Attack of the Heterophobes!

Gretchen referenced1 this one for me:

Former Gay Activist Marries Woman; Addresses Critics Who Condemn His New Heterosexual Lifestyle
By Jessica Martinez, CP Reporter | December 13, 2013|2:10 pm

Michael Glatze married girlfriend Rebekah in October 2013 (Photo: Truth Wins Out)

An ex-prominent gay activist and former editor of a San Francisco-based, youth-focused homosexual magazine penned an open letter about his recent heterosexual marriage addressed to “angry homosexuals” who have criticized him for leaving his past and finding God.Michael Glatze stepped down as co-founder of XY Magazine in 2007 where he walked out by leaving a note on his computer that read, “Homosexuality is death, and I choose life.” His transformation from gay to straight began after he started to question his lifestyle following a health scare and with no one to turn to, Glatze decided to seek help in God. Now, he lives life as a straight man and recently married a woman, Rebekah, who critics are referring to as his “prop.”

“I want to make a little ‘shout out’ to all of the angry homosexuals in our country who are currently spreading all sorts of hate and aggression on pro-homosexual blogs,” wrote Glatze, in an op-ed on WND.com. “Look, I am not interested in defending myself. I don’t really need to do that. I understand your plight, your point-of-view. I understand the desire to want me to be crazy, or lost in my head and mind, or confused. I understand that it would be just easier if I didn’t exist, or I would just crawl into a hole somewhere and die. But I’m not going to do that.”

He says his intentions are not to rub his marriage in anyone’s face, but to make his critics understand that he stands by his opinion about homosexuality as a flawed and mistaken lifestyle, and that he has a right to his opposing view the same way that they do.

More at the link.

Mr Glatze is easily attacked by the homosexual activists, because he is a Christian (Horrors!) and a political conservative. The activists are holding, essentially, that he couldn’t really have “converted” to normal sexuality,2 and that his poor new wife might not realize “what she’s getting into,” referring to her as a “prop.” Mr Glatze stands as an obvious example: maybe homosexuals really weren’t “born that way.”

But, what interests me is the contrast between the vitriol being heaped on Mr Glatze and the complete absence of (publicly expressed) malice toward Chirlane McCray:

This is an amazing flip-flop: Chirlane McCray, wife of likely Democratic3 New York City mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, was forced to release a statement yesterday admitting that, yes, she was a lesbian before she met her husband, currently the city’s public advocate.

“[I] identified as a lesbian and wrote about it,” she said after Hunter Walker at The Observer dug up a 1979 Essence magazine article Ms. McCray wrote called “I Am a Lesbian.”

“I survived the tears, the isolation and the feeling that something was terribly wrong with me for loving another woman,” she wrote. “Coming to terms with my life as a lesbian has been easier for me than it has been for many. Since I don’t look or dress like the typical bulldagger, I have a choice as to whether my sexual preference is known.”

Then, a sentence that she could never have known could complicate a future husband’s political career: “I have also been fortunate because I discovered my preference for women early, before getting locked into a traditional marriage and having children.”

Reacting to the story yesterday, McCray said that meeting Bill in 1991 changed everything: “In 1991, I met the love of my life, married him, and together we’ve raised two amazing kids. I’m reminded every day how lucky I am to have met my soul mate.”

More at the link. A Google search for de blasio wife former lesbian returned 80,600 results, and I certainly couldn’t check them all, but in the pages I did check, I found nothing at all along the lines of the vitriol expressed toward Mr Glatze. The de Blasios have been married for 19 years now, so it’s a slightly different situation — people like the distinguished Wayne Besen will have a more difficult time referring to a husband of almost two decades as a “prop” — but, despite thousands of stories referring to Mrs McCray as a “former lesbian,” I didn’t find a single attack or claim that she couldn’t really have changed her sexual orientation. Surely, surely! the fact that her husband, the incoming Mayor of New York City, is a far left liberal cannot have anything to do with the apparent reticence of the homosexual activists to attack his wife and claim that she just couldn’t have changed, could it?

After all, to have been just so upset by Mr Glatze converting to Christianity and abandoning his previous minority sexual orientation, while apparently so blasé about Mrs de Blasio’s, would seem to me to by hypocritical.

Of course, there is a difference. Mr Glatze wrote:

I do believe that homosexuality is a flaw, a mistake, a distortion and something from which one can be completely restored.

That is one part that the homosexual activists just can’t stand, and have attempted to get states to pass laws banning homosexual conversion therapy; New Jersey and California have such laws in cases where minors are involved. If such therapies cannot work, as the activists claim, then they shouldn’t worry about them; they’d be nothing but a waste of time and money. What they are really worried about is two fold:

  1. The underlying concept that homosexuality is not normal, and that the existence of such therapies reinforces the idea that homosexuality is not normal; and
  2. It just might work.

As we have noted previously, the entire push for same-sex “marriage” has not been one for hospital visitation rights or certain financial advantages, but one to say that homosexual relationships are just as good, just as wholesome, just as normal, as heterosexual ones. Tolerance of diversity was never really the issue; compulsory acceptance always was. People like Mr Glatze are a challenge to that meme, a walking, talking, living and loving example which proves that changing from one’s initial inclinations might be difficult, but is possible and is better. And that the activists simply cannot stand.

  1. Gretchen used the term “heterophobic,” and so she gets credit for the title. It is a perfect word. :)
  2. The choice of the word “normal” to refer to heterosexuality was consciously and deliberately chosen.
  3. The original has Republican Democratic. Given that no one paying any attention at all could have mistaken Mr de Blasio as a Republican, I assumed that was a correction rather than intentional snarkiness, and deleted the struck out Republican reference.

6 Comments

  1. After all, to have been just so upset by Mr Glatze converting to Christianity and abandoning his previous minority sexual orientation, while apparently so blasé about Mrs de Blasio’s, would seem to me to by hypocritical.

    Dana, pointing out left wing hypocrisy is like pointing out that sewer rats live in sewers.

  2. So what’s new about this? Homos of both sexes (?) comprise about 3-3.5% of the country yet damn near every TV show has at least one. The entertainment industry is jamming gays and dykes down our throats as if they are some kind of martyrs for being queer. And they’re always portrayed as funny, loving and kind individuals wanting no more than being treated as we would anyone else. Either that or socially ostracized victims of bigotry or some antiquated religion or religious, bigoted zealot. Oh no, they’re artists and designers and hair stylists just trying to beautify the world. They’re never the pervert bending a kid over the sofa and butt banging him. Nah, that couldn’t be. No way. Being a queer is no longer a sexual perversion, a defect, rather it is an “alternative lifestyle” like choosing an apartment rather than a house.

    And as a society of leftists determined to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic, free markets, individual liberty, western culture and morality it is our job not to just tolerate these perverts, not even to accept them any more. Now our job is to “celebrate” them. It is all part and parcel of the ruination of our country by leftists who see America as all that’s wrong with the world.

    Soon, under Obamacare sex change will be covered but smokers will be denied coverage. People who refuse coverage will be fined and when they refuse to pay the fine the IRS will enact forfeiture on their property (why do you think the leftists put the IRS in charge to begin with, forfeiture rights!). I could go on but it’s turning into a rant.

  3. ” … as a society of leftists determined to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic, free markets, individual liberty, western culture and morality it is our job not to just tolerate these perverts, not even to accept them any more. Now our job is to “celebrate” them. “

    Yes, that’s right. Tolerance is not enough: self-sacrificial, even self-destructive, affirmation is demanded.

    They have a presumptive right to bask, you therefore are presumed to have the duty to provide. “Commitment to a shared fate” as the barely-closeted-fascist-masquerading-as-a-liberal, John Rawls infamously framed it. It is the one principle remaining to the unprincipled self-defined meat machines which recognize nothing as really real, apart from their upwelling urges.

    In our current society any contract can be easily broken, any deal backed out of, any sacred bond scorned mocked and tossed aside except one: the political claim of the organisms of the left upon the life energies of others.

    Having no moral inhibitions, no respect for interpersonal boundaries, and no sense of an objective right and wrong, they cannot help but push for what they wish to extract from others, until reactive violence results.

    The Perry kind then, has not so much been predicting violence, as promising it.

    Shackled by legal chains to obnoxious nihilists, and made slaves to those who are slaves of impulse. That is the inevitable fate of men, when the modern liberals have their way with you.

    Preached the virtue of tolerance as the highest social good, we thought that we could get away with tolerating them, and in so doing, allow them to have their head and to run themselves full tilt into the brick wall nature has provided if they insisted. As we have found out, they demand that we accompany them. As Obama has stated outright: tolerance is not enough for them.

    Voltaire supposedly said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”. Well, it is not necessary that the lying, destructive, and undermining diabolical exist on its own, for the modern liberal has made himself over in its image and likeness.

  4. In our current society any contract can be easily broken, any deal backed out of, any sacred bond scorned mocked and tossed aside except one: the political claim of the organisms of the left upon the life energies of others.

    Boy, ain’t that the truth. They are ripping apart the design and institution of the Religious Institution of marriage and creating a secular institution which has zero meaning insofar as family, support or progeny are concerned. It’s just another contract to me mauled, manipulated and interpreted by lawyers. Like “Affluenza”, it’s a meaningless bull shit way of screwing everyone else for what they desire. At the same time they walk all over the First amendment by forcing people of Faith to pay for, thereby financially supporting, birth control and the abomination of abortion.

  5. DNW, you have got to check out an article in today’s American Thinker called “The Psychobabble Bubble” by G. Murphy Donovan. This guy is on our side.

  6. “DNW, you have got to check out an article in today’s American Thinker called “The Psychobabble Bubble” by G. Murphy Donovan. This guy is on our side.”

    I’ll take a look at the article which Donovan is himself referring to as well.

    But Donovan himself also an interesting hypothetical and provokes interesting questions. His own is about about entailments concerning the justice system. And I suppose it is useful to ask, “what then of judges and lawyers?”, and so forth .

    However, there is a logical implication we have often confronted here – as experienced as we are in dealing with relativistic collectivists – that also follows from the granting of Donovan’s hypothetical, and from its reformulation as a categorical proposition.

    Donovan says: “if biology is behavior, what need have we for lawyers, legislatures, judges or jails?”

    Now if we take the new science proposition that “biology is behavior” as a categorically true proposition, then it becomes a question as to whether the proposition “Biology is behavior” is convertible, to “(seemingly free or moral) behavior is (merely) biology (manifested)” .

    The principle of “conversion” of an A form proposition does not get us there, but obversion to an E form likely does.

    If: all moral seeming behavior (S) is merely an unavoidable expression of biology (P), then No moral seeming behavior (S), is not an unavoidable expression of biology (Non-P).

    Since the original formulation in question is presumably to be understood as an explanatory paradigm, and not as a proposition which stipulates that, say, Socrates is a member of the class of mortals (not all mortals being Socrates or men), then it follows by obversion that there is no real reasoning about moral principles with those expressing noxious behavior: since, they are only being themselves and what they must through their physical make-up be.

    There are then only various methods of dealing with them once one finds one’s self in unavoidable contact with such “alternate” organic packages.

    Since then, biology is behavior and behaviors are obviously fundamentally different, then it follows that so are the biologies. In a case where behaviors are set at cross purposes, we are likely to then (using the progressive’s own rules) infer, and with some justification, that the antithetically behaving person is radically other, and that his behavior proves, or at least signals, it.

    On what basis, then, other than one’s possible need to temporize with what it cannot completely destroy, should anyone show mercy or tolerance to a collectivist, given the progressive/collectivists’ own premise?

    They complain that they are categorized as noxiously other, while laboring to prove it.

Comments are closed.