November 18th 2011
Dear Pastor Tom Vineyard,
I read your letter to the Oklahoma City Council regarding adding sexual orientation to Equal Employment Opportunity and Discrimination in the City’s employee non-discrimination policy. There were a few things that I’d like to point out:
So what if homosexuals make more money on average than heterosexuals and have higher professorial/managerial positions? I’m glad that you’re able to cast them in such good light and who how hard workers they are. They’re making money for the society and there’s nothing negative about that – unless done illegally, which, I would think, is more is more of a heterosexual thing (take the Enron guys, for example, because we’re so fond of throwing out random cases). That doesn’t mean that homosexuals shouldn’t get protection from being discriminated against. If they’re NOT being discriminated against, then what’s the harm in adding it to the policy?
As for Gay Pride, I’m sure that you’ve read enough about it to know that the reason for the nudity and open sex is to create awareness of free rights and liberty (you know, what America is supposed to stand for). Everyone is allowed to express themselves freely, right?
NAMBLA should be shut down, but regardless, it does NOT represent gay men. It represents men who are attracted to boys who are minors. That is a psychological disease, unlike homosexuality. To associate the two is pure ignorance.
Where exactly did you see that "fact" about Lesbian Avengers priding itself of recruiting young girls? And why do you see that as a negative thing? Young girls - as in girls under 18 - can also be lesbians and is it not good that they get proper support? You can't honestly think that lesbian Avengers have ulterior motives to recruiting "young girls". You don’t seriously think that they’re recruiting them to sexually abuse them, do you? Oh wait, my next point:
Homosexuals are responsible for 33% of child molestation? If that is true (which I very much doubt - because even though men abuse boys, those men aren't homosexuals), well that just means that 67% is at the hands of heterosexuals. Plus, even if it were true, that means that 19 in 20 homosexuals are NOT molesters and they shouldn't have to suffer because of that 1 in 20. This study you refer to was made in 1986, which was when homosexuals were under heavy fire for being who they are, so I very much doubt its validity. I would like to see a more recent study to verify this, since, if this study was done without the intent to specifically cast homosexuals in bad light, more people have come out since then (Wiki says 2-13% and 20% of having had homosexuals “feelings” – but Wiki’s not generally considered a reputable source, but it’s pretty safe, usually) and I’m sure that number of homosexual offenders much lower as a result. Here, check out this site, or any number of sites if you just google Homosexuality and Child Abuse:
Honestly, try googling it and read some unbiased scientific reports – not the ones written by religious people or gay activists.
Gay people cause half of murders in the large cities? Seriously? Yes, it was stated Kaifetz, but you’re going to take the word of one bigoted hater over real facts? Oh, of course you are, because he’s of the same mindset as you are. Still, if there were any such statistics, it was in 1992! Way outdated, I’d say. Don’t you have anything more recent? With a quick search, I couldn’t find any data on it at all, because sexual orientation isn’t generally noted when people are caught committing crimes – or that’s what one source said.
"John Muhammed and John Lee Malvo(the DC Snipers) were homosexual lovers."
So? Fred and Rosemary West were a heterosexual couple. Personally, I think that murdering family is more cold hearted than murdering strangers - though, of course, all murder is wrong and evil. Muhammed and Malvo are one in how many overall criminal couples?
The same goes for Andrew Cunanan – honestly, I could throw out heterosexual names of criminals. It wouldn’t prove a point except that most murders are probably caused by heterosexuals (yes, I’m saying ‘probably’ because I didn’t bother to do the research).
“30,000 of the sexually abused children in Los Angeles were the victims of homosexuals.”
Kaifetz again. 1992 again – no, wait, data from 1978 to 1994! Ooh, that’s a little more recent. I’d like to see this data. Actually, I would like to see a more recent data – preferably something within the past five to seven years. Confusing man-boy molestations for being homosexual molestation again (check out those links again)? I think it’s likely.
Nowhere does it say that Jerry Sandusky is gay. He is, however, a vile pedophile (as in a man-boy molester). We already established that that’s not the same thing.
“In another study, 43% of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having 500 or more partners in their lifetime. 28% admitted to 1,000 or more partners in their lifetime. This would explain why homosexuals account for between 70-80% of the hepatitis cases in San Francisco, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, and 42% in Montreal. It would also explain why 78% of homosexuals are affected by sexually transmitted diseases.”
Goodness! Where are you getting these numbers? Is there a reason you didn’t include sources? Is this maybe something from 1966? Or 1978? Because the last I knew, homosexuals are very aware and use protection. Plus, none of the ones I know (and I know quite a few) have a sexually transmitted disease. I guess I found friends in the 22% that are not infected – how lucky is that? And 43% of how many surveyed? Ten? Twenty? Now, as a scientific researcher, I’m pretty sure that the 28% is a part of the 43% who say that they’ve had sex with over 1,000, but there’s no need to point that out, right? But honestly, include sources if you’re going to throw out numbers like these, so that we can see just how valid they are.
Was “Unlimited Access” (during the Clinton Administration) written by one man with no backup, or were there actual sources, like written records? Were they just rumors, perhaps? Or was the carpenter an anti-gay who was trying to get his gay employees fired? Now, I’m all for firing people if they are having sex on pay-time, but it was after work hours, right? If it’s just slander then you can see very clearly why protection is important, can’t you? And if it wasn’t slander? How many heterosexual people have had sex in inappropriate places? Hey! Clinton! Monica Lewinsky, anyone? Same room, perhaps? Oh my, Clinton’s must have been coerced by a sexual spirit in his office created by the gays. It wasn’t his fault after all!
And the female employees having sex in the shower? Same as the above. I wonder if Clinton was coerced to take Lewinsky down there as well…
John Hinson also had sex in an official building? Wow, what a naughty, naughty capital you have there. Don’t try to tell me that the heterosexual people were innocent. I could count out a number of “indecent exposure and sexual performances” in many places by heterosexual people. Even highly respected heterosexual senators. Yes! Why not condemn those married men with family who have a little “fun” on the side instead of focusing your condemnation on homosexuals who aren't doing anything differently. Honestly, homosexual are “normal” people as well, only with a different sexuality. Seriously, counting out all these tiny little things to prove a silly point that doesn’t even get proven at the end of your letter.
Now, when your country was founded, marriage of teenagers was allowed. Africans were slaves, Natives were treated like shit, and women were sold or traded as wives. Seriously, things change and with time people open their eyes to see that what once was, was wrong. It’s sad that homosexuals (like African-Americans and Natives in the past) have to fight for basic human rights. I’m amazed that someone who is supposed to spread the word of God and Jesus and love has the right to condemn people for being who they are. Are priests really supposed to spread the word of hate? Are they supposed to stand in the way of human rights?
Then you go and mention things way in the past: George Washington 1778, John David Michaelis 1814, Patricia Nordman 1963. Why are you so stuck in the past? You know, that’s the basic problem with the church. More recent quotes and data would help your case so much better. But then you can’t find anything more recent, can you?
Oh and those homosexuals who have been “saved out of homosexuality”? Psst, they’re still homosexuals! It’s possible to fake it, get married and have kids. But deep down, they are still homosexuals with all those sinful desires that will plunge them in hell – if people like you have a say in where we go.
“The evidence is overwhelming that there is absolutely no need or that there should be no consideration of including sexual orientation in the equality employment opportunity and discrimination sections of the city’s employment non-discrimination policy. I humbly call upon you to do what is right for all of the citizens of our great city, not a small portion who are seeking preferential treatment and status.” There was very little evidence. In fact, there was nothing relevant. Just ravings of old facts (that weren’t really facts, or can easily be disputed as such) and opinions. In fact, you have shown that there is very much need for the protection. If you think there’s no need for it, then what’s the harm?
I am fortunate to be a northern European where GLBT rights have developed into the twentieth first century. I suppose I’m fortunate as well that I’m not a lesbian (I’m only recently divorced and a mother of two kids – that’s proof enough to you that I’m heterosexual, right?) and haven’t lived through the bigotry and judgment most of them have. Go right ahead and call me lesbian if it’s the only thing that would make sense to you after everything I’ve written. I don’t mind. I’d be proud to be one. And if I’m going to fry in hell for all eternity? Well, if that’s where the tolerant and fun homosexuals are going, then that’s just fine by me.
Sincerely,
Erica Pike
Author
