8 posts tagged “homosexuality”
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.)
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.
Okay, I'm fed up! Why, noble reader? Because of the ex-gays!! There is no end to the self-delusion and ignorance that these people will go to to make themselves sound like they are right (which, of course, they are not).
I am going to respond to the comment thread from this post here, since I have been banned from commenting by at least two members of the ex-gay neighborhood on Vox (apparently, they just say "open dialogue " but don't know what it means--I left ONE comment on ONE BLOG ONCE and two people moderate comments? Christ, people). You don't have to read the comments thread there if you can't stomach it; I'll quote the relevant bits as I go.
Randy went to protest a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association because they do not support the efforts of people who want to change their sexuality. He says (in a discussion in the comments):
"Faith or not, change happens and for the APA to say that I don't exist or that it is unethical to help someone change is a tragedy. They should be a help not a hindrance. I want the APA to live up to their own standards because it could be of tremendous benefit for those of us who want to change." (emphasis mine)
Apparently, Randy hasn't actually read what the "standards" of the APA are. Their vision statement reads, in part:
"... [T]o ensure humane care and effective treatment for all persons with mental disorders, including mental retardation and substance-related disorders."
Since homosexuality is not a mental disorder, the APA really has no say on the matter. A psychiatrist, confronted with a patient who wants to change his or her sexuality, has an obligation to say, "Sorry, that isn't something I can help you with; I only treat mental disorders." This should be the same as their response if a patient came in and said, "I'm a lefty but I really want to be a righty," or "I'm a dog person but my girlfriend has this cat..." NOT a mental disorder, and thus beyond the purvue of psychiatry.
Additionally, Randy claims that "change happens." Despite Randy's clear lack of understanding of science, even he should realize that his personal experience does not a proved hypothesis make. The APA values statement clearly says (it's a bullet list; hard to get clearer) that they value "scientifically established principles of treatment." Although Randy might like to think that he gets to decide what science is, he (thankfully) does not. The fact is, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. There is, however, evidence that, with lots of adversive training and counseling, gay men can settle down with a woman and have kids and a family. But in all of these cases, the men were still sexually attracted to men and not to women. Their behaviour changed, not who they are. So, even if homosexuality were a mental disorder and thus warranted treatment, a psychiatrist confronted with a gay patient would be unethical in saying anything other than, "I would love to help you because you have a mental disorder, but I can't because there is no scientifically-proven method to treat your disorder."
Randy likes to say throughout this conversation that the denial of ex-gays on the part of the APA is "political," but let's be clear about something: the APA used to make "political" decisions (and here I mean "influenced by general concensus," which I assume is what he means; the APA has never asked politicians to weigh in on the matter); it did this when it included homosexuality in the DSM in the first place. Removing homosexuality, however, was a scientific decision, not a political one.
Finally, Dean, the other major participant in this coversation, points out that "to condemn homosexuality as immoral and unnatural requires that one make a theological judgment." This seems--to me, anyway--to be so glaringly obvious as to warrant the kind of confused, nonsensical God-talk that usually comes from evangelicals to hide the fact that they don't know what they are talking about.
And yet Randy tries to challenge this point! "I don't think that to view homosexuality as immoral or unnatural takes only a theological judgment...." He doesn't, of course, say where else one might get such an idea, although I might pre-emptively point out that the ex-gay movement is strongly (read: exclusively) evangelical, and that I have yet to meet an athiest who thinks that homosexuality is immoral or unnatural. I would also say that all of the gay animals
And besides, if religion isn't the only possible justification for anti-gay sentiment, then where does your self hatred come from, exactly? tromping around pretty much closes the "unnatural" line of argument.
I have been thinking about ex-gays lately (after the business documented here) and I think I had a bit of an epiphany about the whole thing this morning.
I noticed that ex-gays always say they struggle with same-sex attraction (they even have a cute-as-a-button acronym for it: SSA), and usually they cite some nonsense research that says that people who have bad relationships with their dads turn out gay, and that this is something they have to learn to control/be delivered from. Many even go so far as to say "I know I am gay because my dad was never around." This argument is obviously specious, on two counts: 1) you don't know why you are gay anymore than anyone else does and 2) lots of people's dads were "never around" and they ain't queer.
And then I realized that lots of people who have problem relationships with their parents don't end up gay. But they do somtimes develop various disorders where they need an extremely regimented schedule, a sense of control in their lives (eating disorders and various "-aholic" syndromes, to name a few examples).
So what if ex-gays' dads didn't make them gay, but made them ex-gay? Maybe these ex-gays get the sense of "control" that they need by controling their sexual behavour, and denying who they are. That would be truly sad, for just as you can't live without food, you also can't live without aknowledging who you truly are.
Apparently, there is a small group of (*shiver*) ex-gays using Vox to talk about all the "ex" "gay" "conferences" they go to, and how ""god"" "loves" "them." (For those of you who don't know, ex-gays advocate changing or ignoring one's true sexuality to conform to "biblical" "principles.")
Let me be blunt for a moment (as if you would expect anything less from me): I hate these cunts. With a passion. Instead of just being adamantly anti-gay and up-front about the whole business, like some folks, they instead act like they are "compassionate" and "loving." Unless, of course, you follow your heart. Then you'll burn in hell for eternity. But compassion!
They also have the endearing tendency of calling anyone who disagrees with them a bigot. They've learned well from their bible teachers, it seems, and are quite good at spouting nonsense.
I actually found this small neighborhood (which links almost-exclusively with itself) a few months ago. At the time I just vomited in my mouth a little, marked all of the posts on their blogs as offensive, and went on with my day. But today, thanks to the terrible new "Recently Favorited" box on the homepage, I accidentally clicked and ended up at one of these blogs again, where the writer was showing off some ex-gay postcards (see here). Seriously, people, why are you so evil?? Like gay kids need more confusion in their lives.
I actually would have let this go, too, except that I started browsing through the archives of said blog and discovered that the blog writer had played the ultimate Christian nonsense card: science is nonsense (Dark Matter: a modern myth?). To be blunt again, I fucking hate this cunt of an argument. Richard Dawkins rightly names this the argument from incredulity: "I cannot possibly imagine it to be so, so it is false (or has a creator, or is "intelligently designed" etc.)!" Let's be clear, ex-gays and others: just because you are too thick to understand something does not make it false.
In the corpse of the post, he then plays yet another Christian nonsense card: "Well, it's just a theory!" Let's be clear here, too: there are two meanings of the word "theory," one of which is non-technical and one of which is technical. The non-technical, everyday word means "guess, conjecture;" this is presumably what this breed means when they make their arguments. What they have missed, however, is that in science (i.e., as in the phrase "scientific theory"), "theory" means something else. The scientific equivalent of the common meaning of "theory" is "hypothesis." In science, a "theory" is (from dictionary.com): "a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena." When you say "It's just a theory," what you are really saying is, "Well, there's just lots and lots of evidence for it." As someone somewhere once said, "that word doesn't mean what you think it means."
Finally, let me address another aspect of this line of argumentation which I find absolutely infuriating: if you want to be a backwards, worthless Luddite (instead of just backwards and worthless), you have every right to do so. What you do not have is the privledge to pick and choose your science. The scientific method and various tests of rigour used therein are common to every discipline which might be remotely considered science, from anthropology to biology and from astronomy to electrical engineering. If you do not believe in the veracity of science, fine. Stop using Vox. And the rest of the Internet. And your cell phone, cameras, cars, contact lenses, medicine, plastic, smelted metals, airplanes, etc. ad naseum. You cannot ridicule scientists for the claims they make and all the while use the fruits of their labor to make your life, and your biggotry, easier.
There, I've destroyed that argument in one fell swoop. Not that that will stop them, I'm sure. *sigh*
Update!
Richard Dawkins--far more eloquent that I could ever be--on what a 'theory' is:
"[Evolution is] a theory in a special philosophical sense of science, but in terms of ordinary laymen's use of language, it's a fact, ... Evolution is a fact in the same sense that it's a fact that the Earth is round and not flat, [that] the Earth goes round the Sun. Both those are also theories, but they're theories that have never been disproved and never will be disproved."
If that man were just a few years younger and a 'mo, I would hunt him down and make him marry me.
