Thursday, June 15, 2006

Exodus, Schmexodus.

Here's a conversation you can have, right now, with anyone who claims to be an "ex-gay."

DCEIVER: So let me get this straight. You sang some songs, recited a bunch of poems, and you aren't gay anymore?

EX-GAY: That's right.

DCEIVER: For real.

EX-GAY: Yep.

DCEIVER: This stuff actually changed the way your dick gets hard.

EX-GAY: Hoo, boy, did it ever.

DCEIVER: Well...okay, I guess. I mean, what do I know? Say, would you like to come back to my place for a three-way?

EX-GAY: Fucking Christ. Would I ever!


Techne said...

fighting fire with fire...

DCepticon said...

If you have ever talked to someone who "made the attempt" as it were it is quite alarming. They tear you down and make you feel so ashamed that all you can do is turn back. I think the worst part is that the usual device for this transformation is tied to being abandoned by what I understand is supposed to be a loving God.

This does however beg the question, have you noticed how much metro advertising is given over to conservatives in the metros these days. Everything from Mercury propaganda and the fiction of global warming, to gay deprogramming and anti-choice posters. What happened to all the viagra ads?

LuvDusty said...

Please...Robert and I saw that big disgusting poster just as we entered the Metro from the GAY PRIDE FESTIVITIES...we both looked at each other and said.."YAH, RIGHT!"...

I'm all for choosing whatever you want to do with your freak-ass self...just please, don't impose it on me..thanks! :)

sofita said...

Hi. I just wanted to explain how one politically moderate but very religious person sees the role of our Heavenly Parent in personal change.

Let me say first off that my Dad is a great big slut, and as a person of traditional sexual morality, this mortifies me. He sleeps around and leads on women who he knows or should know want to marry.

After seeing the DaVinci Code some days ago, we got to talking about God. He said he'd like to believe in an afterlife, but "would like to have some proof."

At first I thought that sounded very strange as proof just isn't any part of the bargain when it comes to faith. Then I realized what he meant. He knows his lifestyle is immoral, but he enjoys it, so he doesn't want to give that up unless there is some greater reward to be had in the afterlife.

As I thought about my Dad's spiritual plight, it occurred to me that he is doing things backwards. He thinks that he first must be perfect, and then he can approach the Heavenly Parent. However, my experience is that it doesn't work that way. First, you approach God, then God changes you.

Now I know that lots of people say they have prayed their hearts out for God to change them, and it didn't work. But again, the fact is that it doesn't work that way. What God can do is inspire us with a sense of what we really ought to be doing, which then "crowds out" immoral and superfluous behavior that has nothing to do with what we were placed on this Earth to do.

I am so filled with the love of God that all I really want to do is work for Him/Her, building a family and perpetuating the gift of Life that I have been given, in the natural way that seems to be what the Heavenly Parent intended.

I have sexual struggles, too. I've always been turned on by the idea of group sex, but honestly I'm just to busy to give it much thought. So I go on living my life, a life that I like to think is spiritually inspired.

In sum, I believe that God wants us to come as we are, and be open to whatever changes we might, or might not, experience.

By the way, this is off topic, but I read an article on the front cover of the Washington Post today concerning a member of the Metro Board who was removed for embracing the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning sexuality. I am a moderate, but homonazi anti-Christian tactics like that are beginning to piss me off. It is no more fair to gag Christians and stuff them in the closet than it is to do the same to glbt Americans.

The Deceiver said...

Wow. If you were that inspired after seeing THE DAVINCI CODE, I bet you can't wait to see SNAKES ON A PLANE.

With regards to Mr. Metro Board, no one has gagged him. He is as free today to say whatever tactless and insulting things he wants as he was last week. He simply won't be doing it on the taxpayers dime anymore--and the dismissal came from nobody but his boss. He was dismissed because he insulted people--which flies in the face of traditional values for public servants.

And let's be very clear: unless he was supremely stupid, the man knew full well that by insulting people, he was putting his job as a servant to the public at risk. He had every opportunity, had he wanted to keep his job, to practice the time honored tradition of KEEPING YOUR FOOL MOUTH SHUT. However, he actively and willingly made the choice to do otherwise, and he has no right to complain about the consequences--which had to have been obvious to him at the time he made his choice.

Nobody, nobody, nobody took him to task for his religious beliefs, whatever they may be. He is as free to worship whatever God he chooses today as he was last week.

AGAIN: He was dismissed because he insulted people. As far as that being "traditional Catholic values", I suggest maybe you try attending Mass sometime.

sofita said...

You are being ridiculous. People aren't supposed to have "keep their fool mouth shut." This is a free country, remember the First Amendment.

You know damned well he wasn't speaking out against the normalization of homosexuality on the taxpayer's dime you asshole! He was speaking on a television show that didn't have a damned thing to do with his official duties, so quit trying to justify this totalitarian only-one-point-of-view-acceptable bullshit! You know damned well that is unAmerican.

He said nothing hateful or unChristian. All he did was publicly affirm the teachings of his Church! You are one of those liberals who only cares about freedom of speech when you like what is being said. You make me sick.

sofita said...

By the way, I'm not saying that anyone "took him to task for his religious beliefs." Once again, you are disingenuous. It is okay to follow the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church as long as you keep quiet and stay in the closet. That should frighten any American who cares about freedom.

The Deceiver said...

"You are one of those liberals who only cares about freedom of speech when you like what is being said."

Wrong again. You need to separate the rights accorded you in the Constitution from this insane idea that those rights preclude any negative consequences stemming from the free use thereof.

Just as there is a time to not leave your wallet stuffed with $100 bills on a bench in Central Park, there is definitely a time to KEEP ONE'S FOOL MOUTH SHUT. It's called "circumspection", and while I loves me some Constitutional rights, I practice circumspection every day. I have the unalienable right to talk about a lot of things that would get me in deep trouble, and I choose to stay out of the trouble.

This guy knowingly opted for the trouble.

I fully support the guys right to say anything he wants. I'll gladly take up arms against anyone who would deny him the right to say what he believes. I'll go to the absolute wall for him to be allowed to express what he has to say. However, the Constitution does not IMMUNIZE HIM AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. And neither do I.

He's a public servant, with constituents, who pay him to do a job. And when he insults those constituents, it's only natural for them to agitate to have him replaced. He serves at their pleasure, after all.

Calling someone a sexual deviant is an insult. It is a term well known to have insulting connotations. It is, indeed, a specifically LOADED term. You cannot, in fact, be familiar with the term "sexual deviant", without also knowing it is DEROGATORY.

For example, your choice of the word "asshole." Same thing applies. The consequences for calling me asshole is that I now refer to you as: "Dipshit Thimblebrained Fuckchop."

So, Dipshit Thimblebrained Fuckchop, maybe it was not his intention to insult, but because there were and are any number of linguistic options open to him with which to express his opinion, because we all have the right to choose our words carefully, because most people raised by parents of any class have heard the old adage "If you can't say anything nice, it's best to say nothing at all," it cannot be deemed improper for the subjects of his vitriol, his derangement, to feel insulted.

Now, one is free to insult people all one wants. You got that, Dipshit Thimblebrained Fuckchop? However, the consequences, in this instance, included the possible loss of his job. He embarrassed his boss! What else needs to be said? He's got a lot of free time to insult people now! And he is just as free to say what he wants today as he was last week.

Dipshit Thimblebrained Fuckchop, here's the bottom line:

1. He's free to insult people.

2. The people he insulted are free to respond in kind.

3. His boss is free to decide that he has an employee that reflects poorly on the state of Maryland.

4. And he's free to terminate his employment.

5. And at no point have anyone's Constitutional rights been abridged.

The system works! America: fuck yeah!

The Deceiver said...

I would also point out that while every member of Exodus International likely considers homosexuals to be "sexual deviants", it's telling that they DO NOT USE THE TERM ON THEIR OWN SIGNAGE. They know full well that it is derogatory. They have tact--which is a term for knowing when to keep their fool mouths shut.

sofita said...

You need to look up the meaning of the word "deviant." It means something very much like a departure from the norm. What word would you have chosen?

It is true that you can lose your job for saying something nonPC without the constitutional being violated. But that is really besides the point. It is quite clear that you, and other homonazis like you, don't really care about free speech.

I have lots of freinds that have had abortions, and religious conservatives routinely call them murderers, which is worse than being called a deviant. But you don't see anyone agitating to have those people replaced. Why, because other people are not trying to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation like you are.

sofita said...

By the way, I find your condonation of the exercise of arbitrary power troubling. In case of a political reversal, would you also condone the firing of someone who said they think homosexuality is normal and natural? Or would that suddenly change the whole thing?

sofita said...

In a free, advanced, civilized society, the remedy to speech you do not like is reasoned counterspeech and rational argument, not harassment and retaliation. The Constitution is only the minimum that is required of the government.

sofita said...

By the way, the whole thing about reflecting badly on the state of MD is a ruse. All that needed be said was, "So and so's views do not represent the views of the Board, the Governor, and whoever else." By firing this person rather than merely disclaiming his views, the state of MD has sent message that will chill free speech throughout the state.

The Deceiver said...

Fear and intimidation? You're ignorant. I've actually BEEN fired for something I've said publicly (and in my case, it WASN'T a slur), so I know exactly what the guy is going through and I sympathize. But, who's fault is it that I got fired? It was mine. I was responsible. I was to blame. Who's fault is it that this guy got fired? His own. There was no atmosphere of fear that did him in. His own words, freely chosen and spoken, did him in.

He needs to man up, like I did when I was in his shoes, take responsibility, and move on with his life.

On to the next thing:


adj : markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas" [syn: aberrant] n : a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior [syn: pervert, deviate, degenerate]

Thank you, dictionary, for proving my point! Yes! When the word carries connotations of "pervert" and "degenerate", then I'm afraid it is derogatory and insulting.

(Hey! "Sexual deviant" is a good word to use if you want to create an atmosphere of fear or intimidation!)

I'm sorry, but were you to call someone a "deviant" and they didn't like it, they have the Constitutional right to respond in kind. They can tell you to fuck off. They can go to a supervisor, for example, and say: "This is the language your employee uses to refer to clients."

I used to manage conferences for the government. Do you think I would have been entitled to keep my job if I had shown up at a conference, walked up to my clients, and called them "sexual deviants?" I would have been summarily fired on the spot.

It's got nothing to do with being PC. You need to stop confusing common-sense politeness, tact, and on-the-job professionalism with political correctness.

Anyway, Ehrlich, obviously embarrassed and humiliated by his employee, gets it right:

"Robert Smith's comments were highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable," the Republican governor said in a statement released by his office.

"They are in direct conflict to my administration's commitment to inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity," the governor said.

LESSON LEARNED: When your boss has a "commitment", and you act in "direct conflict" with it, YOU GET FIRED. In fact, it can be said that this guy, insofar as the Ehrlich administration, was a "deviant" from their established rules of decorum.

Now, what might I have said?

How about--"Homosexuality is not the normative sexual orientation, scientifically speaking."

That's a good, non-PC, strictly true alternatives to using "sexual deviant"--the derogative.

Still, if I wanted to keep my job, I might have said nothing at all. And the Republic would have survived.

The Deceiver said...

So, again:

1. He's free to insult people.

2. The people he insulted are free to respond in kind.

3. His boss is free to decide that he has an employee that reflects poorly on the state of Maryland.

4. And he's free to terminate his employment.

5. And at no point have anyone's Constitutional rights been abridged.

Now, I'll show you how I use my own arbitrary power. Good-bye!

L-girl said...

Dceiver, I admire you. I can't and don't tolerate fuckchops like that on my blog.

I'm always being accused of censorship - as if I'm preventing them from having blogs of their own! - and forever explaining (when I have the patience) that although I support their right to voice their repugnant opinions, I'm under no obligation to host said repugnancies.

I generally just delete their comments asap. This appears to drive them insane, an added side benefit.

Anyway... great post and great smackdown.

The Deceiver said...


I left one question unanswered, however:

"In case of a political reversal, would you also condone the firing of someone who said they think homosexuality is normal and natural?"

In other words, would I condone the firing of someone who said something that WASN'T insulting? Certainly not. I think rooting for the DC United is normal and natural. I think eating popsicles is normal and natural. If I got fired for those beliefs, I'd certainly have cause to complain.

The political reversal of Mr. Metro's situation is actually this: Man goes on TV, calls his HETEROSEXUAL constituents "sexual deviants." In that case, I WOULD INDEED SUPPORT HIS FIRING.

So, basically it boils down to this:

--Public servant says things about constituents that are NOT insulting=no reason in the world to fire them.

--but, public servant says things about constituents that ARE insulting=firing is a possible consequence.

But, even if you get fired for insulting someone, your freedom of speech has not been abridged.

Anonymous said...

I find it horrifying and ironic, or "horronic" if you will, that so many Proud Americans with computers seem not to understand the First Amendment.

They whine about what they imagine to be "free speech" in cases that have nothing to do with it - say, blog comment thread moderation.

And completely ignore the fact that said Amendment is being used as Charmin by our neo-fascist government. Free speech zones? Prior restraint? the Patriot Act? Well, that's all well and good and pleasing to Our Lord And Savior.

My thanks to such myopic halfwits for enabling the inevitable lab explosion that will, apparently, end the American Experiment any day now. Although "explosion" doesn't quite nail's more like a slow, nauseating poison gas leak, caused by mixing ignorance with mindless conformity.

Rant over,

Queer, anticapitalist and chock full o' snark.