RECENT  POSTS:  » #RFRA and a movement that shirks responsibility (almost) as much as it shirks equality » Audio: Limbaugh admits #RFRA fight is about same-sex marriage; links homosexuality to bestiality » Sen Schumer, federal #RFRA coauthor, knocks down lie that Indiana's version is the same » Video: I can't fathom invoking concentration camps in my political discourse. But Glenn Beck on the other hand... » Get a load of this double-talk from the Family Research Council #RFRA #Indiana » NOM admits 'religious freedom' bills are about discriminating against same-sex couples; thanks, NOM » 'Indianapolis Star' to Governor Pence: FIX THIS NOW » Bill Maher's monologue on dialogue he'd prefer remain a monologue » Video: Even Michael Steele thinks Indiana law is too broad; Ryan T. Anderson constantly interrupts, still loses » Watch Gov. Pence heap praise on lobbying group that admitted #SB101 was all about same-sex marriage  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/03/2008

We hear she also thinks apples & oranges are one and the same

by Jeremy Hooper

Laurie Higgins, a teacher's aide at Illinois' Deerfield High School who loves to engage in this so-called culture war, has today made the following comments on the American For Truth website:

Neither Mr. LaBarbera nor I believe that homosexuals choose the feelings they have anymore than those who are attracted to adolescents or children or their siblings choose their powerful attractions, or those married men who are attracted to other women choose those attractions, or those who are powerfully drawn toward gambling or alcohol or drugs choose those attractions. We do believe, however, that those who experience same-sex attraction choose how they will respond to their desires, just as I choose how to respond to my selfish, or greedy, or angry, or lustful desires. Some in society tell you that acting on same-sex impulses is legitimate and good. They have lied to you, and it is a cruel lie.

We offer this reply:

"WHY DO YOU WHO PROTEST GAYS NEVER THINK TO COMPARE HOMOSEXUALITY TO HETEROSEXUALITY, RATHER THAN TO THINGS LIKE ADULTERY OR ADDICTION?! WHY DO YOU COMPARE THE 'CHOICE' TO HAVE SAME-SEX SEX TO 'BEHAVIORS' THAT ARE THEMSElVES VARIANTS IN WHICH ANYONE OF ANY ORIENTATION CAN ENGAGE, RATHER THAN TO WHAT SHOULD BE HOMOSEXUALITY'S MOST LOGICAL COUNTERPART: HETEROSEXUALITY?!

Laurie, we gays don't respond to our sexual desires "
just as [you] choose how to respond to [your] selfish, or greedy, or angry, or lustful desires." We respond to our sexual desires just as you respond to your own -- wait for it, wait for it, wait for it -- SEXUAL DESIRES!!! Those other aspects of your character are things that exist within all of human nature! Making a comparison between those things and the completely unrelated concept of biological sexual attraction and compatibility is like comparing a condom to a balloon!

STOP BEING SO DECEITFUL! If not for us, then for the gay public school students to whom you are entrusted to give helpful advice, not exclusionary, duplicitous dogma!
"

Laurie Higgins to Atheist Joe: ‘I Care that Others are Teaching Children Lies’ [AFT]

Technorati Tags: ,

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Perhaps people like Higgins and LaBarbera feel the way they do is that the only sexual desires they have are homosexual. They cannot act on them because of an unnatural fear brought on by misinterpretation of the Bible. Thus they consider their feelings to be unnatural and those feelings must also be unnatural for anyone who is psychologically healthy enough to see their homosexual feelings as a normal variation of sexual feelings.

Posted by: Mike in the Tndra | Jan 3, 2008 12:43:40 PM

Rawr! What are those lustful desires, and would she really like to respond to them?

Posted by: AustinDave | Jan 3, 2008 1:36:09 PM


Laurie's at it again, eh.

I think she should give a listen to John Corvino's video, or at least its trailer over at

http://www.gaymoralist.com/#

He concisely and powerfully ends with the statement that one's morality should be judged not on WHO someone loves, but on IF someone loves.

Food for thought.

db

Posted by: Dave B. | Jan 3, 2008 2:39:06 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails