As usual...

[A_Wanderer]

I look forward to the distant day when sexuality is completely and utterly fluid - can be flicked like a switch. You want to be ex-gay, go ahead. Want to experiment go nuts. Want to recognise beauty in all it's forms enjoy or just drop an asexual pill for those times when you don't have anyone.

As for diversity days, bugger them. As long as nobody is beating the shit out of another and leaving them dying in a gutter things are livable.

 

[BonosSaint]

I knew young that the world was diverse and that was fine with me, so things like diversity days bore the hell out of me. However an ex-gay, whose message in all reality is that everyone should be heterosexual (or failing that, I guess, asexual) seems to be offtheme a little bit there. A little like letting the fox into the henhouse. Everyone knows there are people who do not accept diversity, which I suppose is the reason for the Diversity Days anyway.

Now if you had Free Speech Day and banned the ex-gay or even banned someone who spoke against free speech, I would find that uncomfortably ironic.

That being said free speech does not require that a forum be offered for every point of view or that every point of view be legitimized.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Have an ex-hetero to balance it out.

 

[BonosSaint]

 

[melon]

Funny, it seems as if there has been plenty of opportunity to berate the so called "ex-gay" individual. Shout him down and keep him from speaking.

Sounds just like the actions you complain of.

The "ex-gay" only exists to make fun of gays at the behest of Christian hate groups. Even then, they are a fraud, because the definition of "ex-gay" can be as deceptive as telling a bisexual to never act on his same-sex attractions or telling a homosexual to be celibate.

Here's an example (that I bet you'll ignore like the rest):

Imagine if every Jewish celebration was dogged by lawsuits from "Jews for Jesus," where they insisted on being included. However, they only wanted to be there to make fun of Jews or tell them to convert.

Or, since you seem to be completely incapable of empathy for people who are not you, imagine if a hypothetical "Christians for Muhammad" group existed, and every time there was a public gathering of Christians, "Christians for Muhammad" filed a lawsuit demanding to be able to refute everything you say in public. Every time. Every event. Every city. They then would spend the entire event saying how Christians are full of crap and how, with the help of Muhammad, you can change too.

This is the equivalent of what these Christians are doing to the gay community. It's nothing short of ethnic intimidation, in my eyes, and I wish nothing more that gays could make loud and nasty protests in front of church services. Every time. Every town and city. But, like a good bully, you have laws protecting you on that.

Melon

 

[Se7en]

True they could have included neo-nazis, KKK, polygamists, wiccans, etc...

why did you lump wiccans in with neo-nazis and the kkk???

including wiccans very well could have made the day more interesting and diverse.

 

[BVS]

why did you lump wiccans in with neo-nazis and the kkk???

including wiccans very well could have made the day more interesting and diverse.

I wasn't lumping them in. I was just listing groups that exist but won't be included. Some for the better, some for the worse.

That's all.

 

[Irvine511]

Funny, it seems as if there has been plenty of opportunity to berate the so called "ex-gay" individual. Shout him down and keep him from speaking.

Sounds just like the actions you complain of.

funny, maybe you should learn a little bit more about how these abusive groups work.

and i think you'll find that most of us have great sympathy for the ex-gay individual, a victim of religious abuse and degradation. it's, first, the existence of "ex-gay" "therapy" and then the manipulation of these indivduals by Christianist forces for political gain that we are berating.

 

[nbcrusader]

The "ex-gay" only exists to make fun of gays at the behest of Christian hate groups. Even then, they are a fraud, because the definition of "ex-gay" can be as deceptive as telling a bisexual to never act on his same-sex attractions or telling a homosexual to be celibate.

Here's an example (that I bet you'll ignore like the rest):

Imagine if every Jewish celebration was dogged by lawsuits from "Jews for Jesus," where they insisted on being included. However, they only wanted to be there to make fun of Jews or tell them to convert.

Or, since you seem to be completely incapable of empathy for people who are not you, imagine if a hypothetical "Christians for Muhammad" group existed, and every time there was a public gathering of Christians, "Christians for Muhammad" filed a lawsuit demanding to be able to refute everything you say in public. Every time. Every event. Every city. They then would spend the entire event saying how Christians are full of crap and how, with the help of Muhammad, you can change too.

This is the equivalent of what these Christians are doing to the gay community. It's nothing short of ethnic intimidation, in my eyes, and I wish nothing more that gays could make loud and nasty protests in front of church services. Every time. Every town and city. But, like a good bully, you have laws protecting you on that.

Melon

I'll try to extract the meaningful discussion from the usual dose of hatred and personal attack you've sprinkled through here.

Jews for Jesus is a great example. The group’s message is the acceptance and naming of the Jewish Messiah as Jesus Christ. I am quite familiar with Messianic congregations. Now, instead of allowing them to say “this is who we are and what we believe” you characterize their message as only an attack (or “make fun of”) Jews.

The “Christians for Mohammed” example is nonsensical as, unlike Judaism and Christianity, there is no natural flow or connection between Christian prophecies to Islam as there is Jewish prophecy to Christianity.

I guess if an individual want to share an experience that is contrary to your beliefs, they should be shut down completely.

 

[Irvine511]

I guess if an individual want to share an experience that is contrary to your beliefs, they should be shut down completely.

this is a good point, and it has NOTHING to do with "ex-gay" speakers.

there's nothing to "believe" about homosexuality -- somewhere between 5 and 10% of any given human population has a constitutive attraction, by which we mean emotional and physical, to people of their same gender. this isn't up for debate. this is simply fact. you can't "share" an "experience" that could possibly be contrary to anyone's "beliefs" about homosexuality precisely because there is nothing to believe.

the presence of an "ex-gay" speaker adds nothing to the discussion other than to call into question the legitimacy of the claims of those who identify as bisexual, gay or lesbian, as well as to refute the idea of a "natural" homosexual.

this simply isn't supported by science, or psychiatry, nor are the results from those who go through "ex-gay" programs give much credibility to those who claim to be "ex-gay" as most "relapse" or are perhaps able to maintain lives of celibacy.

so, instead of crying, "exclusion, at an event about inclusion! oh the irony! oh the liberal hipocrisy!" you'd do well to look at precisely what claims an "ex-gay" group is making and you'd see that they have nothing to do with other clearly defined social groups with an easily identifiable set of cultural mores.

 

[verte76]

Very good post irvine.

 

[AliEnvy]

Perhaps considering a forum like Diversity Day for celebrating differences being exclusionary of debate is exactly the point. It's not the time and place time for debate. And as some litigous bigots would have it, it's not something to celebrate either.

That said, I think the school missed an opportunity to offer a separate occasion for an open, thoughtful debate that included all viewpoints. Exposing hate can be very educational.

All that was accomplished here for students was the lesson that the law stands behind hateful, small minds.

 

[nbcrusader]

so, instead of crying, "exclusion, at an event about inclusion! oh the irony! oh the liberal hipocrisy!" you'd do well to look at precisely what claims an "ex-gay" group is making and you'd see that they have nothing to do with other clearly defined social groups with an easily identifiable set of cultural mores.

Perhaps the cultural definitions are not as clear as you would like them to be. If your assertions were absolute, the "ex-gay" speakers would not exist - unless you suggest they are there because they have been brainwashed or under duress and coersion.

But, as you said, it is not up for debate.

 

[Irvine511]

Perhaps the cultural definitions are not as clear as you would like them to be. If your assertions were absolute, the "ex-gay" speakers would not exist - unless you suggest they are there because they have been brainwashed or under duress and coersion.

no, i think you need a better understanding of what cultural definitions are -- "ex-gays" already claim to belong to a culture, heterosexual culture. their label of "ex-gay" is designed precisely to antagonize gay people, nothing more, and they make no claims to have any of the traditional markers of what we would consider social groups. indeed, they exist only to dispute the legitimacy upon which gays and lesbians assert their identity as part of a social sub-culture; if they are akin to any sort of group it would be to former alcoholics or drug users, which is precisely what they are told to equate homosexuality with: a harmful addiction that must be overcome.

and, yes, the vast majority of "ex-gays" are gay people who come from very religious homes who've been rejected by their families, communities, and churches, and see this bogus "ministry" as a way "out" of being gay. they are sadly brainwashed, under duress, and more often then not coerced by religous bigots who tell them that this is the only way to avoid hellfire and damnation.

and i want to hug each and every one of them.



[q]But, as you said, it is not up for debate. [/q]


the debate has already happened, and everyone knows where science, psychiatry, the large majority of gay people and their friends all stand. the only people even claiming that there is a "debate" to be had are a small group of hateful fundies who come at you with smiles and "compassion" and leave you filled with even more self-hate as you start to find out that, guess what, the treatments don't work.

sure, there are debates to be had between gays and ex-gays, but that doesn't mean, for a second, that they should be a part of a Diversity Day when their only function is to antagonize another group.

http://www.anythingbutstraight.com/

 

[Carmelu2fan]

^ that site is very informative, I really was taken back by the article titled" ex-gay history". I know what it is like to be treated different just because you are a little different. This line in paticular really moved me."When people learn that God loves them for who they are and that they can be gay and happy, the appeal of these dangerous groups invariably wanes. "

 

[melon]

In 1998, Anne Paulk appeared in a full-page newspaper ad that kicked off a multi-million dollar right-wing political ad campaign featuring “ex-gays”. The screaming headline in her controversial ad that hovered above her picture was: “Wife, Mother, and Former Lesbian.” Anything But Straight discovers for the first time that Paulk lied about being a lesbian and has admitted to having strong attraction to men – which contradicts her testimony in the ad.

I guess lying doesn't count as a sin anymore.

Melon

 

[yolland]

"When people learn that God loves them for who they are and that they can be gay and happy, the appeal of these dangerous groups invariably wanes. "

I think this approach is ultimately far more radical than playing into the hands of false dichotomies pitting gayness against the growth and progress of religious life.