On August 8th, I reported on a website owned by Brian Wyant of Omaha, NE/Council Bluffs, IA that contained disturbing messages justifying violent retribution toward bullies. There has been much discussion here and elsewhere whether or not these sites have been hacked to include these messages. As of this writing, the original offensive statement has been changed to the following:
VIOLENCE IS A STARK REALITY FOR CHILDREN GLOBALLY. TORMENTORS REMAIN PATHETICALLY SILENT OR HARASS THE GRIEVING FAMILY WHEN BULLIED CHILDREN COMMIT SUICIDE BUT DISINGENUOUSLY BECOME VOCAL WHEN REMINDED OF THE FACT THAT THESE DAYS BULLIED STUDENTS MAY CHOOSE RETALIATION RATHER THAN KILLING THEMSELVES; EVIL TORMENTORS THINK THEIR VERSION OF RELIGION GIVES THEM SPECIAL RIGHT TO TORMENT GAY CHILDREN UNCHECKED; EVERY 2 MINUTES IN THE USA ANOTHER GLBT AMERICAN DIES FROM HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Since August 8th, the messages on this page have changed several times. The above message may be a response to the scrutiny this family of sites has been getting. Numerous efforts have been made by me and others to contact Brian Wyant. He has yet to return a call or answer an email. Several people around Mr. Wyant have told me that they have talked to him about the messages on the websites. According to representatives of PFLAG of Omaha and the Rainbow Outreach (GLBT Community Center in Omaha), Mr. Wyant is aware of the messages and the content of his sites, but he has yet to contact me or other bloggers who are trying to reach him. One person associated with PFLAG of Omaha told me that he thought it was a series of “dirty tricks” by a hacker that is responsible for the disturbing messages. This representative who prefers to remain anonymous told me that Mr. Wyant told him that he checks his site “every 30 minutes” to remove the offensive material.
Indeed the site says repeatedly that it is updated daily, and just in the days I have been checking it, it is updated frequently and yet some disturbing material remains. And some of that material is very similar to the material that has been taken down. One particular disturbing popup page advocating violence and anarchy was removed on August 10. On that day a message appeared at the top of the page saying “hacks are being fixed on this site.”
The message about hacks being removed is now down. Even so, some disturbing messages remain. This one advocates vague punishments toward opponents and is found on the main section of gayhumanrights.org.
Equal protection/equal justice under law is the defining foundation of a democracy. The Rule of Law is irrelevent in regions that violate this irreplacable principle of democracy and human rights. If you live or enter one of these areas, be prepared to do whatever it takes to punish human rights violators. Also visit the top human rights violators and their bloodlines to ensure they never know a moment of security for their crimes against our people, our children, our family members, our friends, and our allies.
and this one in reference to states without recognition for same-sex unions:
This region has forfeit credibility, having succumb to majoritarianism rather than maintaining the basic requirements of a sustainable democracy. Equal Protection under Law, the foundation of democracy and human rights, does not exist in these jurisdiction. There is no reason to uphold any law within this jurisdiction or to preserve the bloodlines of oppressors. Top human rights violators and their bloodlines should be visited and held personally accountable for killing gay family members. It is worth noting that speciously named concept “separate-but-equal” has never been Equal Protection.
Note the use of the term “majoritarianism.” While in itself this is a reference to political views that do not of necessity promote retribution or violence, it is idiosyncratic enough to make me wonder if the author of these statements on the main website may also have authored the extremist material on the now removed popup page. I also found this term one other place that is troubling. On the website for the Rainbow Outreach the same term is applied to Nebraska.
The State of Nebraska has an anti-democracy, anti-family, anti-human rights constitutional amendment violating Equal Protection Under Law, the foundation of democracy and human rights (hypocritically, the State motto is Equality Before the Law). The amendment, installed by majoritarianism, says the State will not recognize any relationship at all between same-sex couples (marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, etc).
At this point, I am reluctant to conclusively connect the dots but there is enough material here of concern that it would be good to hear from Mr. Wyant.
Why is this important? I am quite concerned about the tone and specifics of these writings. What if Mr. Wyant promotes these websites to the youth/others he is involved with in Omaha? Even what remains is inflammatory stuff and he apparently is in a position of leadership (on the board of the Omaha Metro GLBT Community Center) and influence in the gay community of Omaha. Retaliating against the oppressors may sound noble on a website, but it would be awful on the front page of newspapers. Analogy – Even though I am pro-life, I would not want for my kids a youth leader who believes laws should be ignored because abortion is legal or that abortionists “and their bloodlines” should be “visited” with vague retaliation. And I certainly do not want an influence who holds up retaliation or suicide as an either-or scenario for bullied kids (“THESE DAYS BULLIED STUDENTS MAY CHOOSE RETALIATION RATHER THAN KILLING THEMSELVES”). If this is a “dirty trick,” I believe it is long past time for Mr. Wyant to take control of these websites and make this clear.
Note that Exgaywatch is reporting similar information and concerns this morning with more emphasis on technical aspects of website.
Regarding solicitors. We had some religious types come to our condos one time where we had a no solicitors sign in front. I asked one of the men if they were selling something. His reply was that they were only telling people about God. My reply – “So you are trying to sell me your version of God?” His “We aren’t sellling!” Mine – “Please leave. You are peddling God and we request no solicitors.” He argued and finally had to be escorted off the premises by a gay man.
Oh yeah. They’re all selling something. And let me tell ya’ it ain’t the real thing.
For the record, I found the newsletter JAG quoted far more offensive that the persistent young man at my door. It may be my filter system…but those conservative Christian/political messages don’t reach me anymore. Perhaps they got tired of my criticisms of their message and style…or, maybe just maybe, I’ve dropped under radar. (The most crass part of ones like JAG cited are how they try to guilt you into a big donation. They don’t even mention anything under $100 as being acceptable til near the end…and then, everything under what…$25…is ‘other’. I used to challenge ’em with, “If you believe this is God’s mission…and you believe that these people you write to hear from God…why not just ask them to pray and said the amount they feel God has directed rather than the amount you think they should give?” There’s a time for the word ‘huckster’ and this situation would be one of them.
Thanks for your response Eddy…I agree, no one likes a pushy salesperson….
especially when what they are pushing is a string of falsehoods.
OOPS! I crossed-threads…the Christian propaganda piece that JAG quoted is in one of the other current threads. But, since the conversations all seemed to follow similar paths, I forgot which one. Anyway, sorry for any confusion!
I also think it’s important to talk about this stuff but not at the expense of addressing a serious current situation. I was actually of the opinion that everyone was over-reacting and that Wyant was simply a bad writer but, when I read the blurb from The Gay Library, I realized that there’s something pretty serious afoot. His site makes him look well-connected in his local gay community; I’m hoping this is only ‘spin’ and that he’s simply given himself and his views an inflated profile.
Regarding the statement that ‘we saw it happen in the black community’…I’m thinking I must have seriously underestimated Jayhuck’s age. Violence as a means and method for achieving racial equality flourished in the 1960’s and, to some extent, the 1970’s. Neighborhoods were torn apart, buildings burned, vehicles trashed, rocks thrown. The violence, although most could understand its roots, was often misdirected and had the innocent among its victims. (I was writing letters to the editor in my teens, co-edited our high school’s ‘underground newspaper’, graduated 1970, took a job at an all-black swimming pool and later moved into a racially mixed neighborhood that bordered on our city’s racial hot-spot.) And, while I admit to having a strong anti-violence nature (an official ‘conscientious objector’ during the Vietnam Era), I never saw that the violence brought about any ‘good’ or advancement for the equal rights cause.
JAG, thanks for a more cordial tone! I appreciate it. The letter you quoted is an embarrassment to concerned Christians; the incessant appeals for financial support are downright crass. (I contacted a number of agencies responsible for such tactics back in my ‘involved days’ and criticized both their message and their begging strategies. I’m sure you can guess that my criticisms fell mostly on deaf ears.)
To be fair though, there’s a certain amount of hysteria on both sides. I didn’t get the mailing you quoted because I’m not on any such mailing lists. I did however have a visit from the Human Rights Campaign at my door a few weeks ago. Although I politely told the young man that I wasn’t interested and that I was quite busy at the moment, he was quite persistent. LOL! I was in the middle of blogging here, it took about 5 minutes to get rid of him and that was after I threatened to report him for trespassing. (He was INSIDE my ‘secure building’ going door to door and when I asked who gave him access he lied and said ‘the landlord’. I checked with both the landlord and the caretaker.) No, I’m not saying HRC is a bunch of pushy, trespassing liars. I’m saying this particular canvasser was.
BTW: Before anyone starts ironing their judge robe, I have signed Human Rights Campaign petitions in the past and have donated. I had my name taken from their rolls when I realized that my signature in support of Equal Rights for Gays was also being used in support of other non-gay issues where I disagreed. I don’t like ANYBODY telling me how I’m supposed to respond to a particular issue and I certainly don’t like them saying I support something that I don’t. From that point on, I’ve avoided ‘campaigns’ of any sort electing instead to actually voice my own opinion when I feel it’s necessary or called for. BTW: I NEVER signed any church-sponsored petitions or contributed to any religious/political causes because I didn’t support all of THEIR agendas either.
From those parts of this discussion that have remained on track, it appears that some appropriate steps have been taken to thwart Wyant’s misrepresentation and his advocacy of violence as a means to an end. I say we keep a watch on his doings–and whether he seems to be gaining any credibility. The most dangerous thing about people with such views is that, when they find even a few others who agree with them, it often spurs them to live out their fantasy or to encourage these others to live them out for them.
Ooops – sorry Eddy – I just realized you weren’t saying the site was credible – only that it was using the name of a credible organization!!!
I do know there are gay groups trying to get at the bottom of this – even Ex-Gay Watch has their own big discussion going on about this – and the people at XGW have tried contacting the website’s owners only to get the same result from doing that as Warren did. I’m concerned, but I’m more curious to be honest – why would someone write something so inflammatory??? And why aren’t they answering phone calls and emails?
I don’t completely agree with you Eddy. I do think its important to talk about the cause of this kind of stuff though. We saw it happen in the black community and we are starting to see it happen in the gay community. Its never pointless to talk about the cause – and I think we all know what that is
Eddy,
What “credible pro-gay organization” are you talking about. I haven’t found this site to be any kind of credible organization – have you read the posts from the previous article on this? There is no credibility I know of regarding this site.
I’m concerned about it as well, but like so many of things we make a big deal of on here, I have never heard of it – And I read quite a bit of news, and am very pro-gay despite my religious leanings, so I doubt this site has the kind of credibility you are trying to give it.
And yes, I’m concerned about this site and what it says, but not as much as you because these guys aren’t the major organizations I associate with the gay community. At least the mature and responsible gay community I have come to know
Jayhuck asked: Is it better to talk about the symptoms or the cause of the disease????
At the moment, NEITHER! This thread happens to be about a very real and specific website that has chosen a name similar to that of a credible pro-gay organization to promote an incredibly strongly worded statement advocating violence. LOL! We’re not discussing the eithics of violence. Most who blog here also identify as Christian…and more than that, as LOVING Christians. So, this isn’t a time for debate at the moment; it’s a time for action and discussion related specifically to addressing these violent-themed messages. (The gay community, in particular, ought to be concerned about the website’s use of a name that seems intended to create confusion and of the family of sites choosing ‘The Gay Library’ as their handle.) What can we as a ‘blog community’ accomplish TOGETHER in this real and current situation?
Jim B. (Turtle Box) are you out there? You were quick on your feet earlier…any ideas? Pam??? Got your ears on?
Wow! Someone is violent because they have been mistreated. Yes, someone also has the choice to respond in a different way. No excuse for inciting violent acts against others for having differing opinions.
Warren,
I think the owner of this website and the author of those words should be help accountable. But let’s come back to reality for a second. Gay people are not the oppressors here – in any way. It sounds like this guy, or group of people, might be the gay community’s equivalent of the Black Panthers. When you have a minority that is as persecuted as gay people are, you are going to have some that step up and think that violence is the answer. I don’t, in any way, subscribe to this, but the root cause of ALL of this, is the unending persecution of gay people – on a daily basis I might add.
Is it better to talk about the symptoms or the cause of the disease????
Why should anyone do anything about Wyant? Meaning, is it the gay community’s responsibility?? It is Mr. Wyant who is responsible for his words, actions etc… That he may be misrepresenting the ideas of gay organizations is alarming – that is true.
Honestly, it is beginning to look like he is enjoying the spotlight because little has changed and there is no direct response from him. I wonder what his motivation is for this.
Jimmy,
You mentioned in an earlier post that you thought it was evil to deprive anyone of the right to life – I agree and have some questions, “do you think it is moral or immoral, good or evil to kill thousands of pre-born children through abortion (violent termination of life) every year just because they are unwanted by one person? Isn’t that a targeted hate crime? Do you feel they deserve the same protection as you or I under law? I was glad to see your advocacy of children’s rights in one of your prior posts so I think I already know your answer but would appreciate you writing it for everyone to see.
Also, do you know of anyone who can clear up this problem or mis-communication with the owner of the web site in question that prompted the topic for this thread?
Has the HRC looked into this yet? Perhaps they have contacts in the Omaha area that can clear it all up.
I definitely need a FAQs section.
Read the rest of the blog and you can get a sense of my views on a host of subjects.
Anyone reading here very long should get the idea that I value accuracy in reporting science and research. I value treating others the way I want to be treated and I value rational discourse. I respect those who disagree with me on various matters of public policy and expect the same in return.
Now back to topic – what should the gay community of Omaha do about Mr. Wyant?
Warren wrote:
“But that is exactly what you asked me to do: reduce my views to one side is evil and one side is good.”
Not quite. I had also added the following:
“If there are moral and immoral aspects of what both groups mentioned above are doing, then I invite you to go into more detail about your beliefs.”
I’m not asking you to demonize anyone. I’m asking you to tell me if you think that people who want equal rights for gays and who want abuse toward gay people to stop are doing something wrong. If it’s not all wrong, meaning there good and bad aspects to what they do, then I invite you to go into detail about your beliefs. When you write about me asking you to “reduce your views”, I am doing no such thing. I’m asking you to explain your views. So far, you have not done so. Why not? What do you have to lose?
Jimmy G said: This is not a black-and-white issue; instead, I’m asking if certain actions cross the line in any way into the immoral territory.
But that is exactly what you asked me to do: reduce my views to one side is evil and one side is good. Language is important and I will not get into demonizing people I disagree with as evil – despite your efforts to get me to do that.
When specific issues of gay rights come up on this blog, then let’s discuss them. But this thread is about a website and its owner who advocates aggression and retaliation against evil oppressors. When you get into language like that then may seem morally clear but use of such language may lead to an advocacy of evil acts.
On topic, what should the gay community of Omaha do about Mr. Wyant and his websites. He is in a position of leadership there; should he be in a position to advocate the views on his websites?
Mary wrote,
“You seem to present a ‘See it all my way or you are evil’ stance.”
Actually, that is what gay-bashing Christians, many of whom support reparative therapy, say to gay people.
What I’m asking Warren is if he thinks people who want to end abuse of gay people and support equal rights for gay people are doing something wrong. He doesn’t seem to want to answer that question. I wonder why. A simple “yes” or “no” would do the trick, though the “yes” will take more effort because it requires an additional letter to be typed.
Warren,
You’re *still* dodging the question. I think the reason you do not want to answer is because revealing how you truly feel about the issue is more damaging to your position than being evasive.
You ask, “Is the proper dichotomy, moral vs immoral? evil vs. good?”
The answer is: yes, it is. However, not all evils are made equal. It is immoral to pay your bills late because you spent all your money on beer and strippers. But that is a minor immorality compared to abusing a child or murdering someone. I get the feeling that you’re trying to say, “This isn’t a good versus evil issue” because you’re putting all evils on the same level as mass murder. Hence, “It doesn’t apply!” Obviously, I beg to differ, and I differ because I see a spectrum of good and evil. This is not a black-and-white issue; instead, I’m asking if certain actions cross the line in any way into the immoral territory.
And that’s precisely why my “analogy” about child abuse isn’t an analogy at all. The issue of child abuse is just another example of a moral issue. And yes, child abuse most certainly can be debated. There are many people throughout history that thought it was good and right to abuse children for many different reasons. We do have child labor laws now, correct? Was it not a debate about the proper treatment of children that brought such laws into being?
And if my trying to get you to give an honest answer about how you feel about a moral issue (and Exodus and NARTH argue that homosexuality and reparative therapy are, most certainly, *moral* issues) is a “trap”, then, by all means, please fall in to it. I don’t think that openness and honesty is too much to ask of you, but it seems like you strongly disagree with that. What, exactly, do you have to lose?
Mary,
I’m sorry, but I have yet to see any VALID POINTS on gay rights from the anti-gay perspective. I have to differ with you here. All I’ve seen from those who don’t support gay rights, when you really get to the heart of what they are saying, you hear them speaking out of fear – fear of the unknown, fear of those who are different, fear of not being made to feel special or above others because they have rights that those groups they dislike don’t – I haven’t heard any argument to date that doesn’t fall into one of those categories – even the so-called religious ones.
Nemario,
Your statement can be taken both ways by many different kinds of individuals with varying opinions.
I tend to agree with Warren’s last comment.
And getting back to the thread – Wyants website is promoting ideas that are dangerous to all.
Speaking your views in the public square is free speech. I will defend your right to speak freely. You draw categories where I wouldn’t. Is it moral to stand for what you believe? Sure. Do I agree with all positions because I agree with the right to speak them? No.
Is it moral or immoral for anti-war demonstrators to speak against the war? For Baptists to speak in favor the premillenial rapture? For scientologists to advocate against the use of psychotropics? For those who want to build a fence on the borders to advocate for their position? Is the proper dichotomy, moral vs immoral? evil vs. good?
You are setting a rhetorical trap and your analogy of child abuse is off base. That is a category where evil vs good fits. There is no cogent argument for child abuse, it is not something that can be debated. It may seem simple to you but it is not so simple and to demonize ideological perspectives is not something I will do. Keep asking it if you prefer but all it seems you are doing is distracting from this thread.
Without any comment from Mr. Wyant, it appears we have a situation where his hatred has reduced the field to the good guys and the bad guys. The bad guys and “their bloodlines” must be eliminated. Come to think of it, I do see hating to death those I disagree with as evil.
“when presenting the rights of individuals to decide how they will live.”
…even though we’ll end up having to pay for their decision as a society.
I don’t know Jimmy and Jag. You seem to present a “See it all my way or you are evil” stance. That does not sound reasonable nor accurate for anyone on anyside of anything to say.
There are on both sides of the gay rights issue valid points and perspectives when presenting the rights of individuals to decide how they will live.
Jimmy –
Way to call this point out – it’s needed to happen for a while. I think you have an interesting perspective that seems to get to the meat of the discussion – and the dodging.
Don’t get your hopes up Jimmy, I don’t know that your question will really be answered.
The point stands either way.
Oh well….
As this post shows, there are objectionable elements on both sides of the ideological spectrum. I think you are framing something in a continuum of good and evil whereas, I would not see it as an either-or issue. In fact, seeing those who differ from you as ideological evil doers simply because they are on the other side is what this gaylibrary.com author does.
“Duped” is actually too weak a word. It implies simply being fooled. I think what is more at play here is a strong desire to equate gays with violence and treachery, as such desires, real or imposed, would justify preexisting cultural animus toward gay people. Exodus hasn’t been “fooled”. They actively believe that gay people are evil to the core and should be eradicated, and thus they hop on every shred of “evidence” which supports that which they already believe to be true.
I don’t believe that Dr. Throckmorton is as hostile toward gay people as Exodus is, but I do think that he supports Exodus more than he supports gay activists. Perhaps Dr. Throckmorton can give some insight into this matter by answering a question.
Dr. Throckmorton: do you believe that people who support both equal rights for gays and cessation of abuse of gays (religious or otherwise) are:
A) agents of good
B) agents of evil
?
Warren,
That was a nice dodge. Of course I frame things in terms of good and evil. Everyone does, even you. For instance, it is evil to abuse a child. I assume (and hope) you wouldn’t say, “I would not see it as an either-or issue” in regards to the issue of child abuse.
Just so you know what my understanding of “evil” is, I think that it is evil to deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud (except in cases of self-defense). That’s why I think it is evil to abuse gays for their sexual or affectional behavior. The love and sex that they share for each other deprives no one of life, liberty, or property, so what good purpose does the abuse of gay people serve? But maybe you’re merely objecting to the use of the word “evil” as being too strong for the way you feel about the issue. Given that, I’ll pick terminology that might be more nuanced and befitting your point of view.
Do you believe that people who support both equal rights for gays and cessation of abuse of gays (religious or otherwise) are:
A) doing something moral
B) doing something immoral
How about Exodus? Is Exodus, when acting in express purpose of its stated goals:
A) doing something moral
B) doing something immoral
If there are moral and immoral aspects of what both groups mentioned above are doing, then I invite you to go into more detail about your beliefs.
I also notice that you have not disputed my claim that Exodus was in no way duped. I.e., Exodus *wants* to believe that gays are violent and vicious. Is your silence a tacit agreement on this point?
Mike –
I completely agree with you, see my comments on the recent thread of sexual identity therapy (I think the last comment is mine). I think you will find we have common ground here.
So, we’ve got two people now who have made statements that at best are misleading, and neither of them have come forward to defend themselves. I would like to see this guy Brian come out with a good defense as to why these statements are on his site and what he hopes to accomplish by them. I’d also like to see the folks at Exodus, namely Alan Chambers and Mike Ensley, give a good defense for the rather underhanded way they’ve portrayed this whole brouhaha. Unfortunately, we continue to hear silence…on both fronts. Which says to me that this is all a game.
j.
Jim –
Thank you for your work on this, I attempt to do the same when able. Unfortunately, I have found as you have…there are just so many, and not enough outrage for correction.
I feel that “duped” is not strong enough a word for Exodus, which persisted in lying about the site’s connection to GLSEN and GSAs even after we pointed out their error. Exodus is more interested in scoring political points than in establishing the facts and protecting youths.
Exgaywatch is also reporting similar concerns this morning. Duped is a strong word. I did apologize for misleading readers into thinking the website might be the GLSEN site. But as it turns out, there is some disturbing stuff there. What is even more disturbing is the lack of response from anyone in Omaha. The email address is still there in the original post, I encourage readers to write and ask for clarification.
Clarification: When I said “this particular site”, I’m referring to gaystraightalliance.org.
JAG…
I’ve taken it on myself to monitor anti-gay sites for things just as you describe. Unfortunately, I can’t keep up.There are too many out there, and some inevitably fall through the cracks. I don’t think it’s reasonable for anyone to catch them all.
That said, we all will bring to light those which promote violence, and we do so when we find them. It’s interesting that this particular site in question disabled Google from searching its site. Who knows how long it would have gone unnoticed?
How embarrassing:
“Exodus and Dr. Throckmorton duped by unknown website”
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/08/exodus-and-dr-throckmorton-duped-by-unknown-website/
Warren –
I appreciate you taking this website to task, and this should be common practice with any website offering – what could be – dangerous messages.
I would hope that you would also take to task organizations, like the AFA of PA…for making statements that are untrue, damaging and potentially dangerous.
As we all know, these are the types of statements that promote violence, intolerance and bigotry.
Examples?
Diane Gramley of the PA AFA, when remarking about Philadelphia putting up “gay pride” flags in the city, (under her news release: Philadelphia Homosexuals Not Satisfied with ‘Gay’ Historic Marker, Now They Want Flags) gives the indication that gay individuals are dangerous…
““As we reminded the Mayor and City Council members, Philadelphia’s effort to seek out the homosexual tourists will force other tourists to find a safer and family-friendlier environment to bring their families and children to visit. Parents don’t want their children to witness homosexual sex or be propositioned or assaulted by the men participating in such activity,” Gramley remarked.
So, now gay men randomly assault children?
This is unacceptable.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that PFLAG chapters and regions are largely autonomous. Other chapters and the national organization have little influence in how individual chapters are run. Perhaps too little influence — Omaha PFLAG apparently could use some openness to external concerns.