Memphis evangelical homosexuality cures

by **emad** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:17 pm

Straight and narrow: church's 'gay cure' Alarm raised over Memphis evangelicals' therapy Julian Borger in Memphis Friday August 26, 2005 The Guardian Love in Action International stands on a bluff in north Memphis, the steep roof of the ministry's angular modernist church offering itself as a beacon of hope for the world's reluctant homosexuals. That should include every gay man and lesbian on the planet, according to the Reverend John Smid, the head of this evangelical group, whose mission is to take gays and straighten them out. "I hope we can help men and women overcome ... mindsets counterproductive to their walk in Christ," Mr Smid said on a sweltering Tennessee afternoon as he showed Love in Action supporters around the new mission headquarters. About two dozen mostly elderly wellwishers went on a tour of the compound, the size of a small school. One, Anne Layne, confided that her financial support for the group arose from bitter experience. "My first husband just left me with two children. I didn't even know he was gay." Mr Smid left his wife and two daughters in 1980 in similar circumstances - he had decided he was gay. The potted autobiography he hands out is unusually graphic for a church document, revealing his former "addictive habit of masturbation" and his homosexual experiences. But after four years, Mr Smid had a religious epiphany and he was led back to heterosexuality and marriage. He attributes all of this confusion to his family life, his parents' decision to park him with a relative amid their marital problems, and a sexual advance from a "significant adult in my life" when he was 10. Love in Action is built around bringing to light such childhood traumas. "Homosexuality always comes out of a distorted view of oneself," he said. So his mission in life is to uncross these wires with group therapy and strict behaviour rules aimed at driving out the "false images" homosexuals have of themselves. The rules run to 13 pages. They call for "any temptations, fantasies, or dreams to be presented to one's staff worker", and stipulate that "facial hair is banned on men while women must shave their underarms at least twice weekly". Clothes are even controlled (there's a ban on Abercrombie and Fitch, and Calvin Klein brands). The conversion style is widely known as "reparative therapy", and is spreading around this increasingly evangelical country. While there is one Anglican organisation for "ex-gays" in Britain, there are at least 120 in the US, says Exodus International, an "ex-gay" network. Outside Washington, billboards show handsome, smiling men announcing "Ex-gays prove that change is possible". The booming business reflects a constant supply of unhappy people from strict Christian households, whose sexual feelings clash with their beliefs. Adult clients pay thousands of dollars in the hope of a "cure". However, Mr Smid has provoked controversy by starting a programme for teenagers who have been sent by parents to Love in Action - mostly against their wishes. One, Zach Stark, a disgruntled 16-year-old, went online with a cry for help and ignited a national row. "It's like boot camp," he wrote in his blog in May. "If I do come out straight, I'll be so mentally unstable and depressed it won't matter." His plight drew protests from gay activist groups, who demonstrated outside Love in Action calling for his release, and inspired national media stories. Zach's father, Joe, went on the Christian Broadcasting Network to defend his decision to send his son there. Mr Smid is unapologetic. "We believe it's the parent's responsibility to intervene," he said, and claimed that only one of the 27 teenagers who had taken part in the youth programme, Refuge, failed to finish the course. Earlier this month, Zach posted another blog saying that he "wasn't pressured into doing anything that would hurt me". Nothing was heard from him again. But now Tennessee state authorities are pursuing an inquiry into whether Love in Action is selling therapy without properly licensed therapists. Mr Smid has removed references to "therapy" and "treatment plan" from his website but critics maintain his programme could be psychologically damaging. Jeff Harwood, a gay Christian who spent three years in Love in Action in the 90s, said: "It was very emotional, digging up things you'd done ... the more you [could] dig up, the more credit you [got]." Mr Harwood came out of the programme believing himself "cured". He dated a woman but the relationship fell apart and former impulses returned. He reached a crisis. "I just said 'this is it'. God is nothing but a cosmic sadist. I sat in my bathroom with a carving knife, wondering whether it would be better to slit my wrists or cut off my genitals." A friend talked him out of suicide and now, aged 41, he is reconciled both to his homosexuality and Christianity. Of almost 40 "graduates" of the Love in Action programme that he knows of, more than half are still openly gay, and only 12% consider themselves ex-gay, he said. Love in Action's figures differ. Gerard Wellman, 24, the ministry's business administrator - and a "successful graduate" of the programme - said that 70 % of graduates say "it works for them". He added: "Homosexual describes behaviour, not people." Others, however, claim they have been left unchanged or traumatised. One, John, said he hated every moment of the programme. "You get emotional in front of people you don't know. It was very Orwellian, upsetting. They wanted to know all about my sexual incidents. They make you go over an incident again and again. You obsess about things that happened in your past. I don't know how anyone can do that to another person." <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1556715,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/usa/st...15,00.html</a>

by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>However, Mr Smid has provoked controversy by starting a programme for teenagers who have been sent by parents to Love in Action - mostly against their wishes.<hr></blockquote> Love in Action...I'll bet. Scratch a homophobic crusader and you'll find a child molester. It's like some kind of cosmic law or something. Funny I haven't heard about this here locally in Nashville.

by **robertdreed** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:51 pm

Beyond the coercion of minors aspect, I can't get too excited about people trying to evangelize homosexuals to become heterosexual. Elements in the gay community have been "evangelizing" heterosexuals to become gay or ambisexual, even before the rise of Gay Liberation.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Elements in the gay community have been "evangelizing" heterosexuals to become gay or ambisexual, even before the rise of Gay Liberation.<hr></blockquote> What, like, "Be gay, get a toaster"? I don't know any gays who think that homosexuality is a choice. So "evangelizing" makes no sense. And, I have to say, I know and have known a lot of gay people. Not sure what your experiences have been, but that's the exact stereotype the right uses to justify discrimination.

by **ZeroHaven** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:34 pm

crap, <a href="http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=7428306" target="top">Zach erased his old blog</a>! crazy bits: childhood traumas - explain that to the kid who figures out he's "different" in kindergarten. Maybe he was molested as a fetus?! facial hair is banned on men - isn't facial hair a sign of manliness? Shaving makes men look more feminine. I do have to agree with the ban on Abercrombie and Fitch though.. that's just good taste <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> <img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/>

by **robertdreed** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:19 pm

What, like, "Be gay, get a toaster"? No, more like "can I suck your cock?" And then not taking "no" for an answer the first time. I don't know any gays who think that homosexuality is a choice. That depends on how one defines "homosexuality." I've observed many gays contradicting themselves on this issue, often quite shamelessly. Consider the case of Allen Ginsberg, who once claimed in an interview that he considered himself at low risk of contracting AIDS because he "only had sex with straight guys." I like Allen Ginsberg. He's one of the greatest poets of the 20th century. But I don't buy into his game, about that. Strictly in terms of considering the civil rights issues, I'm a social libertarian about consensual sexual activity among adults. But I'm tired of hearing the PC nonsense that gets pushed in regard to the issue passing unchallenged. For instance, what is one to think of statements like Ginsberg's, above? How is one to consider the phenomenon of "passable transvestites" frequenting "straight bars" with the intention of picking up heterosexual men with their "beer goggles" on, under false pretenses? What do you make of Gore Vidal's gay chauvinist pronouncement that the most physically attractive males are invariably either gay or ambisexual? How do you account for the phenomenon of gays who solicit sex from total strangers in public bathrooms? What about the practice of "gay for pay"? What about those males who act like homosexual predators in same-sex environments like prisons, resuming the profile of heterosexuality outside the walls? Strictly in terms of material opportunity, the payoffs of engaging in gay sexual conduct for young attractive males can be not merely rewarding, but lucrative- cash, drugs, penthouse apartments, career boosts, elite access. Sorry, but very few women come across like that. As a rule, the payoff for being a young attractive straight guy still involves picking up the check. So "evangelizing" makes no sense. Please. Can we have some honesty here? And, I have to say, I know and have known a lot of gay people. So have I. I'm a fair-minded, tolerant person. Folks are folks, to me. I've been a night shift cab driver for years. I've had friendly acquaintances with stone promiscuous gay sluts. I've also known gay couples who appeared to me to be as monogamous as fused quartz. It takes all kinds. And I do think there's such a thing as biologically hard-wired same-sex preference, for a small percentage of the population. What I don't like is self-serving definitions of what constitutes "homosexuality", depending on the audience being pitched. Particularly as a political movement, aspects of gay male sexuality- the "gaycentric" view of culture and society, the constant pressure to make the gay experience normative for all males, the chauvinism- still give me problems. I'm not sure how much of that "homophobia" can be said to be my fault, if any- particularly in light of comments like those of Mr. Vidal, above. Like the term "homosexuality", the term "homophobia" seems to have an elastic definition. Some gays apparently take it to mean "any guy who turns us down."  Not sure what your experiences have been, but that's the exact stereotype the right uses to justify discrimination. Once gays get reasonable provisions for "civil unions"- which will happen, soon- I question the need for a "gay rights" political movement. The Supreme Court- that includes Antonin Scalia, the most conservative jurist on the Supreme Court bench- has already legalized same-sex activity. I don't know how much more that the legislature or the government can be expected to do for their rights. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/27/05 9:36 pm

by **Dreams End** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>For instance, what is one to think of statements like Ginsberg's, above? How is one to consider the phenomenon of "passable transvestites" frequenting "straight bars" with the intention of picking up heterosexual men with their "beer goggles" on, under false pretenses? What do you make of Gore Vidal's gay chauvinist pronouncement that the most physically attractive males are invariably either gay or ambisexual? How do you account for the phenomenon of gays who solicit sex from total strangers in public bathrooms? What about the practice of "gay for pay"? What about those males who act like homosexual predators in same-sex environments like prisons, resuming the profile of heterosexuality outside the walls?<hr></blockquote> Well, these are "evangelizing"? I took evangelizing to mean attempting to convert. Do any of the above "convert" straight guys? Let's take them one at a time, as they are entertaining. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> For instance, what is one to think of statements like Ginsberg's, above? How is one to consider the phenomenon of "passable transvestites" frequenting "straight bars" with the intention of picking up heterosexual men with their "beer goggles" on, under false pretenses?<hr></blockquote> First, that's not really, "evangelizing" now is it. Secondly, and this is quite amusing, everthing I know about trannies, especially beautiful ones who charge, is that it is almost exclusively "straight" males who solicit them. Heh. Now, I don't have stats, here, but neither do you...you quote this "phenomenon." I think my experience shows that the phenomenon merely shows that people are more complex sexually than our categories really make room for. This is fun.. let's keep going. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> What do you make of Gore Vidal's gay chauvinist pronouncement that the most physically attractive males are invariably either gay or ambisexual?<hr></blockquote> First off, he has an awful lot of relevant essays and analysis that would be of interest if you aren't already aware of it. But anyway, I laughed at this one, because I've heard so many straight women complain of exactly the same thing! Anyway, not really a way to "recruit" the straights, so it doesn't really get at your point. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> How do you account for the phenomenon of gays who solicit sex from total strangers in public bathrooms?<hr></blockquote> You'd have to ask George Michael about that. However, I'm PRETTY sure that the other guys giving head in the john are also gay, so yet again, this can't count as "evangelizing." Actually, I imagine many such men are highly closeted and seek out such activities as their only perceived means of satisfying these desires. Personally, I find this depressing. I wonder if this even happens that much anymore with the rise of the internet making casual hookups so much easier. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What about the practice of "gay for pay"?<hr></blockquote> What about it? Clearly, a guy's gotta make a living. I met a male porn star once who said he was "gay for pay." he'd look at straight porn, see a fluffer, then hit the set while he was still hard. Or so he claimed. Maybe he liked it and just didn't want to tell. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> What about those males who act like homosexual predators in same-sex environments like prisons, resuming the profile of heterosexuality outside the walls? <hr></blockquote> Prison rape is a SERIOUS issue, so no jokes on this one. However, men in prison don't have much access to women, now do they? The sexual urge, I understand, is kinda strong, so humans can be resourceful. I also imagine that in prison there is a strong element of power struggle involved, beyond the sex...about control, humiliation...you know, the whole Abu Ghraib thing, but with prisoner on prisoner. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Strictly in terms of material opportunity, the payoffs of engaging in gay sexual conduct for young attractive males can be not merely rewarding, but lucrative- cash, drugs, penthouse apartments, career boosts, elite access. Sorry, but very few women come across like that. As a rule, the payoff for being a young attractive straight guy still involves picking up the check.<hr></blockquote> Well, there are fewer women in power positions to have "boy toys" but they are out there. I'll grant, in much fewer numbers. Look, full disclosure here. I'm bisexual, for whatever value that has as a category. Definitely have far more relationships with women, but I'm open to men. The men I've been with..and there aren't that many, really, have been gay, bi...and one reportedly straight. I didn't "trick" him, or evangelize him...and as far as I know, I'm the only guy he ever did anything with. A good friend of mine is stereotypically straight...stacks of Maxim magazines on his toilet. He went out with a hot trans, even after he found out she was pre-op. He chickened out...but not because he wasn't attracted to her. He just didn't know how to deal. I know your libertarianism is sincere and principled, so I know you aren't gay bashing here...I just couldn't resist replying to that paragraph. Human sexuality is extremely complex and varied than even the most open minded of us can really capture with our "labels." Younger people will get same sex "crushes" only to grow out of it. Straight people, men and women, will sometimes cross the line with a trusted friend or on a bet, or out of curiosity. None of this has anything to do with "evangelizing". But those guys you mention who are like "fused quartz" really will get accused of such, should they decide to adopt a child or teach first grade. At least, sometimes they will. So that's why I jumped on the term. Surely you've seen the websites of Makow and others that lump gays in with various conspiracies to destroy america. Oh, and next time a hot transexual hits on you...if you aren't interested...send her my way.

by **robertdreed** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:11 am

You didn't address all of my points, Dream's End. My opening response to you, on the topic of "gay evangelism": DE: What, like, "Be gay, get a toaster"? RDR: No, more like "can I suck your cock?" And then not taking "no" for an answer the first time. ( The "toaster" crack was good for an easy laugh, but it's plain to me that male sexuality is outside of Ellen DeGeneres' field of expertise. ) On Gore Vidal's comments that the most physically atractive men are invariably gay or ambisexual: DE: Anyway, not really a way to "recruit" the straights, so it doesn't really get at your point. Gore Vidal's dogmatic pronouncement on the subject is nothing if not an attempt to claim territory. Mutatis mutandis, I might as well be hearing Jerry Fallwell claiming that gay people are invariably possessed by the devil. Vidal has never particularly disguised his interests in "recruiting the straights", has he? Consider his porn fantasy in the "climactic scene" in Myra Breckinridge, where Vidal's transsexual heroine Myra uses a dildo to anally penetrate, and verbally humiliate Rusty, a young straight teenage boy, successfully "turning him out" into the glorious horizon of being newly sexually abused, bewildered, and questioning his formerly proudly masculine heterosexual identity. That fantasy is the raison d'etre for Vidal's writing the novel, as far as I can tell. Many of the rest of your comments don't directly address the questions that I brought up. For instance, my comments on transvestites were specifically referring to the practice that some of them engage in, of trolling for drunk straight men in heterosexual pickup environments. Sexual soliciting or seduction of any kind whatsoever has an "evangelical" component to it, when the subject being solicited is naive to the particular conduct or activity. When done in a fraudulent, misleading, bait-and-switch way, it's unethical. And coercive pressure is even worse. When it comes to rules and norms for sexual conduct, I don't give much weight to the views of childless single people, particularly males. Particularly young males. I give more credence to the concerns of married couples nurturing their offspring. They have more of a sense of responsibility to others, beyond attempting to design the wider society to maximize the latitude for the gratification of their own drives and desires. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/27/05 11:51 pm

by **RollickHooper** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:40 am

I would totally let Jaye Davidson evangelize me

by **manxkat** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:44 am

Hey robertdreed, try spending some time with some regular old boring but normal gays, like me, who don't fit in those handy little stereotypical categories, and maybe you'll learn something. It's not that there aren't the stereotypes you mention, but for pete's sake, the world is a much bigger place than that. I suggest you spend some time over at AmericaBlog.com -- John Aravosis and crew are some of the most competent, articulate, intelligent, and level headed guys I've read -- even if you might not agree with their politics. They're great examples of gay-positive activists and role models who don't fit into those tired old stereotypes. And, thank you Dreams End for your well-articulated responses.

by **manxkat** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:55 am

robertdreed actually said: "When it comes to rules and norms for sexual conduct, I don't give much weight to the views of childless single people, particularly males. Particularly young males. I give more credence to the concerns of married couples nurturing their offspring. They have more of a sense of responsibility to others, beyond attempting to design the wider society to maximize the latitude for the gratification of their own drives and desires." Are you fucking out of your mind? Jeezus, that's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. At least you're honest in showing your ignorance and bigotry. How does your brain deal with the 50% divorce rate of married couples (presumably a good chunk of them with children)? Don't answer.... I don't even want to engage in a conversation. Just couldn't sit back without responding to this blatant prejudice.

by **robertdreed** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:12 am

My brain deals with it like this: single and divorced parents are next in line to get my ear. In sociobiological terms, the extended family unit made up of male-female parenting couples nurturing their offspring has been the normative case since hominid primates first stood up on the African plains. As for the rest of us, we should be thankful that modernity has evolved to allow us such a latitude of options for our life paths, beyond that model. But I think it's a mistaken conceit to think that such social libertarianism betokens a social revolution that totally displaces traditional ideas of family in the human species. That's what the Christian Right people are terrified of. I think they're being paranoid, for the most part. That is, until I consider the extremist attitudes recurrently advanced from within the ranks of various fringe populations of decadents, libertines, paraphiliacs, ambisexual chauvinists, etc. who aren't content with mere tolerance. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/27/05 11:18 pm

by **robertdreed** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:20 am

Don't answer.... I don't even want to engage in a conversation.  As long as that's your position, that settles the question of who has an "open mind." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/27/05 11:23 pm

by **proldic** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:20 am

The Sunday Times - Britain August 28, 2005 Army on parade for gay recruits by Jonathan Leake and Philip Cardy THE army came out in style this weekend when it launched a recruitment drive aimed at tempting more gays, lesbians, transvestites and even transsexuals into the ranks. It set up a recruitment stall at the Gay Pride festival in Manchester, backing its new-found commitment to homosexual rights by sending 10 gay and lesbian soldiers in combat trousers and tight T-shirts to join thousands of marchers on a five-mile parade through the city. They strode out behind a float put together by the RAF, which was also recruiting. Themed on a fighter jet, it featured an oversized cockpit and a banner proudly proclaiming, “RAF rise above the rest”. At the stall, the men in uniform, complete with medals, mingled with eager would-be recruits, one dressed in tight leather shorts and a pink cowboy hat. It was the first time the army had actively tried to recruit from such groups. It says it simply wants to tap into the talents of the gay population. Lieutenant-Colonel Leanda Pitt, commander of regional recruiting in the northwest, said: “It is such a massive event in the Manchester calendar that we can’t afford not to attend. As far as the army is concerned, sexual orientation is a private matter.” For campaigners, however, the sight of gay soldiers on parade was more reminiscent of a victory march. It was only because gay rights groups such as Stonewall went to the European Court of Human Rights in 1999 that the Ministry of Defence was forced to lift its long-standing ban on homosexuality in the services. Yesterday Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, welcomed the military presence at the Gay Pride march. He said: “The army is now beginning to realise that even at infantry level there are very good, tough lesbians and gay men who are capable of serving very competently. There is a huge pool of talented lesbian and gay people out there who want to serve their country.” This weekend, the MoD confirmed the new policy also applied to transvestites and transsexuals. A spokesman said: “People’s sexual orientation is none of our business. We have a code of social conduct that everyone has to follow whatever their preference.” The RAF became the first of the armed forces to take part in a Gay Pride festival when it joined the same Manchester march last year. The police have allowed uniformed officers to take part in such events since 2003. Yesterday there were contingents from three forces — Greater Manchester, Cheshire and North Yorkshire. While the march continued, the army’s recruiting stand did brisk business. The officers manning it were dressed in full military regalia, but were easily outdone by their would-be recruits: one sported a pair of red devil horns and a cape. Captain Guy Sutcliffe said hundreds of people had taken leaflets and many more were expected to visit before the festival ends tomorrow. He said: “We are actively recruiting anyone. We reflect society irrespective of sexuality, gender or religion.” Sutcliffe said the army had “no idea” how many gay soldiers there were within its ranks. “It’s not relevant,” he said. “It’s not something we monitor.” Such attitudes mark a huge change within the forces. Recruitment of non-heterosexuals has only been permitted since 1999 when the European court ruled the ban on gays was against the law. Since then, the RAF has led the way in promoting diversity. It attended last year’s Manchester Gay Pride and a similar event in Brighton this year, and has also supported transsexual officers seeking sex-change treatment. In 2000 Flight Lieutenant Eric Cookson became Flight Lieutenant Caroline Paige and last year two squadron leaders applied to have £32,000 sex-change operations and now fly as women. Warrant Officer Lutha Magloire, 39, of the Logistic Corps, who organised the soldiers’ contingent, said he had asked for 10 recruits — and got 30 volunteers. “We don’t really care what sexual orientation you are if you want to come and join us in the army.” Additional reporting: Yuba Bessaoud <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1753905_2,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art..._2,00.html</a>

by **Dreams End** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:18 pm

rdr: I'm not suggesting this is YOUR attitude, but when taken to extremes, this attitude leads to very bad places. Consider this article about the lovely Rev. Phelps who just popped into Tennessee yesterday to protest at the funeral of two soldiers. You see, evidently, these deaths are a result of the fact that God hates America because it is run by "fags." <a href="http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050828/NEWS01/508280380">www.tennessean.com/apps/p.../508280380</a> That is really extreme, but with the Pat Robertsons and Christian Coalitions of the country your statement: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's what the Christian Right people are terrified of. I think they're being paranoid, for the most part. That is, until I consider the extremist attitudes recurrently advanced from within the ranks of various fringe populations of decadents, libertines, paraphiliacs, ambisexual chauvinists, etc. who aren't content with mere tolerance.<hr></blockquote> implies a tolerance that isn't there. In other words, gays advocating for "tolerance' (a patronizing word if ever there was one, but that's a separate iissue) are accused of asking for "special privileges." Like, you know, marriage and the right not to be fired for loving the wrong gender. And to see that you find POSSIBLE merit in the Christian Right's position on this, (they are being paranoid...until I consider...) suggests I may have misjudged your position in the first place and that you are clearly more intolerant than I figured. I'm still sure you are the kind of guy who would judge an individual only by the actions you see them take and not by a stereotype, but to buy into even part of the "gays are ruining america" fantasy shows you have some prejudice, in my view. The American "family unit" is, indeed, changing. But unless you are suggesting that these "evengelizing gays" are somehow causing that, I'm not really sure how you think they are hurting anything. Even if some straight guy gets a blow job from a tranny passing as a woman, does this make him renounce his procreational "obligations"? The right wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to argue that gays are a sinister force destroying the country. On the other, they want to suggest that the percentage of gays in the country is far lower than the 10% figure often quoted (one in every minion, as a Jewish gay friend of mine advertises on his t-shirt.) So I'm not really sure what your point is. You think I've missed it. I just don't get it. What harm is it that you think gays are causing, exactly, and how does it compare to the other social forces eating away at the family institution you are so protective of?

Memphis evangelical homosexuality cures

Memphis evangelical homosexuality cures

Re: Memphis evangelical homosexuality cures

Re: Memphis evangelical homosexuality cures

Re: Memphis evangelical homosexuality cures

Crazy Talk Indeed!

"Homosexuality" and "homophobia"

Re: "Homosexuality" and "homophobia"

On "evangelizing"

Re: On "evangelizing"

spend some time

unbelievable...

manxkat

Re: manxkat

UK army on parade for gay recruits

Re: UK army on parade for gay recruits

Who is online