"Gay activists are outraged after Xavier High School, a Catholic school in Albury, Australia published an anti-gay piece by a former student in its alumni newsletter. "Writing in a letter to the editor in the newsletter, former Xavier student Matt Price entreated “a world free from homosexuals”, who he said lived lives devoted to drugs and sex.
His letter called for businesses not to employ homosexuals, with Price revealing that he lobbies CEOs with his message." http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2009/07/australian-high-school-publishes-piece.html
Firstly, "drugs and sex"? Well I must be doing something wrong because since coming out, the only "drugs" I have ever been on is hormones and as for sex, well - if that was why I came out then I should ask for a refund and have an I.Q. test. I suppose the appropriate response would be to ask WTF this humanitarian genius has been smoking and to send the info to the nearest cop shop.
Secondly, if this person was ever really gay as he claims in his letter, it means that despite his baneful remarks and deplorable sense of propriety and human rights or decency - he still is. You see, if you are gay, it means you are born gay - and that is no "choice" by any stretch of the imagination. He could no more stop being gay than I could stop being transgender - and as such, if he is now claiming to be straight as a result of any fraudulent so-called "ex-gay" "therapy", he is lying - while dragging God into his deception - like all the other proponents of that snake-oil peddling industry.
Thirdly, this letter was made pubic - and yet the response in this case, as in others was "gay activists are outraged".
This point makes me think about perception. It reads "Gay activists are outraged". "Gay activists"? Only the "gay activists"? Were the objectors affiliated to an advocacy group that they are specifically called "activists"? What about the other gay people? What about people who are "straight but not narrow"? Were they not outraged? Were all the other gay people only mildly upset by such mindless and hateful statements? Were they even consulted?
Or is the deeper meaning of such a statement that any gay person making known their displeasure about such an attack upon her or his person or dignity nowadays is automatically judged to be a "gay activist"?
Is that in any way related to the fundamentalist view that all gay people or activists are "militant"?
What does that make the gay people who keep silent about such things? A statistic?
More food for thought.