Warren Throckmorton

I thought the reporter gave credence to conservative worldviews by describing gay and ex-gay speakers and leaders as activists who are pushing their causes into the schools. Gay-Straight Alliances, especially, are grassroots groups of students who can get support and guidelines from the central organization. There is no GSA campaign with activists pushing the groups into schools.

And yet, the reporter also used language to marginalize ex-gays when she introduced them as men and women who call themselves "ex-gay". It would be pejorative for to say that I "call myself 'gay'"; same thing applies to ex-gays.

Very little of the reporting on intersections of orientation and religion is done well, as far as I'm concerned. Reconciling baseline attractions (which gay and ex-gay leaders agree are generally persistent) with religious beliefs and cultural/familial norms is a core task for every person with same-sex attractions. It is often heart-wrenching; while some ex-gay leaders on the fringe offer utterly incredible non-answers, the question folks must answer for themselves is how to adapt their beliefs and/or how to adapt their expectations and hopes for family and relationships.

The self-determination aspect -- that lgbt folks have long had to be spunky and independent in forging diverse lives that worked, and the lives of ex-gay folks are just as diverse in forging workable lives -- gets little coverage.
 

Who were the "gay activists" who worked with you on those guidelines? Or are you referring to the work with GLSEN on something different?

You know we follow this extensively, and we've yet to see a single exgay group that isn't also anti-gay. Virulently anti-gay.

Contrast that with those seeking greater respect for gay students at schools -- are any of them anti-straight? Anti-Christian?

We've also yet to see of a single exgay student ask for "their" groups to be included. Who is demanding the inclusion?

(Entirely rhetorical: the answer to that is already clear -- it's groups of anti-gay adults via anti-gay students.)

It is not only inappropriate but actually conterproductive for a school-based program to pretend that anti-anything groups have any place in efforts for increasing tolerance, diversity and repect.

It is not either anti-exgay (whoever they are) or anti-Christian (however you define them) to give support and respect to gay students.

Hence, efforts to improve tolerance and respect for exgay or Christian students -- if it is needed -- should be presented on its own merits. Are isolated straight students being beaten up at school by gangs of gay students? Are isolated Christian students being abused and told they not only can but should "change"?

Where (and if) they are, we'd be the first to ask -- no, demand -- that efforts be made to increase tolerance and respect for these students.

But to pretend that straight students or Christians are similarly situated to gay students is probably the most offensive part of this demand for "equal time".

That demand has nothing to do with intolerance being shown toward straight, or exgay, or Christian students. It's a trojan horse.

Rather, it's a demand that ANTI-gay views be given a platform and promoted within schools.

Neutrally, and regardless of whatever viewpoints some people hold, that's as unacceptable as a demand that anti-semetic or racist views be offered alongside calls to be respectful to fellow students who may be Jewish or of different racial and ethnic groups.

How sexuality develops and what causes the diversity of human sexuality is another subject, and utterly irrelevant to the call for tolerance.

It's as irrelvant to the problem of intolerance as a question of what, who and why some people are Jewish. Or to the "problem" of whether Jews could "change" into Christians.
 

Very little of the reporting on intersections of orientation and religion is done well, as far as I'm concerned. Reconciling baseline attractions (which gay and ex-gay leaders agree are generally persistent) with religious beliefs and cultural/familial norms is a core task for every person with same-sex attractions. It is often heart-wrenching; while some ex-gay leaders on the fringe offer utterly incredible non-answers, the question folks must answer for themselves is how to adapt their beliefs and/or how to adapt their expectations and hopes for family and relationships.

The LA Times reporter heard all of that from me but did not report it.

Who were the gay activists? GLSEN.
 

A reply to Grantdale-
You said: You know we follow this extensively, and we've yet to see a single exgay group that isn't also anti-gay. Virulently anti-gay.

O.K Now turn this around- we’ve never seen a homosexual approving group that isn’t virulently anti-ex-gay. Look at GLSEN etc. Where is the tolerance, diversity or respect? Warren’s CD’s title tells it “I Do Exist” because the anti-ex-gay crowd say they do not.

You said: Contrast that with those seeking greater respect for gay students at schools -- are any of them anti-straight? Anti-Christian?

Anti-straight-Check out GLSEN’s teaching/training guide for” undoing institutionalized heterosexism in schools”

“Heterosexism--though not a replacement for homophobia--is a broader term that does not imply the loathing the latter term suggests, and which can describe seemingly benign attitudes and behavior based on the belief that heterosexuality and a binary gender structure are the norm.”

Anti-Christian-Check out PFAG and GLSEN and others that view only acceptable Christian groups are those that agree that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy. All others are bigots or right wing.


You said: We've also yet to see of a single exgay student ask for "their" groups to be included. Who is demanding the inclusion?

Did you forget that Homosexuals have allies so why don’t you think former homosexuals have allies too? What about the questioning youth?

(Entirely rhetorical: the answer to that is already clear -- it's groups of anti-gay adults via anti-gay students.)

I am sorry to tell you but GLSEN organizes and provides the information and provides workshops for training for students to organize these groups in the schools. How do the students find out about GLSEN? GLSEN representatives hand out this information to the counselors and others to give to the students.
Anonymous Mom
 

Who were the gay activists? GLSEN.

The inaccuracy I was noting is that GLSEN isn't pushing GSAs into schools. They are started by students.
 

Anonymous Mom:

Firstly -- who are you and what is your relationship to exgays? Are you a member of a group that promotes exgays?

Leaving that aside -- why do you link tolerance and respect for gay men and women with the promotion of exgay groups? That is exactly why I called exgay groups a trojan horse. You’ve just done what I said was being done – it’s all got nothing to do with tolerance for exgays, but is merely an excuse to spout anti-gay views.

-----------------------

O.K Now turn this around- we’ve never seen a homosexual approving group that isn’t virulently anti-ex-gay. Look at GLSEN etc. Where is the tolerance, diversity or respect? Warren’s CD’s title tells it “I Do Exist” because the anti-ex-gay crowd say they do not.

At least you seem to admit it -- exgay groups are anti-gay. You don't even dispute that point.

On the other hand, I don't know of any "homosexual approving group" that is anti-straight. Name one, if you can. I also don't know of any that want anyone to be compelled to live as gay. Again, name one.

However, I can name very many gay supportive people and groups that are dead against anti-gay people pretending that exgays are straight, or anti-gay people promoting these exgays to "prove" that gay men and women can be "healed" into straightness.

And I'm more than familiar with Warren's work, including that. Alas there is nobody on "I Do Exist", as far as I can tell, who has actually changed their sexual attractions. They all appear to be anti-gay and to have rejected living as gay, but that's not the same thing. They are welcome to live as they wish, as far as I'm concerned.

Regardless of how they choose to live their own lives, this does not excuse enabling them to take an anti-gay message into the schools.

I'd feel the same way about a Jew who'd converted to Christianity. They'd be more than welcome to present ways of countering anti-Christian bias. But they won't be permitted to attack Jews while they are doing that.

-----------------------

Anti-straight-Check out GLSEN’s teaching/training guide for” undoing institutionalized heterosexism in schools”

Being against heterosexism doesn't make you anti-straight, it makes you against anti-gay.

And are you seriously claiming that the people in GLSEN are anti-heterosexual, even though the majority of those involved are in fact STRAIGHT?

Yours is clearly a perspective gained without any direct contact with GLSEN people. You should.

(Whatever will you suggest next -- that the Mums and Dads in PFLAG are also anti-heterosexual?)

-----------------------

Anti-Christian-Check out PFAG and GLSEN and others that view only acceptable Christian groups are those that agree that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy. All others are bigots or right wing.

You do realise you've just admitted that PFLAG and GLSEN are not in fact anti-Christian? You said that there are acceptable Christian groups. Apparently it's not people's faith that is at issue, but how they treat gay men and women.

Many Christian groups have many different views about homosexuality. Some hold negative views, but they also believe that gay people deserve public tolerance, respect and equality. PFLAG and GLSEN will work with such Christian groups on specific issues. Warren and a Christian educators group just did exactly that.

On the other hand I don't know of any of your apparent ilk -- "bigots or right wing" -- who have been prepared to work with PFLAG or GLSEN. Rather than do that, they've worked against even the decriminalisation of homosexuality. They publically claim everyone deserves respect, and then work like fury to make sure it doesn't actually happen.

People like that get labeled bigots because they are bigots. They should either learn to wear that with pride, or question what they are doing.

-----------------------

What about the questioning youth?

Questioning what? Whether they should be anti-gay? Why they can’t be both gay and a respectable person with a decent life? Whether gay people are evil sinners, had abusive childhoods, molest children or are sexually confused?

Because that is what they will be told if they contact PFOX, Exodus et al. I don't know of any gay supportive group that would similarly give them an anti-heterosexual, or even anti-exgay, message.

-----------------------

Did you forget that Homosexuals have allies so why don’t you think former homosexuals have allies too? ... I am sorry to tell you but GLSEN organizes and provides the information and provides workshops for training for students to organize these groups in the schools. How do the students find out about GLSEN? GLSEN representatives hand out this information to the counselors and others to give to the students.

We're more than familiar with GLSEN and the GSAs. GLSEN certainly does organise the framework and the material. That is what they do, and they don’t pretend otherwise. We are also more than aware that exgays have allied themselves with anti-gay groups.

Big difference, though -- GLSEN is not a group of anti-straight people who decided to work with gay men and women in order to attack heterosexuals.

If you cannot see that important difference then that's really all that's needed to suggest that you need to keep your viewpoints where they belong -- in your own home.

You certainly don't deserve an invite to present those views at a diversity day. There'd be no point to the diversity day otherwise.

Oh, exactly....
 

Grant and Dale:
1. What are anti-homosexual views? IF it is explaining the above average health risks associated with this group’s behavior then I’m all for an anti-homosexual view. It is like explaining to fat people the above average health risks associated with being fat and explaining to smokers the above average health risks associated with smoking. There is such as thing as a public health issue. People are free to go do just about any behavior however there are consequences. IF a person does not like what he hears about the health consequences then they are free to ignore it and it looks like this is just what the majority of the homosexuals in this country do. CDC confirms. I don’t see the homosexual community trying to shut down bath houses etc.

2. Why do you think former homosexual people are considered anti-homosexual to the homosexuals? Is it a threat to a homosexual existence? Is the homosexual existence that fragile? Please explain.

You said:Regardless of how they choose to live their own lives, this does not excuse enabling them to take an anti-gay message into the schools.

My comment:I would be glad if the schools would keep both the homosexual affirming therapy message as well as the change is possible therapy message out of the schools but the Federal Judge in Maryland said if you have one you have to have the other view. You, however, are free to have and express your view and I am free to have and express my view. However, children, who have no frame of reference yet, do not need to hear that the only way to view homosexuality is to believe that it is normal, natural and healthy. That is promoting certain views over other views. That is promoting a view that may be contrary to one’s religion and that is wrong. To tell children that they have to respect and embrace certain people over others is wrong especially if the person’s behavior is causing harm to himself and others.
You said: Being against heterosexism doesn't make you anti-straight, it makes you against anti-gay.
And are you seriously claiming that the people in GLSEN are anti-heterosexual, even though the majority of those involved are in fact STRAIGHT?
My comment:YES.

(Whatever will you suggest next -- that the Mums and Dads in PFLAG are also anti-heterosexual?)
My comment: YES

Anonymous Mom
 

Anonymous Mom (actually, Retta)

From your last two comments you are plainly a crank. Please explain why you think all these straight people are anti-heterosexual. What a ridiculous thing to say.

Homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy. Whether you wish it were otherwise, or think it is sinful, has nothing to do with that fact. There is nothing gay men and women do that straight couples don’t also do. There is nothing inherently dangerous in sexual activity, gay or straight. We are certainly not a danger to ourselves or others.

(And I’d be very careful heading down a path of arguing about “above average health risks”. On that score you should also be demanding that black Americans be singled out for special mention.)

And, Retta, you really do need to at least try to read and understand that judgment. It was not decided on your unproven claims about exgays. The issue it was decided on the introduction of religion into the schools –- and applies equally to exgays. This guarantees that none of your material can be used without even considering how abusive it also is.

The school board included religious opinions in the teacher’s reference material. That is what they should not and cannot do. We read the proposed curricula before that judgment, and strongly disagreed with that inclusion. The place for religious instruction is at home. Your home. With your children. This is what Judge Williams said:

The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Defendants must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground.

We couldn’t agree more.

As for the exgay “change is possible” and “above average health risk” claims -- the judge did not need to make a decision, but nevertheless still felt more than willing to describe the PFOX claims as follows:

[PFOX] argue that increased health risks to students once they receive the “pro-gay” message … This Court cannot agree.

[PFOX] argue that homosexual sex is more dangerous than heterosexual sex, and that students at MPCS will be more likely to engage in homosexual sex … um. [PFOX] cite numerous studies demonstrating that gay men are in the highest risk groups [promiscuous etc] … the Court questions the reliability of the studies to which [PFOX] cite

... the harm that [PFOX] posit is highly speculative

Well, what else would expect from a group who has a disgraced, unethical therapist -- Richard “baby me, beat me” Cohen -- as President?

You will of course hold any opinion you wish to, regardless of whether or not it is all sheer fantasy. Or hateful.

But the gay and lesbian students in Montgomery County, or in any school, are as equally entitled to an education as are their straight peers. These students are as equally entitled to respect and tolerance. Parents and teachers will be unaware who most of these students are, and cannot assume what any student’s sexuality is. Within that simple framework an education is given to all without fear or favour.

As for your demand for “equal time”. That cuts both ways.

I assume you’d be more than happy for all the straight students to be told about all the dangers of heterosexuality, followed by the claim that they could change and become gay?

Or perhaps we entirely drop any idea of trying to stigmatize or shame anyone with our religious viewpoints, and simply focus on the task of teaching the kids how to protect themself and how to respect their partner.

Since exgays claim to have been both gay and straight, they will need to be especially attentive to all the lessons.
 

You said: From your last two comments you are plainly a crank. Please explain why you think all these straight people are anti-heterosexual. What a ridiculous thing to say.
My comments: I wouldn’t have believed it myself if I hadn’t read it in GLSEN and PFLAG literature. I don’t call you names and I expect the same from you.

You said:Homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy. Whether you wish it were otherwise, or think it is sinful, has nothing to do with that fact. There is nothing gay men and women do that straight couples don’t also do. There is nothing inherently dangerous in sexual activity, gay or straight. We are certainly not a danger to ourselves or others.
My comment: Sorry, heterosexuality is the norm. 98% of the people are heterosexual. I think you are smart enough to realize that if a person has the use of one hand that would not be normal. One hand use individuals do not make up the norm. By the way I don’t see or hear one hand individuals going around saying that people are hateful because people are calling the attention to the one hand and it could be dangerous working in the kitchen! Diabetics can’t fly an airplane but you don’t hear them complaining that it is hateful to tell them that they cannot get a pilot’s license.
Heterosexuality is the natural way to be. God did not make man homosexual. I believe Homosexuality develops. And If you don’t believe in God then the natural way for man to reproduce is through heterosexual sex not sodomy. Of course an adult can believe anything they want and go right ahead and engage in unhealthy sex but as I said before, there are consequences and each individual is responsible for those consequences. Look at all the misery on gayhealth.com.
Homosexual sex is not healthy. Homosexual sex, sodomy especially, is far more dangerous than heterosexual baby producing sex. Show me the numbers proving otherwise.
Straight couples do not have to engage in sodomy, they have the more healthy option. And yes if you want to throw in the race card, go ahead. Health is health.
Homosexuals are living in a dream world to think that homosexuals that have STIs are not a danger to themselves or others. That would be a selfish attitude and not one of love and caring.
The judge did not use the word “abusive”. If the homosexual community believes that all information that doesn’t agree with their view is abusive and the parents think the information from the homosexual community is abusive then no information should be use from either side in the health education.
Why wouldn’t you want the children to know the above average health risks? Why do you want to hide the facts? Hiding the facts from innocent children is not caring. Why are you afraid of the health risk information? Knowing the hazards of sodomy should be a concern so that one can avoid the practice of sodomy. Dr. Ruth Jacobs has said many times in her letters about the misery she sees in her office everyday from those that avoided knowing the risks. There is no 100% protection for sodomy. The only protection is to not do it.
Now if homosexuality is not normal, natural or healthy, what is it? I think it has to do with love.
Ask Warren.
Anonymous Mom
 

Homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy. Whether you wish it were otherwise, or think it is sinful, has nothing to do with that fact. There is nothing gay men and women do that straight couples don’t also do. There is nothing inherently dangerous in sexual activity, gay or straight. We are certainly not a danger to ourselves or others.

This statement made me laugh.

Anonymous mom, there is no point in arguing with the emperor who believes that he is really wearing new clothes, when in fact there is nothing there.
 

Retta -- now I know it's you. All the references to "sodomy" are a dead give away. A one-track mind impervious to reasoning. I swear you must think about “sodomy” more often than any gay man I know of. Or any straight one for that matter.

For some reason you’ve never mentioned lesbians -- you remember… the other homosexuality. Is this because all the lurid claims you make about gay men cannot be made about lesbians who, as a group, have the lowest STD rates? And you do realize that “sodomy” includes oral sex, right?

You said: I wouldn’t have believed it myself if I hadn’t read it in GLSEN and PFLAG literature

Please provide a reference. I have never read any such thing from GLSEN or PFLAG. I think you are inventing this, or flat-out lying.

Also have no idea why you claim that people with diabetes cannot get a pilots license. You are dead wrong. They can, and have been able to do so from 3 December 1996 when the FAA changed the rules. Add that to your list of outdated and incorrect “facts”.

(We even know of a one-handed professional chef, let alone one-handed people who cook at home. Any other spurious analogies you’d care to raise?)

Diversity is about the only thing “normal” in human populations. Hair colour. Skin colour. Eye colour. Mental ability. Right and left handedness. And, yes, sexuality. It is what gives us our genetic and social resilience. Only a controlled race of clones would provide otherwise.

Being right-handed is the norm. That simply means it is the most common. It is also normal for some people to be left-handed. Or have red hair. Or be Caucasian. Or be gay. Please learn the difference between norm and normal.

As for providing proof that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about gay (male) sex – you pay for the airfare and we’d be happy to provide a personal testimony. Or you could ask some of the millions of gay men who live more locally.

There is no risk to the sex itself. The risks are associated with promiscuous sex because that is the way you will – eventually – both i) encounter someone who carries a disease and ii) become infected by them. It’s not inevitable, but that is where the risk is.

It is simply impossible for a monogamous, uninfected gay or lesbian couple to harm either themselves or others. Exactly the same rule as applies to monogamous, uninfected straight couples.

But, face it – you don’t even want gay couples to hold hands, let alone have sex.

Actually, you don’t even want gay couples to exist. It’s that opinion which really motivates you.

-------------------------------

You said: And yes if you want to throw in the race card, go ahead. Health is health.

Awfully glad to see your opinion on whether or not to single out black kids and mention the "above average" health statistics that (by your logic) apply to them. If we follow your reasoning we shouldn’t “hide the facts” from these “innocent children”. We should tell them – and everyone else in the classroom -- that there is “no 100% protection” if they have sex with a black American or are a black American. Their “only protection is to not do it”.

Personally, we’d be utterly opposed to such an approach. We’d prefer to just mention risks that apply to everyone and not stigmatize any group. But then again we also don’t assume that group statistics apply to every individual in that group, and we certainly don’t look at the group statistics and assume that there is something inherently unhealthy about sex with a black American.

But perhaps you’d be good enough to let us know when you are going to “throw in the race card” with the Montgomery County Board of Education.

It will be fascinating to watch how people respond. If I were you I’d stand near an exit door.
 

There is so much in these exchanges but I can only respond to a few due to time constraints.

Sexual practices: Clearly, heterosexuals engage in anal and oral sex. Having worked with numerous adolescents who use porn compulsively, I do not believe sexual deviance to be a sexual preference issue. Not all gays engage in anal intercourse, or do so very much and some straights do. I think as a matter of public health, kids should be told that it is more risky behavior but I don't think they should be told that gays only do it. Although many already know that.

I agree that government information about sexual practices should be given. I would not make it specific to sexual preferences. I think the CDC's Men who have with Men (MSM) may have been an attempt at this. I believe public health warnings should focus on behaviors.

I would like to see more gay people talk about prevention and condemn messages.

GLSEN recruits. They provide training for student leaders. They organize among kids. I am not sure why anyone would deny this. Part of my objection to GLSEN is this point. They organize kids to pursue adult goals. I do not like the PFOX-LC effort to start gaytostraight clubs for the same reason. Leave the kids alone.

Normal - not statistically.
Natural - Not sure what that means, it can used so many different ways. It doesn't promote the species in any way we can discern but it is experienced as natural by many who experience it.
Healthy - Depends on how you behave.

That's all for now.
 

1. no

2. that is not all they promote.
 

Don't mean to be vague but I am rushed for time. Have you read the New Gay Teenager by Savin-Williams?
 

Rob - It may not be labeled as such, but I suspect the ex-Christian voice is the loudest heard at many public schools. Dude, you're already there.
 

I would like to see more gay people talk about prevention and condemn messages.

??? Is there a typo? Something missing? I think I can guess what you mean, and refer you to final words. It wasn't a straight person that came up with that truism you know.

We would also like to see more gay people talk about prevention. Or even straight people. It's very difficult to do so under a regime of abstinence until marrige-which-you-cannot-have-anyway.

GLSEN recruits.

So does your church. So do the Scouts. So do the Marines. So?

Leave the kids alone.

We agree. I think if you were a gay kid beaten and ridiculed from one end of the school yard to the other you may have a different persepective about the status quo.

Gay adults like us were once gay kids. We have not forgotten. We'll make sure you don't ignore the problem. And you would, otherwise.

Normal - not statistically.

You didn't take maths very far at school did you :)

Is it normal for weather to be i) rainy ii) sunny iii) snowy? Remember, under your statistical rules you may only pick one.

Natural - Not sure what that means, it can used so many different ways.

Religion: Who knows? Some say it is. Some say it isn't. All based on sheer speculation. We'll know when we're dead.

Science: Was it created by man? Or does it occur without creative intervention? Answer: no, and yes. Therefore, natural.

It doesn't promote the species in any way we can discern

In ANY way? Obviously you need to think harder. Plainly you haven't spoken to our friends and families.

And I'll remember this the next time the school asks for their fees. We pay. They are not our children, and they wouldn't be there but for us.

Your life and that of your children is undoubtably enriched and expanded by the efforts of gay men and lesbians throughout the ages. We contribute, and you benefit. Being part of a loving couple makes us more productive than as two crippled individuals. Thanks for nothing.

In any case neither does celibacy. And that's the alternate you'd recommend. I haven't heard you describe celibate exgays in that fashion. Useless lumps that they surely also are.

I suggest you read Bentham's 200 year old essay on the subject -- if homosexuals deserve to be burned at the stake, priests deserve a slow fire.

(And I presume you're all in favour of the current "gayby boom"? It is possible for us to IMPREGNATE you do realise, if that's all that matters. We're gay, not sterile. We'll put an add in a gay paper and find some nice lesbians -- happy now?)

Healthy - Depends on how you behave.

And how you behave is based on what you know.

Silence = Death.
 

Bloggers aren't normal. They make up a statistical minority of human beings throughout all of history. Even today, the vast majority of human beings do not blog!

In fact, blogging is a recent phenomenon, one which ought to be condemned for being unnatural. No other species blogs!

:)

I know, the irony isn't perfect. But it gets my point across. Statistics and appeals to what is "natural" don't give us a ready-made morality. We need to determine what about statistics is "normative", what "natural" is, and what that has to do with morality.
 

Rob - It may not be labeled as such, but I suspect the ex-Christian voice is the loudest heard at many public schools. Dude, you're already there.

OK, then, the heterosexual voice is already the loudest heard at many public schools....aren't ex-gays heterosexual? Why do we need to include them?
 

My view is that perspectives and the presentation of informatin should be balanced. I drew this out in my curriculum on respectandthefacts.com.
 

And I agree bloggers are not normal.
 

Jdog:

I was at the confernece, and clearly, Nicolosi was joking. In fact, I've been at many conferences where he's spoke -- That's just his bad sense of humour, on stage, and in person.
 

This is Jdog from Above!!!

I realize that Nicolosi thought he was joking, but there was nothing - absolutely nothing funny about what he said. Those kinds of comments only serve to lengthen the divide between the Evangelical and Gay communities. I am a gay, celibate Christian man - and while I don't agree with everything the ex-gay movement says and does, I find common ground with its adherents when it comes to understanding what it means to be holy - Nicolosis' comments denigrate gay people and make light of a serious situation.
 

Jdog - Does the conference come across like the LA Times article implies? That all gay men and women are that way because of their parents?

I wonder why the political groups haven't demanded an apology?
 

i agree, why aren't more people demanding apologies from nicolosi or making a bigger noise about this? how can this be a joke?
 

Jdog:

I agree his joke was insensitive, but if you were at the conference, you'd probably see it a little different. A caustic joke taken out of context always looks like that, but I agree, it was insensitive. It's probably who he is that makes meaning out of the joke; If an anti ex-gay comedian made the joke, it'd no doubt get a good laugh.

Ivan.
 

This is Jdog -

Ivan - the joke wasn't just insensitive, it was incredibly offensive!