RECENT  POSTS:  » New record: Anti-gay activist Ralph Reed contradicts self in less than minute » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding  

« 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