advertisement
advertisement
|
Friday, May 09, 2008
Re: “Robinson backs out of symposium on ‘ex-gays’” (news, May 2)
Inviting the “ex-gay ministries” to a legitimate discussion on psychology and religion is like inviting “holocaust deniers” to a discussion about the holocaust. This is more than just a metaphor: I am one of millions of people, whole generations, that were mostly lost (I was lucky, I escaped, though with wounds) when psychologists and religious leaders gave us no choice but to enter unhappy heterosexual marriages, or to be banished to dark bars, or to do away with ourselves. Today’s “ex-gay ministries” are led by the wretched few who still believe that gay folks are either sick or possessed by the devil and are hell-bent on making the lives of today’s young gay folks miserable. They are evil personified and should not be granted any public platform that implies any legitimacy to their own sick fantasies.
Rev. Gene Robinson was right to take a stand and refuse to legitimize those crazy “ex-gays,” who are stuck in the closet and living in denial.
Re: “Gay voters in Ind., N.C. relish primary role” (news, May 2)
Human Rights Campaign is untrustworthy. They also endorsed Susan Collins with her HRC rating of 78 over Tom Allen with his perfect 100. Collins is a Republican. Why wouldn’t HRC want to see a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, especially when the Democrat is more pro-gay?
Sounds to me like HRC would rather wait to endorse a guaranteed winner rather than endorse a candidate who has a better platform. What is HRC trying to do? Increase its percentage of picking winning candidates? Or try to help those deserving candidates who could honestly benefit from an HRC endorsement? Like Jim Neal said, I guess he just isn’t gay enough. Shame on HRC.
Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they’re right for the job. You have to be a viable candidate with an ability to raise the money necessary to win, not just gay with good talking points.
Re: “Gay voters in Ind., N.C. relish primary role” (news, May 2)
When gays assume that pansy is referring to them they are giving the word power over them. Maybe he just meant weak. There is nothing to indicate that he meant to say, “Hillary Clinton makes Rocky Balboa look like a homosexual.” It’s crap like this that makes the gay community look like a bunch of pansies!
Re: “Obama condemns Wright’s AIDS comments” (news, May 2)
Even if Rev. Jeremiah Wright had been reading a phone book from the pulpit instead of making remarks about American foreign policy, we would’ve been offended by him anyway. Why? It’s the tone. It’s that slightly unhinged fanatical-sounding preacher-style, one that favors soliloquisms (“I’m not divisive, I’m descriptive”), one that favors simple moral equivocation (My church fought against slavery, the other church held slaves). In modern times, we find that style itself too divisive, too much in love with the sound of its own voice. It makes us suspicious. Today, if you want to carry on with poetic, over-the-top bravado, you have to rap, not preach. What we prefer is the more muted, kid-driven, ironic tones of YouTube videos, a self-depreciating, self-mocking voice that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Watching one, we ask, “Is the video being sarcastic? Is it sentimental? Is it a big joke?” The answer is all three. Why this preference? In America, we believe that everything we’re told about the important issues is manipulated dishonestly, slanted toward a hidden agenda. Therefore, if anyone talks with hubris, using a loud, strident tone, we don’t listen. We assume we’re being sold swampland.
Re: “Pope waves to gay Catholics” (news, April 18)
It’s such a sad state of affairs that a mere wave from the pope, a man who condemns gays, merits a news story in your publication. Do we really need his acceptance?
|
 |
