Comments on: Exodus VP Agrees with Disney Vote Against PFOX Resolution

By: marty black

marty black — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:05:19 +0000

Randy, unfortunately for gays everywhere, not unlike any person with a sexual addiction such as yourself, be it any addiction, you leave dead bodies in your wake. Your celibacy is nothing more than an acting out of your previous sexual addict antics, both damaging to those you come in contact with. Your brand of psycho-sexual politics brings the phrase to mind “the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions”.

By: Paul in Canada

Paul in Canada — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:57:39 +0000

I agree with Ben in Oakland – Randy, you need to seriously understand the issues before writing on Blogs. ‘Special rights and priviledges’? Infringing on regious rights? Come on man, get a grip! And by the way, ‘special classes/groups’ are designated as such when they represent a minority subset of the population, subsets that have been discriminated against contrary to the interpretation of the law (usually by the Supreme Court). I think you know not of what you speak!

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:50:07 +0000

Gee. Why would i possibly be offended because someone believes that a 2000 year old prejudice that makes my life difficult and unpleasant, that resorts to telling lies constantly, that attempts to demonize me and mine for political, social, and godly brownie points, that ignores the constant problems of heterosexuals and tries to lay the blame on me, that teks some very obscure passages that may or may not be about hwat we know of as homosexuality and turns them into the central point of the existence of religious conservatives….

…and on and on and on…

why would I be offended by that?

Honey– you are so incredibly clueless. Or perhaps willfully ignorant. Or intentionally naive. Or deluded. Or unable to empathize with people who are so much like yourself. Or…

…or really just so filled with self hatred that you can’t even beign to think. Or maybe you just earned a really nice living punishing in others what you hate in yourself.

Only you would know.

By: John

John — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:12:33 +0000

Randy says that he doesn’t want to offend, then he repeats the oft told lie that Hate Crimes and Anti-discrimination Laws threaten religious liberty. While Dave Roberts likes to take people at their word, I would say Randy’s words so undermine his position, that they render his assurance that he isn’t trying to offend preposterous. His post was pure passive aggression, something he is very “consistent” about.

By: Marlene

Marlene — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:37:54 +0000

PFOX is just like every other attempt by the religious reicht to usurp and bootstrap on groups and events to bring awareness about us.

So with PFLAG came PFOX, and with the Day of Silence comes the so-called “Day of Truth”. I can’t wait to see the Christian Day of Remembrance to memorialize people who were murdered because of their faith to usurp the Transgender Day of Remembrance!

Randy — Too bad you don’t like the goal of getting sexual orientation and gender identity protected under non-discrimination laws.

I wonder what the reaction would be if it were *heterosexuals* being discriminated against, and heterosexual kids attempting and completing suicide in horrific numbers, and heterosexuals being victims of hate crimes at the hands of gays land lesbians doing it to keep “breeders” in their place.

As to supposed “threats” to religious liberty, there’s *nothing* in any law which will require churches to hire TLBGs. Other than that, you argument on that aspect is about as relevant as giving a pair of pants to someone without legs.

In fact, it’s actually the other way ’round! The religious reicht is violating the religious liberty of the Christian sects who *do* want to perform legal marriages for lesbian and gay couples, just to satisfy their own petty prejudices and bigotry.

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:03:46 +0000

Randy, your intent is not something I can speak to, and it is my custom to take people at their word on that unless the situation is simply so extreme that it would be absurd to overlook (think Peter LaBarbera). So yes, I take you at your word that your comments were not meant to be intentionally offensive.

That said, it’s hard to take some of what you said without feeling the offense, even if not intended. Things like “victim class,” “special rights” and implying that GLBTs are somehow seeking affirmation in public policy (rather than equality), these are all rather insulting (at least to me). More to the point, they are most often heard in the context of denying equality.

Perhaps this is an example of why mixing even a little politics with ministry is not a good thing — alienating people, especially the target of your ministry, just isn’t worth it. This is doubly true since you don’t want to do that in the first place.

As to your being consistent in your views, that’s fine and I can respect that. But it seems to me that being completely consistent would involve expressing disdain for all protected classes — the very idea such. Otherwise I can’t imagine denying these things to a historically battered group of people because ones world view doesn’t see them as a distinct group.

Either way, thanks for commenting on it.

By: Randy

Randy — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:41:46 +0000

Hi David,

Not sure if you all will believe me but I don’t ever intend to offend or insult. I know my beliefs will do both sometimes (often) but it isn’t to be purposefully offensive. I’ve tried to explain that for years but I can’t seem to convince folks that is true. It bothers me that you all don’t like and think the worst of me, I just don’t know what to do about it that I didn’t try to do for years (’98 to about ’04 or so.)

OH well…. back to the point.

I wrote what you object to because, as you well know, I am very against adding sexual orientation to any protected class status because of the precedent it sets in policy (private or public.) This isn’t new news. I genuinely wish you weren’t continually offended but I think it would be dishonest of me to not fully explain what is on my mind in objecting to PFOX’s actions here.

I felt it important to write what I did because I have spoken against this tactic when gay activists have used it … frequently. I can’t be silent when the same tactic is being used by a group on our side of the issue. It’s not really about the group … it’s about how I view the standard of protected class status and the formation of an “ex-gay” community, or ex-gay political ideology, rooted in identity politics.

On another note: I believe that there are legitimate issues represented in your public policy goals. Some of them I agree with (hospital visitation, estate settlements for surviving partners, safety to walk down the streets … among other things …) I just don’t believe redefining protected class status in public or private policy (or threatening religious liberty in some cases) is the way to go.

I will close saying again, I don’t expect you to not be offended and I don’t expect you all to believe me but it’s true, my views may offend but I never intend to offend for the sake of being offensive.