Friday, December 30, 2005

Gay Lie Detector

This may be what a lot of ex-gay critics have been waiting for. Tim Wilkins of Cross Ministry has answered a challenge from Jeremy at Good As You to go on the 700 Club and take a lie detector test to answer one question: "Are you gay."

This will probably never happen, so don't get your hopes up. I also think a question addressing attractions might be more telling than asking if he is gay (i.e. identifies as gay--he could tell the truth and pass that one). Either way, Kudos to Jeremy and Tim for their parts in the challenge.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Brokeback Review

Sorry, another quick post about Brokeback Mountain. I found this article over at Randy's Blog. It's a review of the movie that alleges just how much of a propaganda film the movie really is. I asked Randy if a movie can just depict a gay person (meaning as a lead role) without being called gay propoganda. He said sure, but I'm not so sure right-wingers would lay off any mass market movie with a gay lead. Can anyone name one (please name something that had wide popularity)?

Anyway, read the article. The reviewer goes from talking about the movie into the abyss of hysterics so familiar to me and anyone else that follows the anti-gay crowd. It's the slippery slope theory all over again--next will be a movie about the "pure love" of pedophiles, family members, drug addicts, basically all of the absurd regurgitated buzz words you have heard before. Glad to know my committed relationship to my boyfriend of 7 years is held in such high regard to them.

Look, it's a movie about a gay relationship. It has nothing to do with pedophelia, incest, drug abuse, etc., and they have nothing to do with this movie. In fact, those movies are far more numerous, and far less criticized than the gay movies. So, maybe just this once we can try to stay on topic.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Brokeback Continued

The NYT has an article out about Brokeback Mountain that backs up some of the ideas/complaints I was mentioning to Grace about how some people have treated the movie critically.

It is good to see that many of the Christian reviewers admitted the movie had artistic merit, but others, such as had things like this to say, "too long and at times twisted, laughable, frustrating, sadomasochistic, plotless and boring." And, while many of the Christian sites gave the movie a favorable technical review, most recommended that their readers not see it.

The NYT goes on to talk about saying that "the organization, which has been reviewing movies since 1985, rated the film "abhorrent," a designation it shares with "Syriana," "Rent and "Breakfast on Pluto.""

I'm sorry, but a "movie review" site calling movies "abhorrent" is just humorous to me. Abhorrent? Really?

I also found this link that compiles average reviews about movies. I found it interesting that about 71% of the reviewers gave Brokeback Mountain an A rating and 23% fave the movie an F rating. So, people either loved it or hated. I think you can see what I am getting at--they hated the message more than the movie and couldn't differentiate between the two.

Ok, that's all I have. The point is that the movie should not be panned on it's artistic merit just because of its gay theme. And, as Grace and I both mentioned, there is a lot more going on in this movie than just gay themes. The destruction of two families is one thing that really got to me, and that happens all the time in straight movies too. I wonder how some of these reviewers review those movies.

Monday, December 26, 2005

I'm Wireless! And, My Dad and Evolution

I finally have my laptop wireless again. Woo hoo!

I was at lunch with my brother today, and he brought up a conversation he and my dad had about evolution.

Apparently a show came on tv about the evolution of man, and my dad quickly responded that their was not a shred of proof backing up the theory of evolution. My brother, of course, responded that there was lots of proof backing up the theory, although the proof wasn't 100%. On a side note my brother mentioned that there are many recordings of forced evolution of other species, specifically saying that all dogs had been bred out of wolves. My dad responded that there wasn't any proof of that because there was no way a little maltese and a big lab both came from a common wolf ancestor. My brother informed him that this was part of recorded history, whether or not he believed it.

The problem is that my dad simply hasn't bothered to look at the facts behind the theory of evolution. He's been told that it is anti-Christian, and he accepts that at face value.

There are many Christians and even conservative-Christians that believe that evolution is not contrary to the Bible, God, or even Christianity. I'm one of them. And, there are others that don't think that its compatible.

But, too many people hear that something is un-Christian, and they refuse to look into it themselves. Education is not the enemy of Christianity. Good, Bad, or Indifferent, I encourage people to get to know things themselves before simply dismissing it off of the words or advice of another person out there.

Brokeback Mountain

So, I went to see Brokeback Mountain with my boyfriend and two of our friends on opening night here. The movie was (is still, I think) only playing at one theater in town, but by the time we got in line for our 7pm show, they had already sold out every showing for the rest of the night.

The crowd was what you might expect from people waiting to see a highly anticipated movie on opening night--big, loud, and excited, but different in that most of them were gay (I'd say over 95% if I had to guess).

Big crowds and big anticipation are normally good things for me, but it didn't really work so hot for this movie. The crowd really reminded me of a bunch of 3rd graders. They hooted and hollared at the first gay kiss scene, they screamed things at the screen, and no less than 10 people must have dropped their drinks during the movie. It got to the point that my boyfriend was considering leaving and coming back another time.

As for the movie, let me say that I typically do have a soft spot for gay-themed movies. I like connecting with characters that have gone through and are going through what I am, and let's face it--they don't come around all that often.

The movie was good. It was sad, emotional, fairly compelling. But, for some reason I didn't really feel it was all that great. It didn't live up to the hype for me. Maybe it was the crowd, but I had trouble being drawn in. And, as many others have noted, I spent a good deal of the time feeling sorry for both the gay guys (or were they bi?) and their wives/families. So, it was hard to want something to go one way, when I knew either way was going to hurt someone.

Ok, so that is my take on the movie. I think it is definitely worth seeing, but I'd shy away from calling it the best movie I've ever seen.

I may write more about the religious right backlash of the movie to try to put it into context for me, but not right now.

Merry Christmas

This is a day late, and for that I apologize. But, I had a great Christmas with family, and I hope everyone else did too. Merry Christmas everyone!

Wednesday, December 21, 2005


I'm on vacation (well, a little home town vacation) this week, so posting will be sporadic at best. But, I did see Brokeback Mountain, and I plan to post about it soon, so hold tight.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Gay Divorces

I'm not saying that gay people are better at keeping relationships than straight people. Then I'd be just as bad as the far right that constantly tell us how bad gay relationships are, how the "gay lifestyle" is full of promiscuity and depression.

But, in Vernmont, the Civil Union dissolution rate (divorce rate) is right about 1% currently. I'll keep that in mind next time someone quotes regurgitated Paul Cameron B.S. at me.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

This Made Me Smile Today

It looks like Ford went and did the right thing and made no bones about it (link via AmericaBlog).

Sometimes things do go the right way in politics.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Hate Crimes and Exodus

There's a new push in Washington to add to the Federal hate crimes bill and include gender, disability, and sexual orientation. As you can imagine, the anti-gay folks are pissed, to say the least.

Exodus has a new ad out that you can see over at Randy's blog. The headline of the ad is, "Hate Crime laws say we were MORE VALUABLE as homosexuals than we are now as former homosexuals." Randy also gives his take on the issue over there. I encourage you to read it.

I also encourage you to read Ex-Gay Watch's takes here and here (these are commentaries of the opinions of the HRC and Wayne Besen).

Randy and I had a brief discussion via email recently. I don't plan to talk in depth about what we spoke about, but one point he made to me was that I should be able to look through different views and see a person for being a person, not their political/cultural/social views. He told me he and Alan Chambers (of Exodus also) talked often about the depression, promiscuity, etc. of gay life because they knew that it was such a big part of "gay life." But, he said that I should be able to look beyond their beliefs and see them for their greater purpose--to lead people to God. And, he said that as someone that sees bad happening in gay life, he has to speak out about it, even if it offends people.

Given that conversation, I had a thought.

I want this post to be the place where I officially speak out about this Exodus ad. Randy- if you are reading this, I'm not writing this to be part of the NNFC (not nice fan club), but to openly address what I believe to be false and misleading.

The Exodus ad is false and misleading because it claims that straight people would not be covered while gay people would. It also claims that this law would make the lives of gay people "more valuable" than the lives of ex-gays.

My first point is the main one--that the proposed bill addresses "actual or perceived sexuality." So, if someone gets beat up because the criminal *thinks* the person is gay, he would be guilty of a hate crime, even if the victim is not actually gay (think ex-gays here ). Second, the bill does not address extra protections for gay people only. If someone is assaulted because of their orientation (either gay or straight), a hate crime would be considered. Covering gay people solely rather than all people is just an inference made by these right-wing groups, not the law itself.

Let me also add that hate crimes laws do not mean one life is more valuable than another (just as manslaugther vs. murder, or a life sentence vs. 35 years, does not mean one life was more valuable than another). Hate crimes laws address crimes where the intent is to terrorize a specific population of society. Therefore, this is not a crime against one individual, but against an entire group specifically because they are part of that group.

Either way you cut it--for or against this bill--the language in this Exodus ad is misleading.

I'm not saying this to be mean, inflammatory, or to start a fight--just to point out what I see. If ex-gays can generally refer to the "unhappiness, pain and promiscuity" of "gay life," (not some gay life, not some gays) and be defended because that is how they see it, then certainly I can point out a misleading ad that is not being true or upfront in its message.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Ford and the AFA

I'm sure you have all heard about Ford deciding to stop running gay ads and to stop supporting gay events with most of its brands as a result of a deal they made with the American (Anti)-Family Association (if you haven't, check out America Blog--it's all over the place there).

It's been a few days since that news broke, and I don't really want to blog about it.

America Blog does have a very good post exposing the very radical views of the AFA on gays, and asks why Ford would want to have anything to do with this type of hate.

Here's a couple of quotes:

3. Does Ford agree that homosexuality is the result of the fall of the
human race? "homosexuality is the result of the moral fall of the human
race." -, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths.

4. Does Ford agree that gays eat feces, have sex with animals?
Among homosexual lifestyle and sexual practices are included: "sex with boys... eating and/or rubbing themselves with the feces of their partners... urinating on or in their partners... sadomasochism... bondage... sex with animals."-, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths.

Hopefully Ford will come to their senses. Stopping advertisements in gay publications is one thing, but caving under pressure from these guys is way over the top.

Friday, December 02, 2005

New Ex-Ex-Gay Blog

There's a new ex-ex-gay blog on the block. This one is from a lesbian, so it should be interesting to see the point of view from a woman that has been down that road.

Go say hello to Christine, and say hi for me.

Gay Marriage in Africa

It looks like same sex marriage will be legal in South Africa within the next year. This was basically a unanimous decision by the South African Supreme Court (the decision was 10-1, but the one dissenting vote wanted the marriage laws to be updated immediately).

How cool is that?

South Africa is one of the few countries in the world that has GLBT anti-discrimination laws written into their constitution, so it is good to see them take this step as well.

More from BOR (what this has to do with Texas, I have no clue).

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Ex-Gays Can Be Priests

PFOX is applauding the recent decision by the Vatican to limit gay (or same-sex attracted) people in the priesthood. Specifically they are happy that the Vatican has said that seminarians are eligible if they are free from homosexual tendencies for at least three years.

Their press release says that ex-gays or "former homosexuals" can become Priests.

I guess that depends on what your definition of ex-gay is. Chaste, same-sex attracted men with "deep seated" homosexual tendencies will not be allowed to enter the Priesthood. This would leave the possible eligibility for people like David Morrison in question since he admits to still having same-sex attractions. It would also cause problems for many ex-gays that admit that struggling with SSA is a lifelong struggle.

I'm really not sure why PFOX is so excited about this. This part of the directive isn't talking about behavior, purely about attractions. From what I can tell a huge number of ex-gays (if not most) have now been explicitly banned from joining the Priesthood, even if they are celibate and chaste. Doesn't sound like much of a victory, especially since these chaste ex-gays have done everything they have been asked to do and still are being blocked from joining.