Here’s the e-mail I sent to Michael Airhart @ ex-gay watch clarifying my position & asking him to reply.

As noted, I believe that he’ll either not reply or will write something predictable & you may find my post on the Narth blog. I use the name SwissAlps & incidentally, I’m not gay nor am I ex gay:

Michael:

Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I believe you misunderstood some of my points, so I’ll clarify before getting to John Stossel. Here’s a link I found from 2004 which I’ve copied & pasted from New Scientist, click Oral sex linked to mouth cancer – 25 February 2004 – New Scientist & if you do an Internet search, you’ll find the Nov. 2005 Swedish study which confirms the same. Perhaps New Scientist also has the 2005 Swedish study. http://www.newscientist.com

You wrote that I have a dual standard with regard to sodomy, but if you reread, I state that I’m against sodomy REGARDLESS of whether it’s 2 men doing it or a man doing it to a woman. As you’re aware, many American states once had laws against sodomy & oral sex, though it was usu. applied only against homosexual men. There are nations today which still have laws against sodomy & oral sex & yes, a man & his wife can go to jail for sodomy or oral sex. If you reread my position, it’s missionary activity or no sexual activity.

As far as the AMA, I didn’t say that the AMA supports reparative therapy-they’re against it. I happen to be an AMA critic of the AMA & I personally have contempt for the AMA. What was written was that EVEN the AMA doesn’t dispute that sodomy carries risks. ALL sexual activities carries medical risks & promiscuity certainly adds to the risks.

I used to have a neutral view on h & l activities, but am now against them as you’re aware. If you want to know my views on other things, I would abolish plastic surgeries unless 1 has been a cancer, burn or accident victim. Medicines & surgeries must only be done if it’s needed in order to live. I want to abolish vasectomies-condoms, the Pill & the Rhythm Method will suffice for Birth Control.

With regard to John Stossel, the truth is that he reruns what others have said before him & offers little which is new. It’s politically safe for John Stossel to critique NARTH & Exodus. John Stossel & ABC have discussed the harms of overexercising, the dangers of Viagra & sport injuries, because it’s politically safe to do so.

Writing about the medical harms of sports such as football & boxing (arthritis, bone fractures, etc.) are easy to do. Advising boxers & football players to make their millions, have their fame & retire before they’re 30 years old is safe to do because when they get older they won’t have the same resilience as in their youth. Writing about the medical harms of blue collar jobs (I once worked on a construction project) such as arthritis & harms from inhaling chemicals & paints are easy to do. I’d give a construction worker the same advise as I would give an athlete-learn a new job when you turn 30 or older, because you won’t have the same coordination as when you’re younger.

ABC, John Stossel & the media have discussed the topics mentioned here incl. Evel Knievel’s medical problems from all the fractures as a result of jumps that failed. This is easy to discuss & most athletes & blue collar workers will acknowledge the dangers of their activities. It’s also easy to discuss the fact that if you’re a rock star it puts strain on the vocal chords. Personally, I think Ozzy, the Village People (they performed @ Ozzy’s wedding anniversary) Britney Spears (her music has peaked) really need to retire.

But when it comes to homosexuality, John Stossel just isn’t bold on this topic. If John Stossel says that he supports free will when it comes to not engaging in H & L activities, then he must state so instead of simply discussing Exodus or his implication that it’s just the Religious Right. Even with respect to AIDS, would John Stossel dare ask who must be helped 1st-a child who has Multiple Sclerosis or a man who got AIDS as a result of anonymous sexual encounters with many men & didn’t care to use condoms?

It’s horrible when any1 dies of a disease, but ABC along with the rest of the media does reruns when it comes to condoms. If a man has sex with many women, doesn’t use condoms & gets VD, most people wouldn’t empathize with him. Must we empathize with homosexual AIDS victims who got it as a result of anonymous encounters with many men & refusal to use condoms? Don’t tell me that they don’t know about condoms-they know but they don’t care. I would like to see John Stossel say something that’s politically wrong about AIDS-blame homosexual AIDS victims for getting the disease, just as any1 would blame a man for getting VD if he has sex with many women & refuses to use condoms. Now John Stossel is not the only reporter who does this, but as you see, I’m not using religious arguments to state my case.

With regard to PFLAG & GLSEN, when I went to college in 1993, PFLAG was invited as a speaker to 1 of my Sociology classes. The Sociology Professor gave a 1 sided view with respect to homosexuality & when PFLAG spoke, I certainly felt as though we were being proselytized. When I say that PFLAG & GLSEN proselytize, I’m giving what I feel when I’ve heard them speak. You may not think it’s proselytizing (esp. if 1 shares their view) but that’s just how I felt.

Once again, thanks for taking the time to address my points & your welcome to reply again. Finally, I’d appreciate that if you don’t post this on ex gay watch, you @least clarify that I’m against the AMA & that I’m against sodomy regardless of whether it’s straight or homo because you’re wrong when you wrote that I believe the AMA agrees with me & you’re wrong when you wrote that I apply a double standard with respect to sodomy because it’s missionary way or no way.

Here’s a predictable reply I got from Michael Airhart of ex gay watch when I posted concerning John Stossel’s May 2006 comments on the Bill O’Reilly show.

Observe how Michael Airhart either distorts or doesn’t understand my views. I’ve e-mailed Michael Airhart (which I’ll post in Part 2) for clarification & have asked for his reply, but I think he’ll either not reply or give a predictable answer. Here’s what I’ve copied & pasted:

Michael:

I’ve provided my e-mail, to be fair.

1st of all, it’s VD or Venereal Disease-the old words are better. It’s predictable that you don’t want a dialogue but to proselytize your point of view.

As far as sexual orientation, that is a moot point. As far as I’m concerned, homosexual & lesbian activities must be prevented or people must be helped to quit, EVEN IF it’s inborn & EVEN IF orientation doesn’t change. As far as I’m concerned, it’s orthodox sex or no sex & I’m against sodomy & oral sex, straight or homo. I don’t know how to copy & paste the link but if you do a Yahoo search, you’ll find the 2005 Swedish study that shows that oral sex incr. risk of oral cancer. What the % is is unknown-perhaps it’s not that high but still I believe in preventing it.

With regard to sodomy, 1 need not be an expert to understand that if you put things up you know where, it’ll tear the lining, come into contact with blood & you know what thus incr. risk of piles, proctitis & an incr. risk of anal cancer. Even the AMA in its journals writes about proctitis, piles & anal cancer, so I’m not inventing anything new.

As I’m not a Christian, don’t give me the rerun about born again this or that, which John Stossel has implied on 20/20 & on an interview with Bill O’Reilly in May 2006. Groups like GLSEN & PFLAG consistently imply that it’s Religious Right Christians such as Rev. Lou Sheldon who are against h & l activities. I support mercy killing of the terminally ill & the handicapped if they choose, but don’t believe a Dr. is needed to do it. The Rev. Lou Sheldon opposes mercy killing, so the Religious Right argument doesn’t apply to me.

There are atheists who are against h & l activities. My parents came from India & while Hinduism is neutral on this topic, India as of 2004 has laws against h & l activities. I don’t know how to paste the link but do a search of laws in India & you’ll find it. China, Vietnam & N. Korea (Confucian, Taos, Christianity & Buddhism exist but are suppressed) also have laws against Homosexual & Lesbian activities, making them felonies & as you know, China, Vietnam & N. Korea suppress religions-atheism is the rule.

The point is that John Stossel’s implied message about Exodus was that the Religious Right is the only group who are against h & l activities. No, he didn’t directly say it on Bill O’Reilly’s show when he was interviewed in May, but that’s what he certainly implied. Has John Stossel ever discussed atheists & non-Christians who are against homosexual & lesbian activities?

The conclusion here is that John Stossel’s point of whether or not orientation’s inborn, learned, socioenvironmental or a combination of all is a moot point. Even if orientation doesn’t change, we believe that h & l activities must be prevented or changed to either straight activity or no activity. As far as what John Stossel has said about primates engage in h & l activities such as Bonobos formerly Dwarf or Gypsy Chimpanzee, it’s a bad justification to say that because something happens in nature people must emulate. Pythons cruelly kill their preys, as do crocodiles & Komodo Dragons, but we don’t emulate them as what Ozzy did in the 1980s when he bit the head off of a pigeon. I hope this clarifies my points.

Posted by: swissalps at October 16, 2006 12:41 PM

Below is Michael Airhart’s reply:

Swiss,

You again failed to provide a single quote, link, or bibliographic reference to support your strawman arguments.

Instead, you put your own words in the mouths of Stossel (whom I find highly disagreeable, by the way), GLSEN, PFLAG, Bill O’Reilly, and the AMA. Without providing any evidence, you claim that those whom you dislike say disagreeable things. That’s not a very sincere method of dialogue.

Then, again without any direct quotations or bibliographic references, you claim that the AMA supports your views about homosexuality. But it doesn’t; the AMA wisely airs cautions about specific unprotected sexual acts which occur among people regardless of sexual orientation, acts which do not define or encompass same-sex attraction or behavior.

In particular, your obsession with excretory organs indicates a double standard — you disregard the regrettably high prevalence of anal sex among young heterosexuals — and it also indicates your ignorance of homosexual attractions and behaviors.

(I also find it bizarre that you would boast that you support mercy killing — personally, I don’t consider that a virtue.)

Until you demonstrate an ability and willingness to provide quotations, links and/or bibliographic support for your claims about your supposed allies and opponents, your comment privileges are suspended. Please contact us via e-mail if you ever get around to researching and documenting your concerns.

How do you know which OT laws still pertain? Where is this clearly explained in Scripture? Seems ot me a lot of Christians pick and choose.

Re: the Old Testament death sentence. If you take the New Testament seriously then I have good news! It’s been paid. That’s what Calvary was all about.

And it’s not true that EXODUS would be quick to tell you it’s a sin not an illness. You repent of a sin. You treat an illness. And EXODUS can’t seem to decide. Elizabeth Moberly and Joe Nicolosi “treat” it with “reparative therapy”.

And for those who think of it as sin; if you take the Old Testament seriously (as you claim to do), shouldn’t we be imposing the death sentence for gays?