14 posts tagged “ex-gay”
Newsweek is running a piece on transsexuals this week--as a cover story,even! (My, the progress!)
I've been meaning to post for some time about how great Randy seems to think he is. It all started here when he felt the need to point out how many comments his Vox blog has (1056, in case you were wondering--decidedly less than if I was allowed to comment there). Who does that? Especially when, as he says in the comments, he come up with the number by hand. Jeez.
And later, here, he tells us what a great artist he is (I disagree--his "art" looks more like doodles in the back of a 7th grade biology book to me). And then here he tells us that he is a "spiritual magnet":
If there is a witch (Wiccan or otherwise), vampire, punk anarchist, Marxist, New Age Spiritualist, Native American Shaman, telepath, gay psychic energy reader, smart aleck libertarian atheist, goddess worshiping vegan ... we are going to be friends by the end of our conversation.
It's just the way it is.
Did he actually proofread that and decide that it he was being "humble before Christ" when he wrote it? Whatever.
But then, today, the arrogance to top all arrogance. Randy claims that he has "been made the subject of a YouTube video" and posts a rather long, mostly incoherent retort to the claims made in the video. But here's the thing: the video isn't about Randy at all, it just uses a quote from Randy when he was a guest on the Adam Corolla Show (Randy talks about this experience here; be sure to "***Scroll down for updates***" where he decides he didn't actually say what he claims to have said).
The video is actually about whether or not Exodus and associated ministries support forcing gay kids into therapy for their dreaded "same-sex attraction." Fortunately, the awesomeness of Vox allows me to share this video with you. Behold:
Leave it to Randy to make it all about him.
Update!
Randy seems to have removed the post in question... Hmm... It still shows up over at the Exodus blog though.
LiveScience today has a great story about gay animals, complete with lots of juicy details and even a "Top 10" list of gay animals. The banner at the top of the list is priceless, and I couldn't help but reproduce it here.
Take that, naysayers of the naturalness of homosexuality! I think we are all now allowed to respond to someone who claims that homosexuality is unnatural with a sideways glance, a strong chortle, and an even stronger punch in the neck.
Mike Ensley today responds to the outrage surrounding PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays) handing out literature about how "change is possible" at a school. I'm so pissed off about the whole thing that I can't even decide how to respond, so please pardon what is about to a rambling bit of god knows what.
This whole Exodus bullshit is based on a very simple principle: if you don't want to be gay because of your "faith," you can escape (like the Jews from Egypt!! Get it??? Because you're in BONDAGE and you need RECOVERY (please go read that link and be totally offended)) and become heterosexual. Exodus is here to help those with unwanted same-sex attractions! What Exodus consistently ignores, as do the rest of these cunts, is that the only reason people have these terrible guilt complexes about being gay is because of religious leaders and society (i.e., the people who founded Exodus) telling them that they should. Exodus is just another cog in the organized-religion brain-washing machine.
Exodus is more insidious, however, for although they claim that they are not political and only seek to help those gays who have "unwanted" same-sex attraction ("and there is a difference" according to Regina Griggs in the article that the word "outrage" above links to), they are straight up lying to your face and make no apologizes for it. Exodus sponsors a blog called "Live Out Loud" (whatever the fuck that means). The image below is a list of tags from said blog as of today. What's the most talked-about topic on "Live Out Loud"??? Maybe "therapy" or "god's healing love" or "change is possible" or "testimonial"?? Nope...
Why I'll be damned if it isn't "Marriage/Civil Unions/Partner Benefits." That's clearly not a political topic, and it obviously doesn't have any affect on those with "wanted" same-sex attractions. (You'll also note that "Jesus" isn't a listed tag.) Please note that there are so many articles if you click that tag it is likely to slow your computer to a crawl.
If people like the folks at Exodus only want to help those with unwanted same-sex attractions and are apolitical, why are they anti-gay marriage? And in case you think they aren't, here are two quotes from the first three posts under the above tag (both from Voxer and regular object of ridicule Randy Thomas):
Our friend Dawn Videto writes a first hand account of her journey in New Hampshire to help preserve marriage.
Included in the "continue reading" reading link below will be a couple of articles covering the summit and excerpts as they pertain to the battle over marriage.
In another bit of duplicitousness on the part of ex-gays, and one which is quite germane to the topic at hand, Mike edits the excerpt from the article he is discussing by cutting it before it gets to the point where the president of the gay-straight alliance at said school points out that:
If you look at their Web site, if you look at their use of religious materials to condemn homosexuality, I think the message that they say they give and the message that they show on that flyer is very different than what the organization actually stands for.
I've spent a lot of energy lately ripping into Randy Thomas, which is unfair, I suppose--unfair to the other ex-gays on Vox who need a ripping-into!
Take Mike Ensley, for example. (Why do these people use their full names on the Internet?? Haven't they been watching NBC catch predators????) Mike tells us in this post that he is upset because people have been "misrepresenting" Exodus. We're sorry about that, Mike, really. But nevermind, that isn't really the focus of the article.
The main thrust (sorry, couldn't help myself) of the post is that Mike believes gays exist:
I think these words [gay and homosexual] are largely understood in our culture to mean more than just a person’s attractions. The popular idea of what it is to be gay is not only to be attracted to the same sex, but to be made and meant for homosexual relationships, to be destined to find happiness and true love only there. It’s more than how you feel or what you do; it’s who you are. If that is what our society means when using this word, then no, I don’t believe anyone is truly gay.
Except, of course, that's what (almost) everyone outside of Exodus means when they say gay, including at least 99.8% of gay people, is exactly what Mike has just described he does not believe. Thanks for, uh, being totally clear there.
He goes on to state:
Other than the experience of these feelings [gay feelings], there is nothing else about those of us with SSA (biology, etc.) that would distinguish us from the rest of humanity. We aren’t a separate creature....
Mike is apparently trying to make my life easy, and has conveniently included the word "biology" in this sentence. Let's look at biology, shall we? There's one study here that straight and gay men's brains respond differently when exposed to testosterone (that's a male sex hormone, for those of you un-science types out there). Fortunately, the authors of this write up also addressed biology by name:
Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation..., who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.
Or how about this study which describes a correlation between which X chromosome a woman's body has deactivated and how many gay sons she has? Or this one, where the change in a single gene is enough to make a female fruit fly court other females with the courtship ritual most often performed by males? Or what about this one, which showed systematic differences in brain structure in sheep that mate with their own sex? And then there's this one (slightly more technical, sorry), where men and women, gay and straight are shown to rate the attractiveness of faces similarly, but there are stark differences in the processing of value judgments of the faces based on orientation (i.e., male faces are given special recognition by straight women and gay men--maybe this explains why I have so much trouble remembering women's faces!). On the right-hand side of that page you'll notice 10 links to other articles about gays and biology not detailed here.
My current favorite, however, is this one. Scientists exposed folks to a nudie picture of either a male or a female which was obscured by random noise, and then displayed a second image (a pattern). Subjects were asked to determine the orientation (clockwise or counterclockwise, not gay or straight) of the pattern. Scores were higher when the pattern appeared in the same location on the screen as the erotic image had, which is essentially what the researchers had predicted--that although the image was not consciously registering, the brain still perceived it. What they had not anticipated, however, was that gay men did far better when the image was of a nude male, and straight men far better when the image was a nude female.
And so once again we've run headlong into the problem with ex-gay arguments: they just don't make a damned bit of sense, and apparently have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Update!
Maureen, in a comment on Mike's post, says what has to be one of the truest and most hilarious things ever said by their ilk: "I'm as bewildered by SSA as I am as to how the picture gets from Hollywood to my TV screen. Even pictures don't help." I guess Maureen doesn't know the power of gay pornography (note: link does not go to porn).
Randy Thomas today talks at length in a comments thread on his blog about how to block "trolls or nuisance commentors [sic] [or gays]" from commenting on one's blog. You just click a picture, and, apparently, "BOOM! Done. Their whole presence disappears from your blog; every comment, every private message ... like a vapor!" I don't know how he knows it's like vapor, though. Seems to me like it might have more to do with shuffling electrons around, and maybe magnetic bits on a hard drive somewhere (silly science!). And of course there is nothing to make disappear if you ban someone who has never commented on your blog or had any contact with you whatsoever. He totally fails to mention that. Randy also claims he's only ever used this feature twice, but, well, yours truly finds that hard to believe.
To top it off, he has the balls to say, "And if those stinkers [I'm gay, Randy, not smelly!] ever decide to not be mean..." If *I* ever decide to not be mean?? You get paid for work whose sole purpose is to deny my existence by passing laws restricting who I can marry/leave property to/visit me in the hospital/raise a child with/kiss in public. How dare you, of all the terrible people in this world, call me mean. When *I* decide to not be mean????
As someone somewhere has probably already said, you need to check yourself before you make yourself sound like a total fucking ass.
I still can't believe that Randy has banned me from commenting on his blog. I find the whole thing childish and totally shocking (the whole thing = the fact that I had no contact with him whatsoever and he banned me from commenting). I'd really like to comment on his most recent post, where he goes on and on about how he and Shirley Phelps-Roper don't "serve the same god" (Shirley Phelps-Roper is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church of 'GOD HATES FAGS' fame). And that might well be true (although, honestly, even saying that kind of implies there is more than one god to serve, which kind of tosses Randy's religion out the window... He ought to watch his words). The problem is, Shirley is clearly the one who is serving the god of the Bible. Because god does hate fags. He says so, right in Leviticus, in "his word." He also hates adulterers, and people who curse their parents, or pick up sticks on Sundays. They all deserve death. About that, god is very clear.
So, what's the deal, Randy? How can you possibly (even if you have disregarded the laws of the old testament because of the new covenant) possibly blame someone for following them? Or claim that the god of the old testament is somehow "not your god"? What's that about??
(Randy won't answer this, so anyone else, feel free to explain this to me. I am totally baffled. Honestly.)
This short post by Randy Thomas is surely the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life. Mind you, he didn't say it, but that anyone would participate in such a thing--or repeat such nonsense on their blog--blows my mind. Who are these people?? Anti-discrimination laws violate their freedom of religion???
How high are you right now that you actually think that's true??
This is so typical of Christians seeming to think they can do whatever the hell they want because they are Christian, and no one else can do a fucking thing that they disagree with because it is "a sin." Get off your fucking high horse, already! Your ability to believe in things that are not true doesn't give you the right to tell me what to do.
Yeesh.
Hysterical Update!
Go read comment number 10 on that post. Go do it now.
Update the second!
G-A-Y takes a shot at the same event here.
Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)'s "Science" Advisory Committee (scare quotes mine), has long been outspoken on his views about the gays. (In case the name of the organization he works for isn't a tip off, his views are not very positive.) But he has recently, it seems, gone completely off the deep end by claiming that 1) slaves brought to the United States were somehow "better off" because "Africa was still primarily a jungle" and that the civil rights movement was ill-conceived, and 2) that people who support human rights are intellectually stalled and incapable of abstract thought.
A complete article about his essay which details his links to groups like Focus on the Family, as well as his comments about the essay subsequent to its posting at NARTH's website, can be found here; the article also contains a pdf of the essay, which no longer appears at NARTH's website. My favorite quote is:
'During the interview, Schoenewolf lambasted civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights. "All such movements are destructive," he said. He also claimed the American Psychological Association, of which he is a member, "has been taken over by extremist gays."'
Yeesh. Sorry about your idiocy, dude.
