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


Linda's venomous words needed no explanation. But she's offered one anyway

by Jeremy Hooper

Lately there seems to be a rash of social conservatives who, after writing a particularly beyond the pale piece attacking the gay community, feel compelled to write a postmortem in which they attempt to absolve themselves of any and all responsibility. Last week we saw it with the Illinois Family Institute's Laurie Higgins, who followed up an anti-gay, Holocaust-themed column with a followup in which she "explained" the difference between directly comparing gays to Hitler (which she didn't do) and directly likening gay activists and gay activism to "the evil face of Nazism" (which she absolutely did). Now we're seeing the same sort of thing from Mission America's Linda Harvey, who has followed up yesterday's thoroughly offensive take on the Tel Aviv shootings with this contemptible attempt to (a) clear herself of wrongdoing, before (b) flipping the stakes in order to make rightfully outraged LGBT activists seem like the bad guys:

Regarding the Tel Aviv shootings and our news release, [blogger Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God.] has done what is all too common among homosexual bloggers-- he mispresents the truth ( which is a nice way of saying, he lies). Whether it's incompetence or deliberate distortion, we can't say.

If you read our statement, it doesn't say anything close to what Joe's summary says it says:

"Harvey goes [sic--I think he left out the word "on" here] to say that if those kids hadn't been at a perverted gay youth event in the first place, they wouldn't have been killed. In other words, that's what you get."

Not true! Where did our press release say anything like this? He can read minds--then why is he wasting his time on a blog? Get into the stock market, Joe!!

We do NOT blame these kids. All we are saying is that these centers promote homosexuality; we oppose homosexuality; the behavior is problematic for kids; and we always hope for kids to have long and happy lives.

Which is why our headline says, "Mission America CONDEMNS Shootings." Very easy to read, if one takes the five seconds to do so.

We also were disgusted at the "jump to conclusions" of the activists who immediately blamed those who have traditional values, as did the numerous outrageous callers we've been getting. Slander...and among those who preach "tolerance"? Amazing.

We love kids. Homosexuality, as a behavior, is not a good choice for them (and yes it is, when all is said and done, a choice--and everyone knows this.) It's sad that these kids will no longer be able to hear more about that.

It's important to READ what people actually say.
Joe's Deceptions....Sigh [Mission America]

First off: This Mission America writer (presumably Linda) means to say "libel," not "slander." While both are laughable claims, it is actually libel that deals with the printed word, not slander. We would hate to see Linda lose any more accuracy points here, as such would seem to be in short supply.

But inaccurate defamation claims aside: Yes, Linda did speak out against the shootings. By our count, she dedicated 68 words to that particular mission, which is all fine and good. All fine and good if not for the fact that she then dedicated, by our count, 327 words to condemning homosexuality, the Tel Aviv gay center, and those who work to "legitimize this behavior and draw young people into claiming a homosexual identity." That was the vast bulk of her initial piece: Attacking gay lives and loves. So her suggestion that her terse, mournful entry point negates the column as a whole is kind of like someone who says "I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to kick your ass" trying to earn nice points because they started their pre-beatdown with an apology!

What's persistently amazing is how these fringe "pro-family" activists tend to pinpoint and define offense. They are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- when their hostile words earn targeted outrage, rarely offering any acknowledgment of the outrageous way that they fired the first, thoroughly offensive shot. Then, of course, they act as if it's only the "militant gay activists®" who could ever be so blind to their "compassionate" intent, when the reality is that their easily deplorable attacks are out of line to even some on their side of the culture war fence (trust us, we checked). It seems that many of them dip their poison pens in rancorous ink, convinced by their own press that we all live in a gay unfriendly world wherein political opportunism should be mined out of any and every homo-centric situation. But then when they see their words play out in the public sphere, they often have a desperate "Ruh Roh" moment, which leads them to seek out any way that they can get out of the hole.

Well unfortunately for them, their spin-laden followups tend to be less like ladders that take them to their desired place of clear air, and more like shovels that bring them to a deep-dwelling where they have to close their mouths so as to not swallow the mire in which they've willfully placed themselves. As for Linda's latest? Well, let's just say that her hair is still visible (but just barely).

**OUR TAKE ON LINDA'S INITIAL HIT PIECE: Which came first: Linda's need to condemn homicidal chicken or wont to shun homo egg? [G-A-Y]

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

Your thoughts

Just curious: Would someone be committing libel if they wrote some words praising the character of Linda Harvey, a women who is vile to the core of her being?

Posted by: Richard Rush | Aug 4, 2009 9:54:23 AM

Very well written Jeremy! A witty, intelligent, & honest take. This is why I continue to follow GoodAsYou. :-) Thank you.

Posted by: Justin | Aug 4, 2009 12:01:55 PM

Actually, Linda did NOT condemn the shooting. Rather, she was "saddened" by it. She saved her condemnation for gay folk.

Sorry, Linda. But we read. We note the words you don't use as well as the ones you do.

And, incidentally, saying that "homosexuality, as a behavior, is a choice" means exactly the same as saying "Hispanic, as a behavior, is a choice" or "Judaism, as a behavior, is a choice" or "having green eyes, as a behavior, is a choice".

All behaviors are choices. But - racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia aside - none of the above are really behaviors.

However, Linda, I should remind you that hatred, as a behavior, really is a choice.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Aug 4, 2009 4:49:16 PM

"As for Linda's latest? Well, let's just say that her hair is still visible (but just barely)."

And Linda can have some pretty big hair.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Aug 4, 2009 4:51:24 PM

I wonder if it's occurred to this idiot that most gay people reach their teen years heard PLENTY of anti-gay rhetoric. The idea that they just need to keep hearing it constantly for it to "take" and turn them hetero is just plain moronic. I'm sure they heard enough of it growing to last a lifetime-I know I did by the the time I was 16. It's likely they went to a gay youth center to get away from crap like that.
I'll believe they TRULY care obout this tragedy when they can say, "I don't care if a person is gay or not. They still deserve to live long and happy lives, even if they NEVER change!"
Until they can say that, all the fake lip service about this tragedy is as phony as their smiles are.

Posted by: Bill S | Aug 4, 2009 4:56:15 PM

"Which is why our headline says, "Mission America CONDEMNS Shootings." Very easy to read, if one takes the five seconds to do so."

Five seconds to read four words? Linda must be a pretty slow reader.

Which might explain a lot.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Aug 4, 2009 5:38:28 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails