17 responses

  1. tim
    March 9, 2011

    Meh. Nothing limits a user from access said websites from Safari. Are we going to insist Safari also be banned? And removing the app will only add fuel to the silly notion that “Christians” are being “oppressed”.

    Its best to just ignore it.

  2. Emcee, cubed
    March 9, 2011

    @tim: That’s a pretty big strawman you’re creating there. I don’t see anything in the article, or even any of the links, calling for the app to be removed from iTunes.

  3. Daniel Gonzales
    March 9, 2011

    ” ‘Exgaysurvivordan’ (whoever that is) writes”

    HA!

  4. djcchicago
    March 9, 2011

    Does it never cross the minds of ex-gays that it is terribly selfish to marry a woman when your sex drive is primarily towards men? Someone needs to shake young “Christian” by the shoulders and tell him that he could ruin a woman’s life if he brings her into his “struggles.” Go out with a guy, Christian, you want to and you won’t be pulling a woman into a situation she can’t be happy in.

  5. Iamposterity
    March 9, 2011

    I watched the first five minutes of this and recorded it. I had to change the channel, I am at a loss for words.

    To thine(sp?) own self be true…..

  6. pepa
    March 10, 2011

    Jim,

    “It’s typical to portray gay people as drug-fueled sex addicts”

    But yet on another post you praise Dan Savage’s advice:

    “As an example (and the most talked about one), he has endorsed non-monogamous relatinships for those who want it (autonomy), whose partner is okay with it (reciprocity), and after full communication of ground rules, concerns, worries, fears, and anything else that comes to mind (full disclusure).

    It seems that as usual you want to speak with both sides of your mouth.

    • Jim Burroway
      March 10, 2011

      Pepe,

      In what world are drug-fuelled sex addicts concerned about scrupulously observing the principles of autonomy, reciprocity and full disclosure?

  7. pepa
    March 10, 2011

    In what world are drug-fuelled sex addicts concerned about scrupulously observing the principles of autonomy, reciprocity and full disclosure?

    I don’t know why you would think that a promiscuous person would actually be observing all of those “principles.”

    Quite frankly they are not principles but excuses to engage in promiscuous behavior while pretending to be in a relationship. In other words you want to have your cake and eat it too. This type of behavior is destructive and most of the gay people that I know who have tried open relationships end up having it blown up on their face.

    And quite frankly I don’t know why would anybody follow advice from a person who is not honest about the consequences of promiscuity (whether permitted by a partner or not).

    I don’t want to drag this more than it should, because then you will get angry with me then censor me again as usual. That’s what tyrants do when they disagree with people.

    • Jim Burroway
      March 10, 2011

      Why do you assume that a negotiated, fully disclosed non-monogamous agreement is equivalent to promsicuity?

  8. Jim Cowhey
    March 10, 2011

    No one has to have sexual expression. If people decide that a certain way of life is wrong and choose, with help, to avoid it, this is indeed possible. Continuing to have the inclinations makes that more difficult, obviously, but it doesn’t nullify the value of the effort nor does it prove that it can’t be achieved.

  9. Priya Lynn
    March 11, 2011

    Jim Cowhey, there’s no value in suppressing a harmless core aspect of one’s being. That’s destructive and should never be attempted.

  10. Ben in Atlanta
    March 11, 2011
  11. Timothy Kincaid
    March 11, 2011

    Jim,

    You are correct that each person is entitled to their own path. If, for example, someone decides that God wants them live celibately and dedicate their lives to caring for the sick, then they can do so. I’m sure that has value for them and I can respect that effort and as centuries of monks and nuns have revealed, it is certainly possible to achieve that goal.

    I only object when they decide that I must do the same or suffer civil inequality.

    And – currently, at least – Exodus appears to be backing away from the “and you should too” position a bit and has for the most part lived up to their new dedication to stay out of politics.

    (the loons at PFOX are another story, of course)

  12. Priya Lynn
    March 11, 2011

    Timothy said “You are correct that each person is entitled to their own path. If, for example, someone decides that God wants them…”.

    The problem with that Timothy is that this is NOT their own path. They’ve been coerced into going down this path by a society that tells them they are unacceptable as gays and that they will be eternally tortured for entering into a harmless beneficial and loving same sex relationship. If it were not for others telling gays how to live and feel to be acceptable it is highly unlikely any of them would of their own volition choose to suppress their same sex attractions. It is always a travesty of justice when people “choose” (because of hate) to suppress their same sex attractions. It is never acceptable that gay people are brainwashed into feeling this is a good idea.

  13. Timothy Kincaid
    March 11, 2011

    Priya,

    Interestingly, you and Exodus have one overriding attribute in common. You both are quite certain that you know what other people should believe.

    I’ll leave it up to individuals to decide for themselves whether their path is the one laid out by society or by Priya Lynn.

  14. Jim Cowhey
    March 11, 2011

    Priya,

    What I said was that it was possible to suppress it. It’s a separate question as to whether it is desirable. Some people think it just isn’t possible, and they are mistaken. There are plenty of people who suppress same-sex attractions and opposite-sex attractions too. They are helped in some cases by being accountable to others as they attempt this, but it can be done and is often done.

  15. Timothy Kincaid
    March 11, 2011

    Jim Cowhey,

    I approved your comment as it is part of polite discourse on the subject. But if you behave as you did while using the various names of Dan Farrell, box frog, and krakatoa, no one will see your comments.

    Just a little encouragement to keep it civil and within the Comments Policy.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop