But there are some people who are suddenly skeptical when anyone claims to be ex-gay. They don't believe the ex-gay claim, they don't believe the ex-gay testimony nor their declaration that they are ex-gay.
When somebody uses a certain standard to measure the credibility of what one group says, but then refuses to use the same standard to measure the credibility of what another group says—thereby ignoring the claims of the second group (ex-gays)--he should ask himself why he believes one group and not the other... This is a double standard.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Great article, thank you for finding and posting it!
If the butt-lickers want to marry a woman, like a normal person, they have the same right as everyone else.
Be gay all you want but for the love of God stop getting in me and my kids face about it. Tolerance does not require my full endorsement along with a cheque in the form of tax breaks to boot.
Would you let your daugher marry an ex-gay?
“When Michael Glatze ran YGA (Young Gay American) Magazine and claimed to be gay, the subscribers to his magazine and others believed him, as they took Glatze at his word. ...But there are some people who are suddenly skeptical when anyone claims to be ex-gay. They don’t believe the ex-gay claim... This is a double standard.”
Yes, it is a double standard. I’m not saying there should be a double standard, but I can explain why there is. I think it is because there is an assumption that the pressure against being gay is so overwhelming in society, that no one would lie about this and falsely claim that he is gay. Conversely, in view of this same societal pressure, the assumption is that a lot of people who are gay will lie and say that they are not. When you turn these societal rules around, you can get comedy out of it, like the straight clothing designer in the show Ugly Betty, who acted like he was flaming to establish credibility in his profession.
Bttt
With due deference to The SCOTUS, there can be no right to marry. I have no “right” to marry unless I also have authority to force some other human being into a union that they object to.
Now, if there’s some guy so weak in so many ways that it’s TRULY said, “No one will marry him.” does he have a “right” to marry?
One can only respond, “IF (read if)....he can find someone....yada, yada, yada.”
By using the word “if”, we have just made it conditional on what someone ELSE does. I suspect many have gone through life desiring to be married but unable to find a willing partner.
Anyone think the government should assign them, so these poor souls get to exercise their “right”?