legalize personal sexual morals while saying all the time that we cannot do that either! If we cannot legislate morality, then neither can you; the difference being we are the majority that formed this nation and you are Johnny Come Lately’s into an already established culture that happens to allow people the freedom to destroy from within. Our constitution is based on trust that the personal freedoms afforded would not be abused, yet the vast majority of our laws are written to combat abusers who cannot control themselves. The majority of people think sexual promiscuity is wrong for many reasons (notice I lump everyone in this group). We, the majority, also find it offensive to see extreme public displays of affection or nudity, especially nudity with sexual connotations, not simply sunbathing on the beach. Because the fringe elements can’t control themselves, we have to remove the majorities public freedoms (for instance public nudity) explicitly in our laws.
Because the fringe elements abuse freedom by not respecting others freedoms, we have to legislate against such behavior.
The vast majority wish peace and personal freedom without hurting others. Personal freedoms such as :
1) The right to walk our children in parks and not see two adults having sex on the grass.
2) Our right to live in our homes without hearing a car with 200 watt 16” base speakers shaking our walls booming whole neighborhoods.
3) Our right to peace without having our senses violated in general.
4) The right to watch TV and listen to Radio without having to hear degenerate vulgarisms.
5) The right to be free of fear from drive-by shootings.
6) The right to teach and have our children taught the way we the majority and founding fathers want, not what fringe gangs want.
7) The right to use public freeways free of inconsiderate intoxicated drivers.
… and the list can go on.
In short, the whole argument about homosexual rights (not gay, the proper term is HOMOSEXUAL), is an argument to change the fundamental MORAL BASIS of the freedoms this country was founded on. And, the USA is so great a place, we allow them to try. Our only means to combat it is using their methods, their kind of propaganda. We fight against gangs by exposing the truth of them, how they are short term and hold no long term prospects. Drug gangs, robbers, thieves, extremists (KKK, skin heads, homosexuals, etc) are free to exists so long as their words and deeds remain within the structure and moral basis of the freedoms the USA provides. You can be a thief, just don’t steal anything or try to teach our children to be that way; you can be a KKK member or skinhead, just don’t kill people because of your hate or try to teach our children hate; you can be homosexual, just don’t try to teach our children to be homosexual.
The thing many of these gangs do is assault our senses and that of our children. When gangs won’t let other peoples children walk around without trying to influence them through public displays, that is where they rape us of the very freedoms this country allows. You be whatever and whoever you want to be, just keep the climate outside and in media where our children are exposed conformed to the morals and norms that this country was founded on. This land is OUR land, this land is YOUR land. You have to be as morally decent to folks as you wish them to be to you and that means a certain decorum needs to be maintained. That decorum was once thought to be self evident, now we find we must legislate it.
The personal dignity and ways to treat others with respect in an atmosphere of decorum contained in many texts contain the very structures that should be applied publicly for “all” to benefit. The Bible is one such text. Like all things, it can be abused or used for abuse as well. By definition, respect of others and maintaining a dignified culture mandate certain behaviors not be publicly displayed where our children are influenced. For that reason alone, homosexual parades, murderers parades, nude parades, pedophile parades, bestiality parades, gang rape parades, etc. etc. should not be allowed. The only reason homosexual parades (and they are nasty) are allowed is because there are finally enough of them concentrated in one location that it becomes easy for them to gang together and do what they want.
Without morals, we have no culture or safe society. You be what you want to be as an adult, but part of your responsibility as an adult is public dignity and acting in public atmospheres with dignity such that others who do not share your personal views are not offended; especially where our children are concerned. If one feels so strongly about their rights to assault others with their degenerate public displays, then go to some other country where they don’t care. We the majority were here first, deal with it. You don’t like it, then go away. To that end, any video that attacks gang activity is fine by me, and much of the homosexual gang activity is disgusting and publicly abusive to others senses, so I say let the video’s fly! Adults make their choices to buy or not and to allow their children to view it or not. That choice should not be forced on us or our children.
You don’t like the video, then don’t buy it or else throw it away, but I say anything that exposes gang activity is a good thing; and any activity that exposes my child to anti-moral or sexual things I don’t want them to see in public is an assault against my personal freedom, no different than if someone is murdered in front of my child.
Personal freedom by it’s very nature requires those who exercise that freedom do so in a way that doesn’t assault others or our children; especially in public. Be homosexual, be a murderer, do what you want, but don’t do in front of me or my children and don’t complain about the price you may have to pay later if you do.
Um, “Tex” you could have been a whole lot more succinct if you’d just said “Hi, I’m a bigot.”
Tex,
You made a quite lengthy and impassioned appeal. But I think you are making several false assumptions:
1. You seem to think gay people do not have morals. We do. Most of us, especially those who write here, hold themselves to a far higher standard of honesty and personal integrity than do many conservative Christian leaders. We just don’t happen to believe that being a gay person is immoral. This belief isn’t based on assumptions or traditions or ignorance but – for many of us – a lifetime of study, thought and analysis. We’ve spent much longer thinking about morals than you have, I’d wager. If your beliefs disagree with mine, that’s fine – but your personal moral opinions on this should apply to you, not me.
2. You seem to think that by existing openly, gay people offend the majority (we “assault” you with “degenerate public displays”). That is not the case. A poll this week found that 60% of Americans favor open service by gay people in the military. Only half of the population opposes gay marriage, and there are many people who oppose gay marriage that do not think that gays offend them. It seems your view is in the minority.
3. You seem to think that you should be free from offense, but that gay people should not. I have no obligation to put my own freedoms and beliefs aside because they may offend you. I’m offended by those with whom I don’t agree politically, but I certainly don’t think they have some obligation to keep silent.
4. You seem to think our country’s founders wanted to establish morals and values of a majority and make everyone else live by them. Our founders deliberately established a constitutional republic in which the rights of minorities were valued highly. The freedoms of speech, religion, etc. were not to protect the majority but those out of power.
5. You seem to think that gays are new-comers to this country, Johnny-come-latelies. I can assure you that gay people have always been here. And if we are talking about heritage, I highly doubt that your ancestors have some claim that my early colonial ancestors (or my native American ancestors) do not.
6. You think that one standard of decorum applies to you and another to gay people. We do not behave any differently in public with our loved ones than you do with yours. We have no higher obligation to your children than you do to ours. In recent years, it has been the anti-gay activists who have been offensive in the sight of children of gay parents, not the other way around.
7. You seem to draw no distinction between homosexuality and murder or rape. Regardless of your beliefs on “sin”, there are strong differences between gay people and those who victimize others. Those persons who enter into a relationship with someone of the same sex do so willingly and in consistence with their nature. No one is a victim. Murderers, rapists, and criminals violate the will of others. Your attitude seems to fall closer to that of a rapist (you seek to impose your will on others) than does a gay person’s.
8. You seem to feel threatened by gay people. You don’t need to be. Gay people have the same hopes, dreams, fears, and desires as you. Yet you imply threats against us (the “price” we may have “to pay”). Of the two of us, you seem more like a threat to civil society.
9. Finally, you seem to think that we object to this video because it is anti-gay. That isn’t correct. We object to this video because it is filled with lies – no, not different opinions, but lies. Lies about statistics and findings and studies which the creators of the video know to be untrue. And people like you fall victim to these lies and end up opposing gay folks when if you knew the truth you would probably be much less hostile.
You talk about morals quite a bit. Don’t you think that you should be filled with moral outrage that an organization that purports to be Christian would distribute a video filled with lies? Wouldn’t Christ be angry? Instead of telling gay people to hide and pretend, shouldn’t you be challenging the distributors and asking why they are lying to you?
Tex, that was the most offensively insipid comment I’ve read in quite a while. Bravo.
Posted by: Tex Trader at March 25, 2006 04:46 PM
I shall be organizing the neighbor’s sock drawers until dawn. In all seriousness, Tex, your rant, and more importantly your disturbingly distorted view of the world, illustrates perfectly the product of the garbage we try to combat with the truth. I think you believe every word you wrote, and to be honest it scares me for those who may one day get in your way if you finally snap. You have a lot of fear and hatred in you, and it’s much more serious than what you may or may not think of gays. Get help, please.
David
To all of you who accuse me of some sort of craziness or ill will towards others, I respond as follows:
For David:
“your disturbingly distorted view of the world, illustrates perfectly the product of the garbage we try to combat with the truth.”
Distorted in what way? Did you bother to even read and understand what I wrote? Do you approve of murder, public displays of sex or near sex acts, rape, cars with stereos so loud the floors shake, people calling other people names and using vulgar language in public where children are? Tell me David, is there nothing in public that offends you or nothing that you feel would offend children? You seem to think I am going to snap someday, of what disorder are you accusing me of having? I am a normal person that enjoys peace and quiet and nature and good friends. You are the one who seems to have a problem. I do not have a lot of fear and hatred in me except the fear that gangs will continue to ruin neighborhoods and kill our children. I fear peoples total lack of decorum in public stresses their total disregard for others. It’s your kind on nonsense and fallacious (ad hominem) arguments that are scary.
Read this again:
Personal freedom by it’s very nature requires those who exercise that freedom do so in a way that doesn’t assault others or our children; especially in public. Be homosexual, be a murderer, do what you want, but don’t do in front of me or my children and don’t complain about the price you may have to pay later if you do.
I lump all offensive behavior together. Never in any of my statements did I ever say that activities between consenting adults behind closed doors was any of my business. I have seen HOMOSEXUAL parades. I have SEEN HETEROSEXUAL PARADS. I have seen BOTH parties commit vulgar acts in public.
To the person that called me a bigot, you have no basis to say that and are just full of nonsense. Do YOU approve of murder, rape, public displays of sex or near sex acts, cars disturbing hundreds of people in their homes with loud stereos and bombing buildings? Do you approve of those things I mentioned in the list? Your statement is full of more hate than anything I said.
To the person who gave a gigantic numbered response, you say that I think “gay people do not have morals” and that is totally wrong. You imbue characteristics into what I said as being directed towards only homosexuals. “GAY” is a term homosexuals put on their behavior to make it sound better and they refer to heterosexuals as “Straight”. Well, terms should be true opposites in this respect, so if you are “GAY”, then I am “UNGAY” or using a true dictionary, “SAD” or “UNHAPPY”. On the other side of the coin, if heterosexuals are “Straight”, then homosexuals are “Unstraight” or “Bent” or “Curved”. A rose by any other name etc.
You argue that I should be offended by what the AFA and other groups do and imply I am not. I tell you now that I try to follow Jesus Christ’s teachings and I am offended by what many of the groups do and offended by the way they attack minorities. There are many things about organized religion that offend me and many things that so called Christians and other religious denominations do that offend me. But you lump a bunch or stereo typical crap on me because you don’t like what I say. I ask you as well, is there no public behavior that offends you?
One last note of so called “homosexual” rights. You have all the same rights I have. You have all the same opportunities I have and live in the same country. Fact is, many people would feel out of place if not uncomfortable living in sections or areas where other languages are spoken and unfamiliar foods are eaten and all that. That is totally okay! It is okay not to be attracted to various cultural behaviors and people. It doesn’t mean they are wrong or bad, just different. It is okay not to like the way people talk or act for other than cultural reasons too. It’s okay to not like the way murderous prisoners talk, or robbers act, or rapists or child molesters behave. And when that behavior hurts enough others, the others may do something about it. So, we have a country where we can all live together and get along, but for the sake of all, certain disciplines and decorum’s should be maintained. For the sake of all, don’t beat your child bloody in public and expect people not to be offended. Don’t rattle peoples walls with your stereos and expect them not to be offended. Don’t kiss and feel each other up in public and expect others not to be offended.
You say “We object to this video because it is filled with lies”; who is we? All the homosexuals or just the ones you know personally or just your friends regardless of sexual orientation?
I say to you, if you think statistics are wrong and studies are wrong, then show YOUR NUMBERS and prove your point with facts instead of gut reactions. Any thief caught obviously objects to the facts and denies having done the “bad deed”. Make your own video, the one I watch called “it’s not gay” shows valid points. Many of those points are valid no mater ones sexual orientation, if not most of them.
And yes, homosexuals have always been around. You miss the point, the point is this country was built on “IN GOD WE TRUST” and all the freedoms that go with that which dictates and assumes certain types of behaviors, especially in public. I oppose the people who want to remove the “IN GOD WE TRUST” from this country and make it just one big open cesspool of disgusting behaviors.
Lastly, to all of you who find truth offensive, remember that there are as many truths as there are people and don’t confuse truth with facts; they are not always the same. There is one truth though, Jesus died for our sins and the eleventh commandment he gave us is truly a good way to run your life. Love one another, do good to those who do evil to you. We are to spread the word and “rightly divide the truth”, Gods truth.
And as far as my views of this wonderful country go, the only way we can all get along is to publicly try not to offend others and try not to usurp parents authority as to what their children are exposed to.
I pray for all of you, keep what the majority of people consider “naughty behavior” private and we won’t have any problems. Try to force your behavior on others and call it normal is pissing into the wind. Doesn’t matter who is trying to change who, doesn’t matter if it’s sexual material or noise in the streets or belief or unbelief in the Lord. Let everyone exists in peace with freedom and we will be okay. But publicize your desire to make “murderers rights” or “child molesters” rights or whatever and you will naturally run into resistance.
Finally, I have threatened nobody. I merely point out that for many behaviors, there are consequences. Some of those may be fine in one country and a death sentence in another. Don’t complain about it, it is the way it is on this earth. Sell drugs in Singapore and die for it. Sell them in Finland and get a good price. Be openly homosexual in an area that doesn’t approve of that sort of thing or walk nude on a public beach or whatever behavior you can think of and there may be consequences depending on your local. It’s the people who want to operated without having those consequences over their heads that cause most of the problems. Even most thieves know they go to jail when caught. All I want is peace and decent environment where children can grow up as their patents wish them to grow up, not as the openly and offensively homosexual or child molesting or thieving or drug abusing neighbor wants.
Tex Trader, you seem fixated on the idea of public sex displayed by homosexual persons, comparing it to loud stereos and such. That comes up again and again in your postings and confuses me. I have never had sex with my partner in public and can’t even begin to imagine doing so. Do you live in a place where that is a frequent occurence? Truthfully, in my world I see over-the-line heterosexual behavior regularly but virtually never same-gender behavior. Most homosexually-oriented persons know that just holding their partner’s hand or giving a peck on the cheek is an invitation to danger.
To me, being ‘open’ simply means being honest about sexual orientation, and I’m wondering if that is what bothers you most. Being candid about who I am – not holding up a sign but simply acknowledging and including my partner and challenging untruths – is a necessary way, IMO, to help our society see that gay folks are mostly just like them. That sometimes makes people uncomfortable for reasons entirely their own. If you see that as a breach of your personal freedom, so be it, but understand that pressure to hide and be quiet is an assault on MY freedom.
If you wonder why ‘we’ (meaning Ex Gay Watch) consider the content of ‘It’s Not Gay’ to be untruthful, consider doing some research on Dr. Paul Cameron whose fabricated numbers and unscientific ‘science’ forms the basis of the video. The inclusion of Michael Johnston is another serious matter of truthfulness that has been discussed on this site and can be accessed by a link on the above article (which then links to another related discussion). But even Bernie Dehler who recently aired the video on TV indicated he wasn’t ultimately concerned about the truthfulness of the video, so I’m not assuming you will be either.
“Lastly, to all of you who find truth offensive, remember that there are as many truths as there are people and don’t confuse truth with facts; they are not always the same.”
You’re thinking of truthiness, not truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
“To the person that called me a bigot, you have no basis to say that and are just full of nonsense. Do YOU approve of murder, rape, public displays of sex or near sex acts, cars disturbing hundreds of people in their homes with loud stereos and bombing buildings? Do you approve of those things I mentioned in the list? Your statement is full of more hate than anything I said.”
Again, it would have been much more succinct to say “I’m not a bigot! Oh, by the way, I’m a bigot.”
See, when you repeatedly compare gay people to murderers and rapists and thieves and child molesters and terrorists and say we have no right to do anything which may “offend” you, then you are being a bigot. A “bigot” is someone who is known for the practice of “bigotry.” You practice bigotry, hence you are a bigot.
“I merely point out that for many behaviors, there are consequences. Some of those may be fine in one country and a death sentence in another. Don’t complain about it, it is the way it is on this earth. Sell drugs in Singapore and die for it. Sell them in Finland and get a good price. Be openly homosexual in an area that doesn’t approve of that sort of thing or walk nude on a public beach or whatever behavior you can think of and there may be consequences depending on your local.”
I see. So, if enough of us on this blog agree on it, then by your argument we have the right to kill you.
“You seem to think I am going to snap someday, of what disorder are you accusing me of having?”
You snapped about three or four exits back, guy.
I would like to note that “In God We Trust” was added to the currency during the Civil War, so the phrase is not directly part of the United States’ founding. On a similar vein, many founders and early presidents held rather unorthodox religious views that fall closer to “liberal” theology than conservative evangelicalism. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (even his son, John Quincy Adams) expressed a belief in universalism, which held that eventually God would grant salvation to everyone and any hell would be correctional and temporary rather than eternal punishment. Washington’s understanding of religion is less clear, though his usage leans towards unorthdox conceptions of God. Madison became more unitarian over the years, and one could go on and on with other examples.
In short, I doubt that many of our early and even Nineteenth Century presidents would be accepted as “good Christians” by most members of the religious right.
It’s ok if they’re not good Christians, as long as they’re not not good Christians in front of Tex and his children.
Oh yes, Tex, I read it – all of it. You really could be more effective if you were more concise. Accusing Timothy of giving a “gigantic numbered response” really took gall considering the 30 paragraphs and 2 numbered lists you provided in just two posts.
You are trying to put words in my mouth and I’m not interested. It is not a personal attack to recognize that anyone complaining of murder and loud music in the same breath feels out of control in life. Whatever the cause of that may be, I suggest you get to someone who can help you figure it out. We are not equipped to help you exorcise your demons here.
David
Tex trader said “If one feels so strongly about their rights to assault others with their degenerate public displays, then go to some other country where they don’t care. We the majority were here first, deal with it.”
That’s absurd Tex. Arrogant and ignorant. All those black haired dark skinned people were here first, certainly not johnny come latelies such as yourself. There was never any moral authority to invade this land and forcibly take over from First Nations people here who in the majority of cases held same sex attracted people in high esteem. If your basis is whoever was here first makes rules for all of the future then you have no right to be complaining about gays unless they are physically preventing you from going about your day to day business. That’s the rules we all play by if we are truly moral.
If your god is so moral, why, when his faithful servants were carrying the arc of the covenant over a bumpy road and one reached out to save what he thought was precious, why did your god kill him? A moral being would never murder someone trying to help that being. Your bible is in conflict with the morals you confessed to have.
When you lump gay behavior in with murder and rape you show you have no true understanding of the basis of morality. We are all morally free to do whatever we want as long as we aren’t interferring in anyone else’s right to do the same. Murder, rape, theft, all clearly violate that moral certainty, a loving gay relationship does not. You wouldn’t want anyone to tell you not to hold your wife’s hand in public, or not to publicly call her ‘dear’ or ‘sweety’. If you want to be a moral person you can’t force gays to stop public behavior you wouldn’t stop yourself (gay pride parades aside). By the way, what were you doing at a gay pride parade anyway if you find it so offensive. I’m 45 and I’ve never seen a gay pride parade, how come you’re seeking out what a bent girl like me doesn’t?
Tex: here’s a short answer to your very long and desperate attempt to cover your own blinding prejudices …
That’s what happens when the promotion of “public morals” — code words for simple religious bigotry — has a higher priority than respect for the individual.Individual liberty means that some people will act, speak or think in ways that you may wish they did not. Your own individual liberty means you will not compelled to join them if you don’t want to.
If your god is so moral, why, when his faithful servants were carrying the arc of the covenant over a bumpy road and one reached out to save what he thought was precious, why did your god kill him? A moral being would never murder someone trying to help that being. Your bible is in conflict with the morals you confessed to have.
For Pete’s sake Randi would you please cut that out! Bump the needle into the next groove already.
David
Yes, I’m sorry David, I should have known better on that one.
Tex,
I’ll keep this response down to two points:
First, you display amazing ignorance about the founding principles of our country. Although most conservative religiously political organizations love the imagery of patriotism (flags, eagles, founding documents, etc.) and have a great fondness of thinking that the “founding fathers” shared their values and beliefs, they are incorrect. This country was not founded as a Christian nation.
In fact, it was quite an oddity at the time in that it didn’t profess Christianity; most of the nations in Europe were expressly Christian and had a national church (or affiliation with the Catholic Church). In contrast, we vaguely referenced a non-specific “Creator” and “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence and left them out of the Constitution altogether. When religious freedom was protected by the first amemdment, it was given no greater prominance than speech or press.
I highly recommend that you read a little history or do a little research. I think you would be surprised.
Secondly, to demand that one group of people behave according to some code of propriety that you do not hold for yourself is a clear indicator of bigotry.
For example, if you find it OK to kiss your wife in public but object to other people kissing, it is not the act of kissing that you find objectable but rather those who are doing it. That’s bigotry.
If are offended that someone may think you a bigot, then don’t practice bigotry. If, instead, you want to hold onto the notion that you should be treated one way and homosexuals another way, then embrace the label of “Bigot”, as it is simply an accurate description of what you choose to believe.
Alternatively, you could consider the following:
I have a simple code of public conduct that I’ve followed for years. If I wonder if something is offensive I ask myself whether it would be offensive for heterosexuals. If so I don’t do it. If not then it’s someone else’s problem, not mine.
Hey Tex,
Unless you are a Roman Catholic, whatever “religion” you belong to is heresy, according to the nuns and priests I grew up with. According to your thinking states like Maryland and Massachusetts, which have majority Catholics, could just as easily demand that all non-Christians (e.g., all non-Roman Catholics) keep their immoral “perversions” to themselves.
Oh, but that would violate the First Amendment, which, BTW, protects those of us who believe that being gay or lesbian is completely natural and normal, albeit for a small percentage of the population. And guess what, if you don’t like the First Amendment protecting such religious beliefs, you are free to leave the country as well.
“We are all morally free to do whatever we want as long as we aren’t interfering in anyone else’s right to do the same.”
Many people interfere with my right to peace and quiet, and to avoid blatant sexually intimate displays in public. If that is what you are defending, you do lack decorum and a sense of dignity.
“This country was not founded as a Christian nation”. Never said it was. It was founded by people looking for something better. We murdered, fooled, betrayed, and generally did a lot of bad things to take over this piece of dirt called the US of A. It took a long time to get “In God We Trust” and “One Nation Under God” instilled, now people want to take that away. It took a long time to get women the right to vote. It took a long time to get guns off the streets. It took a long time to free the slaves. But, our founding fathers wanted freedom and KNEW it would require discipline and self control. Yes, we even had to fight for our own freedom once we were here too!
By the way Mr. Knowitall, how many people were Baptist Christians who landed and nearly died here with the Columbus fleet? How many were homosexuals since that seems to be “your” theme? (how about zero and zero?)
“Secondly, to demand that one group of people behave according to some code of propriety that you do not hold for yourself is a clear indicator of bigotry.”
I don’t demand that at all. Again you put words in my mouth and interpret between the lines where no interpretation is necessary. You try to remove my freedom to think and say how I feel in the process too; which is worse than anything I said! I don’t like to see 2 men with beards kissing in public with their tongues in each others mouths. I don’t like to see 2 women do the same or a man and woman do the same. If that makes me a bigot, you need to go back to first grade! I never said a simple kiss on the cheek or something like that, I said public displays more akin to fondling and foreplay in public. Again you attack without facts putting words in my mouth.
“That’s what happens when the promotion of “public morals” — code words for simple religious bigotry — has a higher priority than respect for the individual.”
I told you some of my beliefs and you stomp on them while evading the real message and putting words in my mouth. Public moral and dignified behavior has NOTHING to do with religion per se. YOU say that, not me. You avoid my simple suggestions, that where behavior “MAY” be offensive to parents and children, perhaps people could have enough self control and empathy to refrain from their personal versions of their “MORAL” behavior. I will not debate morality as such because it varies with culture and local populations. Maybe it would be better to say “Public Decency”. However you wish to term it, the heart of the matter is groups of people object to different things and those people who haven’t the self control and empathy to either notice that or simply don’t care are stomping on other peoples rights no differently than if they walked up and shot them.
“Individual liberty means that some people will act, speak or think in ways that you may wish they did not. Your own individual liberty means you will not compelled to join them if you don’t want to.”
I know this, but WHERE do YOU draw the line? Do you draw the line when the majority of people in a certain local or neighborhood say they don’t like it and tell you to please stop? Do you draw the line where anyone can do and say anything they want in any way they want even if they are only 1 in 1000 who believe that? You illustrate a perfect example of people who have little self control or consideration for other peoples point of view. I TELL YOU NOW, there are public behaviors I DO NOT LIKE no matter WHO is doing them and you say I am prejudiced. Well, you are damn right I prejudiced! I am prejudiced against murderers, anyone who robs or hurts others, child molesters, thieves, and people who speak only in vulgarities and music playing super vulgar hateful things so loud they shake peoples homes. Damn right I am prejudiced against that kind of behavior. By contrast, you are not are you?
“I have a simple code of public conduct that I’ve followed for years. If I wonder if something is offensive I ask myself whether it would be offensive for heterosexuals. If so I don’t do it. If not then it’s someone else’s problem, not mine.”
Your friend would say you are bigoted against heterosexuals for that statement.
I have a better one. “I already know what offends me and most others in public and refrain from that behavior in public (and most often in private too!) no matter where I am. I look how people around me behave and if there is something I don’t like, I move on or try to ignore it if it is simply a matter of taste, as in language or dress.”
Obviously, I find certain kinds of locations and certain types of music and behavior offensive. I do my best to avoid those areas, but if I happen to be forced by circumstances to endure it for a short time, that is what I will do and do it without criticizing. All peoples public dignity is very very important to me. I will go out of my way to keep my mouth shut and not offend people in public to the greatest extent possible.
You don’t like my God or the teachings of Jesus Christ, that is fine. Don’t blast me for it and don’t think I am so ignorant that I am not aware of many seeming flaws throughout that text. I’ve read much about religion, even 2 versions of the Bhagavad Gita. There are many things I don’t likeand my prejudices are against those behaviors I already mentioned before. I think people doing bad things for religions sake have a distorted view of the final and real message myself. Love each other, do good to those who would do evil to you.
All of you, stop trying to type caste me in some convenient mold, I will not fit your mold.
I never said any persons were bad, only listed behaviors in the “public” context. What I said was bad was certain minorities forcing majorities to comply to their weird sense of decency. I already stated that is population and location dependant. Even within our cities that is true. Homosexual rights shouldn’t be an issue in any sense I can think of. Ya’ll are members if the USA ( I assume) or members of a free nation (I hope). Ya’ll need to remember that in order to get along, you can’t be drinking and driving and having sex and displaying porn or assaulting people in public “HERE”. To do that and hundreds of other things I can think of is antisocial and mean “HERE”, and shows your lack of empathy and self discipline or just plan ignorance in general.
Now, to the final point, you say statistics in that video are wrong and have no data to prove it. Therefore, your arguments are empty. I notice none of you argued what the “leading ex-gay” speaker said of the overly promiscuous behaviors and emotional traps and habits in the homosexual community. If heterosexuals behaved that way (and some do) they would suffer the exact same problems, and they do! Drug users share problems too. Not just physical, but emotional as well.
I will avoid areas that offend me and cultures that offend me and behaviors that offend me and try to keep myself separate from what I consider moral pollution. You do what you want, but don’t criticize my right to complain -when asked- and don’t call me names because you can’t imagine a civilized person that isn’t a bigot that simply doesn’t like or is offended by certain behaviors. Thanks for allowing me less freedom than you demand for yourselves. HOMOSEXUAL behavior offends me. You say that makes me a bad person? I say it is none of my business so long as you don’t FORCE it in my face or my kids faces. I hold the same view for drugs, porn, inappropriate attire, vulgar language, loud disturbing noises, all types of crimes that most agree are crimes. I don’t treat people any differently for their personal beliefs, only worry when they behave in a way that offends me or my family and that could be “anyone”.
I AM ALLOWED AND FREE TO NOT LIKE THINGS! SO ARE YOU!. Don’t try to force crap in my face and I won’t disturb you at all. I won’t call you names because you like curry and I can’t even stand the smell of it, I simply avoid exposure to it. Got it now? Fine. Live long and prosper.
Oh, if you are going to complain about facts and testimony, better have hard evidence ready to back it up. So far all I see is general stereo typing, personal attacks, and fallacious arguments punctuated with emotional outbursts. God Bless, I won’t ever harm you if I can help it, but at least act mature and civilized in public.
Ya’ll know about mature behavior I hope… that is where adults are in control of themselves and act responsibly and with accountability and with some sense of empathy towards others who may have different ways. Where there may be mutual conflict, both parties need to refrain and be polite.
“By the way Mr. Knowitall, how many people were Baptist Christians who landed and nearly died here with the Columbus fleet? How many were homosexuals since that seems to be “your” theme?”
Actually, it’s highly likely that there were homosexuals among Columbus’ fleet. It is common knowledge that seafaring was a profession that was more desirable to men who preferred men than it was to those who preferred the comforts of home and wife. Again, check your history.
“Homosexual rights shouldn’t be an issue in any sense I can think of. Ya’ll are members if the USA ( I assume) or members of a free nation (I hope).”
The issue, Tex, is that homosexual persons are not free or on an equal standing with heterosexual persons. There are many many laws that discriminate between persons based on whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Surely you know that.
“Now, to the final point, you say statistics in that video are wrong and have no data to prove it. Therefore, your arguments are empty. I notice none of you argued what the “leading ex-gay” speaker said of the overly promiscuous behaviors and emotional traps and habits in the homosexual community.”
Over and over we have documented the errors which are stated as “statistics”. Probably the most egregious is using Paul Cameron, who’s falsehoods have been demonstrated at length (see http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html for example).
As for the rest of it, I can’t figure out what you are ranting about. I really can’t.
If you’re upset about loud music, sorry we can’t help you with that. This site doesn’t focus on loud music no matter how distasteful you or I may find it.
If you think people are eating foods you wish they wouldn’t, can’t help you with that either.
But if you want to have any sort of thoughtful discussion about homosexuality or gay people (and since this is our site, we get to decide what terms we use – not you) then please show up with some knowledge and information. Otherwise you are not equipped to discuss this. And rants are not what we do here.
And finally, if you think that gay people are offending you, then why are you here at this site?
I won’t call you names because you like curry and I can’t even stand the smell of it, I simply avoid exposure to it.
That was quite a tell.
From where I am sitting, that’s 3 strikes Tex. Your rants are incredibly long winded but they don’t seem to require interaction from another party so perhaps you can carry on with yourself. Even if you are serious about your complaints (and I fear you are), it isn’t the purpose of this site to deal with how much you hate the world around you – gay or otherwise. Anything more along these lines truly would be offensive.
David
Tex — sorry, but you are plainly unhinged.The “leading ex-gay speaker” on that video is Michael Johnston. He vanished from public view after it was revealed that far from being exgay, he was in fact having unprotected sex with men. And he is HIV positive. He was living as he always had — a user, an abuser and a liar.The “research” he quotes is from a Paul Cameron — someone who was booted out from the APA for fraudulent research. He continues living as he always has — a user, an abuser and a liar.All that you would know if you had bothered to shut up for a moment and learn. Learning works best with your eyes open more often than your mouth.Apart from that, nobody is forcing you to do anything. All that’s being asked is that you live alongside others as a mature and respectful citizen.You haven’t mentioned a single occassion when you have been personally injured by anyone gay. Yet you feel threatened and angry just because gay men and women are going about their lives like everyone else. You are intolerant and will not give them a moments accomodation, and yet you want them to hide and lie just to protect your precious ego. You want them to torture their own lives, just so you won’t even have to acknowledge their existence.You are very demanding of an entire group of people for no reason other than your own distaste. That is what makes you a bigot. And apparently an equal opportunity one.It’s also why we should ignore you.Ever thought of moving to a mountain cave in Idaho?
I agree David — that would be three strikes.”Ignore mode” button being pressed, now…
That was quite entertaining.
Tex, the framers of the Constitution clearly believed that protecting people from offense wasn’t nearly as important as ensuring personal freedom for all. You say that “minority opinions” such as homosexual rights go against the fundamentals that this country was founded on, and such opinons are offensive to you, but the Bill of Rights is obviously designed to protect and encourage unpopular opinions (popular opinions held by the majority don’t need protection in a democracy where the majority rules).
In one of your follow-up posts you toned down and made this statement: “I say it is none of my business so long as you don’t FORCE it in my face or my kids faces.” Nothing wrong with that, unless we remember that in your original post you stated that: “To those fringe elements I say you affront my personal freedoms every time you try to force a minority opinion on the majority or just me.” So when you’re talking about having things FORCED in your face, you’re not only referring to gay street orgies, you’re suggesting that even the open discussion of ideas such as the movement for homosexual rights (a “minority opinion” in your book, no doubt) is an affront to your rights (“the whole argument about homosexual rights… is an argument to change the fundamental MORAL BASIS of the freedoms this country was founded on”). You suggest that these “offensive” ideas should be banned by government (“Because the fringe elements abuse freedom by not respecting others freedoms, we have to legislate against such behavior.”). And not only is the movement for homosexual rights a violation of your freedoms and the majority’s norms, but it’s also a criminal affront against you (“You assault me personally no different than if you were bank robbers or fliers of airplanes into buildings.”). Suggesting that people should not be allowed to express their opinions because it violates some “right” that you have not to be exposed to opinions you don’t like is just horrid (just to remind you of your own quote: “…I say you affront my personal freedoms every time you try to force a minority opinion on the majority or just me.”).
Of course, you’d probably respond to that by saying that people are entitled to their opinions but shouldn’t FORCE their opinions on other people (since you’ve said that to others in your follow-ups). So what exactly is it that you’re doing here? You’ve come here with your own opinions, and you’ve posted them in a PUBLIC forum in the hopes that others will be exposed to them. People who support homosexual rights disseminate their opinions in the same manner, how is that “forcing” anything? It’s obvious that anytime someone champions homosexual rights, you consider them to be forcing their opinions down your throat. I’m sure if you found a pamphlet on your car windshield supporting homosexual rights you’d accuse “fringe elements” of trying to force homosexuality on your kids, yet if you got a “Jesus saves” pamphlet on your windshield you’d have no issue.
I would like to point out a glaring contradiction that you made in your original comment: When you enumerated your list of personal freedoms, you included: “The right to watch TV and listen to Radio without having to hear degenerate vulgarisms.” But later, when defending the video, you say: “…so I say let the video’s fly! Adults make their choices to buy or not and to allow their children to view it or not.” So which is it? Do people have a right not to be exposed to things that offend them, as you suggest in the former quote, or can people make choices regarding what they watch, as you suggest in the latter? Or should you and your ficticious “moral majority” decide what is and isn’t appropriate for everybody?
On another note, in one of your follow-up posts you say: “For the sake of all, don’t beat your child bloody in public and expect people not to be offended.” And on numerous occasions you say that you don’t care what murderers and rapists do in private (“…be a murderer, do what you want, but don’t do in front of me or my children…”). You appear to be saying that the reason people shouldn’t be allowed to beat their child bloody is because it might offend onlookers, whereas I’m pretty sure that the reason we don’t allow people to beat a child is to protect the child! Our law forbits (and our society detests) murderers and rapists because they victimize, not because they offend your delicate sensibilities. For this reason, lumping homosexuals in with murderers is completely inappropriate, and serves only to expose your bigotry, which tarnishes any other point you might have tried to make.
You have a clear modus operandi when responding to critics here. You rhetorically ask your critic: “Do you approve of murder, public displays of sex or near sex acts, rape, cars with stereos so loud the floors shake, people calling other people names and using vulgar language in public where children are?” This is an obvious rhetorical device and a fallacy, you imply that for someone to object to one of your points means that they necesarily object to everything in your post. People here have objected to your views on homosexuality and your bizarre interpretation of “personal freedom”, but since a part of your post also says something to the effect of “murderers are bad”, you insist that your detractors must necesarily believe that “murderers are good”. No one here has explicitly said “I like murderers”, so stop accusing people of that, it’s immature. If you want some immaturity in kind, try this: I maintain that 1 + 1 = 2. If you disagree with anything I’ve said in this comment, then I can accuse you of disagreeing with with everything I’ve said, which means you must necesarily think that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. It’s childish, but it fits you well.
Also, stop saying that you’ve been accused of things when you haven’t. In a follow-up post you said: “…but don’t criticize my right to complain…”. Who said you couldn’t complain? Who here criticized that right? Why would anybody here criticize your first amendment right? You’re making up straw man arguments and then refuting them instead of responding to the actual criticisms that people have levelled against you.
You say “Don’t try to force crap in my face and I won’t disturb you at all.” So since legalized gay marriage wouldn’t force you to marry a man, does that mean you’d have no problem with it?
BTW, lumping homosexuals in with murderers and rapists is clearly a comparison born of bigotry, but why do you include loud car stereos in that same category? Do you have some inconsiderate neighbors? Is that where all this anger comes from?
Don’t y’all get it?! TEX IS ALLOWED AND FREE TO NOT LIKE THINGS! SO ARE YOU!.
HE IS ALSO FREE TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS! SO ARE YOU!
HE LIKES ICE CREAM! SO DO YOU!