The links you use belong to historical revisionism: "Before the Stonewall rebellion - which was the genesis of modern gay liberation - gays and lesbians mixed quite freely, socially, and in the bars. But in the 1970's, gay men, feeling ebullient from their newfound freedom and confidence, segregated themselves and rapidly descended into a bacchanalia of narcissism and promiscuity which eventually collapsed into the hell of AIDS. Then midway through the AIDS epidemic, the media, having ignored homosexuality or treated it in a lurid manner, did a quick flip-flop under activist pressure, and now continues it's unthinking policy of parroting the gay establishment party-line on every occasion. But it's not a media conspiracy. We need to be careful and avoid using the 'C' word, because it makes us vulnerable to mockery and marginalization and detracts from the essence of the message. Rather than a conspiracy, it's a mindset and an attitude that is born from various sources - one being a widespread shift in public morality - another being that arts and media are filled with gays and lesbians - and, of course, we can't ignore the intimidation tactics which gay activists have honed to perfection. and with which I have had plenty of first hand experience." Now that is historical revisionism Especially when it comes to aids: www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Arti… And off course the jailing of gay men for being gay before stone wall like Alan Turning the father of computers....lgbt.foundation/news-articles/… www.gvsu.edu/allies/a-brief-hi… en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Ston… Or how about Oscar Wilde: mic.com/articles/68421/oscar-w… So yeah the claims of: "Before the Stonewall rebellion - which was the genesis of modern gay liberation - gays and lesbians mixed quite freely, socially, and in the bars." Are false. Hell The Stone wall was a gay bar that gays went to be themselves because it wasn't socially acceptable anywhere else. Not very free now was it? Especially since gay bars were under police raids. I further doubt this man's claims of interacting with lgbt community when he says this: "Now it may be impractical to 'convert' totally from homosexuality to heterosexuality, but if counselling can allow a gay man to respond sexually to women, it should be encouraged and applauded, not lambasted or lampooned. If a gay male wants to marry and sire children, he shouldn't be harassed by gay activists accusing him of 'self-hatred'. Come on! Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not want to be gay?" He doesn't realise how much ex-gay therapy (and the anti-gay lobby in general) relies on manipulating science and doesn't work: wakingupnow.com/blog/reply-to-… firedoglake.com/2013/11/25/the… www.lgbtscience.org/ex-gay-bil… www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01… www.queerty.com/exodus-interna… www.advocate.com/politics/reli… Such anti-gay bull goes back to the 50s www.queerty.com/1950s-shrink-w… So trying to support ex gay therapy is intellectually dishonest. And if he is gay would be be willing to convert? "Another egregious example of media bias is the ever partial-reporting of the Matthew Sheppard murder. For sure, this was a brutal and barbaric crime and I'd be happy to see his killers fry. But I'm also disturbed at the canonization of Matthew as the patron saint of hate crimes. His sexual proclivity was cruising for "rough trade", which means he was attracted to his assailants precisely because they were scuzzy punks whose look and manner vitually screamed trouble. He doesn't deserve to burn in hell as Fred Phelps constantly rages. But rational public discourse about his destructive behavior could help save lives - especially among gay youth. So shame on the media for placing political correctness ahead of safety and responsibility." Are you kidding me? Where is his evidence that Matt liked that sort of thing. This is victim blaiming of the highest order which misplaced the blame: equalitymatters.org/blog/20131… He is saying that gay pride, the point of which is to not be put into the closet, causes bigots to lash out...like celebrating Christianity causes radical Islamists to lash out...See the bad logic here? It's saying that the gay community shouldn't fight for better lives because people will lash out...that is how despots win thank you very much. ". So my radical brothers and sisters should stop bitching about sincere Christians, Jews and Muslims who are merely exercising their constitutional right to free speech, and whose vast philosophical perspective easily triumphs over the provincialism and amorality of the gay world. Indeed, their position is far more credible and honest than the tortuous casuistry of self-interested clerics who take the path of least resistance by creating their own church, tailor-made to affirm their Rainbow philosophy." Look just because anti-gay church have a right to their opinion doesn't make those opinions automatically right. To pretend otherwise is moral relativism. And to complain about the lgbt crowd for having a diffrent opinion is a double standard in regards towards freedom of speech. Likewise those rainbow churches have the right to exist because of the vaunted freedom of religion, so what makes the position of those clerics any less credible that the anti-gay clergy? AgAin it's freedom of religion here...and gay Christians are a thing: www.gaychristian.net/ Needless to say your sources rely of misinformation and double standards...and you ignore that because the speaker is gay, and thus must be authoritative and correct. Here is one from the last link: "In other words, the activist Rainbow crowd wants to have its cake and eat it too: Its members want to keep their late-night lifestyle, but also own the traditional institution of marriage." Again a misunderstanding of freedom of religion: wakingupnow.com/blog/reply-to-… Not to mention it uses the faulty "gays are promiscuous argument" www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010… www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Arti… I think it goes without saying that I don't trust your sources here.
I'm sorry, but I just look at the websites' names and I don't trust them. I'm not saying you're wrong you used questionable sources, but I don't find them.. well, questionable.
"Before the Stonewall rebellion - which was the genesis of modern gay liberation - gays
and lesbians mixed quite freely, socially, and in the bars. But in the 1970's, gay men,
feeling ebullient from their newfound freedom and confidence, segregated themselves
and rapidly descended into a bacchanalia of narcissism and promiscuity which eventually
collapsed into the hell of AIDS. Then midway through the AIDS epidemic, the media,
having ignored homosexuality or treated it in a lurid manner, did a quick flip-flop under
activist pressure, and now continues it's unthinking policy of parroting the gay establishment
party-line on every occasion. But it's not a media conspiracy. We need to be careful and
avoid using the 'C' word, because it makes us vulnerable to mockery and marginalization
and detracts from the essence of the message. Rather than a conspiracy, it's a mindset and
an attitude that is born from various sources - one being a widespread shift in public
morality - another being that arts and media are filled with gays and lesbians - and, of
course, we can't ignore the intimidation tactics which gay activists have honed to perfection.
and with which I have had plenty of first hand experience." Now that is historical revisionism
Especially when it comes to aids:
www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Arti…
And off course the jailing of gay men for being gay before stone wall like Alan Turning the father of computers....lgbt.foundation/news-articles/…
www.gvsu.edu/allies/a-brief-hi…
en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Ston…
Or how about Oscar Wilde: mic.com/articles/68421/oscar-w…
So yeah the claims of: "Before the Stonewall rebellion - which was the genesis of modern gay liberation - gays
and lesbians mixed quite freely, socially, and in the bars." Are false. Hell The Stone wall was a gay bar that gays went to be themselves because it wasn't socially acceptable anywhere else. Not very free now was it? Especially since gay bars were under police raids.
I further doubt this man's claims of interacting with lgbt community when he says this:
"Now it may be impractical to 'convert' totally from homosexuality to heterosexuality,
but if counselling can allow a gay man to respond sexually to women, it should be
encouraged and applauded, not lambasted or lampooned. If a gay male wants to marry
and sire children, he shouldn't be harassed by gay activists accusing him of 'self-hatred'.
Come on! Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may
not want to be gay?"
He doesn't realise how much ex-gay therapy (and the anti-gay lobby in general) relies on manipulating science and doesn't work:
wakingupnow.com/blog/reply-to-…
firedoglake.com/2013/11/25/the…
www.lgbtscience.org/ex-gay-bil…
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01…
www.queerty.com/exodus-interna…
www.advocate.com/politics/reli…
Such anti-gay bull goes back to the 50s
www.queerty.com/1950s-shrink-w…
So trying to support ex gay therapy is intellectually dishonest. And if he is gay would be be willing to convert?
"Another egregious example of media bias is the ever partial-reporting of the Matthew
Sheppard murder. For sure, this was a brutal and barbaric crime and I'd be happy to
see his killers fry. But I'm also disturbed at the canonization of Matthew as the patron
saint of hate crimes. His sexual proclivity was cruising for "rough trade", which means
he was attracted to his assailants precisely because they were scuzzy punks whose look
and manner vitually screamed trouble. He doesn't deserve to burn in hell as Fred Phelps
constantly rages. But rational public discourse about his destructive behavior could help
save lives - especially among gay youth. So shame on the media for placing political
correctness ahead of safety and responsibility." Are you kidding me? Where is his evidence that Matt liked that sort of thing. This is victim blaiming of the highest order which misplaced the blame: equalitymatters.org/blog/20131…
He is saying that gay pride, the point of which is to not be put into the closet, causes bigots to lash out...like celebrating Christianity causes radical Islamists to lash out...See the bad logic here?
It's saying that the gay community shouldn't fight for better lives because people will lash out...that is how despots win thank you very much.
". So my radical brothers and sisters should
stop bitching about sincere Christians, Jews and Muslims who are merely exercising their
constitutional right to free speech, and whose vast philosophical perspective easily triumphs
over the provincialism and amorality of the gay world. Indeed, their position is far more
credible and honest than the tortuous casuistry of self-interested clerics who take the path
of least resistance by creating their own church, tailor-made to affirm their Rainbow
philosophy." Look just because anti-gay church have a right to their opinion doesn't make those opinions automatically right. To pretend otherwise is moral relativism. And to complain about the lgbt crowd for having a diffrent opinion is a double standard in regards towards freedom of speech. Likewise those rainbow churches have the right to exist because of the vaunted freedom of religion, so what makes the position of those clerics any less credible that the anti-gay clergy? AgAin it's freedom of religion here...and gay Christians are a thing: www.gaychristian.net/
Needless to say your sources rely of misinformation and double standards...and you ignore that because the speaker is gay, and thus must be authoritative and correct.
Here is one from the last link: "In other words, the activist Rainbow crowd wants to have its cake and eat it too: Its members want to keep their late-night lifestyle, but also own the traditional institution of marriage." Again a misunderstanding of freedom of religion: wakingupnow.com/blog/reply-to-…
Not to mention it uses the faulty "gays are promiscuous argument" www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010…
www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Arti…
I think it goes without saying that I don't trust your sources here.
Devious Comments
I'll look into it sometime.