"Fundamentalism"

It does not suprise me that you do not accept what I say. Nor does it suprise me that you have more questions. One of the limitations of electronic mail is that there is no transmission of body language, tone, and other communication aspects that aid in understanding. I will try to elaborate in my responses so that you can more easily understand what I am trying to communicate. We fail to see what difference seeing Scott make his remarks would make to the ideas underlying them. He is welcome to send us a VHS cassette if he believes we have missed something important by relying on his written words alone. Luckily for Scott, his Bible doesn't make the same claim

1&
2. I can only guess as to which strain of opinion you refer to. OK, OK, Grant will spell it out... f-u-n-d-a-m-e-n-t-a-l-i-s-t -C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y I, unlike some, do try to think about my beliefs and attitudes. You, not knowing me personally, would not be able to ascertain that.one need not, given the statements Scott has made In fact, you might think that I simply regurgitate what I have heard, without chewing on it. Of course, I could say the same about you. The response I have seen is pretty much the same as every response from the homosexual community regarding these type of questions and statements. Although Scott is trying to stake a right to an equal claim there is a considerable difference. Scott's opinions are regarded as valid only by those with anti-gay views. Grant's are supported by both those who are gay friendly and those who are involved - neutrally, dispassionately and scientifically - in the research
   As far as ducking your question... I assumed your question to be directed at the article itself, and thought that a thorough explanation of that would suffice. The original question was clear
   So, let me answer your question: "Why do you think homosexuality is bad for society?"Ah ha, as we thought - the original question was clear
   Society is based upon the family structure. That family structure has been for centuries based upon the man/ woman/ children relationship (for my purposes, "family" will relate to that structure unless otherwise noted). Our educational system, economic system, social system, virtually every aspect of society is based upon the function of the family. That is not to say that people without family cannot function, but pointing out the structure of society in and of itself revolves around that structure, and if the health of society is to continue that structure cannot be harmed. Fact- the majority of human beings are drawn to the opposite sex, bond with them, mate with them, have children with them, interface with society as a family unit (whether with children, or with the possibility of children), and otherwise build society up through their interactions with other humans. Children are raised by parents. Children grow up and interface with other humans. Society is perpetuated by the family unit. The acceptance of homosexual relationships as normal, moral, and even good for society is contrary to the basis of society. Scott seems quite oblivious to the fact that his view of what constitutes a family is relatively modern. Until recently the term "family" referred to everyone to which the household had responsibility - servants, grandparents, brothers and sisters could be included in the definition. In previous times (including 'Biblical') it also included household slaves. This issue of responsibility was at the heart of what the law defined as family (as different to what was defined as 'blood relations'). Scott also seems to have fallen for the propaganda of the Religious Right who continually paint gay men and women as somehow opposed to the notion of family and society. Clearly this is a falsehood. One wonders what Scott could possibly say to our parents, our brothers and sisters and our nieces to convince them that we - or the vast majority of gays - are not family people. Readers are invited to cruise the rest of this site and answer for themselves whether Grant and Dale are both gay and pro-family.
   Nature itself is anti homosexual. Homosexuals do not naturally have children, only heterosexuals do.Or more correctly, only heterosexual intercourse produces children (until recently). The very fact homosexuality exists, and has through recorded history, suggests that 'nature' is not anti-gay (Let's not get into artificial insemination, I am talking about natural impregnation, not science/ man made ways to get pregnant.)We guess Scott has some explaining to do to all those 'unnatural' heterosexual couples who have conceived through IVF etc, any of you such couples reading this are invited to email him for clarification Fact- Place 100 homosexual male couples on a tropical island, place 100 heterosexual couples on a similar island, isolate both islands for 150 years (assume that there is adequate means of survival, and that people die of old age, not starvation, etc.) When you come back you will have one island that is unpopulated, and one island that has people on it. But, a more interesting fact is - the heterosexual couples will produce gay children. Homosexuality would continue to exist and Scott would need to open up a boat service to continually move these 'genetic defects' to the other island (no doubt against the wishes of the vast majority of friends and family).

   Not only that, but Michelangelo, Leonado da Vinci, Alexander the Great and Tchaikovsky would all be on the 'gay' island...and the straights would need to organise trips to the island to buy decent clothing, furniture and food! (OK, Grant's being sacastic now...). How Scott intends to deal with all the married (and apparently totally heterosexual) men and women who engage in gay sex every once in awhile is also a moot point that barely stands thinking about. And we guess straight men found in possession of those ever popular 'lesbian' videos will of course be severely dealt with.Heterosexual activity perpetuates the human race, and perpetuates our societies. The penis and vagina are designed to go together. The human body is structured so that men and women copulate and perpetuate the human race. (This is purely a naturalistic line of thought, without regard to relationships, humans who do not have children, etc. It is only referring to the structure of the human form.)These are a series of very stupid remarks (who's concepts you can probably trace back to a scurrilous tract produced by one Paul Cameron in the early 1980's) and often regurgitated by those on the Religious Right - Scott can take our word for it if nothing else, the bodies of two males are also structured to fit together very well indeed. Maybe not to have children, but they certainly seemed "designed" for various activities. Does Scott imagine gay men, or women, have to uncomfortably contort ourselves in order to have sex? Does he imagine it feels "unnatural" or something to us? A clue may lie in Scott's use of the word design (one wonders what he makes of the curious sex life of snails?).

   And again, Scott seems unable to grasp that treating gay people equally is not incompatible with heterosexuals doing their heterosexual thing (Good heavens no, most of our favorite people are heterosexual!) or with the successful raising of the resulting children within a supportive family and society

   It could be said that if homosexuality is genetic (again, not proven by any means), and since nature uses heterosexuals to perpetuate the race, homosexuality could be considered a genetic defect.using this simplistic logic, so too could any heterosexual - for whatever reason - who does not breed at the earliest opportunity. Therefore- people could possibility be justified in pursuing a cure for genetic homosexuality, and in ending the artificial insemination of lesbians. (again, this assumes that homosexuality of determined by genes entirely.)Scott is obviously unaware of the data that shows the children of lesbian couples (or gay for that matter) are homosexual in the same proportion as the overall population, indicating if nothing else that there is no reason to deny gay couples - on spurious "influence" grounds - the opportunity to raise children and that genetics are indeed rather more complex than many people assume Before you get in an uproar, and say that I am terrible for wanting that. I did not say I wanted it, but that it could be argued effectively that if homosexuality is a genetic trait, and is a natural reproduction dead end, a cure for this "defect" could be sought and implemented. (That is, people could argue that homosexuality should be treated as any other genetic defect. Which brings us back to the article I wrote that spawned this discussion. We cannot merely say that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore good, but must discuss it merits in the moral arena. And its effects on society.)A leap of absurd logic on our part, but Scott gave us a great idea for totally ending racism in a few generations...through the forbidding of any race but a chosen one having children
   Society is naturally anti homosexual. It is such by necessity, not because of ignorance or hate.Scott, perhaps unwittingly, is narrowing human society down to simple animalistic rutting. Human society - and the upbringing of children - is based on far more than spawning. Human society needs not only children to survive as it does but also social interaction, language, science, medicine and the arts; all of which gay men and women have proportionately contributed more than their fair share towards because they are not, in the main, 'burdened' by childraising. It could well be argued that society as we know it would be immeasurably impoverished but for the contributions of gay men and women throughout history. Clearly 'society' is not naturally anti-homosexual, but that anti-gay attitudes by certain members of society are learned after birth. Clearly people are further not viewed as productive members of society based solely on whether they have children or not (Although many do hate out of ignorance, and that is both sad and wrong.) If society is to maintain the family structure, and thereby the stability of society, we cannot accept same sex relationships as good and moral. The other option is to rid ourselves of any historical view of family structure as before, clearly Scott has already chosen to do this, which has been the basis of our society and every other society I have ever heard of in history again, Scott's ignorance is no basis for fact, and seek out a new structure for ourselves. Moral relativism is a tool of that 'strain of opinion', that is, it is a tool of those who wish to leave the current structure of society, and create a new one. (Could that be a "New Age"?) The acceptance of homosexuality as good and right and moral will (necessarily) eventually bring down society as we know it, and replace it with another societal structure Unfortunately for Scott, much the same argument was put forward to make interracial marriage illegal and to have women in former times defined as the property of the husband. Society has evolved continuously, it is not static as Scott would believe. Moral Relativism has nothing to do with this fact.. When I say homosexuality is not good for society, I mean it. Society as we know it would be mortally wounded if we accept homosexuality as moral, right, and normal. Homosexual unions are not families,Then what are Grant and Dale? Scott seem unaware that until the 12 Century the Church of Rome, for example, actually performed 'gay marriage' rites and he seems not to have read the Biblical story of David and Jonathan and their acceptance as such would alter societal structure, and eradicate the family structure, which is the base of society, therefore- the acceptance of homosexual behavior as right and good harms society. It may harm Scott's particular view of what society is, but this is a rather different matter to harming society - or the people in it - per se. Again, apart from saying acceptance of gay relationships would alter society as it presently is Scott does not provide any evidence that society would be harmed by such a change. Perhaps Scott believes society is truly perfect as it is now and no changes should ever be made to it?
   Of course, one answer that is compelling in and of itself, is the answer found in scripture. God is clear about homosexuality.Typically for a fundamentalist, Scott is most presumptive about what God thinks despite his own religious guidebook warning specifically against this. Contrary to his assertion, many authoritative Christians scholars and leaders do not believe what Scott is about to say - who is correct? Does it matter? (However, God does not dwell on it much, because more important that a persons sexual preference is a person's relationship with Jesus.) I have read many attempts of people who try to get around the passages of scripture that define homosexual behavior as a sin. (Notice that it is behavior, and practicing homosexuals that are labeled sin and sinners. A person who has a homosexual orientation, but fights against those desires is not sinning. I know of one woman who is a Christian and has had some homosexual desires, and even engaged in homosexual behavior. Now, she resists the temptation to fall back into those actions. She is commended by God for that, not condemned.) I am always amused at their scriptural gymnastics.Likewise, we are 'amused' by those who take literally a series of stories written by scores of people over thousands of years to which much has been added and deleted and which have been through countless translations and reinterpretation to suit the political masters of the day before arriving at the Bible as we know it today (in all it's versions). The Catholic Church insisted against the science for 300 years that the Sun went around the Earth and persecuted scientists who said otherwise - the bible says it's that way so the Inquisition engaged in some real contorting of bodies and minds. We need no scriptural gymnastics to be able to state, factually, that we do not 'lie with men as we do with women', or that we do not enjoy our love for each other as some sort of cult ceremony. Nor are we involved in same-sex rape or idolatrous temple prostitution. All these thing the Bible apparently forbids, and none of these apply to us.
   God ordained the family unit to be a man and a woman.Scott, you will need to provide a clear reference to prove this - even if we assume today's Bible is truly the exact viewpoints of God. We have yet to find such a statement in the Bible. For heavens sake... God offers Adam the animals as "companions" before he even gets around to making Eve - did God make a mistake in suggesting bestiality as first option, or was he allowing Adam to make his own mind up on choice of companion? If Adam did, why cannot Grant or Dale? God made nature to work that way. God set up society to function that way. God also gave man free will, with the power to leave the way that God intended for things to be, and to sin. So, if man deems it wise to leave the truth of God, and effectively destroy society as God intended, we have the power to do that. I will not stand silently by while that happens. (You may note that I do not think the biggest problem of today is the acceptance of homosexuality, but rather Moral Relativism. It seems to be at the root of most of today's social ills, which range much farther than sexual orientation issues.)

3. Let me be as clear as I can: Until a person acts, thinks, has a desire of a sexual nature one cannot determine their sexual orientation.This seems of little concern for the majority of homophobes - merely being unstereotypically heterosexual is sufficient for them to attack you. Gentle-natured (but straight) boys pay dearly for their 'crime' in school yards across the nation. And of course Grant and Dale have both experienced the talking people get to if a 30 year old man's conversation is not littered with words like "wife", "girlfriend" and "children". People do assume you to be gay if you are not outwardly heterosexual; to avoid this closeted gay men and women have to lie and fabricate stories about their life. No doubt this lying would create a moral dilemma for Scott - should gays say nothing and still be regarded as gay (and suffer the same treatment) or should they lie in order to conform to certain people's expectations of others behaviour and to avoid potential discrimination? It is the behavior (thought, desire, etc.) which defines it. It is a behavior DEFINED state, the behavior does not necessarily make the state. Race and color are state of being demographics. They cannot act their color.perhaps Scott is also one of those who believe that if only blacks didn't "behave so niggerish" they wouldn't be subjected to racism Gender, although related to sexual orientation,actually, no it is not - gender is the equipment you have, not your sexual orientation. Scott gives away here a clue to what he thinks 'causes' homosexuality; a common but erroneous view from his side of the spectrum (and frankly all too many heterosexuals). Neither Grant or Dale think they are women, behave "like" women or want to be women - we are simply men who sexually attracted to men and not to women.

   A heterosexist viewpoint would follow this logic - "since women are sexually attracted to men, any man sexually attracted to men must be confused about his masculinity". This sweeping issue of "gender confusion" is patently ridiculous to anyone who knows gay men as a group. It hits the heights of absurdity when talking about gay couples...after all, how could two men who are gay and therefore (the previous argument went) think they are women possibly be attracted to each other? Gender confusion does exist but is quite a separate matter to being gay. Sadly, even some gay men and women have this confused because of internalised homophobia is a state of being demographic. You are male or female because of which sex organs your body has.this contradicts what Scott said a mere 6 words ago!

   Homosexuality being a behavior defined state again, actually it is not - Scott and his fellow travellers chose to define it this way against the more widespread definition. He needs to cling to long overturned definitions of sexuality in order to argue his viewpoint has NOTHING to do with the ability to change sexual orientations. Changing outward behavior does not mean that inward desires are changed.Scott has claimed otherwise elsewhere (Maybe a better way wording would be "desire defined state" but since desires and thoughts are behaviors, actually they are the foundations and instigators of physical behavior, behavior defined works.)Huh? Desire and Thought are behaviours?

   The very words "behavior defined state" imply that sexual orientation is NOT cognitive alone. However, if as you say, sexual orientation relates to emotion, willingness, and cognition alone, then it is purely cognitive. Emotion is a mental state. Willingness is a mental state. Mental states are the domain of cognition.Scott, you are clearly out of your depth and throwing around terms you do not understand - your undergraduate lecturers would be horrified. Mental states are the domain of both cognitive and non-cognitive thought, it is the investigation of these two that forms the basis for the whole psych. profession
   I find it interesting that you mention willingness as a factor in ones sexual orientation. Does this mean that you think that if you are unwilling to be a particular sexual orientation, you CAN change? And again, willingness has a defined psych. meaning. Please do not confuse outward cognitive and behavioural 'willingness' with non-cognitive willingness. To answer the question, no change - as provided by the research and by the experiences of individual gay men and women who nearly all go through a stage of fighting their orientation - is possible to sexual orientation( As far as choice of sexual BEHAVIOR in general, do you really think that the vast number of criminals that engage in homosexual behavior while in prison have a homosexual orientation?no, but then the experts believe most people are bisexual to greater or lesser degree - homosexual behaviour by these people is more than possible in certain situations. Even people from Scott's camp accept that homosexual rape is committed by heterosexual men in such settings Are there really that many people who have criminal behavior who are also homosexual? That would be an interesting study, don't you think? I wonder if anyone has ever done it.Well, yes many have. Exclusively homosexual people are proportionally less likely to commit crimes - particularly those of a violent or sexual nature (including paedophilia) If sexual behavior is not a choice, but is dictated by your orientation only, then there seems to be a majority of felony criminals who are homosexual or bisexual. That is not what you want to see on the front page if you are gay.As I accept the idea that most people are bisexual this is not contrary to what I would have expected. If most people are bisexual then most crime would be committed by bisexuals. This is a no brainer Don't you find it frustrating when a lesbian says that "all women are potential lesbians"? Some apparently equate, and manipulate accordingly, their sexual orientation with radical feminism and power over men. Most of them laugh about the debate over nature and nurture in sexual orientation.Scott's obviously been reading his Feminism 101 out of context. The term 'biology is not destiny' was coined to assure women that they were just capable as men; that there was no in-built weakness in women but that social role conditioning was at fault for women's lack of confidence and advancement. Only a very few (and rather weird in many ways) radical feminists in the 1960's claimed that sexuality could be likewise decided.

   Such views are regarded as absurd by most gay or straight women, even given the rather different physical actions women need go through to have same-sex intercourse compared to men (how can we delicately put it, female sexual response can be "passive" in a way male penetrative activity cannot). Leaving aside bisexual women (who we have already said could do this) some heterosexual women - involved in a particular brand of anti-male feminist politics - do try to "be" lesbian. They inevitably fail to form or maintain stable relationships (or even enjoy sex) because they simply are not lesbians. Almost as inevitably this particular type of feminist lose their "religion" over time and become a bit less anti-male. If they happen to meet a man they do like, they very quickly stop the silliness - unfortunately often leaving the wreckage of failed relationships and heartbroken "real" lesbians in their wake. In our experience, the lesbian community has little respect for these individuals and considers them trouble.

   Further, there is no male equivalent to this concept. Why not? And, you do realize that it is really a small number of homosexuals who think it is genetic, and not a gradually learned orientation?)Where this bizarre statement came from is a mystery and again Scott provides no reference. Most gay men and women do not believe this

   I do think that homosexual couple have as deep emotional bonds as heterosexual couples. I do think they love each other. That does not mean that these relationships are then automatically healthy. [A girl I know] was very much in love with her boyfriend, and then he raped her. She still loved him, and stayed in that harmful relationship for a long time, before finding her senses. She loved him, and he claimed to love her, but their relationship was unhealthy. (NO, I am not equating date rape with homosexuality, just giving an example of a relationship where both people claimed to love each other and the relationship was still unhealthy.)But Scott, you would not assume all heterosexual relationships to be unhealthy on the basis of this woman's misfortune. We do not assume all gay relationships are somehow automatically healthy or unhealthy for the individuals involved. Couples - both gay and straight - sometimes treat one another very badly. This is not because of underlying sexual orientation.
   [Note: we have received an email from Scott who regrets disclosing the identity of this woman in his original email and on his website. He asked that we also remove any reference, and we are more than happy to do this. As originallly posted we made the following comment about this disclosure

   "(and we hope you got her permission before spreading such personal and no doubt painful details over the internet - as this part of the email is also on Scott's webpage we shall take it as OK to publish this detail of the assault on *identity removed*)"

   We would be interested to know why Scott has had second thoughts about his disclosure. We hope that it may be because he had a flash of inspiration amd empathy and has realized that at times expressing one's views does indeed cause hurt and harm to individuals. Now, if we could only get him to realize the same thing about his anti-gay comments we'd be getting somewhere...]

4. Shabby? Why?read Grant's reply. It is intellectually shabby to self-reference, and this is something Scott has been continually guilty of Because you, and other gay peoplenote that Scott has leapt to the conclusion that Grant is gay - without foundation (remember, all correspondence was via email on Grant's unimelb account and Scott did not know about this website) would have their beliefs crushed if it were true that gays can become heterosexual?actually no, more the point - it wouldn't alter the fact that Grant's relationship with Dale is the deepest and most loving he has experienced and at the moment wouldn't care to change that relationship even if he was bisexual and able to settle down with a nice girl How can you possibly seriously think that you know better than the person who wrote the testimony what their orientation is??? I amazed that you even try to pass it off as true.Grant did not do this, he stated that the testimonies were from people with histories typical of people with particular orientations. This combined with the research on the changeability of sexual orientation, the facts about cult-based group think and the history of Exodus itself casts severe doubts on the reliability of the tiny number of testimonies How can you "establish" a person's orientation, aside from their own words which say they were gay and now are heterosexual, from a short letter?One cannot, which is why Grant used the word 'typical'. Likewise, the same concession should be made by Scott How can you possibly know the cognitive and non cognitive things which drive them from a short letter? You only know what they tell you. You do not know their desires, you know their testimony. And then you disbelieve it because it does not fit within your belief system. Yes, I read the addresses you gave me and I saw people claiming to know better than the person whose orientation is in question, how they feel and what they desire.Not to labour the point, but people involved in cults will say almost anything at times. Exodus has been proved a fraud in the only study they ever allowed to be conducted on themselves; even the two founders of the group ended up falling in love and left the cult to speak against it and it's methods
   Anything that supports your beliefs about this you accept without question. Anything that refutes it, you reject.Insulting remarks, and quite untrue. Grant's understanding of the issue is based on an extensive reading of the literature - including that which holds to Scott's view of the World - and not any desire take a particular stand on homosexuality based on a wish to conform to the thoughts of a certain group. Grant undertook the study to simply better understand himself and 'gayness' as a whole.

   On the other hand, Scott has obviously decided he wants to be a 'good Christian' as he understands the term to mean. Along with this choice of religious lifestyle has come a need to accept - uncritically - the views of his fellow faith holders that pre-date any modern understanding of society let alone sexuality. If Scott does not (at least outwardly) conform to the norms of his chosen group he will be excluded from it - Grant did not face this type of pressure.

   Further, historical precedence would suggest that it is the faith-based systems of Scott that have difficulty accepting evidence against their beliefs rather that the Philosophy of Science approach that dominates Grant's way of understanding the World. Simply put, Faith requires nothing more than a belief of correctness whereas Science requires a theory to have a basis in physical evidence, that it to be open to testing by independent others and that it be possible to apply it practically to solve problems. (Note: Science does have an equivalent term to describe a faith-based belief and calls it a hypothesis. If the hypothesis holds against testing the ideas then form a Theory. Religion uses the word 'theory' much more loosely - as anyone who has dealt with fundamentalists on Creationism will be quick to appreciate!.

   I have a friend who worked in the entertainment industry. She had many gay friends. Two in particular intrigued me. She said, and I believe her, that these men told her repeatedly that they had absolutely no attraction to women at all. Every action bore witness to their testimony. Later in life, they had changed. They now were repulsed by men, and desired women. There is no bisexuality there, but only homosexuality and heterosexuality. A curious - but unsupported tale - that if true would break scientific ground and go contrary to all the previous evidence. We can only urge Scott to convince these two individuals to come forward for a full scientific investigation. If in fact these people really exist, we have no doubt it would come down - once again - to bisexuality and a need to conform to peer groups by saying the appropriate things. Scott may be interested to know that there are also strong social pressures within the gay community to deny feelings of bisexuality
   God can, and has, changed the sexual orientation of people. Sometimes He doesn't. Even so, God calls us to resist those desires, and to not engage in homosexual behavior. Scott's unprovable beliefs, and not universal ones among Christians
   Hoping in your heart that you are correct in thinking that homosexuality is a universally irreversible condition does not make it fact. leaving aside the echoing of Grants words, this is not a heart felt hope but a head determined conclusion - regardless of Grant's opinions on his own ability to change into a heterosexual (that is, he does not think it possible) he was initially expecting to read evidence that perhaps a long-term change in sexual behaviour was possible for a proportion of exclusively homosexual men and women. He never found this evidence, and indeed found the research utterly against the notion of long-term behavioural change let alone changes of underlying sexual orientation
   Here is another site that has the testimony of two one non heterosexuals who are now happily married. Look at it if you wish. Believe what you will, but these people are now living happy heterosexual lives: http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/paulks.html Grant already had. Despite the different web address, John Paulk is part of Exodus (and indeed is already on the other site) and therefore provides no additional information to support Exodus. This duplication of the same tired and incorrect information is a hallmark of the Religious Right. Scott may also like to read what Paulk himself has said about his "change" and his continuing homosexual desires and the opinion of a few other leading researchers whose earlier exploratory work is often misquoted by the Religious Right but who's present opinions are carefully avoided

5. Thank you for the site addresses. I especially enjoyed the abucus.oxy.edu/qrd site.one can only be amazed that someone who purports to be an expert on homosexuality has not already found the Queer Resource Directory, clearly Scott's looking at the issue has been very shallow and restricted to certain viewpoints. Note: The QRD is a dumping ground of 20,000 articles written about gay/bisexual issues -it therefore contains not only proper academic work but also some extremist (and frankly loopy) opinions. It is these latter that Scott appears to be willing to believe is typical of the views all gay men and women Here are some interesting postings:all of which Grant had read previously

   http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/fundies.press.release.on.church.riot
   Should this happen?No, and neither should have the years of extremely anti-gay behaviour by the guest speaker, Lou Sheldon of Traditional Family Values (sic). If Scott cared to read the link carefully he might have noticed that someone within the church had obviously contacted the gay community to alert them to Sheldon's upcoming (but supposedly secret) speech. This could be for two reasons i) a church member was opposed to Sheldon and his homophobia ii) someone connected with the church wanted a protest to occur. The TVC was really quick to capitalise on the relatively small "riot", and you can of course purchase a special video from them full of all sorts of lurid allegations about homosexuals based on footage from the day.

   In a wider sense, Sheldon has been actively involved in politics (promoting special anti-gay legislation that has gone well beyond "merely expressing an opinion") and in the persecution of gay individuals. In Sheldon's own words:

   "Gays and lesbians live perverted, twisted lives that feed upon the unsuspecting and the innocent, like our children." "They Want Your Children,"

   Does Scott believe this to be true? Isn't this type of inflammatory language worth organising a demonstration about?

   In one of his more infamous pronouncements Sheldon called for concentration camps to be established in the United States! Would Scott feel fully within his rights to protest if Sheldon had singled him out for special treatment? And how "peaceful" would Scott be to get his point across? If you want to know more about the very real activities of this extreme homophobe try this link, and this one, this one and this one. Or simply type his name into any web search engine and be prepared to be sickened by hate.

   http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/another.effort.at.
   explaining.the.bible.and.queers
   I was only able to skim this We are not surprised, and Grant had already read it, but you might find it interesting. (Especially the last couple paragraphs, which I agree with entirely.)

   Here is another site that I likeGrant had already found this site and unsurprisingly (again), it is anti-gay and fundamentalist Christian based. Scott is unlikely to find anything in this site to challenge his views from the likes of infamous homophobes such as Peter LaBarbera, Jeffrey B. Satinover, Judith Reisman, Anton N. Marco and Charles W Socarides (who's gay son thinks his father is a crackpot). As an interesting and telling aside, when you search the site for "homosexual" you get 19 returns supposedly about 'gay issues'; when you search using "heterosexual" you get 20 returns...about homosexuality! Any wonder Scott is confused utterly about sexuality if these are his sources for information.. Feel free to e-mail the people who maintain this with your questions as well: http://www.leaderu.com/
   and subsections...
   http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/index.html
   This is the Journal of Human Sexuality. There is a piece on the gay teen suicide myth that you would find interesting.Contained in the previous website; The Journal of Human Sexuality is not, as it name would suggests, an academic journal at all. It is a vanity publication produced by various fundamentalist Christian groups (with a strong linkage to NARTH) and is not subject to peer review. As such it is mere propaganda. Contributors are drawn from a tiny number of thoroughly discredited 'professionals' and assorted other anti-gay 'experts' drawn from Christian politics. Interestingly for Scott, one of the contributors (George Reckers) actually states a "stable homosexual identity" precluded change to sexual orientation! So, Reckers thinks Grant or Dale cannot be heterosexual. Note: Reckers is one of the few professionals still clinging to the notion that gender confusion is the cause of homosexuality - possibly because his work done many years ago was clinically based and conducted on psychiatric patients and not on the gay community as a whole. His true, and unprofessional, views about homosexuality can be found in a ridiculous and offensive tract he authored that claims to be able to enable parents to prevent their children becoming gay. Reckers is quick to blame homosexuality (rather than homophobia) for the murder of a gay man and to claim homosexuals have a "plan" to abuse children among other things
   http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc-toc.html
   This is about homosexuality and public policy, but it refers to American laws... still you may wish to respond. Also from the first website, this is the work of Anton N. Marco who authored the anti-gay Ammendment 2 in Colorado that was eventually struck down by the highest US Court for illegally singling out a particular group of citizens for "special treatment". Among other things this work makes the utterly false claims that gays prey on children, that the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany is just a "gay militant myth" (indeed in another article, "Gay Marriage", he claims the Nazi Party was run by homosexuals) and that the military would collapse if openly gay personnel served. Marco continually distorts and falsifies figures throughout the work - such as the work of Kinsey and figures on income levels (which Scott apparently believes) - and the piece is matched in it's length only by it's hatefulness
   

   Know this- God does love you, and he does want to see you come to him, through his son Jesus. This door will not be closed. You can accept Jesus at any time. Sometime in the future you may think that it is too late for you, but that is not true. I will pray for you, and that God will bring a Christian into your life who will show you the love of Christ.

   Recently, my campus hosted the 6th annual Southeastern Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual College Conference. Instead of showing hate by protesting, my fellow Christian students, from all denominations, prayed, not against homosexuals, or that the roof would fall in on them or something, but that God would use us to make difference in society, and that God would bring Christians into their lives that would minister to them. On Saturday morning the BSU (Baptist Student Union) hosted a free breakfast. Did we preach at the 95 gay activists who came? NO! Do we support them? NO! Do we love them? YES! They came, we served them, they read a place mat that told them where we stood, and why we were feeding them.and this is "not preaching"? Nevertheless, Grant and Dale would have turned up for a "free" breakfast too! While we do not accept homosexual behavior as moral and good, we also want to show love as Jesus would, and wanted to show them that not all Christians think that preaching hate is the best way to show God's love. Grant has not said Scott is preaching hate, but Scott is anti-gay and his preaching will increase hate

   I do not pretend to have all the answers, though I have given this issue much thought, and share my opinion freely. I try to live as Christ would have me, and fail, but keep trying.

   I was sorry to see that your spiritual life has no impact on how you live (or at least you do not let it impact how you treat people). Grant did not say this. He said that he tries not to allow his being unable to know whether particular religious beliefs are true influence how he treats people My spiritual life affects every aspect of my existence. I believe the moral precepts revealed by God in the Bible are true. I believe that we should try to follow those without exception. (please note that moral precepts are not the same as the Mosaic LAW ) you will note this convenient let-out clause of continually being able to redefine what is "moral" and what is "Mosaic law" is normally included by fundamentalists - just in case they desire to overlook some some particular passage of the Bible If I truly believe this, and truly love others, how can I not encourage people to strive to follow those precepts as well?

   You said- "I start with the idea that if I allow people to find meaning in their own life and stay true to my own values I will not be too far wrong." I find it interesting, and a bit contradictory, that you would write to me about my values, when the expression of said values in writing is one way I find meaning in life. Yet you criticize my values? Because they conflict with yours.At no time did Grant criticise Scott's values - they are his own. What Grant did criticise is Scott's behaviour. Scott is actively working to promote anti-gay attitudes and it is his behaviour, and it's consequences, that Grant criticised. This is a common ploy by the Religious Right - claiming people are attacking their religion when in fact they are being attacked because of their treatment of others

   It seems you know about moral relativism as well. The belief that everyone is OK in their beliefs, and that your beliefs are as morally right as someone whose beliefs conflict with your (such as mine) is the essence of moral relativism.no, it is not. Moral relativism does not say you must believe one set of morals is the equal to any another. Moral relativism simply holds that you as a human and not a God (or something) cannot know which moral viewpoint is ultimately correct People deal with guilt one of two ways. They atone for it and ask forgiveness, or they try to avoid blame. Moral relativism is the ultimate blame-avoider. How can you be subject to guilt when you have done nothing wrong according to your morals? You cannot be at fault.And yet, Scott has no difficulty in refusing to accept he is anything but absolutely correct based on his unprovable faith, despite the documented consequences of his type of behaviour on others. A true moral relativist would feel guilt if they behaved in an oppressive way to another person. I suspect Scott is looking for the word amoral (without morals) rather than moral relativism - they are not the same thing. One could argue Scott's version of religion is a good ultimate blame avoider too - the point of Grant's original email was to see if Scott would accept his role in creating anti-gay attitudes, and Scott will not do that because he believes he is the moral person and that gay people are immoral and therefore undeserving. Nice cop out.
   The problem comes when someone like me interferes with your moral existence, by "imposing" my beliefs on you. it is not our moral existence we are worried about, but our physical At once you say that I am wrong. But in moral relativism, no one is wrong, not even me. So, we cannot punish criminals, because they were acting according to their personal moral code, we cannot punish gays, or gay bashers. They are all right. There is no right or wrong, there just is. Of course, we cannot condemn Hitler either. He was merely acting according to his own moral code. In fact, the logical conclusion to Moral Relativism is "Might makes Right." If Hitler had won W.W.II we would have a different view of what right and wrong is according to the general consensus of the populace. this continues to show complete ignorance of what moral relativism is. Admitting you cannot know which set of morals is ultimately correct does not imply that you have no personal morals or that you cannot condemn someone for acting in a way that physically harms another person. To physically hurt another (or to be party to such harm) is to impose yourself on another and implies that you are actually not a moral relativist. Rather, that you believe your morals are so correct that you have the right to treat others according to however your morals see fit. To be a true moral relativist one must start with the position that each person has the right to their own moral code - and for this to occur you cannot impose yourself physically on another. In this regard, Scott stands in fine company with his referenced criminals, gay bashers and Hitler; basing his harmful behaviour towards others on his morals
   Actually, deep down, no one is really a Moral Relativist doesn't this contradict what Scott just spent his time trying to establish?, they only say they are so that they can escape condemnation for wrongdoing. We all do wrong stuff. We all hate to be caught doing it. Deep down, we hold tight to certain morals, and will fight for them. We believe they are real, and universal. But, if we say that, then we are subject to them, and we are all hypocrites. So, it is much easier to say that we define our own morals, and that definition may change as we change, thereby we try to escape our own guilt for actions we consider wrong.again, betraying ignorance of the concept of moral relativism. Learnt from the pulpit and not as part of a study of philosophy?

6. First, please understand the use of analogy. unfortunately for Scott, we do. Likewise we also understand that if the only analogy Scott keeps wheeling out to condemn homosexuality is one of paedophilia we must draw the conclusion that subconsciously he does indeed equate the two, whether he is willing to admit it or not
   As I said before, I was not equating homosexuality with pedophelia. I was pointing out that having a desire does not in and of itself excuse any behavior, and chose behavior that we can both agree people have desires for and that are inexcusable as examples. then try another example. How about murder? Or overeating? Or excessive vanity? Or religious fundamentalism? The example, by itself, is not the problem. The problem is Scott's constant use of only one example which suggests a linkage in his own mind of the two Fulfillment of all desires is not always healthy. Many people desire things that are easily seen as unhealthy, and there is no question in society about accepting those things as good, even though they are merely fulfilling their desires. (Alcoholics desire to drink, drug abusers desire drugs, kleptomaniacs desire to own that which is not theirs, etc. see, he can do it if pushed - there is hope! I am not equating homosexuality with these, but pointing out that all desires are not good, we have to measure them morally, and we do.) this measuring we need not do. Moral relativism would suggest that since you cannot know which moral view is the correct one, you must instead determine correct behaviour based on how it effects both yourself and others instead. Alcoholism is definitely linked to health and social problems. The behaviour of alcoholics harms others, I can say help should be available. Likewise drugs (although most of the problems appear due to the current way of enforcing the laws, rather than the drugs themselves which suggests other ways in which the drugs issue should be tackled). Clearly stealing another's property is an imposition on the victim and therefore behaviourally beyond the Pale
   The need for affection I was talking about, which sparked this thread of discussion was not the sex drive. I explicitly said it was not the sex drive in the original literature piece. Do not take my original thoughts out of context, please. I was talking about the need for affection in general, not the need for sexual fulfillment.

   Even if we did talk about sexual fulfillment, again, having a desire does not excuse it. Some sexual behavior is not good (We have already established that pedopheilia is something we both agree is not good). Scott may be interested to learn that paedophilia, despite being enacted by sexual acts, is not regarded merely as sexual behaviour. We also suspect Scott and Grant are in agreement for two entirely different reasons, perhaps showing that allowing each to their own morals is not incompatible with desirable personal and social outcomes Sexual relationships between the same gender is not good. Pre-marital sex is not good. Finding sexual fulfillment is not something we should do at the expense of the rest of our being, or at the expense of another person. Which begs the question, how does the love between Grant and Dale come at each other's expense? We are not together for just sexual fulfilment. Scott would perhaps argue - against the evidence - that it prevents us becoming the heterosexuals we really are. We don't think so. We have both tried to make heterosexuality work for us (boy did we try!), and it just doesn't. It took many years for each of us to accept what we are. Nothing alters the fact that we were fortunate enough to meet and realise love and fulfilment with each other

   As far as how society benefits from hindering harmful relationships? Well, if you knew a person was engaged in an activity that was harmful to them or society, would you not discourage it? (Of course, you do not (sic) believe that homosexual behavior is bad, so you encourage the acceptance of it as good.) again, this comes back to your way of "knowing". Is it testable? Do the numbers stack up? Does it have a "real" component? If the answers are all yes then Grant will talk to you about harmfulness and discouragement

7. Exactly, people do not hurt homosexuals because the think they like it, but because they hate them, and have somehow justified this behavior to themselves. The articles I have written, and words I have spoken have always included the call to love everyone, no matter what. If you love someone you will not hit them. Scott will allow me to reproduce this statement should he ever have children? And he will follow it? If you love someone you do not contribute to a harmful environment for them either
   As far as pornography, when men see women put into situations where they are physically abused, raped, and so forth, and the women are portrayed as liking those actions, the men who repeatedly see this will acquire an outlook toward women that is flawed. It leads them to believe that it is OK to beat, rape, or treat women as objects because they think the women secretly like it. this is not how the process apparently works. Pornography (and we are talking pornography here, not sexually explicit material) has been shown to objectify women - restricting ourselves here as the effect on men is different. It need not be violent pornography, or show women as enjoying rape, to do this. For some unstable members of the community this process of objectification leads eventually to dehumanisation of women and to rape and violence if the perpetrator thinks they can get away with it. Scott's publically expressed views are dehumanising of gay men and women - whether he cares to admit this or not - and help push certain unstable individuals over the edge and into committing violence against gays. This is Grant's point regardless of Scott's obfuscation - deliberate or otherwise - and Scott's denials should be read in this light.
   In order to draw any connection between my articles and gay violence, and pornography and violence against women, you would first have to show that pornography says that being a heterosexual women, engaging in heterosexual acts, is wrong, and should be discouraged( as my articles say about homosexuals and homosexual behavior). Then you would have to show that discouragement has a result of violence in the populace. Once that was shown, you would have a stronger analogy of the relationships between this and gay violence in relation to my articles. However, showing that connection between discouragement of behavior and encouragement of violence would be difficult. Saying you shouldn't do something is not the same as saying you should hit someone who does it. Scott is again playing with words. He is also obviously unfamiliar with the concept of incitement. Scott puts across the idea that gay men and women are bad people, and them refuses to accept that some others would use such views to justify violence. Scott is also overlooking the fact that you need not physically strike someone in order to cause them physical harm - sacking someone from a job, expelling them from their home or abusing them to the point where they take their own life is harmful too. Scott's - and others - promulgation of anti-gay attitudes leads to such things and he should accept his role in the process Of course, several times I have called for people to be TOLERANT, not accepting, of homosexual behavior, and pointed out that violence against gays, protests of gay events have actually furthered the homosexual agenda by giving them seemingly convincing evidence of widespread discrimination and need for protection.one would imagine the FBI data on hate crimes would be enough to convince Scott that gay men and women face daily discrimination and the very real threat of violence. Gay bashing and discrimination is not a myth as Scott would have us believe. And we are constantly amazed by the obsessive reference to some mythical "gay agenda" by the Religious Right. No such thing exists, to the best of our knowledge as long-standing and openly self-confessed active homosexuals. If we are mistaken and an agenda does in fact exist, please send Dale or Grant a copy because our's must have got lost in the mail.

   Further, if Scott truly did what he said he did (be tolerant if not accepting) he would need to not be arguing against the ending of the unequal treatment of gay men and women - that is, the ending of State sponsored denial of equality in such matters as access of same-sex couples to marriage, to taxation treatment, to military service, to comprehensive sexuality education - and the like. Arguing to retain the present unequal treatment of gay men and women is not tolerance, but active involvement in bigotry

   Now, we know that pornography NEVER shows heterosexual women having sex as wrong. In fact, it is quite the opposite, sex with heterosexual women is never shown to be bad, or discouraged, it is encouraged and portrayed as something that should be sought at all times, in all situations. Surprise Scott! Gay porn is the same On the other hand, sometimes women are shown to enjoy being raped, beaten, and otherwise mistreated. It is THAT depiction of women as objects merely for the pleasure of men that is harmful, and may relate to violence against women. the clue to your understanding is contained in the words "otherwise mistreated". Constantly portraying women as objects of gratification to be "had" as often and whenever you feel like it (even if you wait for the "yes" word) results in sexual obsession. For some unstable individuals, this is enough to lead them down the path of rape and violence.

   No, it is not I engaging in word games in order to sidestep the issue, it is you who are playing games in order to create a false point, one which does not stand up to close scrutiny. Criticism of immoral behavior is in no way like portraying women as people who like to be raped and abused.as already stated, when moralising based on individual faith systems leads to harm to others it is

As far as homosexuality being a sin, you and I can be certain of God's view on sexual behavior. It is clearly outlined in the Bible for all to see.most presumptive of Scott, we cannot be certain that the Christian Bible is anything other than what it is - a collection of both fact and fiction (or allegory, call it what you will) written by many people a long time ago that has been extensively modified through the years to suit the politics of the day. Not only that but it is riddled with inconsistencies and errors (for whatever reasons) And, as I have said before, if you or I know a person is engaging in any behavior that is wrong, we will be compelled to tell that person our view, and encourage them to cease and desist said behavior.the difference is that Scott feels justified in condemning on the grounds of both an unprovable faith system and physically harmful behaviour. Grant attempts to restrict himself to the Worldly when dealing with others - and normally has little to say if it's just the adult individual hurt by their own chosen actions other than "What an idiot".

Scott Link
AKA- disciple