.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, September 02, 2005

 

Reader email...

The following email received 8/31 was refreshing. It is reproduced with the permission of the sender.

I'm sure you have found many in the gay community who take issue with your writings and stance on issues of sexuality. However, as a self-identifying gay man, I want to commend you on your site, www.drthrockmorton.com, which I visited for the first time today. While I do not agree with your views personally and have no desire to alter my own orientation, I think that every person should be able to make their own decision free from extreme bias or pressure from either side of the issue. I get quite upset when gay leaders lash out at persons such as yourself, when it is clear that you are simply presenting a view that is as valid as any other. Those of us truly comfortable in identifying as gay don't feel threatened by your work. I have a very happy and fulfilling life with my gay partner, and if sexual orientation is safely changeable, than why not be happy for those who want to change and encourage them to change safely with the assistance of a qualified professional? If a person freely seeks that out, what is wrong with that? After all, the gay community is more than happy to welcome a person who lived in heterosexual relations, some married for years, who then "come out" as gay. It would be hypocritical to disapprove of a welcoming community for those who decide to "come out" as straight.

Sincerely,

Frank Kiraly
Columbia, SC

Comments:
I am also a gay male,and
agree with the statement.

Most of my gay pal's are afraid
that if change is possible,
it may effect gay civil right!

The science is clear,sexuality is fluid and I know many straight men, who came out and were accepted with out delay.

Honestly most gay men know some one
in there circee who they thought were gay, and became straight!

Any gay male who say's he know's of no such thing is lying!

Also if the guy who is straight comes out gay and is cute thats even more of a plus!
 
The science is clear,sexuality is fluid and I know many straight men, who came out and were accepted with out delay.

Thanks for posting. When you said "accepted without delay," who are you referring to that is doing the accepting? Gay or straight or both?
 
I think the truly secure Gay Male who has conquered all of his demons, so to speak, should have the same outlook as Anonymous (above), as well as the writer of the email in question.

To use an analogy: I'm an asian, and I know plenty of asian women who whiten their skin, and get radical plastic surgery to look more caucasian.

Is this blatant rejection of asian identity a threat to MY own identity?

I couldn't care less.

Ricky
 
The example is good in some respect's bad in other's.

I am aslo asian, Indian.

I think that race and sexual orinetaion are different!

According to wikipedia
Race "color" is a genetic trait
A visible trait is the final product of many molecular and biochemical processes.

In most cases, information starts with DNA traveling to RNA and finally to protein (ultimately affecting organism structure and function). This is the Central Dogma of molecular biology as stated by Francis Crick.

For more info go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
 
I guess you have to type in sexual orentaion!!!
 
Dr Throckmorton,
what is you opinion of
hermaphrodite"s and intersexed people!
 
I never said sexual orientation was like race. It really depends: for some people, it is such an essential aspect of their identity that they feel it is like their race.

Others couldn't care less.
 
My opinion? Not sure what you mean.
 
RE: Anonymous

Regarding coming out later on; I remember a guy I was friends with, married for 10 years - he thought his marriage was going down hill, and the lack of attraction was due to him not making enough effort to improve the situation.

Couple that, with the family pressure to marry and 'conform with the flock', any wonder there was the cycle of guilt hoping that one day, everything will just click into place and they'll be Joe Hetero with 3 kids, dog and a house with a white picket fence.

Regarding people who 'change' (yes, deliberately put in quotations) - I don't care what they do, just don't form a political movement and cadre of hate filled leaders to justify their 'change'.

What they do in their 'closet' is none of their business - if they feel the need to jump in and out of the 'closet' their whole life, then so be it, just don't start acting like a reformed smoker, demanding that everyone must do what you've done because missery needs a little company.

I'm sure, if it weren't for the hate filled bigotry and ego, Smid would have turned back to being a flaming queen long ago; the fact that he is surrounded himself with a entourage of hate filled bigots ensures that any inkling of wanting to escape, the doors have been closed.
 
Ricky said...
I never said sexual orientation was like race. It really depends: for some people, it is such an essential aspect of their identity that they feel it is like their race.


It depends on whether you have a desire that you must be part of a group or indentify yourself by one or most aspects of yourself - for me, I'm and individual, I don't feel the desire that I must conform to stereotypes, that I must act a certain way because of my gender, sexual orientation or race.

The day that people embrace the individual, throw the grab bag of stereotypes and expectations out the door, will the day that we allow ourselves to take control of our lives.

The day that we'll no longer see this mob mentality that seems to arrise in society; where Christians seem to have this desire that they must 'band together' to bet up on something, or where certain men need to gang up with other men against those who have differing opinions.
 
The day that we'll no longer see this mob mentality that seems to arrise in society; where Christians seem to have this desire that they must 'band together' to bet up on something, or where certain men need to gang up with other men against those who have differing opinions.

I sincerely hope you have the astuteness to realize that this is a sword that can cut both ways...

Ricky
 
RE:
Ricky

I sincerely hope you have the astuteness to realize that this is a sword that can cut both ways...

When was the last time you saw an entourage have an anti-heterosexual march, followed by a sermon of hate, then rounded off with a aim to ban heterosexual marriage and make heterosexual sex illegal?
 
When was the last time you saw an entourage have an anti-heterosexual march, followed by a sermon of hate, then rounded off with a aim to ban heterosexual marriage and make heterosexual sex illegal?

I don't need to see such parades (what kind of parades are you talking about anyways? Cite specific examples, no generalizations please).

Everytime a militant gay person bashes Christianity and criticizes those who have faith (and there are some on this board)--this only serves to prove my point.
 
Furthermore,

You fail to discriminate between Christians who are tolerant and Christians who are like Fred Phelps (despicable asshole).

In your last post, you said The day that we'll no longer see this mob mentality that seems to arrise in society; where Christians seem to have this desire that they must 'band together' to bet up on something,

You fail to say "some" Christians. Rather, you assume all Christians are the same. This is very intolerant of you.

You must be living under a rock if you don't realize that there are openly gay Christians who may take offense to your comments.
 
RE: Anonymous

1) I left Christianity, more correctly, Catholicism because of this hiding behind beliefs; if you're a bigot, just come out and say you are.

I am sick and tired of seeing people justifying their hatred for others by hiding behind a belief system - they make the choice to descriminate, no one else.

Have the back bone to come out, and say, "I hate [zyx] because I choose to make that decision" - rather than saying, "oh, well, my religion says it is bad".

2) Correct, I did say some, but if you also look, I pointed out other groups as well.

3) There is no such thing as a militant homosexual, just like there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist.

4) Parades; look at the marches out side the supreme court and other public venues with "adam and eve, not adam and steve' signs, coupled with the likes of Farwell getting on television to scream and belly ache about the perceived evils of homosexuality.

Like I said, when was the last time you saw a group of homosexuals get together to plot a scheme to take away the rights of heterosexuals to live a normal life?
 
Kawai,

Youre frustration may have to do with the fact that you have set up the rule's of the debate.

1) "If you do not agree with me
on gay marriage, and what ever I define as a Civil Rights you are
a bigot!

And some would argue that this argument in itself is intolerant!

Tolerance does not mean my way or I will call you a Bigot!

Also, you contunue to set up the debate, then you list debating points from youre expericne, and
say ...see they must hate me.

You need to let people explain from many points of views, why they disagree with you, and in time
you should be tolerant enough to accpet there view.

If not gay people will be seen, as agenda based, ideologues and not people with heart!


Its not that black and white

Also you say gay people are not taking peoples right away!

Well what about the right to disagree! And the free excorcsie of religion...

The constitution says that we have that right, to exercise our religious dissent
 
The Civil Right issue, could be
a dual argument, the Family Rights movements, are civil rights groups also.

The problem is the gay community has never seen them as such!
 
I am sick and tired of seeing people justifying their hatred for others by hiding behind a belief system - they make the choice to descriminate, no one else.

Well,

I think if any one reads the gay press, its fill of hate!
If you are a red state Republican,
evenagelical, the papers and editorials are filled with curse words, sexual enuindo's, and some times violents staments..all n teh name of humor! I have read Christianity Today, and I have never read anything that vile against agy people! Chnage Republican for gay, in the next blade print, and see what I mean.

Its a matter of changinng the words!
 
I am sick and tired of seeing people justifying their hatred for others by hiding behind a belief system - they make the choice to descriminate, no one else.

One can say the same thing about gay culture! Being gay is not an Ideology, but you can make arguments for the behavior in public life, and this become ideological. When you say Jesus may have been gay, this is ideological, when you say the state must change the defined vwie of marriage, adoption law, fedeal laws..this is Ideology.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
RE: Anonymous

1) They have the right to disagree, and if they wish to refuse a marriage within their church, as a private instititution, they're quite entitled to that, infact, protected by law infact.

What doesn't make sense their strident attempt to not only stop same sex marriage but to also further restrict the civil rights of gay and lesbians by using the veil of 'religious expression' to justify their hatred.

Sorry, stand away from the religion, place the crucifix on the ground and then say what you wish to say - so that those Christians who DO accept and DO embrace those of us who are different, aren't smeared with the same brush of intollerance.

2) What 'family rights' - that is yet another buzz word used by the religious right to bolster their support base; it seems if they throw 'family' into the equation, it some how legitimises their hatred of a group of people.

Their 'hatred' is no more legitimised by the use of family, just as a racist political party is no more legitimised by the use of 'worker' or 'socialist' in their party name.

3) I don't know what papers that you're reading, but I regularly have a look through the gay and lesbian papers in New Zealand and Australia; the comments that are in there, are more of a self reflection of what the community needs to fix up rather than what the government or the conservative parties are doing.

And yes, there are occasions where the piss is taken, but nothing violent is ever advocated; as one commentator said (regarding those who stridently oppose gay rights), the best thing to do is laugh at them.

4) Same sex marriage, adoption etc. are not ideological, because they're two seperate issues.

On the issue of adoption or foster care; the first and foremost important thing should be the welfare of the child; if the most stable home for the child is a same sex couple, then then so be it, if the most stable home is a heterosexual couple, then so be it; but the ideology aside, and look at the facts; if the couple can provide a stable, loving, caring home and able to financially support the child, then that should be the overwhelming evidence in favour of either side, not the sexual orientation.

Regarding marriage; same sex marriage isn't an ideological issue; it is an issue of allowing two people to form a union within a binding contract which allows the partnership to take on the rights and responsibilities which allow both parties to be protected - what is so bad about that? How is YOUR marriage going to be affected? how does ANYONE or the definition of marriage get affected?

Of course, NO ONE is affected by the step to allow same sex marriage - those who seem to see it as a threat are those who have a control freakish complex where by, if everything isn't under their control or influence, some how the whole system will go tits up.

You'd think that in 2005, people would have matured a little, but hey, some of us I guess are still evolving into mature adults given the rabid replies that seem to infest this board on occasions.
 
What doesn't make sense their strident attempt to not only stop same sex marriage but to also further restrict the civil rights of gay and lesbians by using the veil of 'religious expression' to justify their hatred.

Marriage is Private and therefore an argumnet could be made, why do gay's want the govermnet back in there family affairs!

If you ask the government in the historic "Lawurence Supreme Court case to get out of youre bed rooms.

But then ask that goverment regulate youre marriages, by a mariage licence.

I find that to be hypocrytical!

Its not about civil rights, ist about making people like me!

You can pass every law in the book
and gay groups will soon relaize the disconnect has to do with not the law, but homosexuality itself!

Recent crimes, opinions about gay people in Denmark is an example!

Also what is the threat if the goverment did not issue a marriage licence?

Why not get the goverment out of the job of issuing licence's to gay or straight people?

1)They have the right to disagree, and if they wish to refuse a marriage within their church, as a private instititution, they're quite entitled to that, infact, protected by law infact.

Thats shows youre lack of kknowledge of religious law,
actualy they have alot more rights than just that.

They have a right to set policy ina democray also.

They have a role in shaping what the definition of family will be.

The" The free expression of religion" does not mean sitting quite in one's church.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 
What doesn't make sense their strident attempt to not only stop same sex marriage but to also further restrict the civil rights of gay and lesbians by using the veil of 'religious expression' to justify their hatred.

Marriage is Private and therefore an argumnet could be made, why do gay's want the govermnet back in there family affairs!

If you ask the government in the historic "Lawurence Supreme Court case to get out of youre bed rooms.

But then ask that goverment regulate youre marriages, by a mariage licence.

I find that to be hypocrytical!

Its not about civil rights, ist about making people like me!

You can pass every law in the book
and gay groups will soon relaize the disconnect has to do with not the law, but homosexuality itself!

Recent crimes, opinions about gay people in Denmark is an example!

Also what is the threat if the goverment did not issue a marriage licence?

Why not get the goverment out of the job of issuing licence's to gay or straight people?

1)They have the right to disagree, and if they wish to refuse a marriage within their church, as a private instititution, they're quite entitled to that, infact, protected by law infact.

Thats shows youre lack of kknowledge of religious law,
actualy they have alot more rights than just that.

They have a right to set policy ina democray also.

They have a role in shaping what the definition of family will be.

The" The free expression of religion" does not mean sitting quite in one's church.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 
Marriage is Private and therefore an argumnet could be made, why do gay's want the govermnet back in there family affairs!

One could argue as to why there is bias in the current system that gives married couples more rights than a defacto one - why give couples tax breaks and special fringe benefits?

For me, do away with the bias in the system that that marriage simply becomes a cute ceremony for those wish to partake, those who don't or can't, shouldn't be discriminated against via biased laws in place.

You can pass every law in the book
and gay groups will soon relaize the disconnect has to do with not the law, but homosexuality itself!


What disconnect? the issue is the bias in the system; one stance is that if same sex marriage is allowed, then same sex couples can finally receive all the benefits and responsibilities of a marriage, thus allowing their relationship to be protected under law.

If the government came out tomorrow and declared that it would remove all bias in the legislative framework towards married couples, you would see the same sex marriage movement fizzle out - the reason for one existing would be removed as same sex couples would finally get the benefits and protection that they wish for.

Thats shows youre lack of kknowledge of religious law, actually they have alot more rights than just that.

They have a right to set policy in a democray also.

They have a role in shaping what the definition of family will be.


No, they don't; they have the right to make their voice hear regarding their position on the matter, but they don't have the right to interfer in the legislative process - by doing so would be merely implementing, aka 'establishing a religion' by proxy by the mere existance of the idea of ones religious doctrine in shaping a law.
 
Claiming bias, and making macro camparison's between gay activist, will get you know where!

The definition of something is important!

If you redefine soemthing, you must explain to the goveremnt why?

You also must make a compelling argumnet, why the the goverment benefits from gay marriage!

Also the people have a right to have an imput, and so far millions have said "NO" to gay marriage!

Most how ever are willing to give gay men hospital visitation's, and privacy, and property rights!

But when it come's to children, marriage..the state and sociey have a say.

And screamin it smy civil right, is not a sufficent argument.

What kind of civil right?

Is it a privacy right?

A state right?
 
No, they don't; they have the right to make their voice hear regarding their position on the matter, but they don't have the right to interfer in the legislative process - by doing so would be merely implementing, aka 'establishing a religion' by proxy by the mere existance of the idea of ones religious doctrine in shaping a law



Here you are very very wrong,
One could make teh same argument against the gay communitys marriage outreach programs"s.


You say they do not have a right o interfer, but thats democarcy.

Religion is a relevant topic in law and social policy in America.

America is a deeply religious country and our law in may ways historicaly refelct this!

"THE FREE EXCERICSE OF RELIGION"
Also when the constitution says establish religion, it does not mean silencing religion. It means naming one faith over another, but fairly give both religions access to government!
 
kawai -- you're "debating" with an anonymous loon... you can't.

You'd be stunned to know the strange things that this "Anonymous" has said over the years :)

Also, democracy is wonderful. If 51% vote to make, say, all black people into slaves... well, we do have to abide by the wish of the People. Kaiwai, I hope you realise "life, liberty, and happiness" means only what the MAJORITY wants. The MINORITY can just shut-up and suffer in silence.

Or is there something I'm leaving out???
 
In response to KAWAI,

YOU WROTE: "I left Christianity, more correctly, Catholicism because of this hiding behind beliefs; if you're a bigot, just come out and say you are. I am sick and tired of seeing people justifying their hatred for others by hiding behind a belief system - they make the choice to descriminate, no one else. Have the back bone to come out, and say, "I hate [zyx] because I choose to make that decision" - rather than saying, "oh, well, my religion says it is bad".
...................................

I take umbrage with your assessment that the Catholic Church and Catholics "hate" homosexuals. And I doubt any Catholic has made the claim that "my religion says it [sodomy] is bad." Your perspective is narrow: atheists,non-believers, and responsible physicians and therapists are among those who ALSO have been loud and clear that sodomy is bad.

Of all the numbskull claims I have heard, this takes the cake.

In a nutshell, Kawai, I'm concerned that YOU are spreading hate toward anyone who is not in your parade!

Didn't you ever count your blessings? I've raised my children to do so when they have the "gimmies."

We ALL suffer from one thing and another. Here's my list:

My girlhood dream was to be a Pan Am stewardess - but I am too short; I was talented enough to be in a performing dance ensemble - but I am too short; White people treat me coldly (I have olive skin) - until my husband walks in (he's White); I want to work in my chosen profession - but I have a painful disability (fibromyalgia); I would love to have a father - but he abandoned us when I was an infant.

Hang in there.

P.S. Truth is hard to swallow, friend. The truth is, homosexual priests brought scandal to The Catholic Church. The Lavender Mafia ARE militant gays. The Rainbow Sash Movement, too. They are among tye non-serious "social Catholics." For the last 30 years since Vatican II and the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960's, Catholics - you and I - have not been properly catechized (taught).
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?