Turning a gay teen straight ... on "Good Morning America"- Page 2

[Pinguin]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 6:34am

I think the problem with that sort of advertising and even this sort of news story is that it gives legitimacy to that sort of thinking; whether or not the report makes any sorts of conclusions or has any sort of major slant is almost irrelevant if they are giving airtime to a group that promotes programs like these. And I fear the report because it says it's "surprising"...I don't think it would be too surprising if the answer was simply NO.

[eyeonbroadway]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:49am

The bottom line for me is that anyone presuming to know God's intent...and who then uses that smug "knowledge" to justify hatred, oppression, and the emotional abuse of children...is not only delusional and dangerous, but an affront to the very concept of God...

[RobbO]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 5:48am

TVBoy, when PalJoey said:
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."

That in no ways says Vargas or ABCNews said anything but that the "journalistic piece" has enflamed a movement amd THAT movement WANTS to rewrite history, etc. That's not libel or slander or anything close to that nor does it attribute those statements in the least to Vargas (and if it did, it still would not be slander).

I think what I, and many people, found so disturbing about the 20/20 piece was that it was 7 years later and every point the show introduced it shot down itself and played up the "bad witness" aspect. Liars, druggies, ex-girlfriends was the best they could do.

Does a story like this deserve to get aired? Sure, but maybe if there were an active investigation by police (there isn't) or some other legitimate reason other than ratings to air it.

It was a very poorly chosen topic that came out of left field, was not timely (i.e. "new(s)", and was very poorly done.

The only thing is seemed to do was introduce (re-introduce, actually, since it has been reported years earlier) the notion that Matthew somehow brought this on himself. It was just a repackaged show rehashing elements of the story that had already been discussed and dismissed.

So why air it? Please ask Elizabeth and get back to me. Thanks.

Updated On: 7/30/05 at 05:48 AM

[CurtainUp]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 3:47pm

backing up a little...I think God would be pretty disgusted at us acting like we knew exactly what he wanted and trying to shove that opinion onto others. If anyone has read one of the autobiographies of Frederick Douglass, the bible was used to enforce/promote slavery. Maybe God wants that too. :-/

I'm not direclty comparing homosexuality to a disability and I Hope that doesn't get received that way. But humans are created to use their brain, so if someone has a mental disability it must be their choice, correct? Hey-it's not what God intended (or what people say God intended) it must be a choice.

And let's say homosexuality is a chocie - so what? How is it effecting you? Who are you to say what God intended - have you talked with him personlaly? And I agree with and thought of if the only purpose of marriage/sex is children, then before they get married, each heterosexual couple should be asked if they are fertile or not because if people can't have babies they should not be together!

Updated On: 7/30/05 at 03:47 PM