Riled.
Some anonymous, Christian commentor on the blog is riling me. A bit more that the red rug is by exposing some of us under innuendos etc.
Why?
Because, he or she is very well versed in the Conspiracy Theory called the Homosexual Agenda. You remember that theory- the one that we homosexuals are conspiring to take over the world, come 20something. And that we are on course.
To prove his or her cause, anon brought out a ‘book’, which proves everything.
I was surprised. I am a homosexual. And I am a homosexual activist. ahem, a gay activist. When I say that I have never attended any ‘homosexual agenda’ workshop, he/she rubbishes me. I cant tell the truth. Because I am homosexual.
Apparently, I must have read this text. And, it says such and such things.
Sorry friend. I am a homosexual. Gay. And I have never read that text for us homosexuals to take over the world!
But the book is published. Argues the anonymous one. And, it details the gay agenda. So, I must have read it.
Gosh, why do you insist on persecuting me? Why do you insist on forming your Conspiracy theories and then force feed me to ‘accept’ what you believe? Does being a homosexual mean that I don’t know what I believe? (Oh! I know, that is what you believe. That just because I am gay I left leave of my senses.)
Ok, you may believe that. But that is up to you.
Here is the anonymous ones queer logic. (Wrong wording- straight logic; am I wrong again????)
You have always denied this. So tell me whether the blueprint for 'Ovehauling Straight America' written by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill is something you have seen before. If so, how can you describe Christian efforts to counter that strategy as homophobic? gug, the Truth matters. You know ths which is why you are always seeking information.
Marshall and Kirk state,
"We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight
They go on to propose a strategy that includes manipulating the media and via the media, the general public. The language is all about deception, for example,
" In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight
The Table of Contents makes it clear this is an operations manual;
Contents
1. Talk About Gays and Gayness as Loudly And Often As Possible
"The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it."
Perhaps the idea of gays 'recruiting' straights is in context now?
2. Portray Gays As Victims, Not As Aggressive Challengers
"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. "
3. Give Protectors A Just Cause
4. Make Gays Look Good
5. Make The Victimizers Look Bad
"At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. "
Are Pastor Ssempa and Stephen Langa being vilified by any chance?
6. Solicit Funds: The Buck Stops Here
Getting On The Air, Or, You Can't Get There From Here
Start With The Fine Print (Using the Print Media)
Visual Stage 1: You Really Oughtta Be In Pictures (TV Advertising)
Visual Stage 2: Peekaboo Advertising
Visual Stage 3: Roll Out The Big Guns
Format A For Familiarization: The Testimonial
Format B: The Celebrity Spot
Format C for Victim Sympathy: Our Campaign to Stop Child Abuse
Format D for Identification with Victims: The Old Switchero
Format E for Vilification of Victimizers: Damn the Torpedoes
Format F for Funds: SOS
The Time Is Now
There you have it. It has now been published as a book.
If you really believe in 'live and let live', let the Christians defend the way of life that is subject to the onslaught descrbed in 'Overhauling Straight America."
Talk about queer logic indeed!!!!!!
Ok, I am trying one more time.
Dear anon, despite being gay, I am not super human. I am not, have never claimed to be, and will never claim to be, a super human. I don’t know of any homosexual agenda. I am very serious. I don’t.
I would dearly love to accuse all Christians of a Homophobic agenda. Happily, I know this is not true.
I know my agenda. It is to make sure that homophobic Christians like you stop treating me like rubbish. I have elaborated that elsewhere on this blog.
I cannot, and will never claim to be responsible for any and all books, and blogs, written by people of homosexual bent.
(are your authors gay? You might be crucifying me for something that a person like Scott Taylor wrote! He has written things like the Pink Swastika which claim to prove the homosexual agenda, and clearly dont... shame, shame, shame)
I am not Shakespeare. I am not Oscar Wilde. I am not Michelangelo. I am not Leonardo da Vinci. (Damn, maybe I should claim that I am! I mean, I should claim some keenship to these great homosexuals, shouldnt I?)
How can I be? I am only human!
Why do you continue blaming me for other people’s thinking? Even if I think they may be spot on, I just find it suspicious that for your own reasons you try to force feed me their thoughts, however palatable!
As for justifying Ssempa, Langa, and Orombi’s homophobic campaign with logic to resist this homo terror, you will have to think that through. Go ahead, and out reason yourself. I don’t think you are so deficient intellectually to see some of the glaring holes in your reasoning.
See, the problem is yours. I don’t seek to be understood. I don’t want pity from you. I seek, and demand, that you stop your hate mongering. Very different from pity search, that.
I don’t seek to ‘Overhaul Straight Uganda’. Damn,
That is all we seek anon. To be treated, and accepted, as fellow human beings.
Is that too much to ask of a person who claims to be a Christian?
gug
30 comments:
Here are a few tips for you:-
a) Dont write about Christians on your blog if you dont want them to defend themselves or critisize you
b) Stop playing the Victim game all the time. You will be suprised that people will actually accept you for who you are if you dont go around thinking they hate you and making it be known to them that you think they hate you. Human beings are accepting by nature, so dont work hard at being loved by everyone because you are Gay. Even if you were sraight, not everyone would like you. No one actually cares whether you are Gay or not unless offcourse when you try to impose your ideas on them
c) It would make you feel better about being gay if you stopped looking at your being Gay in a negative sense. You are constantly writing about how you are proud about your being Gay, but when someone reads between the lines, they realise that you are just trying to justify your being Gay to YOURSELF.
d)Your blog is pointless. It has the same rant about how you are the victim in a merciless, un-loving, cruel, harsh, barbaric country with no disregard for your Rights, how you are being witch hunted, crucified, exposed and mistreated.But dont you think maybe you are taking it a bit too far. You do know that if you chose to live in peace with your "lover" no one would ever bother you? But no. You want more. You demand to be heard. You demand to be accepted. You demand equality. But you do have all that. You are just being unneccesarily aggresive. Hey guess what...prostitutes want their rights too
e) I am straight, but a Gay sympathiser. I mean,no one should bother you when you want to do what you want to do. I have been hit on countless times by Gay men.I have Gay friends and they are happy where they are HERE IN UGANDA. So quit whinning and learn to love YOU and who YOU are. It will be better for your self esteem. Trust me
I was curious about this supposed article, and went exploring.
"The Guide" was - and is - yes, a gay magazine published in the US.
But they deny ever having printed any such article. It appears to be (yet another)right-wing fabrication - an exact echo of the Georgina Oundo affair currently playing out in Uganda.
The relevant Letters page from the Sept 2003 issue can be found here:
http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=D41C25CD-A1CC-41FA-943DB076DCAE2233
I quote it in its entirety:
Crooked straights
Are you aware that the anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition has reprinted a 1987 article from The Guide and has posted it to their web site?
The article, "Overhauling Straight America," is posted at http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/OverhaulingStraight.pdf. The reprint includes the following statement: "As a public service, TVC is reprinting the full text of this Guide article below. (This article has been widely distributed on the Internet and is available at a number of other web sites.)"
G. Herek
media@herek.net
The article in question never appeared in The Guide. As with a lot of claims the right-wing puts out, this one is sheer fabrication. Of course, regular readers of The Guide would never imagine that we'd publish the dreck in question; the authors of "Overhauling Straight America" appear to be pathetic homos trying to "overcome" their homosexuality in their quest to become junior straight people. (One quote: "... In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector." Puke.) We're not begging the straight world to tolerate us-- we're bringing the straight world an exciting, different way to think about sex, a gay gift for everyone!
Spirax,
I love that. We're not begging the straight world to tolerate us-- we're bringing the straight world an exciting, different way to think about sex, a gay gift for everyone!
When will they have the guts to see that?
Hey Some Guy.
First, thanks for your observations...!
Christians on my blog! I do love puncturing their overblown balloons. Just love it. And when they jump it to defend, I love it also. If you dont want to defend the homophobia, why, just dont. No compulsion to that is there?
Otherwise, I love poking that gas and letting it out.
Especially when it is just hot air.
Stop playing victim? Wow, I am feeling nauseated. Is that what I am playing?
Pull back a second, and ask yourself, what did the Nazis say about the jews (and homosexuals) when they were gassing them in the final solution. Stop playing victim.
It is such a nice, macho, response. We are wimps. If we were not, we would not cry.
And of course leave you and your ilk to continue your persecution of us...!
I will use all weapons at my disposal. Including a high faluting laugh at your defence.
And by the way, you are so increadibly naive I would like to coat you for a gay Ugandan and dump you here for a few seconds. Wonder, would you last a day?
My blog is pointless? Why are you reading it?
You have gay friends who are happy where they are in Uganda...! Wow! You are a realy tough, open minded guy. I salute you.
Reminds me of the guys who used to justify apartheid, and slavery saying 'we have friends who are niggers. They are happy. Why are you complaining?'
You are something, Some Guy. Truly something.
Me. gug!
gug,
Your grammar is going. You were asked IF you had seen the document? Nobody said YOU HAD. But of course you had to assume the victim posture. As usual.
Anyway, if you have not seen it, it seems you are one of the victims of it. Simple as that. You've been had. You follow their instructions to the letter without realising you have been conditioned to do so.
"We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America [or Uganda or wherever else]."
THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA
By Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill
Contents
1. Talk About Gays and Gayness as Loudly And Often As Possible
2. Portray Gays As Victims, Not As Aggressive Challengers
3. Give Protectors A Just Cause
4. Make Gays Look Good
5. Make The Victimizers Look Bad
"The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the "fags" they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."
Read Spiralx's comment again. Is he saying it is a right-wing fabrication or that it is an ex-gay fabrication or what? Look up 'sophistry'.
The document is genuine. Don't be so backwater - you are on the net, investigate it for yourself. Otherwise you fulfil "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest... LIE LIE LIE..." Courtesy Paul Simon.
There is no shame in believing a lie until you find out the truth.
The document is NOT genuine - at least, not in the way that the rightwing fascistas would have you believe, anon!
It's curious, really, where it actually came from. I mean as an exercise by its authors, not just how it managed to get published somewhere (though NOT in "The Guide" - or any gay mag). It's significant that if you Google for it, you get not one but two pages of links which are all, relentlessly, American right-wing crusading web-sites. Not ONE single gay site refers to it. In fact, the only one I (finally) did find actually made this self-same comment - that while hardly any gay person has heard of this article or its contents, practically every right-wing bigot has.
So it comes across - now - as a propaganda exercise by the Right.
Originally? It seems to have been a satire by a rather confused pair of gay men. Wikipedia provides an overview of Marshall Kirk which makes rather sad reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk
Spiralx,
I am sure our host will excuse me if I speak to you directly.
I looked up the reference in wiki. I found the following;
1. The document was written by a gay activist under the title, "After the Ball".
It was co-authored by Erastes Pill. Look up the meaning of Erastes.I think we can safely say he was an activist too.
2. The document was later published as a book.
3. There is no suggestion in wiki, or elsewhere that it was intended as satire.
4. There is no suggestion that it was written by right-wing conservatives i.e. that the authors were NOT activists but right-wingers.They specifically talk about gays 'winning the battle'. They do were not talking about renouncing homosexuality.
5. Yes, it is sad that Marshall Kirk appears to have suffered from disorders ranging from migraines to depression (or were they related conditions?) This of course does not detract from the clarity of his writing or his intentions. 5. Who published the book? Doubleday, a regular publisher. Big respectable one. Not so difficult to understand, the author had impeccable credentials as an academic, a writer and as a researcher.
6. I take what you say about the links to conservative websites. Yes, the conservatives would be interested in disseminating any information about anything they perceived as a threat to their own values. They are actively sharing this information with everyone they can. They are talking about the Agenda "as loudly and as often as possible." Because you see, they too have their own Agenda. Everyone is allowed one.
If I told you I have it from a gay activist that there is an Agenda, would you believe me? I am assuming you are totally unaware of it.
Nice chatting.
Glad you found the article interesting, Anon. Yes, they were both gaymen, no-one's ever said otherwise. "Erastes Pill", though, is a pseudonym, not a real name. A kind of joke, really: a lot of gay men adopt them.
The document was followed by a book, which was based around the same themes. A satire? Possibly. No-one really knows. My guess is that Marshall, who seems to have been genuinely gifted in certain areas, really hoped his plan could be used pro-actively and to help make gay people more acceptable at a time when the general public were not as accomodating in the US as they are today. Much of it, actually, is common sense.
"Conservatives". Yes, they are. Bigots, as well, I'm afraid, and fanatical, too, some of them. Much as here in Uganda. The tone of the web-sites clearly suggests an emotional agenda, and not just "disseminating information". Though I'm not sure they're aware of the difference themselves.
A "gay agenda"? In as much as there's a committment to equal rights for equal human beings, yes. But - as one concerned lady once said to me - "an evil plan to destroy society as we know it, and break up the family unit"? Nope. Sorry.
Okay Spiralx,
Let me ask you this, what do you find sinister about George Oundo's revelations? Two posts or so ago you say, "It appears to be (yet another)right-wing fabrication - an exact echo of the Georgina Oundo affair currently playing out in Uganda."
I am interested to know what you see in what he is doing/has done. I have tried to see how it relates to conspiracy/fabrication but can't.
I don't find it "sinister". But see gug's blog of Apr 11. And I quote:
"But here are some questions. Where did Mr Langa find these eight-plus men, led by George “Georgina” Oundo? What attracted these men to Mr Langa and not Archbishop Luke Orombi, for example? Had he all along known them to be gay? Or had he planted them in the local gay community in the first place as part of a plan to undermine gays and lesbians in Uganda? Do the police have any reason to not look closely into the activities of the Family Life Network?"
I do find it curious that Stephen Langa has enough money, and contacts, not only to co-opt George Oundo (and I gather, 7 others, I wasn't there), but to then hold quite large and well-publicised public meetings (with no objection from the govt) to promote his idea of the "gay agenda".
It was the SA-based web-site Behind The Mask which gave an interesting description of the reasons Oundo and others might want to be involved with this, when you'd think their admissions amounted to self-destruction and a possible criminal investigation. That description, again, gug copied onto this site.
It is clear enough that there is an overt link with certain southern US churches, who in turn are linked to right-wing political US affiliates - as the whole importation of Stephen Lively, etc. showed. I suspect Langa to be part of the same ongoing exercise, that's all.
Sigh...
Indeed you fulfil "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest... LIE LIE LIE..." Courtesy Paul Simon.
That was for dear Anon
The log in his eye is so.... Dunno whether he will see more clearly
From what I can see here, this "Anonymous Some Guy Said" person has actually said that he IS a Gay sympathiser. Why is it that we homosexuals seem to have a need to cling to the status of victimhood? We can be gay and be victorious in our gayness even in the midst of all the homophobia that surrounds us. I have always believed that we ourselve have a role to play in enlightening straight people as to who we are. We African gay people in particular are failing in this responsibility. We constantly portray ourselves as being belligerent and antagonistic, and find that quite often, the outcome of our efforts is the direct opposite of what we desire. Let us calm down and take a second look at our approach.
"Some Guy" did, yes. Though his "sympathy" is rather barbed, and also rather ignorantly patronising in places.
"Anon" didn't. And I don't get your comment about gays (African gays?) "constantly portray ourselves as being belligerent and antagonistic". Where do you get that from? The media promote something like that, but SMUG simply stand up and say what they think. They certainly weren't the ones marching down the road waving and "storming" Parliament, dancing and spitting in public like SSempa, or using language like "appalling and disgusting" (Langa).
Spiralx,
George's Choice
George Oundo walked in to Martin Ssempa's church as do dozens of youth everyday. With questions. The REAL question is why was George attracted to Church? He says he is struggling with unwanted same sex attraction. That is HIS life experience and how he wants to deal with it.
Being gay is a way of life, naturally George and Paul Kagaba will have other issues in their lives, such as how to make a living having squandered their youth being escorts to wealthy men who are now interested in being escorted by younger men than them. Just as I would expect my Christian community to provide me with guidance on economic issues, George expected some kind of safety net from his gay community. On finding it was not there he began to take stock of things. The economics are not separate from his whole experience, our communities are our lives.
Funding
Family Life Network is an advocacy group. Advocacy groups whether pro-homosexual or pro-heterosexual, pro-democracy (even political parties)or whatever tend to receive foreign funding. Stephen Langa, Martin Ssempa and the others do not deny having an Agenda. As you say, nothing sinister there.
The very concept of advocacy is taught by the donors through various organisations. The attendees at FLN's meeting were parents of youth who have been meeting with FLN for ages to discuss issues of youth and sexuality. Why would the police need to investigate their meeting? You got me there.
So in this case the funding may or may not come from the American right-wing via some Southern Baptist churches. Yup, they share a vision on sexuality and the family with Langa, so it is conceivable. Again, I fail to see the mystery.
Thank goodness for Anengiyefa. He is spot on. I like a person who takes responsibility for his choices and does not seek to camouflage them with a lot of belligerence or self-pity, mock hysteria.
I would disagree wih him on one thing, I have not found ordinary homosexual people generally aggressive. had to be aggressive on behalf of a gay man who was being ignored when he wanted service. But he was an ordinary person. The aggression seems to be a new development coming from activists funded, I suspect, by the American Left or Liberal wing. Who funds the gay advocacy groups?
I wonder who is responsible for the portrayal of aggression?. For example, at FLNetwork's conference with Scott Lively, some gay activists attended and interacted with Langa and the others. They sat next to Langa and even had their photos taken together. Civility was the order of the day. What did one daily newspaper report?
"Activists attack anti-gay seminar
Rodney Muhumuza
Kampala
An ongoing seminar on family values in Kampala has come under attack from activists who accuse its organisers of entrenching prejudice against homosexuals in Uganda. [Interestingly, the article did not give the location of the then ongoing seminar.]
Sexual Minorities Uganda (Smug), a pro-gay watchdog, said in a statement yesterday that the seminar was designed to use religion to “attack lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Ugandans”.
The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and Smug, its local partner, said the seminar was the hate-filled handiwork of the American religious right. etc etc"
That is not what the gay people who attended were saying during the seminar. 'The Truth matters'. Once we subvert it, the results can play against the subverter and not just against those we oppose. We need some decorum. Some honesty.
We need to reflect. Anengiyefa is right.
Spiralx, you nearly steered me away from the original point. The Gay Agenda. You concede Overhauling Straight America by M. Kirk and E. Pill (i) was written by gay men, (ii) and that they may have hoped to implement it in real life and that (iii) it is common sense, i.e. it s implementable as a plan/agenda. So is it unreasonable to suppose it is being implemented even though you personally have not been detailed to participate?
Nice chatting.
So, Anon... if I am summarising your last piece correctly: being gay is a way of life (I presume you mean inherently so, not this "lifestyle" nonsense). And it has to be handled constructively like all other life issues.
George couldn't find a suitable "safety net" (I would rather say, relevant counselling) from the likes of SMUG. So he turned to the church, and eventually, anti-gay organisations (their own term) like Langa's.
Advocacy groups can and do receive foreign funding, which is both acceptable and legal.
Gay people are not by and large aggressive.
There is a lot of half-truth and outright dishonesty going about at the moment.
So - the conclusions from that could be: SMUG could usefully add a counselling and outreach dept to their working activity, and as an advocacy group, are entitled to whatever foreign funding for their activities they can find.
And the media should also be aiming for more impartial and verifiable truth on an emotive matter.
I must admit I find your view of Oundo's actions rather charitable. He didn't just wander into a church and ask for absolution, did he. Instead, he has knowingly and deliberately allowed his supposed admissions to be used to vilify gay people generally.
Langa's group is also more than just any "advocacy group". In the US, it would also arguably be deinfed as a hate group, and blocked from some of its more outlandish behaviour. Relevant, considering that's where a lot of his money comes from.
Oh - the "gay agenda", your last point. Yes, some of it (I doubt all of it) could be implemented as a coherent plan. The point is, it isn't being. So yes, it is unreasonable.
Bits of it, that are so obvious most people couldn't avoid them, can and do find their way into the politics of daily life. But an organised strategy by Global Gays Inc.? Not a hope, I'm afraid!
Hello Spiralx,
We seem to be getting somewhere. To reiterate so there s no doubt what I meant,
George's ChoiceGeorge Oundo has a same sex attraction (SSA). He has also acted on it and had homosexual sex. Finally he identified with the homosexual culture and 'came out'. He even became a 'gay' activist.
Recently George, despite the SSA has publicly declared he no longer wishes to identify with the gay culture or to have sexual relations with persons of his own sex. In other words he chooses to change his conduct.As to the manner in which George's confession was publicised, that is a matter for the church he went to. I think they felt, with some reason, that the revelations were of public interest involving as they did, minors. However, nobody should presume to prevent someone making a confession of what he sees as his sins. If he committed them with others, it is unfortunate they get mentioned too.
Counselling alone woud not have solved the fundamental problem George faced. Hs life lacked meaning. Escorting men for money while other people were at school developing their talents left him high and dry at 26. The absence of a safety net is fundamental to his previous way of life and counselling would not have supplied that need.
Unbiased counselling may have helped him to see this reality.
FundingAt first you seemed to be insinuating that the source of FLNetwok's funding was mysterious. I pointed out it is not. They are proud of their international connections and do not hide them. I pointed out gay activism is foreign funded althouh their own sources are not quite so cleoar. So now that we have that in the open, we can look at the objective of the advocacy/activism and funding. If one group's objectives threaten the interests of another group, be sure there will be a backlash. This is what we are witnessing.
I do no not know what American society is doing at the minute but I do know FLNetwork is appreciated for its work in Uganda where it operates. Different values I geuss. The director is a respected person of some standing. They cannot be easily dismissed by innuendo about funding and 'hate' and all of that tired old stuff I am afraid.
AggressionHomosexual people are not necessarily aggressive. Gay activists are aggressive because they are pushing an Agenda that requires it. Anengiyefa said quite rightly that the aggression is not helping anybody.
The TruthOnly the Truth will set us all free. I am constantly in search of it. I have found so far 3 gay scientists of impeccable credentials (Harvard Medical School, Cambridge and that sort of thing) who have tried and failed to find a genetic source of homosexuality. To the credit of Le Vey, he denies categorically that he found the gay gene although he says people often erroneously interprete his work that way. He reminds me of George, the ability to own up to hard truths.
I think someone said on this blog there were 'hundreds' of peer reviewed studies on the topic proving the 'born that way' theorem, but so far no citations have been posted. In fact I was reading about an ongoing Canadian study (by a PhD candidate) to find the 'inherent' nature of homosexual attraction. If it has been found, why are they doing it again?
Incidentally, when you have a minute see, The Incredible Shrinking Gay GeneThe Gay AgendaWe have agreed Overhauling Straight America by Kirk and Pill is a coherent and imnplementabe plan. How would the implementation work? Through
Global Gays Inc? Not likely. For the simple reason that clandestine movements operate through a vanguard of people in the know and claiming to be acting on behalf of the majority who are not all in the know. So you and me are merely statistics.
If I knew you better I would say, lets pray about it. We shall just have to agree to disagree, because my indiscrete gay friend is actually involved in pushing the Agenda.
Have a good week.
I don't honestly know what you mean by the term "safety net". Toasters may come with guarantees, but life doesn't. George has made choices like the rest of us. His latest ones may well help to imperil the livelihoods of many decent people. I hope he doesn't come to regret them as well.
FLN may be doing good work. They are also promoting untruths about gay people, and indulging in political demagogy. Langa may be a "respected person of some standing". In certain quarters, no doubt. On the basis of what I've read so far,I find him rude, arrogant and ignorant.
Homsoexuality and genetics? Rather say, the biological roots of sexual orientation. Straight, gay, & inbetween. Try the book "Born Gay", by Wilson & Rahamn , which is a bit more up-to-date (2004) than the referencing you're doing.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Born-Gay-Psychobiology-Sex-Orientation/dp/0720612233
The UK science magazine, New Scientist, did some recent articles too, like this one from last year:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
As for your "gay agenda" - well, you're obviously determined to have one, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so I'm not going to say much more than this:
Gay activists are not "pushing an agenda". Let alone one with a capital A. They are asking - and will continue to insist - that their human rights under the Ugandan constitution, and in international terms, be respected, and to be allowed to live their lives as best they can. That is not aggressive, that is simple everyday decency.
You know,
this debate is so interesting to follow.
Dear Anon is very convinced of certain issues. So convinced that he/she mentions them in one guise or another consistently.
Nothing seems to change his/her opinion. Even when he/she acknowledges something, it is like a back handed compliment!
all very interesting. Pray, continue!
Spiralx,
I looked at the article, thanks for your research. It appears to be saying, one's sexual attraction is not necessarily genetic but biological in origin. I think that is what Savic is saying.
"But as Savic (the researcher) herself acknowledges, the study can't say whether the brain differences are inherited, or result from abnormally high or low exposure in the womb to sex hormones such as testosterone." .
If there were brain differences and they were a result of some 'abnormal' (Savic's word) phenomenon, would that make the resulting SSA (according to this study)a disorder?
Or if the roots were genetic, would same sex attraction be a disorder? Like the albinism you compared it to earlier, for example? Food for thought.
Anyway, lets wait until the scientific community digests the study. I shall also read it again.
Regarding doing what comes 'naturally' (apropos an earlier post), I posed the question somewhere else on here, do we act on all our instincts?
For example depression seems to occur naturally (some people are more prone than others) and gives rise to a lot of instincts e.g. suicide, aggression etc. Is it desireable to act out all those instincts?
I am making a difference between SSA and homosexuality and homosexuality and 'gay'. My faith tells me SSA is not sinful because it is not a choice, but that it is a disorder. Only the other two are, involving as they do, the element of choice of conduct.
Those whose SSA is unwanted should not be harassed for making the choice not to act on it. They should be allowed to explore any avenue available to help them maintain their choice.
The Gay AgendaI imagine most homosexual people just want to live and let live. Gay activists on the other hand have a broader Agenda. They are prepared to go to far countries to further it. They call it advocacy.
The right-wing or Christian or ant-gay agenda also exists but is not covert about its intentions.
As I said, lets agree to disagree.
agree to disagree...
works well. When I dont lose by the disagreement.
When one starts from the premise I believe there is no way that one is ready to take in facts, or modify, one's faith state. Faith does not require evidence. Faith manufactures the evidence. Faith finds the evidence.
Your faith is ok. As long as it doesnt trample on my right to examine and come to different conclusions. And of course when your 'faith' is what you use to persecute me, do expect me to fight back. Only logical.
"I am making a difference between SSA and homosexuality and homosexuality and 'gay'. My faith tells me SSA is not sinful because it is not a choice, but that it is a disorder. Only the other two are, involving as they do, the element of choice of conduct."
This feels like you're splitting hairs. "Homo" is Greek for "same". "Sexuality" is self-evident. Your strange new term "SSA" is no more than that.
"Gay" is comparatively new, of course, re-invented last century, mainly I think to try and broaden the description away from just sex, because of all the other traits that are associated with being homosexual. And, of course, to cock a defiant snook at a society which, at the time, treated gay people very badly!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
I agree that homosexual people who want to transfer their innate sexual leanings into other forms of creativity should be encouraged to do so. But that's different from suppressing them, avoiding them or worse, actively self-hating (and maybe projecting that self-hate onto others).
The trouble (and in my opinion and others') fatal flaw in all the so-called "ex-gay" work is that it presumes that all gays can become happy heterosexuals. Well, experience tells us they can't. Though some can manage a brave effort, and maybe even live productive lives in some form of heterosexual relationship.
You'll know of the US Kinsey studies from last century, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey
(And the even earlier work of the German Magnus Hirshfeld):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
The assumption, still valid as far as I know, is that there is a spectrum of sexual attraction, which Kinsey numbered from 0 to 6 (now 7). His research suggested that people found themselves clustered closer to one end than another, but very few were exclusively one extreme or another (that is, 0 or 6). I imagine that the "Kinsey 4's", let's call them, can manage a reasonable hetero relationship if they work at it. But for the 5's and the 6's, it's simply a denial of who they are sexually.
As for "abnormal", well, we know very little about brain function. We do know that it's extremely "plastic", that is, it can make almost astonishing adaptations, both biological and psychological, to optimise its performance in response to every kind of stimulus. Chemical included. This is leading us slowly away from the idea of "abnormal", and more towards the idea of a spectrum again, this time of behaviour. Each person has their own "norm", but for humanity as a whole, there is no generalised "norm".
That sense of 'creative range' is helping to re-view how we look at, and deal with, those forms of behaviour that to most of us would be outlandish or extreme, even dangerous.
Spiralx Good morning,
The term, Same Sex Attraction is self-evident. It separates the attraction from any conduct of behaviour flowing from it. Homosexuality is where there is attendant behaviour.
Kinsey I am aware of in general terms. Google 'Kinsey, discredited' and see the status of his work at the mo'.
Anyway, Kinsey identified other sexual attractions apart from Same Sex Attraction, such as paedophilia, in fact he caused a controversy by giving data about the 'sexual responses' of babies a few months old. He got the information from paedophiles. Now, where do they fit on the scale and what are their rights and responsibilities? BTW, this finding of his in particular has been junked. I cannot check all the sources but have a go yourself.
Hebeophilia, Ephebophilia & Pederasty
In Holland, a political party has won the right to canvas for the right to carry out the above conduct. In South Africa, the 'right' to sex with minors is now being claimed as a civil right. And in America there is an association for those engaging in 'man/boy love'. Our friends Kirk and Pill of Overhaulting Straight America fame advise the reader not to expose the public to that particular category of person during the earlier stages of the campaign.
Does the scale of sexual orientation end at homosexual conduct between adults or does it go to the extent of all human behaviour involving genitalia? Where a particular conduct or behaviour exists and is even vigorously defended, is that sufficient to address the issue of its origins and whether or not it is disordered.
The 'Norm' is a statistical concept that fits your scale of orientations theorem. However, I prefer the sounder ground of physiology. How was the body designed to work? If there is an instinct to use it otherwise is that instinct a disorder or not? Behaviour that leads to malfunctioning or destruction of the body would appear to be a disorder. One of the young men who recently publicly renounced homosexuality had treatment lasting several weeks for haemarrhoids. And, linking back to the safety net point, there was no support from the community in which he engaged in the activity that led to that condition. In fact, the treatment was paid for when he arrived at a convent barely able to walk.
I would not know about the 'ex-gay' work you are talking about. What is your point exactly?
I know my own church acknowledges the existence of Same Sex Attraction and does not condemn it. We help people who do not welcome it to deal with that issue. It is in the Catechism 2358 which is a public document. The American Conference of Bishops recently re-affirmed that position while instructing pastors (clergy) to stop abusive behaviour of people with SSA wherever it occurs in their parishes/dioceses. However we maintain it is intrinsically disordered.
I do not think you meant to say nobody has ever changed from the homosexual life to the heterosexual life. Read Charlene Cothran's testimony on YouTube. She was not even looking to change. Dr Spitzer to whom I referred last time also has some interesting facts. Many have tried and have not yet succeeded. Others are not aiming for heterosexuality. But many have changed. So let us not speak for them. You go ahead and define yourself as you want and let the rest make their own choices even if they differ from yours.
The study by Savic you posted the other day seems to support this. Look at other things that happen during pregnancy, blindness from German measles etc. So a surge of hormones affecting the foetus would seem to be in the same category.
What about necrophilia? This practice is said to be mostly carried out by heterosexuals (90% according to Rosman and Resnick) so there is no need to assume it is meant to malign homosexuals.
Wiki states, Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia and necrolagnia, is the sexual attraction to corpses. It is classified as a paraphilia by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. The word is artificially derived from Ancient Greek: νεκρός (nekros; "corpse," or "dead") and φιλία (philia; "friendship"). The term appears[1] to have originated from Krafft-Ebing's 1886 work Psychopathia Sexualis.[2]It is as old as history, so the arguments about the antiquity of SSA do not justify it. Wikipedia states "Herodotus [circa 440 BC] writes[4] in The Histories that, to discourage intercourse with a corpse, Ancient Egyptians left deceased beautiful women to decay for "three or four days" before giving them to the embalmers."It is practiced and is still considered a disorder,
"All About Pedophiles
By Katherine Ramsland
Varieties of Necrophilia
Necrophilia is an erotic attraction to corpses, with the most common motive cited by psychologists as the attempt to gain possession of an unresisting or nonrejecting partner. The activity fits the DSM-IV psychiatric diagnosis of "Paraphilia, Not Otherwise Specified," although many self-professed necrophiles reject such a shallow approach to what they feel and do.Is this the 'outlandish' behaviour to which you refer in your last paragraph? The feelings are real enough, they are the 'norm' for necrophiles. It seems they are not hurting anyone, after all the other person is dead, yet they are on the DSM list of disorders.
Again, just because someone has a strong, unexplainable urge to behave in a certain way does not make the behaviour acceptable or right. The degree to which it is tolerated depends on the impact it has or potentially has on the wider community.
'Creative range etc', I have no idea what you mean by this paragraph.
I am not particularly interested in paedophilia, or "man-boy love"; necrophilia, or other variants on sexual expression. I am primarily concerned with consenting adults being allowed to have relationships (which may be sexual), in the privacy of their own homes, at the very least. Langa and Ssempa seem to have a big problem with that. I don't consider it their business. Their tactics involve a mixture of bullying and lying, which makes their arttitude even less appealing or acceptable.
"Intrinsically disordered" is the Catholic catch-phrase. It has no scientific basis, and no scientific value. If you want to incorporate it as part of your own personal belief system, then as gug says, that's up to you. But you have no right to impose it on others, and if you use it as a justification for attacking gay people, then you will probably be resisted or counter-attacked, I would imagine.
If you don't know of the "ex-gay" approach, all the better. You're not missing anything. Don't worry about it.
Spiralx,
If I understand you, you focus your advocacy on homosexual sex between consenting adults.
That rules out hebe- and ephebeophilia as well as pederasty. It also rules out necrophilia and other deviations of sexual activity. Kinsey in fact stopped at homosexuality, while someone seems to have added asexuality.
Now, the man/boy advocates may have a problem with that. They might even call it discrimination. Who is advocating for their rights? What about the rights of practitioners of all the other deviations?
That was my point you see. The design approach works best. What is the body designed for.
'Intrinsically disordered'There is no indication the Church intends the phrase scientifically. Intrinsic, in lay man's terms, means ab initio (oops, sorry that is a legal term) or 'of itself', or 'necessarily' or 'just' as they say in Kampala. See how the [US] Catholic Bishops used the phrase in 2007.
"Homosexual acts are never morally acceptable. Such acts never lead to happiness," he said, because they are "intrinsically disordered," meaning they are not directed to the bonds of marriage and the goal of procreation that are part of God's design. But having an inclination that is disordered does not in any way diminish human worth." Associated Press
No junk-science there. Pure statement of what we believe. By the way have you found any peer reviewed studies de-bunking Bailey, Le Vey and Hamer? Out of the hundreds supposedly out there?
As you know, I have not imposed my beliefs on anyone. I am stating them, as is allowed. To a consenting adult at that(!).
I am also actively supporting, as vocally, as often and as loudly as I can, those who say they have been relieved of unwanted homosexuality and those who hope to be so relieved and their right to say so. Attempts have been made to intimidate those who recently came out as ex-gay.
However I am glad to report that more men have joined George Oundo. They may succeed or fail but it is their right to choose. One of them was so sweet. He said (I am told) 'Just show me Jesus, I only want Jesus right now'. That guy now knows He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He says, "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I shall give you rest, because my yoke is light.... God bless them.
About being attacked for my beliefs, thanks for warning me. I know, it is in the Agenda, Overhauling Straight America. There is a risk of vilification, intimidation, the works.You might want to suggest it a little more directly. Not everyone picks up on subtleties, sophistry not being a universally appreciated art.
Bodies can do almost anything you ask of them. There is no design as you are suggesting, simply an evolutionary adaptation through millions of years to accomodate all the various requirements. Heterosex being around 90% more common than gay sex, bodies maintain the required adaptation. That doesn't rule out any other form of sex, though.
And I think individuals following the 'Oundo path' has far more to do with the violently homophobic environment encouraged by the likes of Langa & Ssempa, etc. than they have to do with anything else. I would like to see what gay people could do in a fully accepting environment, with some decent sex education. Sadly for Ugana, that is a long way off.
Your insistence on the non-existent "gay agenda" amuses me. Wikipedia actually says it was a term invented by the religious right in the US. And I notice that you have no problem with the "anti-gay" agenda, but only with a supposed gay one. Isn't that rather hypocritical?
(Oh: I did, as you suggested, Google for Kinsey discredited. Found only the usual Christian sites, though one, referring to a BBC programme, made me smile. Titled "Little Kinsey", it referred to UK attempts to do what kinsey did in the US. And found that he could be 'discredited' only because he didn't explore as fully as they did!)
It is patently funny, the arguments that anon puts up.
By the way, with your defence of George Oundo, I hope you have been following the interviews that he has been giving in Red pepper. They are instructive. Because of my antipathy to the red rug, I have not put them on this blog. But you should be ashamed to actually continue with your defence in face of what is actually happening on the ground.
On the tone of your 'right' to gay bash me, in the name of your 'faith', it is very sad. Truly sad.
Spiralx has actually done a huge piece of listening, and trying to correct your learned inconsistencies. But again and again you return to them.
I would like to dedicate a bit of fictional writing that I saw somewhere to you. It so perfectly reflects your state of mind and belief that it would be fantastic if you did understand it. If you could see it. But I bet that you will not see what it means. In any case, here it is.
“Jonas began his career as a scientist – he’d been Croal’s greatest student – but one day in Croal’s laboratory something happened that forever changed his life. He had been performing a series of experiments for his teacher – a man he admired more than anyone else. The experiments had been of a fairly routine nature except for one, and that one had been giving him false results.
“He went to Croal exasperated and angry, telling him of the strange and unexpected results.
`Why are they strange Jonas?’
`Because they’re not the expected ones.’
`And is that bad?’
`Well of course, it’s not the result we want.’
`And what are the results we want, Jonas?’
`Why, the correct ones of course.’
“Now Jonas was even more exasperated. Here was one of the greatest scientists in the kingdom and he was asking foolish questions.
`Jonas, what are the correct answers?’
`The ones we expect.’
Croal smiled, and then began to laugh. Jonas was shocked to see his teacher, the great scientist Croal reduced to tears as he laughed and laughed. But as he stood there watching Croal shake with laughter, Jonas began to smile and then started laughing along with Croal.
If you anon can start laughing with Croal, you will have taken the log out of your eye.
Please post one of the 'hundreds of peer reviewed studies' that prove homosexuality is innate, inherent, in-born.
Thanks for the oblique admission that Kinsey is discredited.
Current research does not support your theory on the benefits to homosexuals of creating a permissive environment.
Environments do not come more permissive than the Netherlands, pioneers of same sex marriage. Yet the homosexuals there show the same patterns of depression - higher than the general population - as in other countries;
The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) which again showed a higher level of mental-health problems among homosexuals, but remarkably, subjects with HIV infection was not any more likely than those without HIV infection to suffer from mental health problems. People who are HIV-positive should at least be expected to be anxious or depressed!
The same review reports a study in New Zealand, where pro-homosexual legislation is powerful and consistently enforced, the same pattern exists, higher suicide rates (about 3 times more) than the general population.
See the full study at http://www.healthyplace.com/gender/depression-and-gender/homosexuality-and-mental-health-problems/menu-id-59/
In the spirit of enquiry, I shall wait until you dig up some evidence for your own as yet unsupported claims about plastic brains and the body doing what you want it to do etc.
Whatever your results, allow George to pursue his chosen ex gay path as best he can. He has to unlearn a lot of behaviours learned when he was being sexually exploited in his childhood and he will not be perfect in a day.
Whether a log or a speck in the eye, they both obscure the vision. Get that speck out!
Nice weekend.
Hopeless, isnt it?
Anon,
You certainly believe that as a homosexual I am some alien, un-natural, abnormal being. Scarcely worth being called human. You rubbishing mainline science in the name of your belief is not going to change with any references from me. For a person of you undisputed capacity, the information is there. The problem is whether you can see it or not. Whether you will want to see it or not.
To you, the truth cannot be the truth because you dont believe it. Croal would have to shake his head as he realises that his laughter is not instructing you. You are just getting angry!I think it was one of the greatest philosophers of Christendom who was reputed to have spent some time arguing very learnedly on how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. You have proven, again and again, how hopeless it is to move mountains of faith... And on the other hand, how faith does move mountains of credulity.
Thanks for the discussion. It has been eye opening. To me at least!
gug
Anon, I have to admit that gug is right. You have, throughout this discussion, persistently interpreted every bit of information through the lens of your own pre-conceptions. You are prejudiced. And, as I said earlier, also a hypocrite.
I didn't say Kinsey was discredited. Only that most of the sites claiming that were so-called "Christian" ones in the US (i.e.: biased), and that the only one I did find impartial, considered he should have gone much further along the lines he proposed, than he did. If you'd read it, you'd have known that.
Depression is, like most psychological ailments, caused by a mixture of things. You can't use that as an argument for denying greater tolerance of difference. (In fact, as a Christian, you should be supporting it, let alone from a humanitarian stance).
And if you're genuinely interested in developmental psychology, then go read it up. I don't see why I have to do all the work for you.
George must live with his choices, as must we all. As for those who want to be gay, have same sex, find a partner, and live productive, happy lives: I look forward to your declaring your acceptance, respect, and loving support for them, as well as for people like George.
Hello Spiralx,
I was so excited, I thought you were back with some evidence for your claims, that gays are born that way, that sexuality is a matter of Kinseyian orientation and not gender. Unfortunately no.
The easier question is still pending, why does your scale of orientation stop at your interests, homosexual acts between consenting adults? What about the paedophile and necrophile? Do they not have rights like those you demand? On April 28th you referred to practices beyond your point on Kinsey's scale as 'outlandish.'
There is no evidence for your claims otherwise you would have cited one of the alleged 'hundreds of studies' proving homosexuality is innate and fixed. Or perhaps all of them.
There has been no response to the studies by gay activists who admit they cannot establish 'simple...inheritance' No, sophistry is not science.
You are threatened by anyone who wants to try and leave the homosexual lifestyle choice, like George. Why? Is it the absence of reproductive capabilities that creates this attitude?
By reverting to personal attacks, you again publicly endorse the Gay Agenda of vilification of anyone who disagrees with you. Chapter 5 in the Gay Agenda, Overhauling Straight America. It is instructive for those who have had not seen it in action.
Your 'Christian' doctrineJust so you can proceed on a factual basis, there is a piece on the Christian inclusiveness.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/williams200604200609.asp
sample paragraph;
'There is a difference between a church saying “We welcome all persons” and “We welcome all behavior.”
After all, two things distinguish Christian belief: a body of doctrine and a moral code. Following Jesus entails both. Jesus welcomed prostitutes, but he never welcomed prostitution. He was soft on adulterers, but unyielding on adultery. After forgiving the adulterous woman, in fact, he adds: “Go and sin no more... Jesus came to call sinners but to condemn sin, much as a doctor heals sick people but eradicates sickness."
When Jesus tells the chief priests and elders that “the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matthew 21:31), he is not winking at thievery and prostitution. He is responding, rather, to their willingness to acknowledge their errors and to change.'
You do not have to agree, but do not misrepresent the doctrine.
Enjoy your lifestyle choice, instead of investing so much energy justifying it to total strangers.
Just leave ex-gays, Christians and their children in peace.
God bless you.
Post a Comment