NOM cultural director: “The church doesn’t believe in gay and lesbian people”, just… gay and lesbian people

Carlos Maza recently went undercover at the National Organization for Marriage’s student “leadership” conference, and uncovered a treasure trove of religious hate and pseudoscientific ignorance. In addition to claims that gay relationships are “inherently unstable”, repeated citations of the debunked Regnerus study, and blanket dismissal of LGBT websites because they have gay hook-up and pet grooming ads, Maza heard this bizarre idea from NOM’s cultural director, Thomas Peters:

When it comes to “gay” and “lesbian,” my personal view, and I think Dr. Morse has a more optimistic and stronger view than I do on this one in terms of the adjective question, I largely tend to think that if the adjective question, if the descriptor question becomes a distraction from the point you’re trying to make, it’s hard to fight that one. And so, as a Catholic, the church doesn’t believe in gay and lesbian people, per se, in the way they do. “Born that way,” all this kind of stuff. What they believe is there are people born with deep-seated same-sex attraction. So as a Catholic a term which I use is SSA, same-sex attraction, and if you look at, it’s also with people who have moven [sic] out of the gay lifestyle into saying “I was a person and am a person with same-sex attraction.”

You see, it’s not that people are born attracted to the same sex. It’s just that they’re born with attractions to the same sex. Nobody is actually born being attracted to the same sex, except when they are. They’re not “born that way”, but they are born that way. Huge difference. Thanks for the explanation, NOM!

 

{advertisement}
NOM cultural director: “The church doesn’t believe in gay and lesbian people”, just… gay and lesbian people
{advertisement}

18 thoughts on “NOM cultural director: “The church doesn’t believe in gay and lesbian people”, just… gay and lesbian people

    1. 2.1

      Why, they think they mean just what they think they mean, they think.

      Darn this language stuff and words having meanings! How can anyone ever get a point across?

      *paging Mr. Dumpty, Mr. Humpty Dumpty*

  1. 5

    A lot of homophobes, especially of the ex-gay variety, try very hard to make being gay seem more like a mental disorder than part of your identity;hence they use “same-sex attraction” instead of “gay.”
    I think this guy was trying to say it wasn’t an inborn identity, but a disorder that you’re born with, that can be cured.

  2. 7

    actually, i think the point is that same-sex attraction is legit, but homosexuality isn’t. so non-monosexual queers ftw!

    seriously, though, all queer folk just fall down dead when you say we aren’t real. fairies, you know.

    1. 7.1

      *frantic hand clapping* Gay people CAN’T Dissapear! (how will I entertain myself when family members try to ask me if I found a nice “…eeeehhherrrrummmm” yet at holiday gatherings if they know I’d have dissapeared if I were gay?)

  3. 8

    One of my favourite parts? If you check the Ruth Institute’s website, their logo is an even better version of Community’s Greendale “E pluribus anus” logo.

    1. BK
      8.1

      I think that “The Ruth Institute” is a funny name for their organization, given the myriad lesbian interpretations of the book of Ruth.

  4. Art
    10

    Words of wisdom from movies:
    “You can’t blame a man for which way his dick points”.

    I’m always amused by people who assert that orientation is a “choice”. I try to ask them a question something along the lines of: “So … what you are saying here is that at some time early in your life you seriously could have gone either way?”

    I’ve never had anyone claiming that orientation is a choice, not even one person, claim that they could have gone either way. Most get offended and essentially claim that the choice in this choice never existed. One claimed he was “predestined to be righteous”, straight, but that because it is a central point in his dogma that nobody is created gay there has to have been a choice. Even when there rally wasn’t one in his, obviously exceptional, case.

    Another case where religion, definer of Truth independent of evidence, forces believers to perform a lateral arabesque to make their experience line up with dogma.

    It reminds me of a kid spinning lies to avoid the consequence of carelessly breaking a lamp while playing.

    Hint to children: a really outrageous lie delivered with verve and flare, preferably something involving pirates and aliens, is more likely to have the adult too engaged in gales of laughter to punish you.

    I always thought Christianity would go over better if it had more pirates and aliens.

  5. 11

    The Bible prohibits certain sex acts, but doesn’t have anything to say about what might motivate people.

    That’s true of Biblical law generally, not just the sexual prohibitions.

    God says so. That’s it. No need for elaborate psychological justifications.

    However those believers who wish to affect public policy cannot just leave it at that. So they plunge into absurdities like this one.

  6. ema
    12

    Anyone else find the …dismissal of LGBT websites because they have gay hook-up and pet grooming ads… odd?

    I mean, it goes without saying that teh gay hook-up is icky but what’s with the hate on pet hygiene?

  7. 13

    I think this guy was trying to say it wasn’t an inborn identity, but a disorder that you’re born with, that can be cured.

    I see what you mean.
    I just wish people like that understood that even *if* homosexuality were a disorder:
    There’s nothing *wrong* with having a disorder.

  8. 15

    I DO believe in LGBTQ people! I DO believe in LGBTQ people!
    There’s always the good old “ask the straight person when they decided they were straight” gambit. That shuts down stupid questions (sometimes).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *