Turning a gay teen straight ... on "Good Morning America"- Page 5

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 4:58pm

GLAAD VIEWER’S GUIDE TO:
20/20’S “A MURDER IN LARAMIE: THE MYSTERY AND THE MYTH”
10 QUESTIONS ABOUT ABC’S 20/20 SHOW ON MATTHEW SHEPARD

1) SOURCES & FACTS 20/20 IGNORED There are several important sources and pieces of information that the 20/20 piece does not acknowledge or explore in its quest to undermine the notion that anti-gay bias contributed to the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson.

* There is no discussion of the details of Aaron McKinney's confession to the police, where anti-gay bias is central to his characterization of the events of Oct. 6, 1998. Nor is there any mention of Rob DeBree, the investigator who took that statement and was one of the key witnesses as to the investigation and the confession at McKinney’s trial.

* No mention of the plea bargain that spared McKinney's life, nor any mention of Judy and Dennis Shepard's role in that. And no mention of the provision of that plea bargain where McKinney and his attorneys agreed not to speak to the press about this case.

* No mention of the more than 200 interviews over two years conducted by Moisés Kaufman and the Tectonic Theater Project for The Laramie Project -- nor the fact that some of the accounts offered 20/20 conflict with those offered Kaufman.


QUESTION: Don't 20/20's decisions to turn a blind eye to the facts of this case, to not include interviews with those who can substantiate them, and to evade any discussion of the ethical issues involved in circumventing one of the key provisions of McKinney's plea bargain raise some serious doubts as to the credibility of this piece?

2) AARON MCKINNEY’s LACK OF CREDIBILITY 20/20's piece relies heavily on the perceived credibility of Aaron McKinney, who is now claiming to have lied about the role anti-gay bias played in his decision to target and kill Shepard. Yet it also encourages audiences to view as untruthful McKinney’s claims that he did not know Shepard prior to the crime and that he did not have sexual relations with other men.


QUESTION: How can 20/20 rely so heavily on a source whose statements need to be seen by the audience as truthful in some situations and untruthful in others?

3) KRISTEN PRICE’S LACK OF CREDIBILITY Kristen Price – who now claims she made up the story about McKinney's homophobic rage against Shepard – not only shared her story with 20/20 back in 1998, but she also testified about it in October 1999 at McKinney's trial.


QUESTION: Assuming Price can be taken seriously when she says she lied back in 1998 and 1999, did she commit perjury in McKinney’s murder trial? Why does 20/20 not explore this? And why does 20/20 put forward as fact the statements of someone who’s admitted to deceiving and lying to them in the past?

4) THE CREDIBILITY OF OTHER KEY SOURCES 20/20's case rests on interviews with witnesses like:

* Doc O' Connor, who, according to interviews conducted for The Laramie Project and for Vanity Fair, met Shepard only four days before his murder (casting serious doubt on his claim, reported by 20/20 reporter Elizabeth Vargas, that “Matthew was a friend close enough to share some of his secrets, like Matthew’s worries about HIV”) – and who was viewed as so lacking in credibility that neither the prosecution nor the defense called him as a witness at McKinney’s murder trial;

* Tina LaBrie, who knew Shepard for only a short time and whose characterizations of Shepard have been questioned by others who knew him;

* "Jean”, an anonymous bartender 20/20 does not identify by last name, who claims to have seen Shepard and McKinney together;

* Ryan “Bop” (phonetic spelling – actual spelling of last name unknown at this time), a former drug-using associate of McKinney’s who claims to have given McKinney a .357 Magnum (the same kind of gun used in Shepard’s murder) in exchange for drugs;
* Elaine Baker, who claims to have spent an evening in the back of O' Connor's limo with McKinney and Shepard months before his murder-- contradicting O'Connor's statements to Vanity Fair and to the Tectonic Theater Project that he first met Matthew only four days before his death).


20/20’s case also centers on the newly reinvented stories of a convicted murderer and a source who claims to have lied to 20/20 in the past and, if true, has potentially committed perjury as well.


QUESTION: Taken separately and together, how can a set of witnesses this unreliable be used as the foundation for any credible news story?

5) LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR DRUG MOTIVE 20/20 does not put forward a single piece of solid evidence to back its assertion that drug use was the primary factor in Matthew Shepard’s murder. Their entire case is based on speculation; sensational repetition of unsubstantiated claims; interviews with people like Aaron McKinney and Kristen Price, whose credibility is extremely suspect; and contextually questionable soundbites from the prosecutor in the case.


QUESTION: Why would 20/20 so aggressively – and sensationally – attempt to rewrite the factual record of this case without a single piece of incontrovertible evidence to support their claims?

6) LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT SHEPARD KNEW HIS KILLERS 20/20's promotion of the show focuses on whether Shepard knew McKinney and Henderson prior to his murder. In the final moments of the third segment, Vargas says, "There are a lot of facts the mythology surrounding this case got wrong. If you think Matthew Shepard never met his killer before that night, you may have to think again." Yet 20/20 presents no credible evidence that they did, only the accounts of three sources – Ryan Bop (sp?), Elaine Baker and “Jean” – whose credibility is extremely questionable.


QUESTION: Why, with nothing but speculation or contradictory information by unreliable sources to support it, does 20/20 make this sensationalistic angle one of the tentpoles of its report and its publicity strategy?

7) 20/20’S DEPICTION OF MATTHEW SHEPARD Listen carefully as 20/20 depicts Matthew Shepard as a drug user, troubled, depressed, suicidal, etc., based only on accounts from questionable sources.


QUESTION: Why would 20/20 feel it necessary to characterize the life of Matthew Shepard in this way when the depiction has no connection to the show’s attempt to advance a new motive for Shepard’s murderers?

8 ) PREVIOUS EXAMINATIONS OF DRUG THEORY NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY 20/20 It is well known that Harper's magazine published an in-depth (and GLAAD Media Award-winning) cover story on Shepard’s murder back in 1999 that considered how methamphetamine abuse may have intersected with the homophobia and other factors that contributed to Shepard’s murder. McKinney’s alleged use of methamphetamines was also raised as part of his defense strategy -- an angle that was reported on extensively in the media.


QUESTION: Why does 20/20 suggest that the possible influence of drugs/ methamphetamines on this case has not been previously explored by the media? And why does it not acknowledge these previous examinations?

9) JUDY SHEPARD’S INTERVIEW WITH 20/20 Elizabeth Vargas interviewed Judy Shepard ostensibly to get her reactions to the claims made by those Vargas had interviewed for 20/20. Yet Judy’s soundbites make it appear as though she did not have any problem with 20/20’s claims. Also, Judy Shepard’s interview was conducted on the condition that 20/20 simultaneously interview Sean Maloney, Judy’s attorney and longtime adviser. Maloney was also critical of 20/20’s premise and its decision to enable McKinney to violate his plea bargain agreement, but none of Maloney’s comments – made on the record to 20/20 – are broadcast.


At the end of the piece, Vargas attempts to suggest that Judy Shepard even agrees with the premise of 20/20’s piece by setting up (in voice-over) a soundbite from Judy by saying, "Even Matthew's mother says her son's life and death have been mythologized." Yet Judy's quote only focuses on her perception that her son was an ordinary young man.


QUESTION: Why didn’t 20/20 broadcast the critical comments made by Judy Shepard, and why were the facts, comments and criticisms offered by her attorney in their joint interview so completely ignored by the producers?

NOTE: The final broadcast version differs from the press preview copy in that Judy Shepard has one soundbite challenging the assertion that her son's murder was not motivated by hate. Also, Sean Maloney now appears briefly in the segment, offering a broad quotation about hate crimes in America.

10) 20/20 DOES EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE DOING. 20/20's premise is that Matthew Shepard's murder is more complicated than it seems. But their piece drives the viewer in the opposite direction, attempting to sell audiences on a simplistic notion that if McKinney and Henderson were under the influence of drugs, then anti-gay bias could not have played any role in their decision to target, beat and murder Shepard.

QUESTION: Clearly, there may have been factors in addition to anti-gay bias involved in this case. But why is 20/20’s piece so determined not to examine the complexity of this crime, but instead to develop an inaccurate single-cause motive that runs counter to the facts of this case.

Published Nov. 24, 2004

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 04:58 PM

[TVBoy]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 6:22pm

robbie, the fact that you mention not liking Vargas (the journalist) over the person (murderer) who actually broke his promise and spoke to the media, prompted me to ask you the question. I, for one, place the blame on the person who committed murder. Aaron McKinney is the one who chose to break HIS agreement made with Matthew's father. ABC News is not responsible for McKinney's decision.

Also, anything investigated by police (robbery or hate crime) is grounds for a story. I, too, believe it was a hate crime, but that doesn't mean I think the media should turn its shoulder on an angle that is being investigated by police. THAT, would be a lapse in journalistic standards, as you mentioned before. It's not up to us to decide what is credible evidence and what isn't. That's up to the authorities. I said, I agree with you personally that I believe it was a hate crime. Do we know this 100%? No. Does it sound/look like one? Yes. Do I blame ABC News and the producers at "20/20" for investigating a different angle to a story? No.

Also, I won't even speak to GLADD's observation of the ABC News story. In fact, as a reporter, I might read its observation but I wouldn't deem it credible. GLADD would obviously be bias on a story of this nature. I prefer to get the facts from an organization that will report on both sides of the issue, as ABC News does. They did, in fact, report heavily on the hate crime angle, and ran just one story on the robbery angle.

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 6:44pm

I wouldn't have a problem with the investigation if (a) the witnesses were actually credible and (b) it wasn't seven years after the murder.

I don't like Elizabeth Vargas because of this story. I hate Aaron McKinney. I never imagined that I'd have to say that...that it wasn't just a given.

Whether it's Elizabeth Vargas or some local reporter in Laramie...anyone who afforded the chance for Aaron McKinney to tell his side of the story when that was the ONE stipulation that saved him from lethal injection is someone I will intensely disagree with and, quite frankly, it's an action I think is indefensible.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 6:55pm

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 7:38pm

Elizabeth Vargas is hardly a balanced reporter. She is a tabloid reporter who is interested ONLY in ratings and not at all in honest reporting. She is an embarrasment to ABC News.

Posted: 7/29/05 at 7:47pm

and it takes a lot to embarass ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. I mean to fall below those standards....
Updated On: 7/29/05 at 07:47 PM

[SamIAm]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 7:50pm

Without getting into the argument between 'gay by choice' versus 'gay by nature' on this board...because there is NO winning that one...let me just say that I saw the segment on GMA and the people they talked to from this christian CONVERSION group were indeed frightening.

As the guy who came out of the program depressed and suicidal said readily, they make claims to high rates of success with the people they 'treat' but they never TRACK them for any length of time. Ten to one most of these people are back to their original state and/or if they bought into this, they are married and getting it on the side and totally ashamed of their 'failure'...

I don't know if anyone has noticed but while America was sleeping the christian right took over and decided that anything that didn't fit their interpretation of 'godliness' should not be allowed to exist. There is even a grass roots group now moving to the Carolinas to start their own community with the goal of eventually splitting from the union...so they can live next door to ONLY people who think and pray the way they do...gee, this sounds like the Civil War all over again folks.

God help us all...unless he doesn't like our color, religion, sexual orientation or upbringing...and then he won't help us.

Posted: 7/29/05 at 7:52pm

and by the way TVBoy you might as well work for Entertainment Tonight. Network news has 1 criteria, Money.


Updated On: 7/29/05 at 07:52 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 8:58pm

Once again, if you want the facts, go to PalJoey....


Thanks PJ

[TVBoy]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 12:39am

I'm about to head out to watch "Doctor DoLittle" rehearsals, so I will make a few brief points...

1) ABC News,legally, did nothing wrong by investigating an additional angle to this tragic story. In fact, ABC News was acting as any news agency should, in the public interest.

2) Again, it was McKinney's choice to go against his alleged agreement with the Shepard family. HE is the one to blame for talking. The last I checked, he has every right to talk. If you were in jail, I'm sure you would want your side of the story heard as well. This is a right afforded to every American. It's not a law Elizabeth Vargas created to generate ratings.

3) This is/was an angle investigated by police, which then becomes public knowledge. The angle was not "sealed" at the time, meaning it had not been ruled out. There was a story there because investigators agreed to talk about their alleged findings. The police talked, and ABC News reported.

4) Elizabeth Vargas is one of the most accomplished journalists in the business today. I've known Elizabeth since she started as a "news reader" on GMA. Trust me, she's one tough cookie who goes after both sides of a story. She is anything but an embarrassment to ABC News. In fact, she was tapped to replace Barbara Walters on "20/20" and is a regular substitute anchor on "World News Tonight" while anchor Peter Jennings is undergoing cancer treatments. Vargas has also been sought out by the other networks, including CBS News to replace outgoing anchor Dan Rather. In the (hopefully unlikely) event Jennings will have to step down, she is a leading contender for the anchor position. Just because a reporter was assigned to a story you don't agree with, shouldn't be grounds for dismissal in your book.

5) GLADD harps on who is "credible" and who is not. (GLADD should open its own investigation center if its that good at reading people. Of course GLADD would issue its own critique of a story such as this. Notice of all the other stories "20/20" and ABC News has broadcast about the hate crime angle, they found no fault.) I've worked in the television news business for 10 years now, and let me tell you, it's hard to find a true credible witness. For example, I've covered countless murder stories. As you know, we interview "shocked" neighbors, "stunned" family members, friends, and co-workers, and then the "officials." How do we know who actually is telling the truth and who isn't? Keep in mind, these are the SAME people the investigators talk to to get their information.

Enjoy the weekend!! :)

Updated On: 7/30/05 at 12:39 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 12:47am

Elizabeth Vargas ruined her reputation with this and other one-sided stories.

She has enflamed a movement that wants to rewrite history to say things like "Matt Shepard was a AIDS-infested drug addict," "Matt Shepard had AIDS and died in a drug deal," "Matt Shepard deserved what he got."

She knew exactly what she was doing, and she did it for the ratings. She's a nasty piece of work and she deserves to be reviled.

She has no integrity.

Updated On: 7/30/05 at 12:47 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:06am

TVBoy just sent this ridiculous threat designed to intimidate me.

===

your statement
from TVBoy
on 7/30/05 @ 12:58:32 AM

Hi, I have forwarded this post to ABC News to check the validity of your statement your attributed to Vargas. Misquoting someone on a public message board is libel, and in her case, defamation of character.

You and I both know ABC News did NOT say "Matthew Shepard deserved what he got." How you could make such a brass, uneducated comment on a public message board is beyond me.

I won't even comment on the childish, personal attacks you make on her. You can offer your opinion on an issue, without attacking someone personally. Otherwise, you ruin your own credibility.

~Brandon

====

In response, here is the Duncan Osborne article from December 2004 that critiqued the 20/20 piece.
Trashing Matthew Shepard

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:09am

Ms. Vargas...what's the word I'm looking for...hmmmmmm... How about mouthpiece?

[TVBoy]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:11am

And this was my private reponse to PalJoy's reply to me...

Forgive me, but I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying the truth hurts?

I can stand behind every statement I made. I don't stick my nose into areas I don't know much about. That's why you won't find me posting very often about acting techniques, etc. Since I work in TV News, and I know what I'm talking about, I will speak truthfully here.

Your statments scream bitterness. Honestly, I doubt you could name any other "one sided" stories Elizabeth Vargas has covered. You cannot back up the public statements you have attributed to her. (After reading what you wrote, I did a search in the computer database for the sentence you say Ms. Vargas reported. I couldn't find any report with that in it, so I forwaded it to ABC News.)

Am I trying to intimidate you? Absolutely not. I'm a journalist and I only want the truth reported. For someone who is bashing someone else for allegedly reporting false information, you're doing your fair share here.

~Brandon

Updated On: 7/30/05 at 01:11 AM

[TVBoy]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:14am

yes, Chita, you're right! Yay. Ms. Vargas IS a mouthpiece! She only reports stories. Aaron McKinney committed the murder. I blame him.

Updated On: 7/30/05 at 01:14 AM

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:14am

Paljoey's credibility is fine. Your the one who lacks sincerity. From your first post shilling that despicable story on GMA and then defending it because of your sexual preference and that of some of your co-workers.
Updated On: 7/30/05 at 01:14 AM

[TVBoy]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:20am

Wait, we've hit on something here! Chita says I lack "sincerity." Are journalists supposed to be sincere in their reporting? Honestly, as a reporter, I didn't know my feelings even counted when it comes to reporting a story. Talk about a one-sided story.

On a personal level, I told you how I feel. I honestly believe it was a horrible hate crime committed against an innocent boy. That's what I believe, but if I were doing a story about it, what I believe wouldn't count.

Updated On: 7/30/05 at 01:20 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:26am

Statement from Judy and Dennis Shepard Concerning 20/20 Upcoming Report on the Murder of Matthew Shepard

On November 26, 2004, 20/20 will air a piece that promised 'new information and facts' about Matt's beating and subsequent death. Dennis and I reviewed an advance copy of the show and were dismayed and saddened by the tabloid nature of the show, its lack of serious reporting of facts in evidence, and the amateurish nature of asking leading questions to the people who were interviewed.

I, too, was asked by 20/20 for an interview and agreed to do so to ensure that all of the facts were correctly stated. My only stipulation was that our legal advisor Sean Maloney, Matthew Shepard Foundation Board member and former senior White House staffer, had to be included in the interview to share his legal knowledge and expertise regarding Matthew's murder. He was quite eloquent in stating the facts pertaining to Matt's case, his knowledge of hate crimes in general, and in debunking 20/20's attempt to rewrite history. As you may or may not know, Sean was deleted from the interview entirely. The editing by 20/20 of my interview seems to leave out all of my relevant comments regarding the potential bias of the show and my deliberate restating of the facts of the case clearly ended up on the cutting room floor. My remarks were reduced to a few very personal maternal comments taken out of context to make it appear as if I agreed with 20/20's theories. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

This same subjective editing occurred with Dave O'Malley's interview. Dave, a Captain with the City of Laramie police force at the time, was Laramie's lead investigator in the case and worked in tandem with Rob DeBree, the lead investigator for the Albany County Sheriff's Department, to bring the case to trial and to provide the evidence necessary to convict both Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney. (Both law enforcement officers are in complete agreement with the facts as stated during the trials.)

Dave gave Ms. Vargas a detailed account of the case. He described the elements of hate and gay bias that were found during the extensive investigation and were substantiated in the large body of evidence collected for this case. Dave's comments were severely edited. Perhaps they were left out because he did not give Ms. Vargas the answer(s) she needed to maintain her 'new' theory concerning the murder. One of the most glaring omissions in the piece was the transcript of Aaron McKinney's in-custody interview which took place a few days after the murder. This occurred before any 'line of defense' had been established by legal counsel for the two defendants. Had that document been included, it would have shown an un-rehearsed and unemotional anti-gay account of the events before, during, and after leaving Matt tied to the fence.

Despite their promotional efforts to the contrary, 20/20 has not presented a 'new' theory. Much of this information was included in a Vanity Fair story in March 1999. What is new is the unfortunate downslide of a reputable news magazine show when its highly respected host retires.
20/20 has sacrificed years of professional journalistic ethics and values for a stab at revisionist history ... and ratings.

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:26am

TVBoy Keep sleeping on that side of the bed. I'm finished with you.
Updated On: 7/30/05 at 01:26 AM

[LostLeander]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:32am

Ok. I read like two pages of this thing, and felt compelled to throw my two cents in.

I am actually in counseling, or therapy for homosexuality.

By choice, no. But my story is not the point.
The philosophy behind it is to not exactly make gays straight, but make them not give into the tempation of men.

In the Bible, and for those who believe in its infalibility, there is no away around homosexuality being a sin. (And not just in Leviticus).

Whether born gay, or having certain experiences, lack of love, etc influencing you, it can get in the way of your relationship with God.
So, the philosophy, as I see it, is to help you resist the temptation, get right with God, and if you're obeying God, then you can be content with your lot. If you happen to become attracted to women in the process, so be it. If not, then you've got God.

It's a narrow belief system, I know. And I am positive that 99.7 % won't agree with a word I'm saying.
But not all of us conservative Christians hate homosexuals, and think they're burning in hell. In fact, a very small percentage do. The way I see it is God gave everyone a lot in life; something to deal with, struggle with, etc. And some people struggle with homosexuality, as some struggle with alcoholism.

It's all very confusing, and I'm definately lost and confused, and conflicted, and don't know what I believe concerning change, but I know I'm not being brainwashed, or told I'm a horrible person, and forced to change.

Forgive my rushed, flawed, and possibly contradictory statements.

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:42am

You are young and extremely flawed in your comparison of homosexuality with alcoholism but truth be told...I need a drink!

[TVBoy]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 1:51am

Thanks for posting that. It's a shame the Shepards have to go through any of this. Of course, it would be nice if Matthew were still here with us. Unfortunately, thanks to the acts of two boys, he's not.

I have actually interviewed Ms. Shepard before during one of her speaking engagements across the country. Her message is powerful, and one that needs to be heard. I did, though, stop reading her comments you posted when she said, "to maintain 'her' new theory." This was not Vargas's theory, rather that of investigators working on the case. (Also, I would have edited the lawyer out of the piece as well. We want to hear from the Shepards, not their attorney. Many interviews are conducted with an attorney present. They are, normally, only there to speak up when needed or to advise their client(s) on an answer.)

Also, I originally started this thread as a way to let others know about the story that was scheduled to air on "Good Morning America." Somehow, the post ended up being about a story on "20/20", a news magazine show.

You know, I was never one who enjoyed debates, although I will defend my business, to an extent, because we get a lot of undo finger pointing. We could sit here all night and keep throwing out information, without actually solving a problem. (In two cases I tried to take it to PMs, but unfortunately some would rather this play out in public.)

I like to stick to issues, but unfortunately, some can only debate by resorting to personal attacks. That's not my style. (I'm sure you know, oftentimes when someone cannot back up a statement or doesn't want to answer a question, they offer up a childish personal attack, which is quite obvious to any reader.) I enjoy hearing different opinions -- I think that's one of the things I enjoy most about my job -- but I only enjoy hearing them when it's kept on a mature, educated level.

It was Oscar Wilde who once said, "When a truth becomes a fact it loses all intellectual value." How true.

Updated On: 7/30/05 at 01:51 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 8:37am

My relationship with God is not compromised in ANY way. God made me gay, and I am proud of it. If you choose to believe bad translations--knock yourself out, but what a woeful path.

[eslgr8]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 12:21pm

JRB: You present the often made argument: "Why would I choose to be something that has attracted the hatred and scorn and second class citizenship rights that goes along with being gay in the oh so progressive land of the free??" I agree that for many people it's harder than ever to be gay, and that in my own case, being an older gay man makes me think at times how much easier it seems to be straight at my age. There are plenty of problems we seem to inherit as part of the gay lineage (which certainly dates back to the beginning of time). Still, I have read quotes from people who have said, and I would guess there are many others out there who would also say: "Yes, even if it were a choice (which it's not), I would still choose to be gay because my being gay has brought me happiness, friends, a loving partner, a family, a community, a purpose, a social conscience, etc." That's why I think it's time we retire that question about "Why would anyone choose to be gay?" as it's not always the case. No disrespect intended, JRB, as I find your posts intelligent, well thought out, and almost always right on the mark.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 2:39pm

Oh, don't get me wrong--I am extremely proud of who I am. I love being gay. I love myself (and we all should!)

I merely answer the question "Why choose to be gay?" from the pov OF the teen me, who when coming out had to deal with the fears of the world for being gay. At that point, why would it have been a choice? What would have inspired a kid who did not know necessarily the good of being gay?

I remember being attracted to guys back at the age of 4 or 5 (in that way little kids do). My first crush was on John Schneider at the age of 5. What would have put the choice to like him before me? When was it a choice?

People who think it's a choice to be gay are just extremely ignorant. Did they choose to be straight? No, they just always were. Did I choose to come out? Sure. But, amen that I did. And God loves me for who and even WHAT I am.

And I REFUSE to allow homophobes like adamaddict and lostleander to tell me otherwise. It's bigotry covered up by religious conviction and it's BS. People thumped Bibles against Blacks in the 60s and they are doing it all over again against gays--because some people are too afraid to look within themselves to solve their problems in the world. No--surely the blame and root causes are external.

Updated On: 7/30/05 at 02:39 PM