RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

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

04/15/2011

Audio: Regina Griggs says 'ex-gay'=sexual orientation; will somehow keep straight face when claiming gays indoctrinate

by Jeremy Hooper

Ready to fall down a rabbit hole? Well then hit play


*AUDIO SOURCE: PFOX: Ex-'gays' have rights too [ONN]

Okay, here's the thing: Even if you book your tickets for Exodus International's annual convention six months in advance, you still have to acknowledge the sheer absurdity of Regina Grigg's "all sexual orientations" claims. Because even if you believe in the idea of "change," by what farcical token does there exist a bizarre flux state that identifies itself not by what it claims to now be but rather by what it says it once was?! Seriously: How can anyone truly push such a notion with a straight "ex-crooked" face?

And what's even more bizarre: The anti-LGBT community, as a generalization, largely rejects the idea that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. So if they wish to deny that basic fact, then how is it even close to possible for the oscillation they claim lies between 'Moville and HeteroTown to itself be a recognizable orientation? Why do they think the myriad of "former homosexual" behaviors (e.g. celibacy, bisexuality that trends to heterosexuality, self-denial, heterosexuality that never was gay to begin with, forced deprival due to religion, constant struggle to fit a paradigm regardless of true cravings, etc.) is itself worthy of scientific classification?

As we said: A rabbit hole. One that should never deny the worth of any human being, regardless of the way he or she personally stewards his or her sexuality -- but one that should also never accept the patently incongruous, wholly unscientific, primarily faith-motivated work of this politically-motivated movement.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails