Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Girls On The Right | Main | London »

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

It's high time these groups were stopped....

It's amazing how far some people will go to abuse their children.

Tennessee state officials have begun a second investigation into an ex-gay group accused of abuse and brainwashing at a camp near Memphis.

The new probe comes just weeks after the Department of Children's Services said it had found no signs of child abuse in the wake of a widely publicized blog by a teen named "Zach" who wrote that he is gay and that his parents had forced him to go to the Love In Action camp near Memphis to cure him of his homosexuality. (story)

Love In Action International, says it believes that instilling strong Christian beliefs can keep gays from acting on their homosexual desires.

The group, which also works with adults, has a program called Refuge for teens 15 to 18 years old.

The teen on the blog identified himself as a 16-year-old from Bartlett, Tenn., and said his parents "tell me that there is something psychologically wrong with me. ... I'm a big screwup to them, who isn't on the path God wants me to be on. So I'm sitting here in tears ... and I can't help it."

You can visit Zach's blog here to get a good idea of the torment he is going through.  All conservatives should condemn this child abuse.

The American Psychiatric                   Association and the American Psychological Association both                   have said such therapy can be emotionally harmful, leading to                   depression and self-destructive behavior.

Posted by gayandright on July 12, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83482a10f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's high time these groups were stopped....:

Comments

You might want to evaluate the APA on these matters:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/jun/00062005.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/jun/99061103.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05020405.html

But the source is straightandwrong? Right?

Posted by: apape | 2005-07-12 5:05:12 PM


Hey, if they can help a few kids straighten out(PUN INTENDED)I'm all for it. You think kids who think they are gay or are gay, aren't tormented anyway ? Don't they have much higher rates of suicide etc. ? There is a reason for that, and it isn't because of the bad heteros, it's because they know deep down that homosexuality is wrong, immoral etc.

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-07-12 5:22:01 PM


That's really quite disgusting. Heterosexuals who would do something like that to someone who is gay should consider what their own reaction would be to an attempted forced conversion to homosexuality.

I consider that to be a form of torture, no matter how sanctimonious the counsellors.

Posted by: EBD | 2005-07-12 5:22:27 PM


It is torture. I've read of these camps before. They've been around a long time. It's no different than when we used to sterilize people because they were retarded or exorcize them for being epileptic. Well, different perhaps in the way that epilepsy and retardation absolutely cannot be helped. But yes, it is torture, and the parents are nuts. They mean well, but they're nuts.

RG

Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-07-12 5:42:33 PM


Child abuse? Please...Is this still the Western Standard Shotgun blog or have I been transported to salon.com? Gayandright seems to be about as right as Jack Layton.

Anyway, there are many gays who have changed their orientation, as agape notes on the lifesite.net links. If you google more about ex gay ministries you can find out all about it. You will also find that like gayandright, gays are not too happy about these ministries, since they are not doing much to support the gay theory that you are born that way. I've noticed that the way homosexuals seem to prove they are born that way is by saying it a lot, over and over, again and again and the MSM is very good at helping them do that. The problem is that if there all these ex gays out there as noted above then it seems that it may not be born but a learned response (even if that learning happens at a very young age).

As for the child abuse thing, that is ridiculous. It is very kind of Zach's parents to try to help him become an ex-gay so that he doesn't have to deal with all the difficulties that the MSM so often remind us are associated with being homosexual. It is also very gracious of the folks who run the camp to commit their time and money to trying to help Zach and many others.

Parents do all kinds of things that their kids hate at the time - send you to to computer camp, to weight-loss camp, to church camp, etc... They send kids to schools they don't want to go to, music lessons they don't want to take, sports they don't want to play. Is this all abuse? Come on. Most adults realize that most of the things their parents made them do when they were kids were done out of love and for their own good.

And if anyone doubts that there are many gays who would love to see people's kids taken away if they don't buy into the homosexual stuff, just read gayandright's post again. This is how they might try and do it - by accusing people of child abuse for disagreeing with them and trying to take loving actions based on their deeply held beliefs.

Posted by: Timmyz | 2005-07-12 5:43:52 PM


The comments claiming gayandright sounds more like a Layton fan than a WEstern Standard blogger are ridiculous! From my perspective and the reasons I read the WS are because it stands up for individual rights, economic freedom and Western Civilization.
Forcing a teenager to undergo intense brainwashing, in the name of his parents' faith in a higher power's code of morality, is definitely a violation of that child's rights.
I'm assuming gayandright does not wish to force anyone to practice homosexuality, or to condone it, but he does respect an individual's freedom (as long as he or she is not harming others). That could not be more of a right-wing idea, unless you are unable to seperate "religious Christian" from "right-wing", or don't believe in religious freedom.

Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-07-12 6:41:00 PM


hey gayandwrong, I have an idea, why don't write about more gay issues? That's what the Standard needs.

Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-07-12 7:15:43 PM


This is not a 'gay issue'....this is a human rights issue.

Fred
gayandright.blogspot.com

Posted by: Fred Litwin | 2005-07-12 7:44:36 PM


Fred is right.

This is a human rights issue.

Abusive treatment of children is wrong no matter how well intentioned it might be.

Posted by: Two Cents | 2005-07-12 7:53:33 PM


Shut up Fag Litwin. Stop posting your filth on here. Why don't you go be an activist somewhere else and stop polluting this blog with your dable you sodomite!

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-07-12 7:56:27 PM


Of course you knew Fred would be back on here spreading the holy homosexual word. In BC now they are already pushing for a queer curriculum in schools. Gay activists arent gonna just die off, they got gay unions so now they are trying to become mainstream and its an ongoing battle.

Dont say anything about it else you will find yourself before a human rights tribunal where you are not allowed to defend yourself. Welcome to gay world.

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-07-12 8:16:26 PM


The "gay" issue has to be worked out for the right to emerge as a viable political force. As Charlotte says above, individual freedom is one of the inviolable principles for many, maybe even the majority, on the right. Social conservatives who assume that they speak for everyone on the right, and that the Western Standard should be their exclusive domain, have more in common with state-socialism types who want to insist on their perspective ruling everyone else than with independent-minded Westerners.

I believe in the right of Christians and social conservatives to keep their own traditions, and to be free of forced encroachment upon their beliefs, and for this reason I oppose gay marriage. But I have always believed that gays and lesbians have every right to start their own traditions. I find it unfortunate that they chose encroachment instead.

Their encroachment does not come from hate, however. I wish I could say the same about some opinions on this blog. If a particular group wishes force their beliefs -- State Socialism, Islamism, Christianity, or any other -- on everyone else in a free country, they will always meet with resistance,and appropriately so.

Complaints of non-compliance -- as in "I don't want others to express a different opinion than mine on this blog" -- just come accross as narrow-minded whining.

Posted by: EBD | 2005-07-12 8:18:58 PM


EBD. GAy and Right from the very start has come on here with one agenda, gay rights. Yeah he does add the odd post on other subjects but as I said before and I will say again, anyone who has to advertise gayness in their name are doing it for a reason. They want you to know they are pushing an agenda. He gloated over gay unions and now is back with more gay subject matter. Yes he has the right and the freedom to write what he chooses and even I would defend that right, but I also have the right to comment and criticize it if I wish.

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-07-12 8:43:40 PM


Gay and Right:

This is rich...at a time when public schools regularly force-feed kids a steady diet of anti-Americanism, revisionist history and impending environmental doom [among other things, my Grade 10 History teacher informed my class that: JFK wasn't "really" killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, and that KAL 007 - the jumbo jet shot down by the Soviets in 1983 was in fact a US "spy plane" and deserved what it received], you seem to be concerned about parents wishing to impart their values upon their own offspring.

When I was 15, I was pretty bummed (news flash: teenagers tend to be weird and moody) out that my parents wouldn't let me quit a crappy, low-paying job. Even so, I didn't consider their decision to be a "human rights" violation by any stretch of the imagination.

You say that you're right-of-centre. If so, wouldn't you agree that parents know what's best for their kids? If not, the case for school choice goes out the window.

Posted by: Grumpy Young Crank | 2005-07-12 10:56:59 PM


When I was 15, I was pretty bummed (news flash: teenagers tend to be weird and moody) out that my parents wouldn't let me quit a crappy, low-paying job.'


And if you defied them and quit. What would be the acceptable limit to their response.

Should they be allowed to send you here.

http://www.tranquilitybay.org/

Even if this NYT article is correct.

http://www.nospank.net/n-k52.htm

Or as long as the abuse stops at verbal, is it all good.

People who believe parents should have complete control over their children really need to address this issue. The emotional and physical abuse in these camps is quite horrendous. Parents with money and insurance can just ship their kid there for as long as the it lasts.

Perhaps it is ill-advised to try legislation to fix the problem, but should we not be clear and unequivocal in our condemnation of the practice.

Mont D. Law

Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-12 11:50:07 PM


EBD: Great post, but it's a lost cause. The Popgun and the CPC are replete with socon statists who pay lip service to individual freedom and reducing government interference, but whose real agenda is to use the machinery of the nanny state to impose their beliefs on everyone. If hypocrisy and double-speak had physical mass, this place would implode under its own weight. Trying to reason with them is a pointless exercise.

(Note for ebt: The word "replete" means there are a lot of you. I wouldn't want you to have to look it up or anything...)

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-07-13 8:26:43 AM


Why are you folks continually talking about children's rights? Children don't have the same rights that you and I do and no matter how much you project, they never will.

If society is going to force parents to act like parents, society has to give parents the authority to do the same. As long as the parent is being held responsible for the child, the child is obliged to follow that parents rules. Case closed.

If you social wankers want to make the rules you may as well take the children away from the parents. Oh wait... I forgot... That's the real goal isin't it!

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2005-07-13 8:49:38 AM


Richard: does that mean you think parents should have carte blanche as far as treatment of their children is concerned? Or should there be reasonable standards of treatment? And if the latter, why is it out of bounds to debate those standards?

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-07-13 9:27:54 AM


"Shut up Fag Litwin. Stop posting your filth on here. Why don't you go be an activist somewhere else and stop polluting this blog with your dable you sodomite!"

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Socon-Qaeda!

They're angry, intolerant, hate gays and are willing to do whatever it takes to eliminate them! Even torture!

Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-13 9:31:34 AM


Mike P: gayandright seems to me to have individual rights and freedom as an agenda, not 'gay rights'.


I have a question for Richard and other so-cons who think that children don't have individual rights and that their parents can do what they want with them: do you support abortion? If you believe that a fertilized egg, at the very first stages of human development has inalienable individual rights seperate from his or her parent's desires, how can you deny those rights to a teenager???

Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-07-13 9:43:23 AM


Andrew's language is despicable. I disagree with almost ALL of the "gay agenda", but if by doing so I'd have to associate with knob-jobs like you, Andrew, then I'd force myself to accept gay marriage.

And as for Justin? A twerp and a self-righteous prig. How dare you invoke Al Qaeda merely to minimise its danger. When it comes to those fellas, dearest Justin, "fag" and "sodomite" are mere *amuse gueules*

One more thing, NEITHER of you realises just how similar you are to each other.

Both are ignorant of the facts, both lack all perspective.

Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-07-13 10:05:24 AM


"How dare you invoke Al Qaeda merely to minimise its danger."
I live in Toronto, you wimp, so keep your admonishments about the dangers they pose to yourself.

"I disagree with almost ALL of the "gay agenda""
Self-loathing much John?

Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-13 10:33:08 AM



It gives me no end of grief, pain and suffering to have to agree with Justin (something that has never happened before.)

Most of the people on this thread sound like the ignorant, knuckle dragging, morons that the extreme left-wing sites accuse people on right wing sites of being.

It's embarrassing read this idiocy, frankly.

For those who are bashing gays, name the date and time when you made the decision to be straight. Can't do it? Me either. That's because I didn't CHOSE to be straight, it's just the way I am. The same goes for those who are gay. It's not a "lifestyle" it's an integral part of the person, no different that the colour of their skin.

Think about it for half a second (if you are capable of rational thought.) If sexuality was a choice, who in their right mind would chose the path that leads you to be rejected by your family, beaten up in parks, discriminated against in employment and hated generally by jackasses like those posting here? You'd have to be crazy to chose that life.

The pain that that kid is feeling IS because of straight people. Or more correctly, it's because of the intolerance to that child shown to him by his ignorant family and community.

It would be devastating to know that what you are is not going to be accepted by your own family.

The fact that gays suffer from more depression, substance abuse etc. is not a factor of moral decay but from the emotional impact of being rejected by family, friends and community. That is exactly why this kind of emotional abuse is wrong. It's why bigotry in general is wrong. Forget government rules, laws and tribunals. It's wrong morally - the government shouldn't even have to act to make people be decent to others. It's unkind to inflict hurt on someone else for something that they CAN NOT CHANGE.

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-07-13 10:38:45 AM


Of course, I reserve the right to revert back into "Justin is a twit" mode, starting now.

"I live in Toronto, you wimp, so keep your admonishments about the dangers they pose to yourself."

Would you like to enlighten us as to why you figure living in Toronto gives you some higher power of toughness? Twit. Forgive me for not offering you a cape and some tights ebroidered with your very own letter super Toronto-living hero boy.

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-07-13 10:55:23 AM


I actually have to agree with ebt for the first time ever on any subject. Having read the reports on "Love In Action" I didn't see anything that wouldn't be considered appropriate for a drug rehab center... albeit one on the overly strict (and religious) side.

I mean, I think the idea that you can "scare the gay" out of people is stupid, unhealthy and counterproductive, and that absolutely nothing good will come of these nutty programs. But yeah, even ignorant knuckle-dragging morons have the right to raise and discipline their children.

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-07-13 11:50:34 AM


So you're from Toronto, Justin.

Where is that, exactly?

Would it be anywhere near Montréal?

Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-07-13 1:10:19 PM


Uhhhh, leave me out of your mediation. I'm not involved. Besides, I didn't know there was anything east of Oshawa!

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-07-13 2:42:44 PM


"Smid described Refuge as a two-week program, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily, in which teenagers meet with counselors and in group sessions to talk about their sexual desires.

"The parents bring them and take them home," he said. "We work with the parents also.""

Sheesh, 8 hours of talking about sexual desires?? That would sure cure me of ever being horney again.

Posted by: ld | 2005-07-13 3:28:07 PM


The only person on here who used bigotry in his reponse against Homosexuality was Andrew. But on the other side if you dont agree with Jim in toronto or Justin in toronto, you too are considered a bigot. How does the fact that I disagree with ssm and Gay and right consistently using this site as a medium for his agenda, be considered bigoted. And how is it forcing an opinion on someone else??

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-07-13 3:55:51 PM


Key term:

"The new probe comes just weeks after the Department of Children's Services said it had found no signs of child abuse . . ."

Gee, much ado about nothing, I'd say.

I like ld's comment. Talking about sexual desires with grown ups? As a teen, that'd lower my libido past octogenarian.

As far as the claim that sexual orientation can't change? Bunk. Utter, total bunk. As bunk as the notion that people are born gay. Sexual orientation is a manifestation of the way a person thinks. Psychotherapy is the practice of changing the way people think. If someone has same-sex attraction and doesn't want it, let them try to change it. They're more likely to be successful than not. Source? Professional Psychology: Research And Practice, June, 2002.

The biggest factor in this case is that the the teen in question didn't want to change. In the study cited above, the patients wanted to change. Which is consistent with every other treatment or therapy. Patients who don't want to change won't change.

Posted by: Half Canadian | 2005-07-13 4:02:24 PM


Jim in TO: carte blanche? Not at all. Real abuse is not allowed. Discipline and structure are allowed.

Charolett: Pull your head out of your ass. Moral relativisim doesn't work with me. There's no way you can equate the taking of an infant life with forcing your kid to do the right thing.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2005-07-13 4:10:10 PM


If sexual orientation can be changed, Half Canadian, can yours be changed?

Posted by: EBD | 2005-07-13 4:11:05 PM


Richard: But then, who determines what's "real" abuse and what's just "discipline and structure?" I think it's a legit discussion.

That said, I already agreed that "Love in Action" isn't child abuse in the strict sense of the term. I do think it's wrongheaded and, for the reasons Half Canadian mentioned, ultimately futile. I don't like it or agree with it but they aren't my children.

MikeP: I didn't say you were a bigot; in fact, I don't recall responding to you or commenting about you at all. I agree with SSM, but while I think those who oppose it are wrong I don't think they're all necessarily bigots -- some people have reasoned objections, even if I disagree with them. If you want to project this as me thinking you're a bigot, that's on you.

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-07-13 4:31:15 PM


What is the problem? Are you homosexuals are so ashamed of your sexuality that you cannot be called a fag? A fag, although usually used in a disparaging way, does define somebody as being a homosexual male. Are you guys denying that Fred Litwin is a homosexual? And whats offensive about the word "sodomite". Sodomy is anything that is sexually deviant, such as anal sex or homosexual relations and therefore in calling Fred Litwin a sodomite I am making an accurate statement. I apologized if my phrasing offended anybody but it was entirely accurate. Fred Litwin is a homosexual and he has ruined this blog with his homosexual activism. Nothing to it.

Posted by: [email protected] | 2005-07-13 5:08:01 PM


This is a parody, right?

... Right?

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-07-13 5:29:05 PM


You people from Toronto mock people who don't agree with you. I can't wait for the day when you wake up one morning and the entire west coast has seperated and Ontario is left with nothing but the left. Go ahead, laugh. You wait though. When the West leaves you'll no long be able to afford the outrageous extravagancies that you deem to be needs. Then you'll learn....then you'll learn.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-07-13 6:11:08 PM


On behalf of all Torontonians I must apologize for our insensitive mockery and intolerance of dissent. In the future we'll use only polite, inclusive terms like "fag" and "sodomite."

You must have missed the part where Ontario is and has always been a net contributor to the federal coffers, unlike Alberta... which by the way, isn't on the "west coast." Ever heard of British Columbia?

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-07-13 6:30:25 PM


sod·om·y (sd-m)
n.


2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

We're mostly sodomites here.

Mont D. Law

Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-13 6:41:58 PM


If you're trying to cover up that your're using a secondary definition rather than primary definition maybe you should delete the number next time?

sod·om·y (sd-m)
n.

1. Anal copulation of one male with another.
2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3.Copulation with an animal.

Nice try though. Maybe you should write for the CBC? And you'd be very surprised at how many people who haven't had oral sex and I think its safe to say that most of us don't have anal sex, well atleast if we're not from Toronto.

Oh yeah, Toronto, I live in Ontario and I know what its like here. And you may have always contributed in equalization payments but that does not account for the countless dollars just thrown at crappy companies that can't support themselves.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-07-13 7:14:35 PM


Richard: My head has been pulled out of my ass, and I resent being called a 'moral relativist'.

You stated that children do not have rights, which I understood to be a general statement, regardless on one's opinion of Love in Action. I asked my question about abortion, because one cannot state that children don't have rights until they're 18, but then state that an unborn child does have rights.

homosexuality cannot be likened to heroin addiction. Have you ever met a homosexual couple? Yes there are stereotypical and overly promiscuous ,scantily clad homos...as well as promiscuous scantily clad heterosexual people. If you met a hard-working, fiscally conservative homosexual who maybe even had interests similar to yours, would you even know they were gay? Why does it matter to you who they choose to love? Even if your argument that it is morally wrong and they will be judged by God someday is true...that does not affect your moral status or your eternal judgment in the least.
Heroin use, pedophilia, and polygamy (except in BC) are still illegal in this country and will remain so.
I still agree that parents can tell a homosexual teenager that they're not allowed to date, preach abstinence, send them to a religious school, forbid them from having sex ed or queed ed in school....but they shouldn't be able to send them to a 'rehab program' aiming to change them into something they're not.
My morality is individualism, i.e. don't judge a person by their so-called 'group membership'. You can judge a heroin-addicted, unprotected sex, promiscuous homosexual aids-victim pedophile as morally corrupt...but don't lump the level-headed, high acheiving, monogomous homosexual into the same category.

Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-07-13 7:49:19 PM


This forum is quickly becoming gay thanks to Right Said Fred here. If you think he's coming at this strictly from an individual rights issue, you are naive. Gay marriage has nothing to do with individual rights. Initially, I said that we welcome Log Cabin Conservatives here but for God's sake, please stop pushing the gay agenda.

Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-07-13 9:27:57 PM


"Gay marriage has nothing to do with individual rights."

Yes Michael you're completely right -btw your mother called and she wants you to know she's proud of you. "You're every mother's dream."

Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-13 11:04:18 PM


'If you're trying to cover up that your're using a secondary definition rather than primary definition maybe you should delete the number next time?'

What exactly does primary definition mean?

From the same site

bow Audio pronunciation of "bow" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b)
n.

1. A bent, curved, or arched object.
2. A weapon consisting of a curved, flexible strip of material, especially wood, strung taut from end to end and used to launch arrows.

So the first defnition listed here is the primery definition. And if I said just the word bow you would know I meant #1 and not number #2. Yeah. Right. I've made some spelling errors in this post - so you can move on to the spelling flames.


I picked the definition of that made my point. The Pope, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Mormons and much of the Southern Baptist Convention use this definition. The legal system uses it.

'And you'd be very surprised at how many people who haven't had oral sex . . .'

According to a Focus on the Family survey 75% of the adults they interviewed had comitted oral sodomy. Perhaps you're surprised at how many?

'Maybe you should write for the CBC?'

Sorry. I don't do ad hominem. I don't have to 'cause I have actual arguements.

Mont D. Law

Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-14 12:47:04 AM


Not meaning to push the point, but isn't child abuse the reason most of these kids are sodomists in the first place?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320864/posts

Posted by: Lars Ormberg | 2005-07-14 3:37:34 AM


Charlotte:

Unfortunately your head IS still up your butt and quite frankly I don't care what you take offense to. Do you understand what moral relativisim is? It's where one compares apples to oranges on a moral level.

I didn't say that children don't have rights. I said that children don't have the same rights as you and I. There are major differences between the two. Having said that, I'll again state that there is no way you can make a comparison between disciplining / correcting a child and abortion. Apples and oranges, get it? They're DIFFERENT!

Please do me a favor and actually read what I've written next time. It'll save you a whole lot of grief.

Look below for the word game...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2005-07-14 6:09:26 AM


I wasn't going to get into the homosexuality debate because this was, in my mind, a post about parental rights and responsibilities. Charlotte dragged me into it with her last post. Having said that, let's play the word game using her own words (with one changed):

"pedophilia cannot be likened to heroin addiction. Have you ever met a pedophile couple? Yes there are stereotypical and overly promiscuous ,scantily clad pedos...as well as promiscuous scantily clad heterosexual people. If you met a hard-working, fiscally conservative pedophile who maybe even had interests similar to yours, would you even know they were gay? Why does it matter to you who they choose to love? Even if your argument that it is morally wrong and they will be judged by God someday is true...that does not affect your moral status or your eternal judgment in the least.
Heroin use, pedophilia, and polygamy (except in BC) are still illegal in this country and will remain so.
I still agree that parents can tell a pedophile teenager that they're not allowed to date, preach abstinence, send them to a religious school, forbid them from having sex ed or queed ed in school....but they shouldn't be able to send them to a 'rehab program' aiming to change them into something they're not.
My morality is individualism, i.e. don't judge a person by their so-called 'group membership'. You can judge a heroin-addicted, unprotected sex, promiscuous pedophile aids-victim necrophilliac as morally corrupt...but don't lump the level-headed, high acheiving, monogomous pedophile into the same category."

There now, wasn't that fun?

Later on I'll tear her original statement apart and highlight all of the narcisistic, nhilistic and just plain moonbatty statements.

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2005-07-14 6:17:55 AM


EBD,

You asked if I could change my sexual orientation. The fact of the matter is, if I wanted to, I probably could. But I don't want to.
And isn't that what this boils down to? Whether people who identify as gay should be 'made to feel' whether they should change their sexual orientation? I'm all for housing rights, employment rights (sans religious employment, for philosophical reasons) on par with heterosexuals. But a right to not feel uncomfortable? Ridiculous in every sense of the word.

Posted by: Half Canadian | 2005-07-14 10:39:00 AM


Montlaw, I posted the definitions in the right order for you if you took the time to read, if you can read numbers? The number one means primary. And you're right, you chose the definition that proves your point rather than the primary defition. You're just like the CBC, you choose the stories that prove your point. Similarly, you're like Michael Moore. You lie without uttering a single false word.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-07-14 12:33:49 PM


*** - "compulsive coprophilia and pederastic rape"
Ouch.
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more interesting.

Posted by: what'sgoing | 2005-07-14 1:15:54 PM


'Montlaw, I posted the definitions in the right order for you if you took the time to read, if you can read numbers? The number one means primary.'

According to dictionary.com, which is where all these definitions are coming from, the number one doesn't indicate a primary definition. As I pointed out in my post, in detail. Which your response completely ignores.

'You're just like the CBC, you choose the stories that prove your point. Similarly, you're like Michael Moore. You lie without uttering a single false word.'

Once again your are reduced to ad hominem attacks because you can't answer the argument.

Mont D. Law

Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-14 2:03:06 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.